Wikipedia talk:"In popular culture" content/Archive 1

Cycles
The essay doesn't address the phenomenon of cycles within articles:

..and so on.
 * 1) Editor Newbie1 adds pop culture reference X
 * 2) Editor Vet1 removes reference X
 * 3) Editor Newbie2 adds pop culture reference X
 * 4) Editor Vet2 removes reference X

It is the exact same cycle as the AfD cycle, just on a smaller scale within an article. The essay suggests that the "solution" to the AfD cycle is to "keep stuff out of the article", but that is just recommending the cycle outlined above. Either way it is a cycle, it's not a solution to the problem of "in popular culture". -- Stbalbach 18:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I do think that dealing with trivia in the article is nontrivial, and there is the potential for this kind of cycle to come up. But that cycle is not equally bad compared to the AfD cycle for a few reasons.  First, no AfDs are involved.  Second, at least the trivia section is being closely monitored that way.  Third, it's more likely that facts with the potential to be integrated will actually be integrated, than if those facts are put in a forked out trivia article.  Perhaps we can refer to Trivia?  Mango juice talk 19:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Derivatives vs Adaptations & List vs Prose
Could the problem of in-pop-cult be examined from the perspective of derivative versus adaptation? A derivative is when a piece of an original work is used in a new work - such as a character, or story element, or names - but it is not the primary element of the new work. An adaptation is where the original work is a "remake", keeping much of the original work intact. There is some gray area between what is a derivative and what is an adaptation, but it quickly cuts out a lot of cruft like minor TV, video game, movie and song references.

A proposed guideline would say that lists of adaptations are acceptable, but lists of derivatives are not, since they are indiscriminate trivia. Derivatives can be included in an article but only in prose format showing a connection between the original and new work, and a description of why the derivative is notable, more than just the fact that it exists.

Thoughts or ideas on this approach? -- Stbalbach 22:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The terminology is a problem if you're formulating a general rule on popular culture sections, because not all subjects that pick up popular culture trivia are themselves works of art. It would be confusing to talk about adaptations vs. derivatives of dragonflies or of Rush.
 * Apart from that, it's an interesting approach. That more or less matches my idea of how these sections should be handled, but I'm a little leery of requiring a description of why something is notable.  The notability should be discernible in some way, but I think it can be implicit; it doesn't have to be "X appeared in Y, which is notable because..."  A few good examples may help.  &mdash;Cel  ithemis  23:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points, let me try to better define it:

For a general rule about "cultural lists":
 * List, cultural items in list format.
 * Prose, cultural items in prose format.
 * Derivative, a minor piece of a work referenced from an original piece - not an adaptation.
 * Adaptation, a re-make of an original work, a close version largely and clearly based on an original.

..thus:

General non-artwork topics like animals, people or places are easy since they have no adaptations, it is all derivative, and thus have no "List", only "Prose". A positive example would be dragonflies and groundhogs, which have no List, but do have Prose. A negative example would be Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, it contains a List of Derivatives (ie. Not allowed).

Thoughts? -- Stbalbach 23:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting way to think about trivia, but I don't agree with your assessment about lists of derivative things being not allowed: I think it depends entirely on how discriminating the selection criteria are. Also, this may be more germane at Wikipedia talk:Trivia.  (BTW, check out User:Mangojuice/Trivia for some of my own unrelated thoughts on trivia.)  Mango juice talk 00:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This proposal would turn much of Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc into a bad example. I might be okay with deprecating the Music section of that article (some of the mentions in song lyrics are quite trivial) but is, say, the list of paintings really bad?  Or the list of films about her?   &mdash;Cel  ithemis  00:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm with Celithemis here: that's the problem with categorically excluding one type of information. I think the Joan of Arc page makes for an exception because Joan of Arc was so historically significant... and I do see the possibility for making an article out of that information (although right now, it's mostly just notes).  Mango juice talk 14:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Horrible
The "in popular culture" articles are all horrible, the "in popular culture" sections of articles are horrible, they're all useless collections of pointless trivia which have no place in an enyclopedia article. The only workable solution to this is to make an actual policy banning "list of trivial crap" sections in articles. We have thousands of articles which are good, high quality articles, but which then end with:

