Wikipedia talk:"In popular culture" content/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Popular culture referencing popular culture notable?

Now I'm not an advocate of either trivia or abolishing trivia, but I'm curious: why is popular culture referencing popular culture sufficiently notable to include in Wikipedia? We're living in a time where popular culture is everywhere.

Are references to popular culture in movies and television shows, such as Californication, really that big of a deal? Living in Southern California, maybe I'm just desensitized? Or maybe these popular-culture trivia sections in popular-culture articles are just not appropriate these days? Adraeus (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me ask you, by way of explanation: have you ever read The Life of Julius Caesar, by Plutarch? I sure haven't. But you've certainly heard the phrase "veni, vidi, vici", which is documented in that book. That phrase is famous, and notable, because it's everywhere in our culture. If wasn't found throughout popular culture, that phrase would just be something clever Caesar said, and not notable in its own right.

It's easy to disparage the role of popular culture within culture in general, but its impact is profound, whether we like it or not. As for whether it's worth documenting the popular culture references that a TV show or movie makes, the biggest "offender" I know of would be probably be Family Guy. I get most of the references in that, since I'm the same age as MacFarlane, but I'm sure younger people watching the show think, quite often, "what the hell was that"? It may be the same thing with you and Californication -- being from the East Coast, I probably wouldn't get most of the California-specific references, but they're ordinary to you. In the same vein, I recognized Nighthawks in The Tick, but someone had to point out to me The Battleship Potemkin reference in Brazil.

We couldn't do a good job of writing about a poem without documenting its cultural references, yet some people seem to have a passion for deleting similar scholarship done for an ostensibly non-scholarly work. To be honest, it boggles me.--Father Goose (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the significance of popular culture. I'm questioning whether popular culture references in popular culture are sufficiently notable to include in Wikipedia. Examples will probably work best here:

• Californication and Entourage are both TV series with stories told within a popular-culture setting. At that point, references to popular culture are merely content that add credibility to the presentation. These references are not distinct or unique to the setting. These references are not noteworthy just as a tree prop is not distinct or unique to a forest setting. If Wikipedia were alive and kicking around the time that color television debuted, would every color tone used in each film be notable for inclusion?
• I, Robot is a science-fiction film whose setting was the distant future. References to real, present-day popular culture in that setting are clearly notable for inclusion since the impact of popular is, as you say, significant.

Adraeus (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

In the case of the Californication show, I think much of those items in the Reference to Popular Culture section could be moved to the individual episode pages, thereby presenting it in a more contextually relevant manner. But in general, I am hesitant to say that these are not valuable facts, since they are easy to miss and add to the depth of coverage of the subject at hand. Also, these types of lists are finite discriminate, being limited to content from the primary source, and so I do not see any reason why this type of content should be explicitly disallowed. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to the second and third paragraphs of my response above. Yes, I went on a bit of a tangent with my first paragraph.--Father Goose (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My briefest answer to the question is no - at least, PC references to PC are not inherently notable. However, if someone bothers to collect and analyze references and start making some general observations in reliable sources, it becomes notable. This is surely true, for instance, of "veni, vidi, vici" but probably fails for most of the trivia around here. Mangojuice^talk 20:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that's the criterion--that's the quality of the article. The notability depends on the notability of the cultural object being referred to, and the one making the reference. Everything substantial in a major cultural artifact is encyclopedic content. Every major reference to a major artifact is encyclopedic content. That's content, not necessarily a separate article--what is worth a separate article depends upon the amount of material available. For a really major film or novel or video game, every individual named character or setting in it is appropriate for inclusion somewhere within a WP article, as is every reference to any other notable content/. That's what the creative world is made of. that's reality. Note the really major; for less important works, perhaps only the major characters or themes or settings are relevant. The incorrect criterion mention is requiring every individual piece of content to meet the criterion for notability, and that is very explicitly not the requirement--only the overall subject needs that degree of documentation. any verifiable source is good for the detailed content of an article. DGG (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the fact that Converse footwear can be seen in the movie I, Robot notable? Or is that fact only notable when put in the context of advertising placement in entertainment media and when used as an example? I strongly disagree that the mere presence of cultural artifacts in popular culture makes each artifact sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

I don't think contextually inappropriate content automatically satisfies, or should automatically satisfy, the criteria for inclusion simply because the content is verifiable content. Otherwise, we might as well just import trivia from IMDb. I can just imagine Wikipedia then. "Brad Pitt was wearing an Armani suit in Film A." "A song performed by The Beatles was playing in the background in Film B."

