Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 58

In popular culture sections in guideline
User:SurreyJohn has raised the issue of "In Popular Culture" as they are treated in our guidelines. He raised the issue on the Guidelines subpage of he project talkpage, a subpage which has very few watchers. So I am copying the comments here for further discussion:

Why should "such edits should be discouraged"? I and I am sure others would be interested in what movie or film a piece has been used in. Very often it is what makes a piece popular to the masses. E.g. Barber's Adagio in the Elephant Man, Platoon and several other films. The actual article does have this information, so it is just this guideline that is at fault. Please do not judge who should be interested in what!

I suggest this section is removed (or reworded to include popular culture). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurreyJohn (talk • contribs) 11:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * SurreyJohn, pages like this get very few watchers. I suggest you raise the issue at the project's main talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. Voceditenore (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) This section is simply a adaptation of Manual of Style/Trivia sections. If the use of a composition is notable, i.e. the use has been discussed in reliable sources, it will usually be included in the composition's article. For mere occurrences, the special page "WhatLinksHere" is a rich source of information, e.g. Special:WhatLinksHere/Adagio for Strings. For other works, the use in popular culture is of such volume that a special article has been created: Carl Orff's O Fortuna in popular culture, Category:Music in popular culture. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (MB)
 * This has no connection with the Trivia guideline. Why should music being used in films, adverts, etc be discouraged or treated as trivia? This section is misleading.  Another example is Bach’s Air on the G String.  This text suggests one should write an article on Hamlet Cigars and add the reference to the music there, which is nonsense!  At least in practice, it seems that popular culture (and other) sections do include the use of music in film and TV (so this section of the guidance is being ignored).  Air on a G string has a large section on popular culture, and rightly so, and likewise O Fortuna.  I can detect the bread in Dvorak’s New World too! Again I say such subject matter should be encouraged, not discouraged. SurreyJohn (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, I agree with SurreyJohn. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've often felt that WP's guideline against "popular culture" (a phrase I dislike) must be a hold-over from academic papers (which discourage such things). The question of whether to include them is subjective, and that contradicts much of what WP is about. That some music is used "in popular culture" is a fact; people should not be the ones to decide whether it's "worthy", just to document it. -- kosboot (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Some articles would get very long if all appearances in "popular culture" would be mentioned, thinking of BWV 147 with its famous chorale. An extra article, that might help at times, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ... which massively raises WP:UNDUE. As for "just documenting it": therein lies the rub – ordinarily, no citation showing the significance of a composition's popular use is provided, not even a source for its use; see WP:BURDEN. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I like both Gerda's and Michael's points - that is, when possible or practical, I favor a separate article documenting "popular" uses, rather than incorporating it into the work's main article. (I'm sure uses of "O Fortuna" would overwhelm everything ever written on Carmina Burana - and in fact, a lot of film music studies discuss the use of "O Fortuna" in films.) Maybe such things should be made into lists rather than articles (just a thought). -- kosboot (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with putting pop culture items into separate linked articles, for the reasons Gerda, Michael, and Kosboot give. I also like Michael's implicit suggestion of accepting such additions only if they have a cited reference source; I suspect many such contributions are based only on the unreliable memories of the contributors.


 * It might be worthwhile to mention events here on WP from about 2007. At the time, we had a nice system going in which many articles (not just classical music) had their satellite articles of the form "X in popular culture".  This let the pop culture enthusiasts contribute all that they felt like, while still respecting WP:UNDUE within the main articles. Sadly, a misguided group of editors went on a warpath, using the AfD process to remove essentially every "X in popular culture" article from WP.  I hope this doesn't happen again.  Opus33 (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with SurreyJohn too. How music was and is used, when and by whom, is a significant aspect of music history (see Taruskin's History of Western Music for lots of exploration of this). Whether to split out something like Jesu Joy or to keep it with the containing work is a less important matter, depending mostly on whether there's enough to sustain the separate article. --Stfg (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Would a citation from IMDB (in their "soundtracks" section) be a minimally acceptable source citation documenting uses in popular culture? This discussion is almost asking for developing some acceptable-use guidelines. -- kosboot (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The mere presence of a composition in a film is not the issue; whether it's important enough to be discussed in reliable sources is. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ay, there's the rub. Off the top of my head, I'd say such uses in popular culture are rarely important enough to be discussed in reliable sources (Unless you consider IMDB a reliable source). At least from my point of view, I recognize that people who edit Wikipedia have a very strong desire to create such lists. To my thinking it is more productive (from WP's and the users' point of view) to steer them into a constructive direction, rather than forbidding such lists.  In such cases, if one thinks of the citation to a reliable source not as a prerequisite, but as something to eventually capture, then the existence of "in popular culture lists" is not such a problem and can satisfy the many who want to create such things. -- kosboot (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * What is happening here now? There seems to be good agreement that change are needed as the guideline does not match common practice and popular culture is part of the music's history. I would agree any content should be notable and referable (as according to WP guidelines), and not simply a long list of minor appearances in films. Size doesn't matter (e.g Beethoven's 5th), but as the title Uses in popular culture implies (see link), any inclusions should be of popular (i.e. significant) uses of the music. This is not simply about films. It will includes TV commercials, wedding and funeral marches, songs, and other uses where classical pieces have been reused. Therefore I do not see this guideline being applicable to genre of soundtracks, and videogames which are compositions in their own right. Shall I go ahead and propose some changes, or is is better one of the project team does it? It appears to have been stuck on the end of the page (after References) as an afterthought, so perhaps the whole section should be simply deleted, or otherwise placed in a better order and position.   Surrey John    (Talk) 10:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If Wikipedia is really an encyclopedia, and not a dump for data and facts, then any 'trivia' would be integrated as prose within an article, not a miscellaneous list towards the end. Although the 'trivia/references to' situation is quite bad with some articles; it is only restraint that prevents it overwhelming articles. It's worth thinking what a reputable print encyclopedia might have done. Unless (say) there is a reference to Bolero being used notably in a film/computer game/literature etc in a reliable source article/book about Ravel then it doesn't belong in the Wikipedia Bolero page, although it could of course be mentioned on the page about the film/computer game etc. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply: WP is better than a print encyclopedia, so inevitably it does have a lot more data and facts. Anyway, I would like to get the guideline changed as modern use of music is not trivia, should no be called such, and should not be removed. Also, we should be working to WP guidelines and not inventing our own. Sources should not restricted to composer textbooks, and WP:NPOV states that you should not try to exclude sources because they do not conform to your point of view. The "modern use" content is largely already in articles, so I just want to see the guideline updated to align with common practice.  Surrey John    (Talk) 16:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree on all points. On your earlier question,, imo it would be great if you were to go ahead and propose some changes. --Stfg (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you . I will put a draft here by end of week.  Surrey John    (Talk) 21:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok; here's the proposal (original and revised versions): I've tried to take all points on board. However, I've deliberately omitted guidance on style (such as splitting a large list into a separate article) or restating guidance notes, as this is general guidance applicable to any article or section.

Uses in popular culture (revised)
Hopefully, the revised section can be accepted, but if not then the offending section should simply be removed. Surrey John   (Talk) 09:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It's been a while! Please could those who have contributed to the discussion (i.e., , , , , , , or anyone else) give a brief acceptance or otherwise, before these changes are made. Whilst I agree on many of the above points I don't think they belong in this guidance. Trivia, writing style, references, splitting large topics into separate documents (eg. lists of works) are all dealt with under general guidance so need not be restated here. Instead, this guidance topic should be more focused on interpenetration of the general guidance. Thanks. Surrey John   (Talk) 12:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, SurreyJohn, for your well-meant efforts. I suggest that the discussion we've had so far might be better reflected by something lik this:

Yours very truly, Opus33 (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that Opus33's suggestion really points up just how far we are from agreement on this issue. While I appreciate the spirit of his suggestion, I disagree with just about every one of the proscriptions he suggests.


 * For example, Mozart's piano concerto No. 21 is best known in this world as "The Elvira Madigan Concerto." I have never seen this discussed in any peer-reviewed scholarly reference source, but to ignore this fact would certainly be doing a huge disservice to our readers. The slow movement of Chopin's piano sonata number 2 has become emblematic of funerals. To list the number of times this piece has been used in film and TV would be laborious, indeed, but that the article completely ignores this fact is a kind of tyranny of cultural snobbery that is unacceptable.


 * The problem, in my eyes, is this insistence on calling these uses of classical works in other contexts "in popular culture". Why do we distinguish between its uses in "popular culture" and uses in other contexts? For example, is Ariel Dorfman's play Death and the Maiden (play) popular culture? Or is it high culture, and thus worthy of inclusion? What about the movie version of the play? Is the extraordinary rendition of Mozart's Symphony number 40 by Arab classical (popular?) singer Fairuz popular culture or high culture?


 * An article on a piece of classical music should certainly discuss the influence of that piece, including adaptation of the piece to other works or contexts. There is no reason that we should be excluding such adaptations just because the work to which the piece is adapted is liked by a whole lot of people. We are not arbiters of taste, we are encyclopedists. Who are we to say that a poem by Mark Doty is more worthy of inclusion in the article on the Grosse Fuge than a novel by Kim Stanley Robinson?


 * The key to what instances of adaptation to include is, in my eyes, one of significance. Before I started working on the article on the Grosse Fuge, I had heard of neither Doty nor Robinson; nonetheless, in the end, I included the reference to Doty, and deleted the reference to Robinson. Because I felt that the reference to Doty's poem added something substantive to the understanding of the fugue in our culture, popular or otherwise, while the reference to Robinson was mostly incidental.


