Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of songs containing covert references to real musicians

moved from project page to reduce distraction

 * Let me go off topic a bit: (will this also lead to a ban of any section header similar to "Trivia", "X in popular culture", "Cultural references in X", etc. that might appear in any article?) Probably not a ban, but a massive cutback is one of my wishes for Wikipedia in 2007. Those things are like a plague. Why an encyclopedia article needs a "Trivia" section is beyond me. Andrew Levine 05:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict, rephrasing) We're not discussing trivia. We're discussing a list of songs containing covert references to real musicians. That's a self contained and broad topic, and its been a characteristic of pop culture, since about when pop culture began. + Ceoil 05:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Gosh, Andrew. I'd always thought that an encyclopedia was a "comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field". My bad. -- weirdoactor tundefinedc 05:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Its important to realise that wanting to keep this list does not somehow endorse trivia sections in mainspace articles. The list is a thing of its own, its broad enough, and well documented enough, to fall outside 'trivia', and be of general interest. I generally cut out trivia sections on sight, but this is not trivia. + Ceoil 05:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

comment: First, Ceoil is right - this is not trivia. But Andrew Levine: isn't that a bit of a  generalization, equating "trivia" with "X in popular culture", etc? I've occasionally deleted trivia too (like potentially libelous gossip) but the "X in popular culture" and "cultural references in X"  sections of articles are perfectly acceptable, verifiable, and add enormously to the value of the articles. But you are somehow equating gossip, which shouldn't be here, with unusual or offbeat inter-connections, which are a delight to find here. Sorry, but you seem to be making the POV suggestion that since you don't like them - "why an encyclopedia article needs a 'trivia' section is beyond me" - they should be severely cut-back, though "probably" not banned. Feel free to skip past those sections while reading an article, but try not to step on something that others find valuable. I'd suggest that a more valuable expenditure of time in 2007 would be removing plagiarism or selecting some stubs to research and expand or dozens of other constructive things, rather than massively cutting back items that have value to other readers. Wiki is not paper. We have the room, really. By the way - take a look at intertextuality if you'd like a scholarly argument regarding "cultural references in X". Come to think of it, intertextuality is another reason for keeping the subject of this AfD discussion. Tvoz | talk 06:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * add enormously to the value of the articles -- Do they always? Does it really help the James Brown article to point out that Robin Williams spent ten seconds singing a parody of one of his songs in a movie, as the current revision does? If this is meant to attest to his influence in popular culture, this is already borne out more compellingly by what the article's main sections have to say. If I could add to the "Pop culture references" section an exhaustive list of movies in which James Brown's music has been featured, or for that matter, an exhaustive list of songs that sampled his music (both lists would have literally hundreds of entries), then assuming they could all be verified in reliable sources, should I include them? You might want to spin them off in a seperate article. This is a good way of doing it, see Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc for an example. But they should not stay under a section header in the main article.
 * Sorry, but you seem to be making the POV suggestion that since you don't like them - "why an encyclopedia article needs a 'trivia' section is beyond me" - they should be severely cut-back -- Yes, this suggestion I've expressed is my point of view. It also does not appear in a Wikipedia article, and so it is exempt from the WP:POV policy. People discuss Wikipedia policies all the time outside of article-space. A discussion is by nature a POV process. Although that reminds me, this discussion should be moved someplace else.
 * Feel free to skip past those sections while reading an article, but try not to step on something that others find valuable. -- No serious encyclopedia publisher would take the position that conciseness and readability are not important. There is lots of useful information that we already have made a decision not to include in articles; for example, The Second Coming (poem) does not contain the entire public-domain text of The Second Coming, even though that would be enormously useful for the article's readers to refer to, because we have made a decision to not include primary source texts in Wikipedia, and leave that instead to the editors of Wikisource.
 * I'd suggest that a more valuable expenditure of time in 2007 would be removing plagiarism or selecting some stubs to research and expand or dozens of other constructive things, rather than massively cutting back items that have value to other readers. -- We can do all of these things; Wikipedia has thousands of dedicated editors, along with maybe a million other people who help here and there from time to time, and these numbers will only multiply as the year goes on. In 2006, we got a lot of article cleanup jobs done, and that didn't stop us from cranking out unprecedented numbers of featured articles and holding them to higher standards than ever before. Both the big things and little things will get done.