Are references to popular culture, when those references are made by popular culture, notable? More importantly, when should such references be included in Wikipedia? Certainly not always, but when? I believe objective criteria can be established here. Adraeus 12:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about Brad Pitt and his Armani suit, but I do know that I've read (and edited) articles where they mention the music used in the film/tv show. Generally I find this in a "Soundtrack" or "Featured music" section. Now, is this notable? Personally, I'm not 100% sure either way; however I do know that if enough people feel strongly about it, it will either be included or removed. I'm not certain why the changing shape and development of an article would be a problem, since all articles on Wikipedia are subject to (sometimes drastic) content modification, regardless of it "popular culture" type facts, or any other piece of information that covers a less than essential aspect of the subject. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 14:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

music in films is one of the major elements--books are written about it, careers are devoted to it, academy awards are given. It a particular song is in a significant movie, it was chosen for some other reason than being on the directors ipod. it'll probably even be in the published reviews. I am at a slight disadvantage here, talking about what I know is important but have no particular ability to myself improve the articles--this is not a subject I know, unless I in desperation learn it to keep others from destroying this part of WP. (I've already learned about a few types of web content i never paid any attention to before.) DGG (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

They Are Important

In Popular Culture articles are extremely important. We got to stop thinking about wikipedia as a common encyclopedia. This is a collaborative job!Camilo Sanchez (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a syllogism for why they're important generally? I don't see how the project being collaborative has any bearing. Personally I think the bar should be set very high before popular culture is added, basically at the point that it adds important meaning to the article in question like demonstrating its impact (but then is just exemplary and not exhaustive) or noting ways in which the cultural use is expanding the meaning of the article (again then it's exemplary and not exhaustive). Otherwise it's just exhaustive examples of how the concept is used, and doesn't add any further understanding to it. - Owlmonkey (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In your opinion.--Father Goose (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Owlmonkey is not alone in that opinion. "Exhaustive examples of how the concept is used" that do not "add any further understanding" certainly fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And I am not alone in mine. Which leaves us merely in disagreement.--Father Goose (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I find there is not much disagreement about including or excluding every single instance that SubjectX is mentioned. Editors just need to be a little more generous when it comes to making allowances for others, and less categorical when it comes to their own opinions. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 13:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That is true, I rarely have a problem with someone reducing a list to just its "major instances", though that must be subjectively determined. What I don't agree with is characterizing all IPC lists as "indiscriminate information".--Father Goose (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Classical music in popular culture nominated for deletion

If you have an opinion, please voice it here. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Significant rewrite

Keeping in line with what I felt has been a large scale community consensus development on In popular culture articles and sections, I have significantly rewritten this essay. Please compare the new version with the old and make some comments. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 16:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I like it, but I restored some of the material that you removed which I thought should be addressed in this essay. Otherwise I left your edits pretty much untouched, save for a few edits for consistency and redundancy. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure about keeping the AfD related stuff, since it seems like the community has more or less decided/accepted that these are here to stay. There seems to be less and less IPC articles being nominated for deletion, and really, there are quite a few good IPC articles out there, so I don't really think there's still a lot of debate about whether Wikipedia should have IPC articles anymore. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

IPC inclusion guideline

The time has come to make some clear criteria for including an item in an IPC list. Clearly the two extremes are both ludicrous, since there is atleast one notable example of something referenced in popular culture, and there is atleast one nonnotable pop culture reference. We can't just keep or delete them all. So if we're going to be making decisions about what to keep and delete, they might as well be guided ones.

Sections and articles are being deleted on the grounds that they are unencyclopedia or "trivial". And in some cases this is true. On other subjects, often there are several major examples of its pop culture influences. We need some discussion on what makes a good entry for each of the different categories that usually crop up in IPC sections (music, television, film, literature/fiction, video games, etc). Also guidance about this like common catch phrases or stuff like one-off name-dropping. All thoughts are welcome. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

At an absolute minimum, each entry in an IPC list should be verifiable. Per WP:PSTS, one can verify a claim about a primary source via the primary source itself, although if the source in question is a TV show, comic strip, etc., I personally require specific episode(s)/strips to be mentioned (unless the reference in question is in nearly every episode). If the primary source has not had wide viewership, I tend to exclude it, although WP:BIGNUMBERs are not meaningful, even when available (web counters, etc.). In a pinch, one can make the argument that if the entry can't be bluelinked in some form, it can be excluded.