 * I guess what I am trying to say is that the whole rubric "in popular culture" is a misnomer. We should be looking at significance, not at categories. If a piece's use in a Walt Disney film offers some insight into the piece's significance, then we should include it, regardless of how much we despise Walt Disney's films. --Ravpapa (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Elvira Madigan? I thought it was the "theme of Love Story" concerto...
 * It's all about references from reliable independent sources, not about which way the link goes (or both). Cross-links should not be imposed, that should be left to editor discretion.
 * The only other thing is to find ways of presentation that keeps it a bit in balance:
 * Here's how it is more or less contained: Salome (discard the bullets and the overview takes only one paragraph)
 * Here's going completely out of hand: Gymnopédies (entire scene descriptions when the music is used - just say its extremely popular background music, used uncountable times and name a few films that do so in a non-bulletted list, that should suffise)
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ravpapa's observation that we are far from agreement on this issue. The "revised proposal" doesn't follow fundamental principles for section headings (sentence case). It wrongly emphasises "significant prominence in a film …" and "cross reference", where the emphasis should be on significant coverage in reliable media and wider understanding of the composition. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yesterday I happened to see Mozart K. 467 (performed by the Met Orchestra and Maurizio Pollini) and the program note said something like "thank goodness the association with Elvira Madigan is fading." I agree that the heading "in popular culture" may not be the best description.  I have seen the heading "Other uses" used.  Perhaps something like "In other contexts" might be good? Additionally, I think the nature of these sections is one where there is often very little (if anything) written on these other contexts.  Can one really find sources for all the instances where (for example) the Pachelbel Canon has been used in numerous tv commercials? kosboot (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If I could reply specifically to Ravpapa: I think all of this hinges on ephemerality. (This is why my draft includes the words "when they refer to material that is in the public eye for only a limited period, they are likely to violate WP:UNDUE").  Mozart's The Magic Flute was written partly for a popular audience and might plausibly have been considered popular culture -- as of 1791. The fact that its fame did not fade and that listeners have treasured it for 200 years gives us plenty of license to include major coverage in WP. Ravpapa sensibly mentions some works that make reference to classical music and (exceptionally) have good prospects of having some kind of cultural permanence. I'm quite comfortable with including references to such works in WP.  And I suspect that such works are also the most likely to be supportable with scholarly reference sources. Opus33 (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe we are closer to agreement than I thought. Ephemerality is a good criterion. On the other hand, look at the case of Gymnopédies cited above. The fact is that the Gymnopedies are one of the most popular pieces of background music ever written by a classical composer, and that in itself justifies mention - especially since background music is precisely what Satie had in mind when he wrote the piece. On the other hand, the entire laundry list of examples should probably be moved to a separate article, as Surrey John has suggested. The truth is, I find these lists interesting, and Wikipedia is really the only place where such lists are compiled, so I would hate to see them disappear altogether. But in the main article, a couple of examples would surely suffice. I mean, there has to be some point, and a here-today-gone-tomorrow use of a piece usually does not have any point. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. "especially since background music is precisely what Satie had in mind when he wrote the piece" — popular misconception, but no. First, Gymnopédies is three pieces (not one), and Satie's intentions when he wrote them were quite far from those that got him to compose furniture music some twenty years later.
 * This shows that the elaborate "trivia list"-like treatment of reception history turns the focus away from what the article is about. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

As counterexample of the "overdeveloped" and "somewhat right" examples I gave above, here's one I consider underdeveloped:
 * Leoš Janáček — why only "in literature"? Where's the rest of the reception history? Why isn't The Unbearable Lightness of Being mentioned? People need an unlikely intuition to find another piece of the info here.
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I personally prefer Cultural references for the title of these sections. It avoids making distinctions between "high" and "low" (popular) culture. Firstly, the distinction is very blurry. Second and more importantly, the significance of a particular piece of classical music in so-called popular culture has often been widely discussed in books and journals and even been the subject of doctoral dissertations. As such, it definitely belongs in the article about the music. Two examples which spring to mind are the uses of the William Tell Overture and Cavalleria rusticana. However, in my view, such cultural references should only be added to the article about the music if the significance of that use has been documented in reliable (and preferably scholarly) sources. The mere mention of it in the soundtrack section of IMDB is not sufficient. Soundtracks are chosen for all kinds of reasons. If the WP article about the pop culture item mentions that a particular piece of music was used, covered, adapted, etc., it should link to the music article. However, there is no need to link back to the pop culture article from the music article if the use cannot be documented as particularly significant. And a general hint about guidelines... Ones that are too wordy and try to cover all the bases and every conceivable outlying case are counterproductive. Keep it short and simple and just add the caveat that like all guidelines, it should be treated with common sense. Voceditenore (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Uses in popular culture (revision 2)
Although grateful for the contribution to the discussion, I’m afraid I too disagree with almost all of ’s suggestions, and agree with. These music articles are about all aspects of a musical piece, not just its composition. Use in popular culture should not be excluded, deleted or hived off into another article (unless they overwhelm the core article). Demanding peer-reviewed sources (and Ephemerality) still seems to be being suggested as a tool to prevent content that some find uninteresting appearing in 'their articles'. I hope this is not the case. We should all keep a neutral point of view, and not try to bias sources to support our own views (see WP:NPOV). Mozart’s Piano Concerto No 21 is a great example of the impact its use in a film has had. Over the past 6 years, the Andante has had over 30 million views in YouTube. The second most popular Mozart piano piece (half as many views) is Fur Elise, yet a large section has been removed from its article. The greatest Mozart "hit" here is a Rap with over 60 million views – a massive count by any standard and all three certainly justify inclusion in popular culture articles.
 * There has been discussion on what this section should be titled: "In Popular Culture" is a generic title used throughout Wikipedia, and although I’m not keen on the title, I believe common layout and titles are preferable to a hotchpotch of different articles. To differentiate between High and Low culture is also likely highly controversial. "Cultural References" may be better in some cases, but I suggest we leave this out of the guideline for now, so the final decision can be left to editor discretion.
 * Ephemerality requires us to predict the future, and is highly subjective. Clearly we don’t have to wait 200 years (for Magic Flute), or even 1 year to record the use of music. Montagues and Capulets (Dance of the Knights) is currently the stirring opening theme of UK’s "The Apprentice". As a prime-time TV program, this music will now be in many a persons mind, and already in the article!
 * Francis Schonken@undefined: Love story was composed by Francis Lai. Cross-linking is good practice, but I talk you point about not making this too wordy, so agree it may be better not included. Keep it simple!
 * Michael Bednarek@undefined: I hope I've taken on board your comments too. I am suggesting the music should have significant prominence in work where it appears, not just films. Classical music may be used in a film/soundtrack, play, TV commercial, Video Game, wedding and funeral march, in space, a French resistance warning, and much more.
 * WP in an encyclopedia, not a text book: Important or significant uses should be recorded here (not hidden elsewhere). It should be possible for a person to read the article as an encyclopedia to determine where they thought they heard a piece of music, etc.
 * There have been numerous examples listed above of popular culture uses, all justified, and all with content included in their articles. Any new guidance should be written in such a way that ALL these examples comply with the new guideline.

There are two aspects to including an item on popular culture. First the mere fact that "X was used in Y", and then the impact of that fact in making a piece popular.
 * 1) A piece of music being used in a film, play, TV advert, videogame, etc, is a statement of fact, not a point of view. This fact is likely to be common knowledge, so only if likely to be challenged, should is actually require a citation (see WP:V).
 * 2) The impact of the use of X in Y, may be a point of view, so here the WP:NPOV guidelines apply. Also a citation will be required to support the statement. However, newspapers may be accepted sources whereas some self-published books may not! There is no special requirement for "peer-reviewed" or "scholarly" sources. If for example, there is no suitable source for Elvira Madigan, then rather than indiscriminately deleting the material, one should simply state that the Andante from Mozart’s Piano Concerto No 21 was used as a theme, and omit the impact.

So with the above feedback, I have revised and simplified the section as follows:

We need to move forward with this, so no please filibustering. Please limit feedback to the actual text of the proposed change and keep it brief. I appreciate that not everyone wants this content in 'their articles' so I do hope we can come to come agreement. Thanks,  Surrey John    (Talk) 11:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like more of a reception history approach. The new proposal is too wordy, misses the point for much of its wording, and "in popular culture" is not something aside from reception history, it is a part of reception history. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed the suggested titles from version 1, and instead link to WP:IPC, which allows for alternates tiles. Title realy depends upon content, and I dont think it belongs in this guideline. Perhaps Its not wordy enough and that needs to be made clear!  Surrey John    (Talk) 12:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no, you seem to miss the point (as also the guidance proposal seems to miss the point): what I said was that I'd like more of a reception history approach (bolding added). There's indeed too much about what goes in which section already, and my reserve is not about section names as such. E.g. "Discographies, staged performances, TV productions and other adaptations should be described is their own section" is unnecessary instruction creep --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Francis that aiming more in the direction of reception history is the right direction. We need to avoid trivia and ephemera and to get away from the notion that the use of musical works in other works is confined to popular culture. OK, the concepts ephemera and trivia are subjective, but all that means is that we sometimes need discussion of specific cases. We don't need a crystal ball -- we wait until something is demonstrated to have lasting significance. Reliable secondary sources may not be necessary to verify use in another work, for the same reasons that reliable secondary sources aren't needed for plot sections, but independent sources are needed to demonstrate notability. I find it difficult to believe that the use of a work in a single TV commercial, video game or TV series's opening theme tune could normally be considered non-trivial. If a work is frequently being used in such things, then that is worth noting, but (allowing for very rare exceptions) one such use is almost by nature ephemeral. Major use in a major work (a recurring theme in a film; the theme for a notable set of variations; ...) is another matter. However, I disagree with 's insistence on peer-reviewed scholarly sources about the work in question. We need reliable sources that are relevant, but that is all that need to be said about sources. --Stfg (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll set aside my minor quibbles and focus on the last sentence "Discographies, staged performances, TV productions and other adaptations should be described is their own section" which I find lacks clarity and doesn't seem to be prompted by anything in the previous discussion. Does this mean that discographies, staged performances, TV productions should each receive their own section? Or a section that's different from "in popular culture" (a section name I definitely don't like because of its exclusionary implication)? kosboot (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I would suggest the Largo from the New World in the Hovis advert, and Bach's air for Hamlet cigars were classics of their time. Also many classic TV themes are anything but trivial (Old grey whistle test; Going for a song, The Apprentice, etc, etc, in fact all the examples already given). It all depends on your interests and perspectives. That is why we need to separate the facts, and the impact.
 * There has surely been enough discussion and expressing of views, and we now need to focus on the changed text or we'll be going around in circles forever. My intention with the third paragraph (indeed the whole section) is to simply reiterate what current practice is. "Discographies", "Staged performances", and "TV productions" have all been used as sections in there own right. I didn't mean to dictate what section headers should be, and certainly don't want this guideline implemented retrospectively. It's not in the old/existing version, so I'm happy to drop it. Otherwise, perhaps you may like to suggest an alternative text. Whatever we do, nothing is written in stone. This is Wikipedia!   Surrey John    (Talk) 16:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're doing a good job of convincing me that the current standard is as good as we're going to get, I'm afraid. New World in Hovis ad, Bach in Hamlet cigars, ..., all these things are anecdotal. The fact that they are very well known doesn't make them any less trivial. They tell us nothing about the New World largo or the Bach air. By themselves they tell us nothing about music in general either. They don't even tell us about the bread or the cigars. All they tell us about is the adverts. The reason we cannot separate the facts and the impact is that by doing so we would sacrifice the ability to assess what is significant and what is trivial. --Stfg (talk) 08:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * They tell us about their use in popular culture! Even with no analysis about impact (which in most cases there is), popularity and significant use are still an important facts. Surrey John    (Talk) 09:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

