Talk:Let's All Go to the Lobby/Archives/2014

"In popular culture"
This section is, as described at "In popular culture" content, one of the "indiscriminate collections of trivia or cruft" and "Exhaustive, indiscriminate lists" specifically to be avoided.

These sections, when well done (which is rare), these sections contain sections summarizing what reliable sources say about the subject's impact on popular culture. Instead, we have a bare list of occurrences. What makes the list indiscriminate? Simple: The selection criteria here are based entirely on 1) who happened by the article and 2) what they could think of.

There is, per WP:IPC, nothing to salvage here. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said, the section is "simply listing appearances", it does not "explain the subject's impact on popular culture". If you are aware of reliable sources discussing the subject's impact on popular culture, please add it to the article. The indiscriminate list, however, is against community consensus, as documented in the both the template at the beginning of the section and WP:IPC. Failing policy/guideline-based discussion I will remove the section again in a couple of days. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, saying that the short was "parodied" with no context adds little (TV shows parody a lot of things, some deliberately obscure) - the sourced statement that "80% of independent theaters have screened the film at various points, making the film familiar to a large number of viewers" and the Library of Congress recognition seems more useful for judging the cultural impact. --McGeddon (talk) 09:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

United States?
The statement "80% of independent theaters have screened the film at various points" seems carelessly US-centric. Did this ad ever air outside the United States? --McGeddon (talk) 09:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)