The second question is whether the reference itself is significant. I don't think there's any way to objectively quantify it. Consensus would be the best mechanism, although that falls apart when hard-line inclusionists or deletionists are involved. Even if it's only one moderate doing the evaluation, it's a problem; I remember watching Mangojuice (the original author of this essay) fight to keep mention of Castlevania out of the now-deleted Beelzebub in popular culture, while retaining the passing mention of Beelzebub in Bohemian Rhapsody. What's significant? What's not? I don't accept the premise, sometimes voiced, that the "importance" of material should be determined from secondary sources. WP:N expressly applies only to topics, not content, and is effectively an outgrowth of WP:V. It creates problems when people try to use it for purposes other than the enforcement of WP:V.--Father Goose (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with your suggestion (if I understand it correctly) that secondary sources are NOT the way to evaluate the significance of content. That's EXACTLY how we evaluate content. WP:V is at the absolute core of what Wikipedia aspires to be. AndyJones (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the problem here is that secondary sources are sometimes mistaken as being the only form of verification, which they are not. If what is present in a reliable source matches what is written in Wikipedia, the information is verifiable. WP:V does not speak to "significance", just verifiability, and WP:N is ultimately only a reflection of it: if information is not verifiable, it does not belong in Wikipedia.--Father Goose (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

FatherGoose is right, if we are to interpret WP:NNC applies only to the article itself, not the content of the article. It states "The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines" which is common sense, and one of those WP:BEANS disclaimers. But I digress, my issue is... whoever declared "trivia is discouraged" should be drawn and quartered because thats like saying "delete the unwanted articles". Who is the judge of what is "trivial" and what is not? Debating the issue over and over again is a waste of time, with every article that comes under scruitny because of trivial content. I would hate to see wikipedia turn into a giant trivia database, but honestly... most of this stuff is harmless. When I read an article about Einstein I think its funny to see what tv shows and movies have parodied his charater. If thats not what I'm interested in, then I skip over that section and move on. I realize some of these lists grow too large and have to be moved to separate articles, but I see no harm in that either. Lists are not evil, and compiling a list does not constitute WP:OR unless interpretations are being made. Yet time and time again you see arguments presenting "listcruft" as violations of WP:OR and WP:TRIVIA (which isn't even a policy, merely a guideline). Nick, as far as your quest for "clear criteria" regarding IPC lists, good luck with that. You'd have better luck herding cats. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not giving up so easily. We need to examine this "from the primary source" business, because I think this is where things are starting to take a wrong turn. This is what leads to the conclusion that since any time someone mentions a person, place or thing it can be verified from the primary source, it is worthy of including. But I ask you, without secondary sources, how can we be sure that this instance has made a significant cultural impact? And if there are no secondary sources with which to cite the instance, then the action of adding it to the list involves performing original research, because the editor is clearly taking the information from the primary source to the Wiki. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• It seems to me that for a Foo in popular culture article to exist, there need to be reliable sources that actually discuss the concept of "Foo in popular culture." If these sorts of articles were called what they actually are, List of times foo is mentioned, I have a hard time believing that any but the most hard core of inclusionists would even attempt to defend them. "On the February 29, 2006 episode of Cool TV Show, Cool Guy Number 1 said 'foo'" is not a discussion of the concept of "Foo in popular culture." "Social scientist Jane Roe has identified the use by Cool Guy Number 1 of the word 'foo' on the February 29, 2006 episode of Cool TV Show as a seminal point in the entrance of foo into the Albanian cultural landscape" is. There are ways of handling the actual significant examples of foo outside of the source material of foo. See for instance Dorothy_Parker#Pastiches_and_fictional_portrayals. It's a prose section with sources detailing times when she has been portrayed or pastiched. Notice that the article does not contain a list of every time the name "Dorothy Parker" is mentioned in any source. See also Adaptations of Moby-Dick. It needs better sourcing and a couple of the examples are a little sketchy, but these are verifiable instances of the source novel being adapted. There's no "one this one episode of that one show this guy called that other guy 'Captain Ahab'." Adaptations of The Picture of Dorian Gray is an excellent example of how this process can work. It was nominated for deletion looking like this and after cleanup ended up looking like this (and has continued to receive attention from editors. All of the "this one band sang a song that had 'Dorian Gray' in the lyrics" trivia is gone. Otto4711 (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A while ago someone requested a cleanup of the IPC section in the Steve Biko article (diffs). In particular, the music, film and television sections were overloaded with oneliners. To improve this, I cut the sections down only to examples where his life was the major focus of the song or film. I think this is the approach we should take with items, it separates the wheat from the chaff. But I should point out that even thought the Dorothy_Parker#Pastiches_and_fictional_portrayals section is pretty good quality, it suffers from sourcing issues. But as Father Goose points out, these are examples where they can be verified by watching the film, so I think consensus is leaning towards a verification grey area. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the is some difficulty with works of fiction/film, because there are cases when it is a character named after another character/person. Do all of these cases meet the criteria for inclusion, or is there need to take a hardline stance against all items that we cannot find a secondary source to attribute the connection/notability of the example? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 16:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Just as an FYI, all of the pastiches are sourced to the same note. Otto4711 (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As for individual items, the relevance of each item is in its use. WP:N does not apply to content, only relevance to the topic applies. The notability of the individual items in an article is usually not all that great, or they would be separate articles. We mention all the departments in a university article, but usually not a single one of them would be notable by itself. As applied here, if "Jane Roe has identified the use by Cool Guy Number 1 of the word 'foo' on the February 29, 2006 episode of Cool TV Show as a seminal...." then that particular use might be notable enough for a separate article. I'm not hard-core inclusionist enough to want to do that. If the melting point of a compound A is x degrees, and two good sources say so, that still does not mean we write an article on The melting point of A. Rather, we know that the melting point of a compound is relevant to the information of a compound that meets notability.