SurreyJohn, I know you mean well but my sense at this point is you are trying to nag the project into doing something for which there is no consensus. Opus33 (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if the proposal was broken down into more manageable pieces we might be able to act upon it? (My basic feeling is that these sections should not be deleted - I think many agree; the question is how to deal with them and what to call them.

I am following this discussion at a distance (so far) but I have to concur that I do not find any consensus. I always worry when someone advancing any view takes the attitude 'there has surely been enough discussion and expressing of views'/'We need to move forward with this, so no please filibustering', etc., which I find rather dismissive than consensual. In fact relatively few people have expressed views and they divide into camps which are some distance apart. My inclination is to those who hold reservations about SurreyJohn's enthusiasm. I think the suggestion above (by Kosboot?) to treat the proposal piece by piece might be helpful. (By the way, Für Elise is by Beethoven, not Mozart).--Smerus (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually I think there is quite a lot of agreement here, although clearly not everyone agrees on every point. The topic have been discussed for 6 weeks, and as I instigated this I am trying to bring things to a conclusion. I'm doing my best to move things slowly forward. At this point I would rather see simple feedback on what we agree about, or some genuine suggestions at revised text that people are likely to find acceptable. There may be a majority view, but I doubt there will ever be complete agreement.

I dont agree "that the current standard is as good as we're going to get" - it "stinks": If policy and/or guideline pages directly conflict, one or more pages need to be revised to resolve the conflict so that all of the conflicting pages accurately reflect the community's actual practices and best advice. As a temporary measure during that resolution process, if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume that the policy takes precedence. I should also point out if anyone hasn't read the WP:TRIVIA page that the guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections: It is better to have poorly presented information (facts) than not presented at all, and does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. "A selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information". I think that is the crux of the debate here, and we juse need to express what we do want in a new guideline. Surrey John   (Talk) 16:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Significant" uses in popular culture music are NOT trivia (but we need some for of guidance to define significant)
 * Avoid recommending a title (and use of High/Low culture) as part of guideline
 * Prefer prose to long lists of facts (although lists are sometimes useful)
 * Split out "trivial lists" into a separate article if excessive length
 * References are needed for notability (but not necessarily established facts)
 * Keep it brief, simple and clear
 * "such edits should be discouraged" (and removed) is against the WP:TRIVIA policy.
 * "they are usually of little interest to readers" is untrue and condescending.
 * "contributions of this sort should be politely reverted" is not a WP:NPOV, a form of censorship, so also against policy.
 * The guideline does not reflect actual practices.


 * My comment about "as good as we're going to get" didn't mean the best conceivable, but the best I feel able to hope for in practice, given the way the discussion is shaping up. Read my comment again. You're driving me, for one, away, with shouty capitals, accusing a major project contributor of filibustering, telling us what sort of comments you expect from us ("At this point I would rather see simple feedback on what we agree about, or some genuine suggestions at revised text that people are likely to find acceptable.") and wikilawyering about policies and guidelines.


 * Insofar as some people have said some things that other people have agreed with, obviously there's a measure of agreement, but I don't yet see anything close to a consensus for how to update the section. If you think otherwise, you could always have another go at formulating an amendment that would capture that agreement without overriding other editors' views. At the moment, I personally don't see what it would look like. I can assure you, though, that anything in the direction of stating bald facts about symphonies and things being quoted in TV commercials would get an oppose from me. I was interested when you first raised this, because I see that the way music is used is a significant part of the history of music (as I said back then), but those things are trite and undue weight for a discussion of a major work of music. OK in an article about marketing or in one about brown bread, but not about the symphony.


 * WP:TRIVIA and WP:IPC aren't the only story in town. We're here to discuss what does and does not contribute to making a good article specifically about music. While we shouldn't violate policies and wikipedia-wide guidelines, we can and should add to them what needs to be said about specialist areas. --Stfg (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

A totally unacceptable proposal
I would like to offer an analysis of this discussion that is startlingly different from my first post, and then make a suggestion that will be totally unacceptable to everyone.

I think that there is actually a lot more agreement here than appears at first reading. All these references to specific examples suggests that there are many different cases, and each needs to be handled differently. The stupendous success of the Gymnopedies as film music is certainly a phenomenon, and needs to be mentioned, and maybe even made into a separate article. The occasional appearances of the Death and the Maiden quartet in TV commercials is probably irrelevant. And that our friend Francis thought that Mozart 31 belonged to Love Story and not to Elvira Madigan is possibly one of the best arguments for including that fact in the article.

I think we all agree that there are cases where reuses of a piece are relevant to the article, and other cases where they are not. We just don't all agree on where the boundary falls. We need to deal with this on a case by case basis.

Under the circumstances, perhaps the best thing to do is to have no standard at all. Let's simply delete the standard, and fight it out on talk pages as the issue comes up. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, as said I'd rather go in the direction of a more comprehensive view on reception history, and improve guidance starting from that idea. Didn't see anyone making an objection to that, or is there, and did I miss it? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Dunno about totally unacceptable to everyone, but "Let's simply delete the standard, and fight it out on talk pages as the issue comes up" is silly. On what criteria would we fight it out? We'd end up having this same discussion 2000 times. --Stfg (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Francis Schonken@undefined: Introducing reception history now, is what I call filibustering! I felt we nearly had agreement, and now were going off on tangents.
 * Stfg@undefined: I agree. The many authors who have already written these articles must want them.
 * Ravpapa@undefined: I'm not sure this new section is adding anything, except distracting from the original discussion. You appeared to be in agreement, so why this new section titled unacceptable?  Surrey John    (Talk) 09:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I introduced reception history well before the 2nd revision proposal . In my modest view the "in popular culture" puzzle isn't solvable without taking that broader approach. 'When' I proposed that framework is of less importance. It can lead to a swift agreement I think, for a proposal that was going nowhere for several weeks due to lack of consensus. Sorry for not being able to follow up every discussion more actively. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "The many authors who have already written these articles must want them." – There's much that people want, but Wikipedia has some standards for article content, incl. WP:TRIVIA & WP:INDISCRIMINATE. // Reception theory explains different reactions to a creative work, based on the audience's background; it doesn't help to determine what's appropriate; reliable sources about usage and impact do. Like Stfg, I'm convinced "that the current standard is as good as we're going to get". (, you might want to consult the documentation for @; I suspect it's not doing what you intend.) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC). Thanks for the tip - Apologies to anyone I've been spamming.   Surrey John    (Talk) 11:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that reminder to WP:TRIVIA, Michael. It does not say that articles should not have them; rather it encourages a standardized way of presenting the information so that it's not an indiscriminate list of information.  Perhaps that could be done by having sections with and without sourcing. kosboot (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Oops Reception history apparently redirects mistakenly to Reception theory, which displays a massive sourcing problem. That's not what I meant. reception history doesn't help either. So you'll have to understand me without the square brackets: "reception history". How and when and with how much success a composition was performed and recorded and otherwise referred to or presented is all part of the reception history, without confining it to some sort of badly explained "theory". --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * One way to indicate reception history (aside from writing a proper article on it) would be to have all the information in chronological order as much as possible. Perhaps even begin each item in the list with the year. kosboot (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ?? Where did that come from? I've read some reception histories (many of them written before Wikipedia existed), and true, often there is some chronology in the account, but in general I'd like to see less bulleted lists (few reception histories are written in that format). Grouping history of the printed editions; of the notable performances; of the way it permeated collective memory; etc in separate divisions are no less established in the practice of writing reception histories. Here's an example of a "reception history" that starts with a 21st century example, before shifting back to a 19th century example and only after that getting back to the first publication, etc. I don't say that's how a Wikipedia reception history section should typically look like, but I hope what I try to say here comes over a bit broader than "let's have more chronological lists". --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I would point out that WP:TRIVIA does not really address the issue of references to a work in popular culture, nor does WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which these types of references certainly are not. What is directly relevant to this discussion is WP:"In popular culture" content, which is not a guideline but an essay. I am guessing that it is an essay because the same debate we are having here has been thrashed about everywhere else in the pedia, and no consensus has been reached. Which makes me think: what have we said here that has not already been said in that essay? And, under the circumstances, do we really want or need a guideline in this matter? --Ravpapa (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Suppose you're rather looking for WP:PRIMARY: "be cautious about basing large passages on (primary sources)". No need to rehash that. Gymnopédies falls short of that policy, so it is a problem. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps the guidelines we need are admonishments to make them have some kind of logic (following WP:TRIVIA and WP:INDISCRIMINATE) and for others not to delete them. kosboot (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up the confusion about Reception theory. I'm not sure I fully understand whats being suggested, but do accept ordered and structured information is preferable to random facts, and suggest that the WP:TRIVIA guideline may suffice (see my discussion above). I think the way forward is to reference WP:TRIVIA and WP:IPC, rather than repeat it. I do realise WP:IPC is an essay, so was careful not to call it a policy. is absolutely right about admonishments, especially if there has been a lack of understand, and possibly edit wars in the past. Any guideline should be clear, unambiguous, and consistent with policy. Surrey John    (Talk) 16:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Uses in popular culture (revision 3)
Well I've left things another week and no more comments, so here is version 3. I hope you all realise I am trying to follow the Wikipedia Policy and Guidelines, which is why am involving you all to reach some sort of consensus. Sorry if you're all fed up with this. It's a thankless task for me as well!

