Popular Culture on Wikipedia

Popular culture is that subsection of culture that is popular. This is not the clearest definition, but it suffices: it gives us the idea that television shows and widely released films are part of popular culture, whereas obscure poetry or performance art are not.

Popular culture is widely covered on Wikipedia, but the ways in which it is covered are not always approved of by the community. Popular culture is typically covered in two styles on wikipedia: (1) actual prose about popular culture, and (2) collections of "references." Prose about popular culture should be the norm for writing on this subject, but in fact it is very rare for the text to include any substance at all. But, there are some examples of this on Wikipedia, for instance, World War III in popular culture. This essay is mainly about the latter style of popular culture coverage, in which "references" -- examples in which a popular work makes a reference to something -- are collected in lists.

Suppose that a book or film (say, Wasted Talent) : references a type of subject or character (say, The Great Gazoo). This information could be contained in pop culture reference lists at two locations: one, a list of references made by the work, and two, a list of references to the topic. These are fundamentally very different and should not be judged in a similar way. Specifically:

References in lists, such as Wasted Talent#Cultural References will always contain a limited number of references (as the work only references so many things), (it could be and often is hundreds) and such references are normally on-topic and relevant to the subject, even if the work is relatively minor. Nonetheless, such sections can have problems if they get too large
References to lists, such as The Great Gazoo#References in other stories have many potential problems. They have no inherent size limit, they can get off-topic, they may include references from works too minor to mention, they can be regarded as trivia, and a number of other issues.
Combined lists such as Toy Story#Toy Story in popular culture often include both kinds of references. In addition to the above problems, these sections are also poor organization.

"References in" lists

These lists put together a collection of pop culture references contained in a single work. Some works of popular culture are chock-full of references to things (for instance, virtually all Family Guy episodes), while others may contain only a small number (for instance, Toy Story). This kind of list is generally appropriate, but should be managed carefully.

Articles about works that contain many references should definitely mention that the work does this, as these references are likely a defining characteristic of the work. However, listing every single reference in full details that such works make is probably a bad idea. For one thing, this list will probably be too long, and not distinguish between minor, obscure references and major, important ones. For another, once a few examples have been given, and it has been said that the work references lots of other things, the list of examples becomes less important and serves purposes that are not well-embraced by Wikipedia, such as:

Trivia. These are interesting little factoids, but too many of them (especially in a disorganized presentation) make the article less readable. Also, labeling an item "trivia" may imply that it is interesting, but also implies that it is unimportant.
Explaining jokes. Some of these pop culture references are used as very quick gags in works of humor. Sometimes people who see these works don't get all the jokes, and explaining the cultural reference behind each joke may help people understand. However, Wikipedia articles are very poor places to recreate humor or pay homage to it, and this is not encyclopedic writing.
Plot summary. Sometimes these pop culture references serve the purpose of explaining events in the plot of a story. However, (1) the goal of these articles is not to summarize plot in detail, and (2) in any case, such explanation should be integrated with the rest of the plot summary and not be fragmented in a list of references.

Another problem with such reference lists is their level of sourcing. All material on Wikipedia should eventually be sourced, but these references are normally added because someone sees the work, thinks they understand the reference, and adds the item based on personal observation. Another issue is importance - it may be hard to be selective in presenting only a few references because it is hard to find an objective standard for what to include. Both of these problems are solved by relying on explicit documentation of pop culture reference in reliable sources (that is, writing about the work in question, not the work itself). Such writing is unlikely to list every existing reference, but will rather remark on some of them. This can confirm personal observation in a way that is hard to argue, and those references covered in sources can probably be considered the notable ones. However, just because an item is sourced doesn't mean it can't be challenged on relevance or importance grounds: sourcing is necessary for inclusion, not always sufficient.

When a work makes relatively fewer references to other things, it is not always bad to list every reference, but the same issues can apply. References to be included should be sourced to show that they are important enough to mention and not merely personal observation.

A final point: "references in" lists should not attempt to assign more significance to the reference than sources support. For instance, Wasted Talent may reference The Great Gazoo but that doesn't mean that The Great Gazoo was an important influence on the episode. It is sometimes suggested that these lists represent evidence of the source's influence on culture, but this claim should never be made without sourcing that directly supports it.

"References to" lists

These lists put together popular culture references to or mentions of another topic. Unlike "references in" lists, that a topic has been referred to in popular culture is not necessarily an important aspect of that topic. In some sense, every topic of any significance has had some impact on culture, and "popular" is very subjective, so every subject potentially has some vague connection to popular culture.