As for notability of the overall topic, I've seen people !vote delete on IPC articles even after there was a ref on the notability of the overall topic of references in X. Actually we could probably find this fairly routinely--ever book or article on a work of fiction has a chapter on later appearances of its themes. The rest of the world knows such things are notable. How about a ref saying that the use of references to earlier films is a notable part of film in general -- wouldnt that justify every individual case? We do not need someone to say specifically in so many words that congressman X is an important politician. DGG (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• I would hope that you would acknowledge that the departments of a university are of slightly more significance to an article about the university than, say, every appearance of a Mickey Mouse t-shirt on TV would be to the article on Mickey Mouse, or that the melting point of a compound is of a bit more importance than a list of every instance that a Metallica poster appears in the background of a movie. Without specific examples I can't really speak to the notion of people !voting delete in the face of reliable sources about Foo in pop culture. As for the notion that "every" or even most books include a chapter on later thematic appearances, that has not been my experience but even if that is the case, many of the things that end up as the subject of these poor lists of sightings articles are not "themes" of anything. Otto4711 (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• the question is not every appearance, the question is the appearances in general. Nobody will want to write an article about a particular MM T-shirt, or so I hope. So by analogy with universities, we group the departments for a large university in articles about each of the major colleges. I never have defended, and never will, the inclusion of ridiculous content, and you & others do indeed often pick up on afd some items of content that should be removed.--suitable things for editing. On the other hand, I would certainly hold that every use of MM in a movie is worth mentioning--they're not included for decorative purposes. DGG (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Certainly every film in which MM appears as a character is worth including in List of MM cartoons (or whatever the list that I'm sure exists is called). But you know as well as I that that's not what a lot of the content of these sorts of articles is. You know as well as I do that "Bill Smith wore a Mickey Mouse t-shirt in the third episode of The Made-Up Show" ends up in these IPC lists and generally overwhelm them. I don't see why it's so hard to agree that before making an article called "Foo in popular culture" the editor should make sure that there are reliable sources that actually discuss "Foo in popular culture" as a concept. Any other article on Wikipedia is held to the standard that there must be reliable sources that are about the topic of the article, but for these, because Foo is notable, these lists-of-times-that-foo-appears-or-someone-says-foo-or-something-looks-like-foo messes get passes. I think that all anyone is asking of these articles is that they be held to the exact same standards as every other article. Otto4711 (talk) 03:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "not every mention of x is notable", although I don't think secondary sources are a good gauge for the notability of facts (as opposed to subjects). This is a matter for editorial discretion, and your personal discretion on this matter is simply less inclusive than DGG's or mine.

I would be content to omit, straight up, any "passing mentions" from any IPC lists I encounter. Evaluations of whether a given reference is a "passing mention" would have to be made subjectively, though I'd be surprised if we could not achieve a reasonable degree of consensus in most cases. I am especially ready to exclude entries disputed on a factual basis ("that's not a so-and-so!")