x in popular culture
 * x was mentioned in episode 548 of The Simpsons, when Homer walks across the living room, trips over x, and says, "D'oh!"
 * The rockabilly-punk trio Gooberhead, on their debut album "I love Goobers", did a song called Oogermuffer which mentions x.
 * In level 24 of the game Quake 4, behind the abandoned silo in a shed on the back wall can clearly be seen a poster of x.
 * "All your x is belong to us" is a popular meme on Fark.com.

98% of these found in any article are not even interesting, the remaining 2% might be mildly interesting but are not notable. Until we ban this crap outright, it will continue to spread, as the existence of all these In Popular Culture sections leads everyone to believe that these bulleted lists of trivia are acceptable and expected, and encourages anyone who can think of another example to go ahead and add it to the ever growing list. --Xyzzyplugh 18:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, not all of them. Wikipedia in popular culture isn't too bad.  But most of them are like you say.  Mango juice talk 20:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Saying they are horrible/uninteresting is subjective. I bet many people find them the most interesting part of any article. Inclusion is acceptable if verifiable/sourced and the reference is non-trivial in the pop culture work. These lists can also serve to establish the notability of neologisms and fictional objects. I disagree with turning this essay to reject all in pop culture sections; note that AfDs on these articles are done on a case-by-case basis. –Pomte 20:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If a reference is non-trivial in the pop culture work, it belongs in the article for that work. It should be in the article for the thing or person referred to if it has some kind of importance to them.  Sometimes it does, so I agree that a 100% ban would be a mistake.
 * Xyzzyplugh is not wrong, though -- with so many of these pop culture sections, we're creating a culture in which people think every single article needs one on principle. Case in point.  &mdash;Cel  ithemis  22:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If any editors feel that every single article deserves a pop culture section, then one of the goals of this essay should be to point out that that is not true. Still, the section can serve as a placeholder until the items are integrated into the rest of the article, each judged for its merits, instead of outright deleting all as "cruft".
 * In the example you gave I would argue that the Simpsons reference belongs in the Legacy section, that it is non-trivial because the scene isn't a mere happenstance, but an intentional characterization of Joyce. Incidentally I came across Culturally significant words and phrases from The Simpsons, of which the notability is asserted in The Simpsons, so I think the article ought to exist. –Pomte 22:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a minor reference in one episode of a show that constantly makes references to all sorts of things. If you put it in Legacy it will be out of place; appearing unnamed on the Simpsons once is not a legacy.  Any popular culture references that *really are* significant should be there, certainly.
 * I don't understand what Culturally significant words and phrases from The Simpsons has to do with this. No one doubts The Simpsons has had cultural impact.  &mdash;Cel ithemis  22:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As to the claim that many people find these the most interesting part of any article, this may be true. But we could add pornography pictures to all wikipedia articles, and many people would find these the most interesting part of any article.  We could also add 200+ picture photo galleries to all articles on celebrities who have photos available, or video game walkthroughs to game articles, and many people would find these the most interesting part of wikipedia.  "Some people find them interesting" is not an excuse to have non-encylopedic crap added to our articles.  Special:Whatlinkshere/The_Simpsons shows that 8000 articles now link to The Simpsons (half of which are talk pages, of course).
 * As to the claim that these sections help establish notability of the article subject, this is almost never the case. I'd be surprised if 1% of these In Popular Culture sections and articles were being used for this purpose.  Hitler in popular culture includes all nine times which Hitler was mentioned in The Simpsons.  Without this, presumably, no one would know that Hitler was notable.