Surrey John   (Talk) 16:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. "Try to include the part of the music used, where or how it was used, and in which year." No, misses the point, in most cases this would be unnecessary detail. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Instead of "other other subject" what about: "or other medium." Also, I think it's much more complex than the second sentence indicates. Why not something like "This can often make a hitherto unfamiliar work more popular, or can add commentary or editorializing to the context where it is used." kosboot (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the appropriate response to your efforts has already been made by Stfg above, in his/her comment of 17:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC), and I suggest to other editors that they read this comment if they haven't already. The wording #3 you've given is hardly a compromise at all; indeed, reading it through I think it comes across as an open invitation to abandoning editorial judgment. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 06:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I entirely concur with Opus 33 above and the response of Stfg cited therein.--Smerus (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm afraid I don't think this new version has managed to "capture that agreement without overriding other editors' views". Sorry. --Stfg (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There are too many comments above to figure out which is the comment by Stfg that Opera33 refers to. Can someone reproduce it down here? kosboot (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You could search the page for the string "17:53, 24 October 2014". It only appears twice. :) Hope this helps And by the way it is Opus33, not Opera33. DBaK (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's this one. --Stfg (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Opus33 (pardon for the typo - opera is often on my mind). Having gone through discussion and looking again at the comment above, I don't understand what are the details of the objections. Perhaps we can break down the discussion a bit more to see where there is/isn't consensus.  I do see there is some divergent views concerning the inclusion of various instances "in popular culture." All of us appear to agree that having a citation to a reliable source that refers to the instance is a good thing.  Some of us appear willing to accept only that (i.e. the reference must have a citation to a reliable source), while others are willing to accept instances without the reliable source citation.  Is that the point of contention?  If so, is it not reconcilable in some manner? What other points of contention exist? kosboot (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Break down aspect 1: don't encourage editors to give superfluous detail
Taking Kosboot's challenge:
 * Re. "Try to include the part of the music used, where or how it was used, and in which year." No, misses the point, in most cases this would be unnecessary detail. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I think in many cases something like this would be perfectly acceptable: "The popularity of the piece is shown by its use in Widely Known Film 1, Widely Known Film 2, and Widely Known Video Game Z, and plenty of (unnamed lesser known) other productions. " not the undigestable detail of Gymnopédies --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Further on the topic of Gymnopédies: too much detail often leads to incorrectness. Most of them say the used Gymnopédie is No. 1. Which is nonsense: when the background music is played by an orchestra characteristically starting with the harp arpeggios, that would be No. 3 (piano version) = No. 1 (Debussy orchestration). When it is played on the piano, it would usually be the actual No. 1 (in Satie's original piano version). So, less detail given can often lead to less confusion. Just say "Gymnopédie music is used in..." Explain the difference (as it is already in the article), but avoid inferring the detail from the primary source (unless when you know what you're talking about) --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * . In addition to your last point, the approach you suggest keeps the focus on the music that's the subject of the article, rather than shifting it to the works that quote it. --Stfg (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * By the way, as has been mentioned before, could we try to avoid the term "popular culture", which excludes too much. Other things that might be listed here are: use in liturgical settings (e.g. slow movement theme of Beethoven Pathétique as plainchant for Psalm 24), use as examination pieces. I'm not sure that all films qualify as "popular culture" either (we shouldn't need to beg that question). --Stfg (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I thoroughly agree with not using the idiom "in popular culture" (although the general WP guidelines use that title: WP:IPC). kosboot (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC) The phrase I suggested some time back was "cultural references." kosboot (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Break down aspect 2: when the derived work gave a noticable boost to the popularity of the music/composer, highlight it
(and don't let it get swamped in a list where it is treated on "equal value" level with a lot of other productions that were less instrumental to nesting the music/composer in collective memory), examples: --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Amadeus (film) for Mozart
 * The Unbearable Lightness of Being (film) for Janacek
 * Fantasia (1940 film), more for Stravinsky's Sacre (the film made the composition "salonfähig"), Bach's Toccata (the film made "absolute music" accessible for many who hadn't even heard the word) and Mussorgsky's Night on the Bald Mountain, than for Beethoven's sixth or Tchaikovsky's ballet suite
 * 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) for Strauss' Zarathustra and for Ligeti (virtually unknown avant-garde composer at the time), less for the other Strauss's Blue Danube (although a quite remarkable image/music combination that deserves some note too but probably rather in the article on the film than in the article on the Waltz).
 * I just looked at the mentioning of Apocalypse Now in the Ride of the Valkyries article from this perspective. Wikipedia doesn't do very well here...
 * There are two similar sections "Notable usage" and "In popular culture"... why? what's the difference? Why would one need two separate sections on more or less the same topic? (also illustrates the unsuitability of "In popular culture" as mentioned by many here)
 * And yes, the most emblematic "Notable usage" of the Ride of the Valkyries *is* swamped in other info... It is in the second of the two sections mentioned in the previous point, in its last paragraph, at the end of a sentence that first mentions an unrelated cartoon that is by far no competition to the award-winning Apocalypse Now film.
 * So no, we definitely need to do better. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It may not be the best example, since that article is in its early stages of development (e.g most of the best information is in the lede). Interestingly, though, it does follow the style you suggest in breakdown aspect 1: "The Ride of The Valkyries is frequently used in filmmaking and television productions" followed by illustrative examples. I've boldly merged the "Notable usage" and "In popular culture" sections using suggestion "Cultural references", which seems exactly right. --Stfg (talk) 09:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry I think I have overwritten your changes, ran into an edit conflict when doing a complete overhaul of the article.
 * For clarity:
 * This is the version my original remarks referred to: (and yes I was looking for an example that specifically was about the second topic of this breakdown, but couldn't find one that wasn't also a topic 3 issue)
 * After Stfg's updates:
 * My overhaul
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey, don't worry. My changes were (I hope) an improvement, and your changes were a further improvement. Onwards and upwards! ;) --Stfg (talk) 09:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * (e.c.) Re. "It may not be the best example, since that article is in its early stages of development". Pardon? You're missing my point I think: impose the reception history logic from the early stages of the article, keeps it structured even with major gaps in the info. And yes the "core" of this article is reception history (of the separate piece), there's enough articles on Walküre and Ring for most of the rest. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I wasn't missing your point, but we can't apply a standard from the outset until we know what the standard is. A start-class can't represent the best current practice, is all I meant. And "impose the reception history logic from the early stages of the article" may be the ideal, but it won't always happen, and I don't think it matters if articles are started and then need improvement, in this or any other aspect. Anyway, regarding this one, it's looking good now. --Stfg (talk) 10:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't looking for examples that would demonstrate a rosy "all is fine" for current state of affairs (If you have, a few counterexamples that would demonstrate it's maybe less problematic than we think, and that would be suitable to base guidance updates upon, would certainly be appreciated!) The example is a "good" example as it shows the need to improve the guidance. Also, please accept my disclaimer, this isn't about criticism of contributors to such articles (for example the Gymnopédies issues I mentioned above are not without my own prior doing). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Break down aspect 3: integrated view on reception history
We're telling and illustrating the reception history of the piece/composer: no "in popular culture" section unless when it's a discernable & broadly documented topic in that reception history.

Meaning, when there's two commercial recordings, no life concert (or staged performance) since the premiere (with little press criticism at the time), one instance of another composer re-using the theme of the piece (e.g. for a set of variations), and a single use in a TV commercial, there's no reason for separate "Performances", "Discography", "in popular culture" and the like sections, treat it all under "reception history". --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I politely disagree. I think there should be separate sections (per the guidelines) for performances, discography and whatever the "in popular culture" will be called. Yes, it's all part of reception, but the vast majority of people don't study reception.  They're looking for the individual manifestations. kosboot (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That we would need to tweak what is said about these related section types in the WPCM guidelines, to get the "reception history" approach across was already becoming clear to me.
 * Re. "what people are looking for" argument: I refer to the Trivia guidelines: we don't always accomodate what people want. Some people want juicy stories. Or negativity neatly grouped (see here). We don't always concede to that. We do encyclopedic standards, or the nearest we can get to them. This is an opportunity to move in that direction. Look, the reason all proposals thus far in this section fail is because all af them are a little or a big step away from encyclopedic standards, notwithstanding that the current WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines is not nearly good enough. I don't see a consensus raising on anything that is nearly as bad or worse. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Francis for these very helpful analyses and proposals (breakdown aspects 1-3). I also subscribe to the reservations about the term "in popular culture". --Smerus (talk) 06:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks indeed. On the specific issue, we can perhaps distinguish between what are performances and recordings of the work in question as such and the work's use in other works, possibly with various degrees of mangling, remixing, excerpting and so on. For the latter, I like Kosboot's suggestion of "Cultural references". For the former, distinct sections on Discography and Performances seem OK to me, providing the things mentioned in them are genuinely encyclopedic. --Stfg (talk) 09:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I would not make general rules about that, see e.g. Category:Porgy and Bess where does "performance"/"recording" end and "adaptation" (as a Jazz standard, orchestral suite, by the orignal composer, by later composers/musicians or whatever) start?
 * The only catch-all phrase is "reception history", and the subdivisions of that depend on a case-by-case article optimalisation, more in an "editorial discretion" line of approach (although the guidance should offer some directions I'm sure but less in a "fixed rules" kind of framework). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Just brainstorming in front of you all but here's a draft of a nucleus of what I'd like to see inscribed in the relevant guidance:

--Francis Schonken (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you've gone off on a tangent, and we need to get back to what this discussion was about. I realise this is intended as a brainstorming, but it like an essay about reception history, not a guideline. You appear to want us to make Reception history sections that cover pretty much everything except what the composer him/herself did. That seems to me to be a very bad idea in itself, lumping together too many diverse things, and I think it's unnecessary instruction creep. Some specific points:


 * 1) Let's not get embroiled in composer articles -- they are different from articles about works. Many of our composer articles, including featured articles, have sections called Legacy. AFAIK that has never been seen as a problem. The rest of my comments are specifically about articles about musical works.
 * 2) Once again, we have some perfectly acceptable ways of doing things like sections on Discography, Critical reception, and so on. Apart from the In popular culture sections, AFAIK no problems have been identified with this, and no good reason has been given to believe that the articles that present them as separate top-level sections are creating a problem by doing so. So we don't need to add anything new to the guideline about these topics.
 * 3) The term Reception history feels like jargon. It may (I don't know) be accepted terminology among musicologists (but I've read a lot of musicology and never seen it before). Imho it communicates very little to the general reader. From what you've written in the box, you appear to intend it to include far more than I gleaned just from the words. I agree with 's comment above, timed at 15:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC).

This whole thing got started because it was suggested that we could improve our guideline about In popular culture sections. I think we need to get back to that scope and not get carried away. Two things I get from the discussions so far are:


 * It's not only popular culture, but all culture.
 * Need to keep the focus on the topic of the article and avoid giving undue weight to other things.

I really don't think we need to do more than to improve the already quite good IPC section of our guideline a little. Your first two "break down points" help us to do that, but this "integrated view on reception history" approach is several steps too far, imho. Sorry.

BTW, when you hit an edit conflict and you allow your version to override the other editor's version, you should merge them, not merely bat the other version aside. You knew you were doing it, as revealed by the "oops" edit summary. When you discarded mine, you also removed my reinsertion of the mention of the Brooks film, which was cited. Please could you restore that to the article in whatever place you think appropriate.

Finally (at last!), "Best known use in film of the "Ride" is probably ..." is editorializing and is not supported by your source (which anyway is about the not-very-well-known 289-minute work print, not the cinema release). --Stfg (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Some answers:
 * Re. "Ride" edits, I think I solved both problems you mentioned: Sorry for the inconvenience I caused by how I handled the edit conflict.
 * Re. "compositions only", OK (for now)
 * Re. "Legacy" sections: I hadn't actually yet gotten to how such sections can be named. Obviously they need not always be named "Reception history"
 * Re. "essay": correct, since we can't use reception history nor reception history to explain the concept an intro is needed.
 * Re. "musicologist's jargon": actually no, the first reception history I remember having read was about Goethe's Werther.
 * Re. section header level(s) of related sections: I hadn't actually gotten to that either, was planning on keeping most of WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines and similar guidance on that page.
 * Re. limiting to what is currently WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines: in this "break down aspect 3" subsection I'm exploring the possibility that the "in popular culture" issues with the current guidance maybe can't be really solved by focussing on that topic separately. I add a new subtopic breakdown No. 4 for finding consensus on solutions limited to the popular culture separate topic. But in this third breakdown I suppose exploring the broader approach is in order. When no consensus can be reached I'm fine with that — I'd like to explore the possibility, and offer solutions to real problems.
 * Re. "Reception history sections (covering) pretty much everything except what the composer him/herself did" — incorrect. what the composer did after the creation of the piece is pretty much a part of reception history. An example: most of the dozens of letters Janacek wrote regarding Jenufa are reception history related. It's rather about genesis of the piece separated from what happened after that, which is usually a clear point in time (and in the narrative about the history of the piece).
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Break down aspect 4: solutions limited to a rewrite of WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines
Per Stfg's suggestion in the break down aspect 3 section above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pulling back on track, I appreciate that. If someone (anyone) wants to discuss a broader or different topic, I have no problem, but they should open up a new topic for discussion. Reception history covers the whole history of a work, not just (and possibly not even) its use in popular culture, so any reference to it within this small section is going to cause far more confusion than clarity. Guidelines are for providing clarity. Surrey John   (Talk) 10:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Uses in popular culture (revision 4)
To bring up back into line and chronological order, I'm re-posting the last proposed version (now 4) and I hope you wont mind me demoting the three "breakdowns" to sub-sections of the previous version in order to keep some semblance of structure. : Yes, I think "other medium" is a no-brainer, so done that. I dont think there is sufficient agreement on what these sections are called, and not dictate any one title that must be used in this guidance. I would sooner leave it to author discretion and anyway, there is further guidance within WP:IPC. The sentence "Try to include the part of the music used, where or how it was used, and in which year" was an attempt to add flesh to the bones of otherwise bare facts. It can be kept, improved, or deleted, but I dont want to delete it based only on one persons feedback.

Thanks  Surrey John    (Talk) 10:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm generally positive about this formulation. However the last sentence I find ambiguous: "A long list of indiscriminate uses should be avoided...However, if information is otherwise suitable" - what is not clear to me is what determines whether a entry is indiscriminate or suitable.  It seems contradictory. Also, one of the objections above was to the inclusion of year. Is that still an objection? kosboot (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess you're trying to modify the previous sentence. But I think putting it at the end creates more confusion. I think you should clearly state in the previous sentence something very clear, like: "Indiscriminate uses [example....] should be avoided. What makes for a suitable entry is [example]." kosboot (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm generally negative about this formulation. It's identical to version 3: this is tendentious editing. My comment on this is therefore the same as on version 3. The only way we're going to get any modification to the guideline is if we can achieve a consensus to do so, and playing broken record, ignoring anything you don't like, isn't going to get you there. You've ignored comments pointing out that is isn't only popular culture. If only one person objected to "Try to include the part of the music used, where or how it was used, and in which year" then I'll add my voice now: it's instruction creep. You've jumped on my comment on "break down aspect 3" to completely ignore all of Francis's contributions above, much of which was very good imho. And what I said in this edit. --Stfg (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * One issue that has been touched but not discussed is the format of this section. I know there are some that prefer only prose narrative (as at: William_Tell_Overture) and others who prefer a list (like Gymnopédies).  Maybe we should vote on that eventually.  (I guess my mention of "cultural references" might have come from the William Tell Overture or similar articles.) So here's my version—offered in the spirit knowing that it will and should be altered to meet consensus:

kosboot (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hm, now I'm thinking the word "significant" should be withdrawn in favor of "notable." If one wonders what constitutes notable, then it could be defined as having merited mention in a potential reliable source. kosboot (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah thank you, Kosboot -- this is getting somewhere. I suggest having only one list of example media, rather than two. I agree that "notable" is an improvement on "significant", with the idea of linking it to Wikipedian concepts of notability. One thing this draft loses is the concept of avoiding things that are "of little interest to readers who want to know about the musical work, and would be of greater interest to readers who want to know about the movie, TV show, or electronic game" (quoted from the current guideline). Do you think we can work this back in somehow? Can we manage to work in something along the lines of Break down aspect 2 ("when the derived work gave a noticeable boost to the popularity of the music/composer, highlight it")? I think it's important to remember that we're writing about the musical work, and important to avoid dumbing down. If we can achieve that, I can withdraw my objection to mentioning TV adverts, since either they really are notable (discussed in reliable sources) or we have the criterion that tells us which ones are not. Would it be a good idea to include at least one example of reuse in classical music (such as variations on a theme), to emphasise that we're interested in all reuses, not only those in popular culture?


 * Some minor copy edit suggestions: mediums → media; "in a section named "Cultural references" → "in a section with a suitable name (such as "Cultural references")" to avoid being over prescriptive; Examples of reuses → Examples of reuse; A long list of indiscriminate uses → A long, indiscriminate list of uses (or possibly of non-notable uses, as that's more to the point than is the length of the list).


 * I don't think we should give guidance about whether to use lists or prose. MOS:LIST allows both (with advice) and I think that's enough. --Stfg (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * What about this:

kosboot (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Very good indeed. Thank you, Kosboot. --Stfg (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Some thoughts:
 * It should generally be avoided to write guidance depending on assumptions of what would be of "interest to readers" (even when encapsulated in a sentence like "editors should consider whether the reuse will be of little interest to readers who want to know about ..., and would be of greater interest to readers who want to know about ...":
 * on a fundamental level it can't be known what editors "want (to know about)", unless some researcher (following acceptable research procedures) has researched it. It might be the research shows generally readers have a hanging for trivia. We don't know (except for myself I know, I like trivia, I must admit). Afaik, the research hasn't been done.
 * even if it were possible to know the general likes and dislikes of our readership, policies like WP:NOT are full of things editors (who are generally readers too) "liked", "wanted to know about" or "were interested in" at a certain point but that needed to be explicited as avoidable content for the encyclopedia.
 * What readers want or are interested in is about the shakiest base one can get for whatever guidance in Wikipedia, and prone to unending discussions (the judgement call "what readers are interested in" too easily transforms in "what I'm interested in shurely interests others too" when the discussion starts).
 * expliciting "notable" under its Wikipedia approach of use in RS: OK, that was really needed there.
 * I don't think the issues of break down topic #2 are handled very well yet in this proposal. I think "mentionings in passing" or "as examples of wider use/popularity" of the tune of a composition should be allowed but need to be distinguished from a more comprehensive treatement that is needed for the real popularity boosters. Mentioning where a tune has been used is not an on/off situation where one either gets the full treatement or no mentioning at all.
 * Also the superfluous detail of break down topic #1 is barely touched upon in this proposal.
 * I think this is moving in the right direction though, and would encourage further elaboration of this proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Francis's first bullet makes a good point. Would it be good to change


 * ... editors should consider whether the reuse will be of little interest to readers who want to know about the musical work, and would be of greater interest to readers who want to know about the movie, TV show, electronic game ...