For borderline cases, I personally would err on the side of inclusion, as I have difficulty seeing the harm in including "low-importance" information in Wikipedia. (I grant that low-importance information should not displace more important information, which is why I favor spinning off any lengthy IPC lists into separate articles, but I also assert that given that wiki is not paper, there is no reason to delete information solely on the basis of some notion of "importance" -- which as I said before cannot be effectively gauged via coverage in secondary sources.)--Father Goose (talk) 05:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Again, my point is that these articles should not exist if all they do is document the existence of examples of Foos appearing in various artifacts of popular culture. They should exist only if there are reliable secondary sources that are about the topic "Foo in popular culture." Examples that illustrate those secondary sources, preferably ones mentioned in the secondary sources themselves, are certainly appropriate, but sheer weight of numbers of references to Foo in other cultural artifacts does not suddenly mean that "Foo in popular culture" passes WP:N. Otto4711 (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with Otto; if there are no sources to demonstrate that the subject has had a notable influence in popular culture (the now deleted Sonic weaponry in popular culture, for example), then the article should not exist, regardless of how many examples users can discover. To parallel this with the case of the university department faculty example: the fact that the university has departments is notable because the departments are a part of what makes the university a university. The list of examples, while not all notable in their own right, flushes out the finer details of this notable subject. Similarly, with another subject, their influence in popular culture should be such that you cannot give a complete and balanced write-up of the subject unless you discuss it's popular culture influence. Thus, unless there is something to demonstrate that SubjectX has had a notable influence, then there shouldn't be an IPC section/article. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 22:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I don't have much to add that hasn't already been said brilliantly above. I feel that IPC ought to be brought in as a guideline but I also feel that the effort to do so will enflame a lot of tensions. Currently the biggest debates in AfD come from BLP, IPC and borderline WP:N disputes, with severity in that order. Debates about censorship get contentious and long but they don't crop up as often. I think the issue breaks down to a few fundamental quarrels:

1. WP:N takes pains to be exclusive of articles and not items. In other words, a good portion of the IPC complaints stem from the assertion that individual items on lists tend to not be notable by themselves. Granted, this isn't a complete argument and it isn't the only argument, but it is one that appears commonly.
2. WP:PAPER. Essay or not, the fact that wikipedia is not paper is pretty apparent to anyone. It is plain that no constraining database limits exist and that new articles do 0 damage to the encyclopedia at the margin. The outright prohibition on IPC articles seems to fly in the face of this notion.
3. WP:IINFO. While this policy seems to be helpful, in practice (during debates), it generates needless argumentation. An editor endorsing deletion will declare a list to be indiscriminate. An editor endorsing retention will declare a list discriminate. After the exchange, nothing of value has been added. This is either due to strategic unwillingness to admit what looks to be a point of nuance or due to genuine disagreements over the definition and application of the word discriminate.
4. WP:V. This is the most persuasive argument for me. Assuming that an article (even a list) requires the sources attributed impute notability through significant coverage of the topic, then every article must flow from the sources. If, as has been argued in numerous debates over IPC and IPC lists, the articles are not based on these sources, then the references cited do not verify the text. That is, they may verify the explicit claims made in the text (X mentioned Y here) but if the source is the only one cited then it must also verify the central thesis of the article.

To me, the central secondary source is the kicker. If, as we have seen in past deletion discussions, the article is presented as notable based on the presence of august sources verifying portions of the text but none of the sources make the same claim as the article itself (As in the recent Cheshire Cat in Popular culture AfD) then it is dishonest to claim that the sources verify the text. In that AfD, it was claimed that the Popular Culture in Political Cartoons: Analyzing Cartoonist Approaches article made the claim that the article broadly connected the Cheshire Cat to popular culture. Such a claim was explicit in the AfD and the article. I don't mean to accuse editors of dishonestly. The problem isn't individual editors. the problem is that the current scheme for IPC lists creates an incentive for editors to create the article from primary source mentions, then go searching for a secondary source to "unify" the document. Since most of us don't have access to the gated journals but search engines can seek out specific phrases, we tend to add sources which 'sound' like they would work but don't actually verify the text or impute notability to the subject. This, to me, is a function of articles built from disparate primary documentation, not specific to popular culture. However, as the items in these lists are less likely to have unifying secondary documentation and they are liable to have simple primary documentation (lots of us watch movies and TV), IPC lists are rife with these problems. A unifying guideline that demanded a specific secondary source to cover the theme of the article would clarify a lot of the debate. Protonk (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't see the harm in lists without unifying secondary sources, as long as it is simply a list and not an article which discusses the influence of Subject X on pop culture. But I agree there needs to be more concrete guidelines regarding these articles, and if we have to get rid of pure list articles then so be it. After the merge of List of Kolkata facts (which I put a day's work into), I'm not sure how much of my time I want to waste trying to improve list articles. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think lists are inherently harmful. I think that flat lists of characteristics or events like this list of Žižek works is fine. It is a navigational tool. It presents no thesis and requires no transformative or creative effort in order to construct. this list of CAS numbers also seems ok to me, partially for the same reason but also because there is likely to be an authoritative secondary source listing these compounds. I think if we have a list that serves as a navigational tool for notable subjects, we should be ok. Where I feel we have a problem is a list that connects a notable idea "foo" to something else "popular culture". here the entries in the list about "foo" aren't REALLY about it. they are about the connection between the idea and popular culture. The list exists because of the assumed notability (or, if there is a unifying secondary document, the imputed notability) of that connection. Often, when there are only primary or secondary mentions of the connection and not its significance (e.g. the cheshire cat list), then the temptation to stretch the meaning of the sourcing is high. Protonk (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