 * However, it would be reasonable to have an In Popular Culture section in some articles, but these sections should be like the rest of an article, actual paragraphs of prose, written in the same style as the rest of the article, sourced and encylopedic. An IPC section should discuss how a subject is viewed in popular culture, giving examples, not just be a long list of examples.  There is a huge difference between the two.  Any example given should only be used to make a point.  An encylopedia article is a summary of what is known on a subject, not a place to dump quantities of raw data on a subject.  These In Popular Culture sections and articles, as they exist today, are raw data dumps, and they don't belong.  --Xyzzyplugh 00:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know the ratio of notable vs. borderline-notable articles that contain IPC sections, but some IPC references do have the potential to assert notability, and requires consensus to do so. Example: Nozz-A-La, which was deleted at AfD 2 months ago. Recently the article was recreated, at which point I tagged it for WP:CSD. It got denied with this reason: "reference to Lost was not in previous article". In this case, the pop culture reference did matter. On the other hand, your Hitler example has nothing to do with notability: Hitler already establishes Hitler's notability, which is required for Hitler in popular culture to even exist. The 9 Simpsons references do not increase notability, but they do present genuine facts of interest.
 * What does "encyclopedic" mean here? Worthy of belonging to this encyclopedia. People don't come to this encyclopedia expecting image galleries of everything because that is not its purpose, though there are exceptions e.g. Gallery of sovereign-state flags. Likewise, IPC information is sort of borderline. People who look up an encyclopedia expect to be presented with facts, not to make a certain point. An article doesn't always need to say that the subject has had a major impact on or presence in pop culture, especially if one cannot find reliable sources that explicitly say so. But, the article can always list IPC references because those are of the verifiable kind. While a synthesis of all the IPC items cannot be made, the list serves its purpose just fine.
 * If all IPC sections do ought to be converted from list to prose, then perhaps start a WikiProject to do just that. This is a tedious task though, and I prefer the list format due to ease of readability. Here is how I envision the prose: First sentence says something like "The subject has been mentioned several times in popular culture." Each subsequent paragraph will just be an item from the list, or else all the IPC sentences would be combined into big paragraphs sorted by media format. A featured list like Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc would appear counter-intuitive in that style.
 * In some other discussion, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz had been given as an example a well-written section, but the last paragraph seems arbitrary to me. The reader cannot judge from this "mere sampling of the breadth" to know whether they really are some of the most important ones, or exactly how many other important works reference The Wizard of Oz.
 * Do you really think all IPC sections should be deleted on sight, or could they at least be moved to Talk pages until someone integrates them into paragraphs? –Pomte 05:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I will slightly amend my previous statements on this. While I am still on the fence on this, as I question the wisdom of having an infinite number of lists on Wikipedia, it may be reasonable to have lists such as Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc.  That is, for subjects which have had a strong influence on culture, with many paintings/books/tv shows/movies/etc. created on that topic, it may be reasonable to have an article listing them.  Joan of Arc is a good example of this, as we can see many, many works of art about her stretching back for centuries, and into the present day.  However, again, the IPC article on Joan of Arc should not be a data dump listing every known reference to Joan of Arc in every cultural product ever made.  Famous paintings OF her, novels and movies and tv shows and songs ABOUT her would belong in such an article.  A single line in an otherwise unrelated song, a brief walk-in on The Simpsons, a single panel about her in a marginally notable webcomic, none of these belong on the list.  Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, despite being a featured list (and having become a featured list after a grand total of 4 people voted to make it one), is full of crap which doesn't belong, and needs dozens of these marginally notable items removed.
 * The purpose of an IPC article, then, would be to inform readers of the most notable of the various cultural products which exist, so that they could perhaps view them themselves, not to simply bring up some "interesting" trivia ("really? Some webcomic I never heard of once contained the line "Joan of Arc is a bitch"?  how fascinating!) I am fine with such a list using bullet points, as if you're going to list dozens of seperate items, putting them into paragraph form wouldn't make for easy readability.