 * into


 * ... editors should consider whether the reuse tells much about the musical work, rather than simply about the movie, TV show, electronic game ...


 * or something like that? Also, "true" in the second sentence isn't quite right, is it? Maybe "significant"? ;) --Stfg (talk) 09:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd support both of these finetunings suggested by Stfg. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I am encouraged to see you are making progress, and clearly we have some proposals, albeit not final, that are better than the current standard.
 * I do agree with first point about "interest to readers" and think  is still pushing in the direction of his interests and not the wider audience. There has already been much discussion on this and this was one of the key initial objections. I for one am a person who is interested in classical music, its use in popular culture, and what makes it popular including its use in other media. This can actually tell us more about the music (eg mood) than lists of performances and recordings, but that's irrelevant. Its the fact that the music x is (significantly) reused in y, that is important. I may have little interest in films and none at all in video games, but I still want to know if its been used, in what, and ideally a rough idea of by how much. Lets not forget that Wikipedia is (i.e. should be) an encyclopedia of facts.
 * On a completely different level, I also have an interested in system, business and user requirements, and compliance, so am very keen not to see guidance conflict with policy. When it does the outcome is always conflict.
 * There is a balance to be found between WP:indiscriminate and trivial use. The WP:TRIVIA guideline (probably better referred to as WP:MISCELLANEA) is often misinterpreted (as was the case before), or ignored (as is the case now). I believe some people here still regard classical/pop trivia as trivial which it is not, and without some re-balance I expect conflicts will continue with user edits being deleted by users who find them of little interest. The sentence "if information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all" is straight out of the policy, and if there a likelihood of misunderstanding than that or something similar is still required.
 * Giving a title as an example may be ok, but really the title should fit the content. If all the cultural references are to films, then "Use in films" would be the best title. Some articles include a single reference in the main body (eg Also sprach Zarathustra (Strauss)), and have no "in popular culture" section at all, which is equally acceptable.

Surrey John   (Talk) 10:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. "...think is still pushing in the direction of his interests and not the wider audience" — none of that is apparent from the finetunings Stfg suggested. I appreciate we are in the process of finding more common ground here, not limiting ourselves to entrenched positions. I'd suggest we look at one anothers contributions to this debate without prejudice and without second-guessing ulterior motives that are not by far apparent from the actual content of recent submissions to the debate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK - Then I think comments like "editors should consider whether the reuse tells much about the musical work, rather than simply about the movie, TV show, electronic game" suggests to me that edits will not be allowed if they dont tell something about the music, are are still pushing to have the information placed in a film or TV article instead. If a piece of music has been used in media, then that information belongs with the music article (assuming other criteria are met). Its also worth noting  comment early on in these discussions. Dont misunderstand me. I would prefer to see information about the music and how it was used too, but not to reject a significant use if it is only a use and not more to be said. See Symphony No. 9 (Dvořák) as a good example of a bad write up. There is more information given about the music if you read the article about a loaf of bread!   Surrey John    (Talk) 13:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was uncomfortable with that those words "editors should consider...", but I couldn't think of another way to express it. But for all those agreeing, don't just criticize without proposing a substitute! kosboot (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Goodness golly, on Saturday I was an angel and on Sunday I was a devil. Now the weekend is over, can I just be an ordinary mortal again? Just wanted to point out a couple of things in WP:TRIVIA:
 * " If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all."
 * "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies."

(my italics both times). WP:TRIVIA does not tells us we have to include or exclude any information; it tells us we need to develop our own local consensus, which is all this discussion is about. --Stfg (talk) 10:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * :Yes Suitable. This is why I had the line "The use should have significant prominence such as an introduction, reoccurring theme or background music to a popular film, the music to a pop song, or used in a long-running TV commercial."  I am trying to give guidance as to what is suitable (i.e. have significant prominence with examples) without it being too subjective.   Surrey John    (Talk) 13:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Break down aspect 5: relevant to what or to whom?
I suppose we all agree that what is included in the "popular"-related sections should be notable. I see two lines of thought in the discussion of aspect/proposal #4 above: (a bit a simplification but I think these are the alternative underlying rationales)
 * 1) the included items should be relevant to the reader
 * 2) the included items should be relevant to the topic of the article

Maybe we should discuss this aspect somewhat further? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree that pinning blame on the reader is a dicey approach. Even though the reader is our paramount consideration, let's leave him out of the standard.


 * I also prefer guidelines without all the truisms and other claptrap (like "Classical music often gets reused in numerous media which can form part of its modern history"). If I were the guideline Czar, and I were forced to write something on this subject, I would write:




 * (and remove everything else). Respectfully, --Ravpapa (talk) 07:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * . --Stfg (talk) 10:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * . kosboot (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * . Sorry, but I dont like the "and add to an understanding of the place of the piece in modern culture". Wikipedia is a dictionary reporting facts, and interpreting how the use of a music in media give understanding I would regard as a point of view, and probably also personal research.  Surrey John    (Talk) 14:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Re. "Avoid long lists of reuses" — maybe some nuance is missing here, e.g. Porgy and Bess discography is ostensibly nothing else than a "long list of reuses". Or would it be clear from the context this only applies to the "popular" reuses? Even then some nuance may be needed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about discographies. We're focused ONLY on the section "in popular culture" or "cultural references" or whatever it will be called. I think that is totally clear from the discussion above. kosboot (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The article The Hebrides (overture) contains such a list. Actually I find that list useful, but it has no citations. kosboot (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Avoid" doesn't mean "banned." Sometimes something just can't be avoided. As in Wikipedia's fifth pillar - "Wikipedia has no firm rules."


 * Is that nuanced enough? --Ravpapa (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure, as some people do seem to take such things as statute law ;) Is it the length or the indiscriminateness we need to avoid? If only the latter, does the main sentence already cover it? --Stfg (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Define notable? How does the author know what is notable? It is totally subjective, even if you have a citation. Does anything with a citation become notable (or vise-versa). Here notable could mean: noteworthy, outstanding, significant, memorable, pronounced, striking, extraordinary, exceptional, conspicuous (all synonyms of notable). Need to be more clear!   Surrey John    (Talk) 14:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I used to have difficulty with WP's sense of "notable" until I reconciled it with the idea that if you have a citation to a reliable source, that makes it notable (unless an editor disagrees). Ultimately a person's sense of a word is going to be different from another person's sense. To resolve such differences, it can be ambiguous by not defining the word "notable" and leaving it to the editor to decide what it means and whether their potential edit is notable. I can also agree with SurreyJohn in not being thrilled with "understanding of the place of the piece in modern culture." Perhaps instead of "understanding" we can substitute "seeing"?  Although I'm in favor of removing the clause altogether. kosboot (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Per policy, WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it confined to facts: the ideas of others, published in reliable sources, are as encyclopedic as facts are. A good example of how coverage of a reuse can "add to an understanding of the place of the piece in modern culture" without original research is the example we've been looking at: the use of Ride of the Valkyries in Apocalypse Now. That paragraph simply and factually describes how the music is used in the film, and that factual description shows rather clearly what the piece is being used for in that item of modern culture. Other cases might be where "the significance of a particular piece of classical music in so-called popular culture has often been widely discussed in books and journals and even been the subject of doctoral dissertations", to quote this post by.

Mention in reliable sources isn't enough in itself to establish notability, as attested by several sections of WP:NOT. Some of this discussion has been trying to tease out what we mean by "notable" and "significant". I'm trying to contribute to that understanding. I have nothing against Wikipedia documenting the fact that the New World largo is used in the Hovis advert -- in the right place. But what does it tell us about the New World largo? Not much, imho, unless you can find some academic or similar source that tells us that this largo is evocative of cloth caps and shire horses, or whatever. Then we have something to say based on a source, and fine. Otherwise what makes it significant? One editor's POV that this and the Hamlet ad are "classics of their time"? They didn't even air internationally.