and similarly with IPC. It's sometimes argued that each item could go with the work using the material--that the article on film X that had a chesire cat as a major motive would say that it had a major motive. And so it should. Then the IPC article brings them together.DGG (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• But only if there are reliable sources that discuss the motif. Otto4711 (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This is actually one of my personal rules of thumb when cleaning up an IPC section; if it's not notable enough to mention in the article for the work making the reference, it's not notable enough for inclusion in the IPC article. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion guideline draft

So far, with your thoughts in mind, this is what I've come up with for some sort of content guide. When I look at it, it is basically what is there right now, but it emphasizes the secondary sources thing, and it's a little more straight forward. Thoughts, comments, edits? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing:

A cultural reference should be considered notable when they are mentioned in the article for the work containing the reference.

What does this sentence mean? Do you mean to say?:

A cultural reference should be considered notable when the allusion itself is referenced in the work cited.

Or do you mean?:

A cultural reference should be considered notable when its inclusion in the original article on the subject in question can be made without substantially altering or degrading the original article

Protonk (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC) No longer applicable to current draft. Protonk (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, in general, I would prefer fewer words rather than more. If we can express that ANY IPC reference ought to come from a secondary source and be non-trivial in nature, then I think that is sufficient. I don't think it is necessary to specifically delineate forms of art. Perhaps then we can lobby to have this included in WP:TRIV. Protonk (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have to reiterate how important I feel it is that any guideline include instructions that there must be reliable secondary sources that discuss "Foo in popular culture" as a notable topic in its own right before creating an IPC article. Otherwise the lists generated under the proposed guideline are still indulging in original research. "Foo is mentioned a number of times in a number of things, therefore it must be important in popular culture" is synthesis. Otto4711 (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• The problem with only using a few words to express something in a guideline is that these tend to be very big and loaded words, and the implications of them are not always so clear cut. I think this is perhaps part of the problem with the current state of affairs. I will try (or you can try!) to edit the draft to make it more clear. IPC sections really do need secondary sources discussion the subjects notability in popular culture, and I want this to be reflected. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 16:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not really helpful: "A cultural reference should be considered notable when they are mentioned in the article for the work containing the reference." all that's necessary to do to justify a reference would be to add it to the article. Easy enough. anything goes. On the other hand, in the existing articles, most of which are incompetent, a great many things arent mentioned that really ought to be. I think the meaning might be "when it would be appropriate to add it to the article"--but this doesnt work either--it just shift the argument. I and others would maintain quite seriously that in the article about say a movie, a description of every movie refereed to by it is appropriate content, every bit as much so as the plot--and even of real world importance, as that's how movies are constructed and analyzed. In game articles, its normal to mention somewhere all the weapons, characters and whatever. (of course, people do sometimes object to this content, but then, ity just shifts the argument.). The two ways of looking at things are reciprocal. DGG (talk) 03:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC).

I support an effort to come up with "rules of thumb" for IPC list maintenance and item selection. However, I think it's an error to specifically try to create it as a guideline; this is the approach I took with the relevance of content proposal, and while much of what I suggested there was reasonable, I also (in retrospect) think it would have produced more harm than good had it become an actual guideline.