 * This doesn't mean that IPC sections of articles should contain a bulleted list, though. If a topic has not had enough impact on popular culture to deserve its own seperate IPC article, then there shouldn't be enough notable items to need a bulleted list, and they can go in paragraph form, if they belong in the article at all.  If there were 100 movies, songs, and tv shows about Pringles, then we could reasonably have Pringles in popular culture.  If, instead, some popular singer actually once wrote a song about Pringles, and there were Pringles in brief scenes in The Family Guy and The Simpsons, there would be no reason to have an IPC section with 3 bulleted points.--Xyzzyplugh 11:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that these articles should not be data dumps, but then their inclusion criteria becomes hazy. Webcomics do not make notable references, but it's harder to tell with such say appearances in The Simpsons. A 3-second walk-in is probably non-notable, but what about a 2-minute segment that continously pokes fun at the subject? A 5-minute segment that provides non-trivial insight? What if the person themself does the voiceover, and this sparked documentable hype? Where do you draw the line? Where do you go from most notable to adequately notable to non-notable? The inclusion of such borderline references is up to debate, and there's not bound to be any consensus between the extremes of fans and deletionists. Of course, this sort of argument is best settled case-by-case on talk pages. I'm with you, but there are people trying to nominate every single list just because it contains both notable and non-notable IPC items, instead of cleaning it up, and then everyone is forced into the exact same argument again. –Pomte 04:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Important Question
Why hasn't anyone made it an offical policy that trivial pop culture references don't belong in Wikipedia articles? The editors who want Wikipedia to be nothing more than a shrine to Family Guy are the ones who are keeping the entire Wikiproject from being taken seriously. --Wasted Sapience 20:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's almost obvious that any cultural reference in Family Guy is not worth mentioning in any article, because of the nature of that show. But to answer your question more directly, see Trivia -- it's important to note that "trivial" is very subjective.  Things everyone agrees are too trivial are generally "disallowed" in that they'll be removed, but there isn't much that is THAT trivial.  Mango juice talk 22:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Would say that pop culture has a useful place in any Wikipedia article.  Curiosity about a cultural reference is often an entry point to the encyclopedia and thus into an interest in more serious topics.  A reader then is drawn into the subject and soon finds himself or herself engaged in higher subjects.  The sequence is as follows:  (1) see a pop-cultural reference, (2) Google it, (3) see a Wikipedia google hit as the top entry, and (4) find oneself reading about, and interested in, a genuinely serious subject.  Those who delete Wikipedia's pop-cultural references are preventing this cycle from occurring and are (perversely) excluding many thoughtful people who would otherwise be drawn into thinking about more important topics. (Analogy:  A parent who says "why don't you look it up".)  Falstaf 17:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Goodness, such radical fundamentalism .. I think people often get carried away and think only "high culture" is notable, I've done it myself, it's a certain snobbishness that favors "in pop culture" material from 1800, but rejects "in pop culture" material from its own day -- IMO by 2100AD, Wikipedia will be studied by scholars not for its article on George Washington (there are 100s of encyclopedia articles on GW, most better than Wikipedia's), but for its popular culture material, which exists no where else as a true and unique window into this historical period. Granted there is a lot of cruft, but don't be too quick to discount its value or legitimacy, be sure to examine your own biases and personal values objectivley. Also, IPC articles can and do turn into Featured Articles, they are a legitimate genre of article on Wikipedia. And who doesn't take WP seriously because of an article on Family Guy? -- Stbalbach 23:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There are also people who don't take WP seriously because it takes itself too seriously, i.e. there are users out to delete the truly useful, interesting, citable/reliable information not easily found anywhere else. Usefulness is an argument to avoid, so here's one for notability: If the subject is notable for being parodied in popular culture, then a list of such parodies is notable. If the subject is notable, and the work it is referenced in is notable, then the relationship between them has its notability asserted. If the subject is questionably notable, but the work it is referenced in is notable, then that helps assert the subject's notability. As with the discussion above, these should be considered in a case-by-case basis. For Family Guy, it's probably better to list only the most significant references, the ones that have sparked controversy or media attention. But for obscure topics, it might be preferred to list the references just to help assert notability. –Pomte 04:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Why hasn't anyone made it an official policy that trivial pop culture references don't belong in Wikipedia articles? Perhaps because that would be a dumb thing to do. Should Wiki be able to have articles on the Beatles, or Picasso, or Oprah Winfrey? Obviously yes. Should those articles be able to cross-reference to other pieces of pop culture information? Obviously yes. That disposes of everything in the sentence but the "triviality" clause. Now, in the context of those pop culture pages, who gets to decide what's trivial or not, other than people who know the cultural background, and who, almost by definition are likely to be enthusiasts?