Popular culture reference lists end up being collected in articles because they represent a simple and easy contribution for an editor to make when they don't have much expertise. More experienced editors that check over the article typically leave this kind of information alone. By default, most users will avoid removing information from articles. On occasion, items may be edited out or changed, but major structural changes to articles are relatively rare, so articles often continue to have this kind of naturally evolved structure.

The question of how to handle a topic's popular culture aspect can be answered based on an understanding of the topic. Specifically, one should ask: is the popular culture aspect of this topic important enough for coverage? If so, what kind of things should be said about it, and should a list of references be part of that?

The following are some of the problems that can arise with these reference lists, and what should be done about them.

Reference lists should not stand alone. "References to" lists should not be presented alone, but rather given as a list of examples to back up some textual claims. Lists are often not approved of on Wikipedia when they are lists of X where X doesn't have its own article, or at least, its own separate coverage; see Wikipedia:Listcruft. The claims should not be insignificant; they should continue to be interesting, relevant text even without the list of examples.²

Avoid original research. Claims that justify a list should not be original research; they should be backed up by reliable sources on their own, without directly citing examples. For instance, it may seem easy to justify a "references to" list by saying that the topic has had significant impact/influence/visibility/etc. in popular culture. This is fine if it can be adequately sourced. However, merely including a list of examples to justify the claim, especially a subjective claim that should be backed by expert opinion like this one, would be OR by synthesis.

Avoid irrelevant text. Cultural references by their nature need some explanation. However, the text explaining a reference is really more about the work in which the reference occurs, and should be strictly minimized in a "references to" list. For instance, the Great Gazoo reference in Wasted Talent may be worth listing or mentioning at The Great Gazoo, but giving the full context would be inappropriate, as The Great Gazoo is not the place to give a plot summary for the episode.

Do not substitute a list for prose. For some topics, popular culture coverage is highly important; for instance, faster-than-light travel is commonly considered impossible in reality but it is a widespread staple of science fiction. So, coverage of the impact or importance of the concept of faster-than-light travel is not only appropriate, it is necessary.¹ For other topics, there are interesting and notable things to say about the topic as it is covered in popular culture; see World War III in popular culture or Werewolf fiction, for instance. Topics of these two types should have referenced, structured prose. The goal of the coverage should be to present that prose properly. However, when a long list of references exists, this goal can get confused with making the list as good as possible.

Be selective. Except for topics with very few related references, most will have more references than it is reasonable to present in an exhaustive list. However, it is important for the inclusion criteria to be objective to avoid possible WP:OR issues. This can be very difficult to balance; even restricting to only sourceable references (which should be done anyway) may not be enough. One attempt that can be made is to consider the context of the source in determining which references to include.³ In cases where such a balance cannot be found, it may be best to admit that we cannot include such a list without indulging in WP:OR, and that such a list may not be appropriate.

Eventualism. Properly restructuring Wikipedia articles is hard and is a lot of work. There is nothing wrong with leaving a problematic references list in place (or restoring it), especially if you feel that with proper coverage that list may become appropriate. Similarly there is nothing wrong with removing such a references list, if you feel that proper coverage would not include coverage of the popular culture aspect (many editors feel this way about Broccoli, for instance). If disagreements arise, follow the bold-revert-discuss process to work them out.

Notes

^Note 1 : Currently, Faster-than-light contains basically no coverage of the cultural impact of the topic; rather, that article is about the reality of faster-than-light travel. Since there is much to say about the reality and also much to say about its importance in fiction, it is entirely appropriate to separate the articles. However, I was unable to find any articles focussing on the fictional coverage.
^Note 2 : For instance, it is not a good idea to add a claim like "Bananas have been referenced in works of popular culture" in order to justify a list. Such a claim is obvious and uninteresting and wouldn't stand in the article on its own. On the other hand, a claim like "One common sight gag in physical comedy, particularly in popular works of the early 20th century, is for a character to slip and fall on a banana peel" is actually saying something.
^Note 3 : For instance, Pink Eye (South Park episode) references Mir. It would not be surprising if a South Park episode guide were to mention or explain this reference, but that doesn't establish that the author of a reliable source thought that this was an important reference to Mir. On the other hand, if a reliable source about Mir mentions the south park episode, it can be taken as evidence that someone considers that connection worth noting.