I think the best way to approach this is to put a set of several test cases before the membership of the popular culture project and have everyone collaborate on making them the best they could possibly be. Any general points of agreement can be written up as a project-specific guideline (which should not be a {{guideline}}-guideline, as official "rules" inevitably turn into a means of controlling other editors, instead of documenting a set of good practices). Since ultimately it is the membership of the IPC project that is taking responsibility for this type of content, we should get our heads together on just what an "ideal" IPC list or article should look like, and what standards should be adopted in order to reach that ideal.--Father Goose (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Champagne in popular culture Seems like a good one to me (hat tip to Otto for pointing this one out). Secondary sourcing galore. good article structure. Numerous and notable references. It's B-class at the moment but should be a GA (IMO). There are also two GA's within the project itself: Black_Swan_emblems_and_popular_culture and Cultural_depictions_of_spiders. Protonk (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not going to be useful in establishing an inclusion guideline, just as an exercise in how to make a good article better. I'm thinking more along the lines of looking at several full-size IPC lists and discussing what's worth keeping, what should be changed (if anything), and why?--Father Goose (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh. I think see what you mean. that might be contentious. Do you mean to say that we should provisionally accept this guideline (for the purpose of argumentation or illustration), review a list, and produce a new version of that list in accordance with the guideline we agree upon? That way we could link to such a list as an example of what we are looking for? Can you clarify? Protonk (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's pretty much what I have in mind. Not all these lists can be improved to the point of Champagne IPC, but that does not preclude turning a poor list into a better list. I suggested having the discussion amongst the IPC membership (and shooting for "project standards" instead of a full-on guideline) to sidestep the contention you correctly anticipate. Many of us who do support the retention of IPC lists also accept that not every entry is worth keeping, so I'd like to see what kind of pruning, reorganization, and other changes even the inclusionists would embrace. Left to our own devices, we might come up with something tolerable to a broad swath of editors. If turns into a fight, though, everyone will just get stubborn.

The Howard Hughes IPC section (which was briefly its own article) always struck me as one that mixed truly important and seemingly pointless information, so I propose it as the first test case. Here is the most complete version of its IPC section I could find; what kind of decisions would the IPC project make regarding this content? Would it differ substantially from others' handling of it?--Father Goose (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

that section seems to be blank in that revision. Below (the new subsection) I have started a conversation along those lines for Works_influenced_by_Alice_in_Wonderland. Protonk (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks, fixed it.--Father Goose (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the list. You want to work with that one or work with the live Alice one? Protonk (talk) 06:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

An officially unofficial ruleset is better than pure guesswork, so I'd be pleased with anything along those lines. I agree that the WikiProject should have a say in any sort of guidance, since they work with this type of content the most. However, we have to explore the issue from more than just the inclusionist side of things, which is why I'm interested in getting outside input from a limited number of knowledgeable editors. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 06:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

An "IPC" Example

this is a reply to Father goose above. The intent here is to determine how the community would apply the guidance we are discussing (as a standard, rather than a guideline) to a marginal article. I have chosen Works influenced by Alice in Wonderland because the subject is clearly notable, good examples (with secondary sources) exist but bad examples populate the list. This article isn't linked here as a means to castigate the editors who have worked on it, but to attempt to see how the list would change were the 'standards' applied. If we improve the list in the process, all the better! The link to the original version is here. The version as of this posting is here. It isn't decided in my mind whether I would like to press for this to be encorporated as a guideline or bring it to the project simply as a standard but we may continue that discussion apart from the application of the guidance itself. Protonk (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to not get back to you sooner. I intend to look at this article in the near future and do at least an initial analysis of what kind of changes I'd make.--Father Goose (talk) 08:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Here is my first cut. I just commented out the music section because I didn't want to trudge through it. I removed references that were minor or just suggested by an editor. Basically something stayed if it shared a name, a number of thematic elements or a character. That's crude but it is a first start. I would say that about 1/3 to 1/2 of the references that remain could be sourced. I would say that about 1/2 of what remains could also be cut without too much concern from me. Oh, and btw, the article I'm looking at is a mirror on my userspace, so I didn't just cut like 40% of a mainspace page for the sake of this discussion.  :) Protonk (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"In Popular Culture" sections are useful, just misnamed

Knowing what was happening culturally in a certain period is useful information that one might want to learn about in an encyclopedia. However what is popular in the 80s might not be popular in the 90s. It would seem to me that having some way to record such info - when a thing was popular, how it manifested, the geographic/social-subgroup limits of that popularity and documentary evidence of all that - would be useful to future readers of wikipedia. I've merrily avoided the wikipedia bureaucracy to date so maybe this is just some bizarre never-ending flame war that folks on wikipedia engage in. In case anyone cares however, knowing how things are viewed in earlier times is something that I've needed to know in the past. Looking into the future, I'd guess that knowing how wikipedia is viewed over time would be of interest to people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinLyda (talk • contribs) 10:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What would you rename them to?--Father Goose (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "Cultural references." Then for each reference people would need to provide the time frame, the group making the reference and finally some context as well as information supporting that assertion. So for an article on bats you could have a "cultural reference" of "90's, unix culture, The sendmail manual published by O'Reilly had a bat on the cover and was referred to as 'the bat book.'" And you'd add Category links for the time period and cultural group. So if you were interested in unix subculture you could go to a page and get a list of all the references or if you were interested in what was happening in the 90s culturally, you could go to a page with those links. (btw, sorry for not signing my last comment) KevinLyda (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be "In popular culture"; I don't get why "Popular Culture" should be capitalized. Gary King (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