 * There's also the problem of what we class as "pop culture": it would be slightly perverse for Wiki to make a distinction that allows trivia for "artworks" only if those works are obscure or relatively unpopular. And how do we make the distinction? What happens when some obscure piece suddenly becomes "popular" because it gets turned into a Hollywood movie? Do the novels of Jane Austen count as pop culture? Should a page on Percy Bysshe Shelley neglect to mention that he was married to the woman who wrote Frankenstein, just because later on Universal Studios decided to make a movie about it? Does that make it pop culture trivia?
 * The problem (if there is a problem), is that Wikipedia itself is a pop culture phenomenon, and the people who love Wiki and are keen to expand it to include further information that they know and which isn't already well documented, are more likely to be media junkies with a web of media cross-references in their heads that they feel would be nice to preserve as part of Wiki. They contribute information that they are expert on, and it's most likely that what they are expert on is going to be some aspect of the culture that they grew up with. Multimedia-keen hypertext-savvy internet enthusiasts tend to be enthusiastic about modern media. It tends to go with the territory. Those people tend to outnumber experts in less popular fields because ... those fields are less popular. Perhaps we should be encouraging experts on more obscure subjects to write for Wiki, but I know that one of the reasons why those people are discouraged is because some of the same "deletist" editors who take pride in going through Wiki pages deleting pop culture references also take pride in running through those obscure pages deleting information from them on the grounds that it's deemed by them to be too obscure and insufficiently interesting. If you are an expert on the construction and maintenance of antique grand pianos, and decide to pour your heart into a detailed article on the subject, some ****ing deletist **** with an overgrown sense of self-importance is liable to come along delete the whole thing as part of their quest to "improve" Wiki. A nd if it's an obscure topic, it might not survive a votes for deletion, and most of the people who would love the article may never see it. If we delete all the information that someone somewhere considers too popular, and all the information that someone else might consider not popular enough, then we're just going to end up with a clone of Encarta.
 * This is another reason why "pop culture" pages do so well: They're the ones that survive deletion votes or get reinstated or rewritten afterwards. They get a sufficient number of enthusiastic and knowledgeable regular readers who can spot and repair damage caused by the deletists. The pages that aren't so resilient are the less popular ones, where an author who gets their work hacked down by some ignorant klutz of an editor gets dispirited and doesn't come back, and nobody with equivalent knowledge steps in to replace them. So, ironically, if Wikipedia is dumbing down, I think that some of the people who are most responsible are the deletists ... who also tend to be the people who complain loudest about dumbing down. Wiki has only become this popular because of people prepared to spend time contributing. Contributing information and rephrasing existing pages takes work and care, whereas any idiot can highlight and delete. Deletion is the "instant gratification" approach, it lets people change Wikipedia and see the results of what they've done without having to apply any proper thought, or have any proper background knowledge of the subject they are editing. Don't like = delete. Don't recognise = delete. Not interested = delete. If you are an active editor, and you delete more than you add, then I'm afraid you are probably one of the bad guys. ErkDemon 22:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion
A reference to Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc in the essay might be a good idea (since it's an FA ). If it ever turns into a poor article it can be removed from the essay. A good example always helps. Quadzilla99 19:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course I just noticed it uses IMDb as a source... Quadzilla99 19:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, there are a number of well done IPC articles on Wikipedia. We need MoS page that shows how to do it correctly. Rather than fight it, work with it -- there is a lot of energy going into these types of articles, for better or worse many people want them, like it or not - that energy should be directed in a positive manner -- who wants to spend their life deleting IPC articles? or spend a few weeks telling people how to do it correctly and move on. -- Stbalbach 14:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I said that incorrectly it's an FL I meant a featured list, the pop culture articles should follow the criteria for featured lists, of which the Joan of Arc list is an FL. Quadzilla99 15:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a sentiment that IPC articles shouldn't be lists, but articles with well-written prose. Personally though lists are much more realistic and easy to read. Note also that Joan of Arc became an FL with only 3 support !votes last year. –Pomte 15:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you saying it's not any good? I'm not catching the meaning of that last sentence. Quadzilla99 16:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's an objection to the featured status that I've seen a couple of times. I agree it's a good idea to list lists like that as examples of good ones. –Pomte 17:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand why List of cultural references in The Cantos was removed from the list of examples, but I was hoping this essay could talk about "Cultural references in X" in addition to "Cultural references to X." It raises the question of how to manage duplicate content between the referencer and the referencee: if X is notable for having cultural references to other things, then should the articles of those other things mention such references as well? –Pomte 12:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed the "cultural depictions of Joan of Arc" example, as it's not, strictly speaking, an X in popular culture article. It would be good to have examples to show that these can be done well, in which case I wouldn't mind the Joan of Arc example being put back in, but we really should find a good article that is "X in popular culture".  Perhaps Wikipedia in popular culture?  Mango juice talk 18:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean because the name of the article is not "in popular culture"? Otherwise, that is exactly what the Joan of Arc article is, except in name only. It's more than appropriate to show it as a positive example of how to create these kinds of articles, there is no rule that they have to be named "IPC", that is just an informal name that people use, but people will use other names as well, it's all conceptually the same thing. I'll even create a re-direct if it will help. -- Stbalbach 18:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To avoid POV I wouldn't insert any article until it becomes recognized as a FL. Quadzilla99 19:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't follow what FL/FA has to do with POV. Are the articles listed POV or in some way breaking the rules of Wikipedia? If so they should be put up for AfD. Becoming FA/FL is a rare thing indeed, holding editors to "FA/FL or death" is an unreasonable position. -- Stbalbach 19:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing is, conceptually, "Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc" is different from "Joan of Arc in popular culture." VERY different.  It's limited to depictions, not all mentions, influences, and so on, and it's abot all culture, not just popular culture.  It's one thing to have "Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc" as an example decent article (which I agree with), it's another to say that "X in popular culture" articles can be good, and use that as an example, which I don't.  Since the latter seems to be the point, we need to find a better example.  Mango juice talk 20:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's a nuanced distinction that does not exist. "In popular culture" is a loose term that can mean just about anything, depending on who is using the term. There is no standard or guideline. I understand what your saying, but people who make these types of articles need guidance and the Joan article provides that guidance, even if its not *exactly* what a particular vision of a IPC "should" be - besides, what "should" a IPC include and not include? Should IPC articles *only* be "popular culture", and what is "popular culture"? Should there by IPC articles at all? These are all unsettled questions. Clearly though the Joan article is in the same category and its style and layout provides help for users, regardless of any selection criteria. -- Stbalbach 20:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree we should be looking for more examples of what to emulate. My objection was only, really, to the idea that the Joan of Arc article would be our only or main example, since there are distinctions.  BTW, why was "List of important operas" on there?  Mango juice talk 20:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed Wikipedia in Popular Culture as it wasn't rated in any way. Even though this isn't official I think it would be best to stick to recognized content. Feel free to comment and we can reach a consensus. Quadzilla99 23:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)