 * By the way - take a look at intertextuality if you'd like a scholarly argument regarding "cultural references in X". -- Wikipedia's POV policy dictates that we not structure our articles a certain way just because a particular literary theory suggests it is a good idea. Also, the thesis of intertextuality does not mean that adding "Canada was referenced in the Simpsons episode "You Only Move Twice" to the article on Canada is a good idea. Andrew Levine 08:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. That was long. Much like this article; which you "did a lot of work on". Just so we're clear; trivia is bad, but a 53 KB article about a playing card game is good? Does that include the no doubt FASCINATING section on "Luck vs. skill", which, I shit you not, starts with this sentence: Magic, like many other games, combines chance and skill? It amazes me no end the cruft produced by deletionists, all the while accusing others of the very "crime" which they themselves commit. It'd be funny if it weren't so sad. -- weirdoactor tundefinedc 08:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Weirdoactor, check the edit history on that. My major improvements on Magic: The Gathering were several years ago. The state it's in now is not the state I left it in. Also, I have nothing against long articles. But the content has to be worthwhile. Andrew Levine 20:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Andrew: I used Magic as an example because you state on your user page that you "did a lot of work" on it; it wasn't a judgment, merely an example of what you were talking about that I thought might hit home more clearly. I personally would rather have short, well-written, well-sourced articles with sub-pages for trivia (much like userpages are built) rather than long, meandering articles that stack trivia next to the meat of the article. As to what's "worthwhile", that would seem to be a personal opinion, not a basis for inclusion into an encyclopedia. Example: I don't think this is worthwhile, or article-worthy. Others do. Who is correct? Should we go on a jihad against any article that even smacks of "trivia" or cruft? No. We should strive to be a comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field. Anything outside that goal would seem to be against the spirit and very heart of this project. -- weirdoactor tundefinedc 22:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * response to Andrew (edit conflict) OK - I am not saying that anything that appears in "X in popular culture" or "cultural references in X"  is by definition enormously valuable, but I think that by and large they are of value - likely not each item is valuable to each reader, but overall I'd say they add to the value of articles, and should not be lopped off as a class as you seem to be suggesting.  You've singled out some examples that you find lacking - and that is actually my point: entries should be looked at individually, not as a class - what we don't need is another situation where editors decide to lop off anything with a "trivia" heading or an "x in popular culture"-type heading, without individual evaluation, just because they have a pre-conceived notion about the "proper" length of an article or what constitutes notability.  As for spinning them off into  separate articles - I don't necessarily have a problem with that, if it's so long as to be unwieldy inside the article, provided the next step isn't to mark those new articles for deletion.  But most of the time those sections are not large enough to warrant separate articles, and are still reasonable to maintain in the main article.  Take items out, individually, if they are wrong, or libelous, or so insignificant as to be laughable, but don't come along and wholesale remove them.    As for my noting your POV - perhaps I didn't state that well. Of course POV is central to discussion, I did not mean to imply otherwise. Just keep it out of  application:  if an article has evolved in such a way that it includes a section like "The Bronx in the movies", or "the Watergate scandal in fiction", consider that its being there is telling the reader something about the impact that this borough and that historic event have had on the popular culture,  and that the editors who usually work on those particular pages have included it because they feel that it is making a contribution, and don't apply your POV that these sections should be removed by definition.    And finally, about intertextuality - my point is only that having such cross references is a well-established and valid means of analysis and evaluation, and not to be dismissed out of hand.  But one other thing - where in "Wikipedia's POV policy" does it "dictate that we not structure our articles a certain way just because a particular literary theory suggests it is a good idea"? NPOV is talking about content, not structure.  And anyway, as soon as you start saying things like "Wikipedia's POV policy dictates..", I  think you're losing sight of how things really are supposed to work around here.  Tvoz | talk 10:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * entries should be looked at individually, not as a class -- This is all that I ever wanted. Take items out, individually, if they are wrong, or libelous, or so insignificant as to be laughable, but don't come along and wholesale remove them. -- This is also all I argued for. How can someone read what I wrote and assume that I just want to get rid of everything indiscriminately? Andrew Levine 20:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, because "massive cutback" didn't sound to me like individual examination, and you seem pretty clear that you don't think these should be here at all. But we don't have to argue about this any more - we're probably closer in viewpoint than it might appear. Just a couple of days ago I chopped off the Eagles' trivia section because it was ridiculous - I gave reasons for each deletion, but in the end the whole section came out. So, I am indeed an inclusionist, but not blindly so.  Anyway, I'm, glad this nomination for deletion was withdrawn, because I want to believe that Wikipedia does not slavishly follow rules without regard for furthering the project and that, indeed, there is some room for fun.  I know some people on the other side of this page were appalled at the idea of wikipedia actually being enjoyable, but I would say to them happy new year and lighten up.  Happy new year to you too, Andrew, and to everyone else.  Tvoz | talk 00:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)