User talk:Edgarde/IPC

This argument is flawed
 Melsaran  (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "They are against the fundamental principles of Wikipedia": Why are they? Because someone with a grudge against "trivia" added it to WP:5P? I could add something like "history-related articles do not belong in Wikipedia" to WP:5P, does that mean that those articles are inappropriate? This is not a substantial argument. See also appeal to authority.
 * "They violate Wikipedia policy": Same as above, tell me why they're inappropriate, what's wrong with them, not why they violate "policy".
 * They self-propagate: So what? If the lists are accurate, not indiscriminate, and verifiable, it's fine to create more of them.

Collected insights
"Let me make an extended analogy - I have a silverware drawer. I do not throw all of my silverware in it, I have a little thing that separates forks, knives, and spoons. Now if we all share such a drawer, we should expect people to put their silverware in the correct spot. It (1) keeps things tidy and (2) prevents people from throwing forks and knives and cups and pencils in the big mess of a drawer, waiting for somebody to come sort it out and get rid of the stuff that doesn't belong there in the first place." &mdash;Cheeser1, Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections

"A good IPC section has secondary sources discussing how the subject has effected popular culture or been used in different, significant ways. For example, discussing how piracy is a topic used in movies (the section in this example does need a bit of cleaning though). A bad IPC section is a list of references and even times that the topic's been mentioned at some point in a movie, TV show etc. In my experience the vast majority of IPC sections I've seen are the bad kind. Not everything has enough effect on popular culture to require a section on it." &mdash;BillPP, Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections

"Some can be better than others, when there's decent research available on the subject in popular culture itself. Nuclear weapons in popular culture is a good example. An 'in popular culture' article is ideally sociology, not pop culture example-collecting."&mdash;David Gerard, WikiEN-l mailing list

from Talk:Classical music in popular culture
Some of the following could be added to this essay.

Article formulation
This is not a good start. I think this topic is well worth covering but it's got to be done from the top down, and not just a dumping ground for individual uses of classical music in other music or media. There are lots of things to say about classical music in popular culture: surely we can find some reliable writing about the use of classical music in cartoons for instance. Mango juice talk 13:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The pervasiveness of classical music as background, soundtrack, and familiar signifier would make a list of "spottings" (i.e. a primary-sourced list of usages and references, as this article is currently formed) especially unwieldy and unencyclopedic. This article should be rewritten to illustrate the meanings and places of classical music in the larger culture, with examples kept where the are most illustrative. As Mj says above, sources covering the subject of Classical music in popular culture certainly exist.
 * The currently IPC list can only bog down in contentious, cruft-warring debates of which usages and references are the most notable from thousands of potential examples. It is not the foundation of a good article. See Articles for deletion/The Planets in popular culture for precedent on this.
 * My opinion: there are less than 10 good "In popular culture" articles on Wikipedia, and classical music deserves a good one. "In popular culture" articles is a decent guideline, and User:edgarde/IPC (note namespace) an opinionated, unaccepted one that I like. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC) (mostly copied from Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections )

Merge?
I have a draft about pop culture on Wikipedia that might be worth merging with this. See User:Mangojuice/PC. Mango juice talk 21:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)