We seem to be getting nowhere. Are we going to need an RFC? --Stfg (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think before we get to an RFC we need to clarify what should/should not be in this section. Personally speaking, I'm very liberal about inclusion, with or without citations.  I think I once read that Vocitditenore was very much against.  How does one balance that? Or is it possible? And if not possible, what then? kosboot (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What am I "very much against", kosboot? Read my post . I'm generally in favour of including these things if particular cultural references have been discussed in depth, not simply mentioned in passing. I'm in favour of properly integrating them into an article as coherent connected prose, rather than lists of factoids. I'm in favour of flexibility as to the best way to integrate the cultural references—depending on the article, different sections and/or headings may be preferable. But all that's just part of good encyclopedic writing. What I am definitely against is this mad instruction creep and, as I said before, these pointless attempts to cover all the bases and every conceivable outlying case. I am also very much against lengthy and counterproductive wrangles like this one over minute differences in phrasing and connotation. All guidelines should be treated with common sense, and if the issue becomes problematic in a particular article, work it out on its talk page collaboratively, using editorial judgement. Common sense and a sense of proportion seems to have completely gone out the window here. OK, I'll let you all get back to your wrangling now :-) Voceditenore (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for you feedback. I too am fed up with each version I put out being trashed, with new header sections being added immediately after. If the intention is to drive me away, then its working. I'm just about ready to give up ... well I need a holiday anyway!  Surrey John    (Talk) 19:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Voceditenore - yes you're in favor given all those conditions. I say they're great conditions, but the lack of them should not be a reason not to include such information in an article--as in the The Hebrides (overture) article.  There the information is not integrated and is just a list.  I think that is fine; someday someone will do something more with it. To remove it I feel is wrong. kosboot (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Really, kosboot? You're perfectly happy with telling the hapless reader that "Radiohead used a brief, yet recognisable motif from the piece in their song Paranoid Android" with absolutely no evidence that this is even true, let alone significant? This alleged "fact" is mentioned nowhere in Paranoid Android. For all we know, it could be completely made-up or simply the mistaken opinion of the person who added it. That's what references are for. The thing to do is remove them to the talk page until a reference can be found—not leave it there. Whether potentially erroneous or misleading information like this is in list form or not is immaterial. Voceditenore (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I feel like I may be on my own here, but why all the stringent conditions about (1) references, (2) notable, (3) add understanding. In the 2001 example, it was significantly used, verifiable and not disputed, and that's enough. There's been about 20 examples here and several hundred more in articles of uses which are of interest to our readers (all which could be impacted). No one has answered the question why it has to add understanding - Why Stfg? This is not some experts interpenetration of the composers thoughts or even about the music, but just a list (and/or details) of its use in popular culture. If x is used (significantly, popularly, or famously) in y, that should be enough. pointed out early on that uses in popular rarely get discusses in reliable sources, so finding such sources may be impossible. Are you all trying to prevent content about populate culture in these articles ... really? ... With creep back towards the original version it certainly seems that way. Surrey John   (Talk) 20:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In deference to the irritation expressed by Voceditenore, I was going to try to avoid posting much more in this discussion, but briefly, since you ask me: I do think that "significant" uses should be documented, for a given value of "significant", but above all I feel that articles about any subject should be written to inform readers about the subject of the article, and my fear is that if anything goes, articles can become overburdened with those "factoids", distracting from the subject of the article. It's primarily a question of balance and due weight. That's why Wikipedia has content guidelines like this all over the place. Not because we love rules and restrictions, but for reasons like due weight and other such considerations, to give articles focus.


 * Now I have a question for you. You often mention "significant" and earlier you acknowledged the "suitable" in WP:TRIVIA. What, in your view, would make any reuse in popular culture unsuitable or insignificant?


 * Other project members may well also be thinking what Voceditenore expressed. This has been almost circular for some time, and we don't seem to be bottoming out. If not an RFC, can we think of some other way to bring this to some kind of amicable conclusion fairly quickly, so that we can get of with the rest of our Wiki-lives? --Stfg (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey, but none of us are fighting or even angry--and that's a good thing! :) May I suggest that if the article gets overburdened with these factoids (either significant or not) it can be forked into a separate article? At that point, then the forked article will need some kind of formal attention. kosboot (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * For a while I was trying to keep to policy, simply to keep a neutral point of view and avoid disagreements, but that didnt work! I too am about the throw in the towel, at least for two weeks as Africa is beckoning.
 * I was already thinking of, but as I'm sure you are aware, they may look more towards policy and wont care too much for this discussion.  Also consensus doesn't mean unanimity, so a decision (or more likely indecision) could go either way. It is far better we try to reach agreement ourselves.
 * You answer: "articles about any subject should be written to inform readers about the subject of the article" ok good, so why not the same for a popular culture section: "the section (not article) about popular culture should be written to inform readers about the use in popular culture". Is that not logical? There are still safeguards.
 * Significance: "The use should have significant prominence such as an introduction, reoccurring theme or background music to a popular film, the music to a pop song, or used in a long-running TV commercial." I think speaks for itself. You have seen this sentence before, and I took care with almost every word to encapsulate what I thought you guys/girls would want.
 * Unsuitable/Insignificant: is harder to define but essential not the above: i.e. no reliable sources and only minor inclusion (<10s or <50%); not a theme or short run or regional TV advert ... Thats obviously way to technical an detailed, and I'm sure you don't expect that in a guideline.
 * Moving forward: Well I dont know and am loosing the will and time to carry on. I thought I was nearly there with rev.4 - not tendentious editing, but just reposting of rev.3 back (ok, 2 minor edits) at the bottom of the discussion to keep things in order (as explained in the opening para). The three simple paragraphs were intended to be (1) scene setting, 2 (guidance) and 3 (reference to further information). Apart from, I didnt see any suggested changes - just the hitting the destruct button (and starting again).
 * I dont think we are angry either, just passionate ... well about music that is! There are some very good technical authors here for whom we are very grateful. There are some more younger less experiences authors too who need simple basic guidance and sometimes encouragement on adding information about their films, CDs (or are they MP3s now), and games. In that way, they may become enthusiastic and passionate about music too. I guess I'm saying to everyone, dont give them too many hoops to jump through.   Surrey John    (Talk) 23:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed, when I attended a chapter meeting with Lila Tretikov (current CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation), she felt that the sprawl of the WP rules/guidelines is a major hindrance to new editors. Why not deal with this issue by stating that there's no agreement and briefly laying out the different styles and their pros/cons? kosboot (talk)


 * Surrey, no need to get ruffled. You have chosen to tackle an issue which has for years been in dispute in this project. There has been no agreement, and it doesn't look like there's going to be one in this discussion. That is why I suggested that we simply do away with the guideline in this matter. I don't see any reason that we need a uniform way of dealing with this in all articles. All articles are not the same, and each needs to be handled in its own way. Guidelines like this one usually just get in the way. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * May I offer the following as a way to conclude this discussion. Please substitute better language if you see fit:

This is actually much, much worse than the current unsatisfactory WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines. At least that version doesn't say Gymnopédies is a "model" to consider, so there is at least hope it can be somewhat remedied under the current guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't care for the Gymnopédies entry myself, but I note that is the very typical format given to many popular songs, even if they've originated as classical music. kosboot (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Tweaking Kosboot Ravpapa's proposal above:

? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (note: the WP:PRIMARY mentioning refers to what is currently worded thus: "" which would effectively make a distinction between examples mentioned in passing, and re-uses that are documented in secondary sources that are more fit for the "large passages", without excluding the other mentionings! --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC))

I dont like the references. Throwing in examples is more creep. They are atypical examples of long lists, and also no references. Just what were are trying to avoid. Nor Francis's tweek if it is putting a greater emphasis on references than what has been agreed. Actually I find it rather unclear. Also it is prohibiting simple "x was used in y" type encyclopedic and factual content. I feel we should try to put something together more neutral, very basic (so slightly better than nothing), and aligned with policy and current practice. Possibly two different options, possibly accept we don't agree and be honest about it, possibly add a sentence about choice of title and definitely refer to wp:ipc. Also provide a balanced view between wp:indiscriminate and wp:trivia with some sort of guidance (also to avoid long lists). Unless you dont want it, I'll try a version 6 later today - no time right now! If I do, it will be steady evolution, not big bang. If I were to start again (which I have no intention of doing) I would start by asking each of you to provide a list of requirements (say 6 to 10 simple bullet points), and then compare and qualify any new proposal against the lists. I'm ducking out of this in 3 days, but if anyone does want to start again, then I suggest you try this more structured approach. TTFN  Surrey John    (Talk) 14:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Re "prohibiting simple "x was used in y"" — actually, no. When "y" in that example is a primary source (a film or whatever), this would be perfectly in order. Maybe I overdid it a bit with the "demonstrated", verifiability doesn't actually say it needs to be demostrated with an obligatory reference to a source right away, so I modified to the usual policy level requirements (see updated proposal below).


 * In view of what is said below (topic #6) I was just now looking at related guidance like WP:IPC:
 * would not link to essays, so prefer a link to Manual of Style/Trivia sections (that links to some of the essays anyhow).
 * WP:INDISCRIMINATE policy-level, but in fact less applicable if you read it
 * In sum, I replaced the last sentence in my proposal above (we shouldn't disfavour a presentation in list format more than what is in the actual current guidance, the guidance suffises):
 * I also hope this can set participants like SurreyJohn somewhat more at ease, with regard to their remarks above: there's no intention to outdo current guidance/policy here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I also hope this can set participants like SurreyJohn somewhat more at ease, with regard to their remarks above: there's no intention to outdo current guidance/policy here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Francis. I could get behind any of these versions. (Note: the original version of this, which you've tweaked, was proposed by Ravpapa, not Kosboot.) --Stfg (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Tx, corrected. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

How about a tweek on 's original:

Here we get your points across, but do not add any extra burdens, instead relying on Wikipedia's various policies (including WP:SOURCES).

I like 's first version too (from the version 4 section), before it got modified. I must have missed it and only commented on the revised version. Again, it doesn't add extra burdens but simply relies on WP's regular guidelines. Surrey John   (Talk) 19:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Consensus proposal?