But it's a title. When you're using the phrase in a sentence, don't capitalize it, but since it's the heading of a section, format says that it should be capitalized. 76.14.66.96 (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the Manual of Style for titles says that after the first word, only proper nouns should be capitalized. Protonk (talk) 02:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit war over xkcd

Please don't get into an edit war over this. If you think the reference ought to be on this page (I do), take it to the talk page. The xkcd cartoon lampoons (or salutes) the very nature of this essay. When and if we move this to a guideline we can talk about removing it for the sake of clarity, but right now I don't think it hurts. Don't make the page get locked because of this. Protonk (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I suppose the irony would do well to improve the atmosphere. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 22:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you two; where else in Wikipedia would a Popular Culture entry be more useful than in an article discussing it. Not only does it provide humorous irony, but it illustrates the use of IPC for all those reading this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.46.36 (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree as well. I added it originally, and this should be the one place it is mentioned. Also this is an essay, not an article, so it isn't exactly inappropriate with the guidelines by the essay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syphon8 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm totally pro-silliness, but in the long term, I don't see the xkcd mention remaining on this page, except perhaps as an external link below the CNet article. The most appropriate permanent place for the xkcd reference is in Wikipedia_in_culture#Wikipedia_in_web_comics, where someone has indeed added it.--Father Goose (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's my feeling, too. I figured the IP involvement from that comic won't last much beyond the posting of the next comic (and is probably already falling off as a power rule). Until midnight EST tuesday, we can probably keep it up. After that I'm all for relegating it to the external link section. Protonk (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not put the picture up with some caption saying it illustrates how silly popular culture references are. Ant6n (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Do project pages usually get illustrations like this? Not that I'm opposed to the idea or anything, but I am somewhat curious. X-Kal (talk) 08:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably not on wikipedia, but that shouldn't mean it's inappropriate. I think I've seen 'educational' texts before that include a comic here or there to illustrate a point (a picture/example says more than a 1000 words) ;). Ant6n (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia" namespace pages can contain illustrations, but only the encyclopedia itself can contain any fair use images. We have a link to the xkcd page at the bottom... better to read the comic on the original site anyway.--22:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

We can write him an email asking him to release that comic to the foundation for this article. He's got a blanket "use is ok if you're a non-profit" statement on his website, so I can't imagine it would be hard to get him to send a permissions email. Protonk (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure it qualifies as fair use, and we've definitely got Randall Munroe's permission. The question is - do we really want to post the image? I'm actually quite satisfied with this article as it is. X-Kal (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No, what Father goose is saying is that we can't use a fair use image outside of article space. There is a procedure by which randall can tell the foundation that they have permission to use a version of the image, but he has to do it. Wikipedia:Contact_us/Photo_submission or Wikipedia:CONSENT will both work. Protonk (talk) 23:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions. Even if Monroe gave Wikipedia blanket permission to use it, that still wouldn't make it non-free -- he'd have to release it under a GFDL or CC license without any re-use restrictions, which I doubt he would want to do. I think linking directly to the comic is our best option either way.--Father Goose (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

So who removed the xkcd reference, and the IPC section for this article anyways. They didn't bother mentioning it or clearing it in this discussion. If somebody doesn't respond in a meaningful way soon, I'll just restore that section.

The reasoning was given in the edit history. Jokes like that have a half life. Protonk (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's still in the "external links" section of the page. As for why we don't want a "popular culture in popular culture" section here, it's because Wikipedia has a serious purpose. The purpose of this page is the maintenance and management of "in popular culture" material on Wikipedia, and stuffing jokes into it distracts from that purpose. We do think the xkcd comic is funny, though (and an interesting ironic commentary on the subject), which is why still have it as an external link.--Father Goose (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe it would be an improvement to have a short bit of text explaining why the link is there, "# Strip #446 of the webcomic xkcd. [2]" isn't that useful. I definitely think it needs including. If it isn't there and as a decent section, someone will come along and put it in perhaps without realising it. Its funny and its relevant. And whats the harm in asking if xkcd would publish it under GPL as a one off? -- Zebas (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)