 * Minor tweak (primary sources can be reliable sources in the context, what is meant are the third party reliable sources):
 * I can live with the rest of SurreyJohn's proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I can live with the rest of SurreyJohn's proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not with Francis, but I can live with this proposal ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurreyJohn (talk • contribs)
 * You see, concentrating on the content, and not on who says it, makes the possibility of a consensus seem less far away. I'm adding a subsection title, and looking forward to know what others think. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I could live with this version (just). I'd support it if it came to an RFC. --Stfg (talk) 10:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry everyone, but I can't accept it with that weasel word "preferable", which really means that anything goes. I would accept the following tweak to remove the weasel word:




 * but not the version at the top of this section, I'm afraid. (By the way, WP:TRIVIA is a guideline, not a policy.) --Stfg (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No Stfg: This is now adding a requirement that everything has to have a reference to "third-party reliable sources". It may be preferable, possibly required for expert views, but not for everything (eg simple undisputed facts), and depending upon how you read it, it may also be saying you can only refer to items that "add to understanding...". Its either badly worded or unacceptable.  Surrey John    (Talk) 00:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Break down aspect 6: temporary stages
Another topic I see in previous discussions: should the guidance expressly allow for "temporary stages" of popular-related entries in an article, or is it sufficient to enclose a general reference to existing guidance for that? In other words, should we say something like: a list is better than nothing failing the time to write it out in fluent text? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If we keep the see-also pointing to Manual of Style/Trivia sections, doesn't that cover it? (It currently uses the WP:Avoid trivia sections redirect, but maybe the real page title is less misleading?) --Stfg (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I feel we should reference WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA (for balanced content and style) and advise the author to consider both (and WP:IPC). Wikipedia is a live document, and someone can always come along and change things that go out of fashion later. It doesn't need to be in the guidance.   Surrey John    (Talk) 14:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, reference all three as see-alsos. That in itself is advice to the editor, so we don't need to add a sentence to that effect. --Stfg (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

A modest proposal (aspect #7: role of examples)
This discussion is now 19,378 words long (much longer than my MA thesis was!). Perhaps a better way to tackle the problem and use everyone's time, especially those of you who are keen to keep these lists/sections in articles, is to pick three more articles with "Pop culture" sections and really work on those sections to make them good models to present to prospective editors. Add references for all the entries. Copyedit the entries for succinctness and coherence. William Tell Overture and Nessun Dorma are existing examples of reasonable sections in connected prose and list format respectively. Do that for three more articles, preferably the ones which are currently the worst offenders. It simply isn't true that references can't be found for uses of classical music in popular culture. There are loads of books and articles on the subject. It took me all of five minutes to reference three items in the previously completely unreferenced The Hebrides (overture). Showing people a good model is much more effective than telling them what to do and not to do (and then asking them to read several more pages of alphabet soup so that they can get even more confused). In the process, you would be doing an immense service to readers by showing them where to find out more about the uses of classical music in popular culture in good sources. Voceditenore (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * All popular culture items should be verifiable, and I tend to agree that almost these items can be referenced, if not today, then references should become available in the near future. Its just the quality of the reference for what can be a trivial item may not meet the standards expected by this group (although within WP guidelines), so you may be rejecting correct and verifiable facts, because for example, the film trailer is on YouTube or a blog such as | WXQR. Actually though, its not the examples were are discussing, its the guideline itself. Style and presentation is only of secondary importance to the content itself. Examples - the topics can change with time so I dont see them as important. How would Barber's Adagio stand up to this guideline in its current form I would suggest as an example for discussion now though. How much good information would get rejected?  Surrey John    (Talk) 18:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , that little word "rejected" testifies to a fundamental misconception. We are not talking about a rulebook used to prescribe whether an article or an edit should be "accepted" or "rejected". Once an article is in article space, the only mechanisms that control its destiny are those that involve community discussion, case by case (noting a few exceptions like copyvio, outing, ...). Even when a new article is submitted through AFC or appears at NPP, when a question of acceptance or rejection does arise, there should be no question of rejecting an article merely because it fails to conform to any Wikiproject guideline. Even if the article eventually grows and comes to FAC, there wouldn't be some policing that says "no, sorry, fails guideline, plonk"! There can be discussions about whether something in the submission is or isn't due weight. Fine, but these are argued on their merits, not legalistically. This guideline isn't statute law. It is guidance as to what generally makes for good encyclopedic writing about music, subject always to exceptions where careful consideration judges that exceptions should be made. Please forget the idea that we're prescribing what is and is not permitted. We aren't. --Stfg (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * With all due respect that is nonsense. I and I am sure many others do try to follow guidelines, and do treat them as rules. If peers see content (not an entire article) that does not follow the guidance, and does not fit their preconceptions, then it will get reverted, deleted, moved to the talk page or whatever. That can be done by anyone. You do not simply argue on merits as that often results in differing points of view. You balance merits with complying with guidance and policy. I know about thinking out of the box, ignore the rules etc. It may be different peoples views of policy, but I come from a regulated and compliance background and most of the time I follow the rule book. Call it left-brain vs right-brain, or scientist vs artist, or whatever!   Surrey John    (Talk) 01:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I welcome Voceditenore's approach: let's find/improve the examples we like, and use them in the guidance (which, BTW, is completely covered by the guidance at How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance, so lets follow that guidance on how to write guidance and "treat it as a rule") --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Its not examples I'm against. I would be happy with one good style example (or more if they add value). I didnt want another side issue discussing which examples and header title. Also, are you really suggesting retrospectively applying the new guideline to all the articles? Most (if not all) major works are covered, and any new WP:IPC content (for either new articles or existing articles without a culture section) I expect would be quite simplistic. Für Elise (and any the other articles where there have been disputes) is an exception. Also I think you seen to consider what is in the WP:IPC essay, and not force a popular culture section where non is required. You should really consider nailing this guidance on the head now, and putting the style advice and examples in to the essay (which should equally apply to films and other media). Good luck!   Surrey John    (Talk) 10:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting any volunteer do any work they don't like to do. Last time I looked Wikipedia was still a volunteer project. Time permitting, the kind of improvements collaboratively applied to the "Valkyrie Ride" article lately would be beneficial to other articles too, I see myself collaborating to at least a few of such operations in the future. Helpful guidance is the key concept here I suppose, helpful for any volunteer, newbie or experienced editor. Same goes for finetuning the classical music style guide: not forcing any volunteer work, not on myself, nor on anyone else, but I see myself contributing to further improvement (suggestions). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry - wasn't really volunteering you two. Just pointing out potential pitfalls and distancing myself, as I'm about to disappear for a few weeks.  Surrey John    (Talk) 00:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Break down aspect 8: helpful recommendations or immutable rules?

 * 1) Let's look at the philosophy of what we want to accomplish here: do we want to write guidance on policy level here? I don't think so. Policy level is decided elsewhere, we can only refer to it, not even quote it literally (while the decisions elsewhere might change the wording of the actual policies). In line with that Stfg says above to SurreyJohn: "We are not talking about a rulebook used to prescribe whether an article or an edit should be "accepted" or "rejected"" — but then a sub-guideline level recommendation gets turned down while it recommends something (using the word "preferable") instead of presenting it in the format of an immutable rule, that even no longer conforms to the current policies WP:PRIMARY and WP:V that nowhere say that everyting in the encyclopedia should have a reference to a "third party source".
 * 2) You know there's no problem whatsoever to render
 * It is preferable to refer to third party reliable sources...
 * into an airthight formulation that means exactly the same, conforms as much to policy and doesn't use the word "preferable":
 * Avoid content exclusively based on primary sources where reliable third party sources are available...
 * But then - what have we gained? It's all in the policy already isn't it? And isn't the problem exactly that although the policy is always correct we need handles to explain how it should be applied (while the policies themselves are yes, kind of hermetic sometimes for what they mean practically). Typically everybody in this discussion goes flat whenever I mention the WP:PRIMARY policy... Don't you think I could have deleted the entire content of Gymnopédies because it's a policy break on WP:PRIMARY? But again, what have we gained then? I recognise Gymnopédies has something good that will look completely different once we're done with it, but it doesn't help if we can't practically explain what should be done with it, so that editors who read the guidance can see it too.
 * 1) Let me show you:
 * Avoid content exclusively based on primary sources where reliable third party sources are available...
 * (the technically correct mumble-jumble) can be translated, without any change of meaning into:
 * Prefer content referred to reliable third party sources over content exclusively based on primary sources...
 * which is more positive in phrasing but not a comma different in meaning. Then, we don't need to sum up everything that is less preferred do we (isn't that WP:BEANS?)? Just mention what is most preferred, and leave out the rest:
 * Prefer content referred to reliable third party sources...
 * Rephrase a bit for readability, still without changing any of the meaning:
 * It is preferable to refer to third party reliable sources...
 * In other words, back to where we started...
 * 1) IMHO the general idea is to give practical guidance, "helpful recommendations" as it is in the section title, not rehash/deform/quote the immutable policy that is already in place. It's about "rules of thumb" that always need to be applied with an amount editor discretion, or as it is in all guideline or manual of style templates: "...it should be treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" or something in that line of thought, and then we're not even talking about a guideline or manual of style page here, we're speaking of a recommendation of a wikiproject... It should first and foremost be practical, give recommendations, and avoid any formulation in the sense of "a rulebook used to prescribe whether an article or an edit should be "accepted" or "rejected"". A bare minimum is of course also that it should not invite to break or evade policy rules.
 * 2) For that reason, Stfg, no, you're way off-base with your counter-proposal above in — it doesn't comply to current policy (making rules that would forbid content that is flawless under WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, etc.), and not helpful as guidance for editors that want to learn how to move forward with improving quality. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

... or in other words "this guidance topic should be more focused on interpenetration of the general guidance" which I said way way back. Actually after the initial sigh of seeing another section, I think I agree with just about all of this. Surrey John   (Talk) 00:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I've been a WP editor for over 8 years, and anytime I've used a primary source in any article, it's been ultimately rejected because primary sources are not verifiable. So I'd say it's more than "avoid," it's no primary sources. kosboot (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, err, no, and I think that with this topic #8 we've reached the crux of why this discussion has been so long. The exact wording of the policy is:
 * ... reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia ... be cautious about basing large passages on them. ...
 * For me that suffises, and in fact we don't need to reformulate that in a WikiProject recommendation, except for making helpful recommendations for newbies and experienced editors alike out of the somewhat intransigent policy formulations. What we need to avoid is changing policies in subsidiary guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this way:

(threw in another relevant policy-level one: WP:BALASPS) --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * &rarr; see for what I mean by a WP:BALASPS correction. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Or:

(sentence flow, and getting rid of the alleged weasel word) --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Francis, I'm sorry that you find my effort "off-base", whatever that means, but you have completely misunderstood it. I have no problem at all with what you say about primary sources, and about giving guidance that conforms with policy. But the sentence I object to is "it is preferable to refer to third party reliable sources that add to an understanding of the place of the piece in modern culture", whether prefaced by "When available" or not. This can equally be taken to mean that, although this is preferable, it is also OK to refer to unreliable sources, or to refer to sources that fail to "add to an understanding of the place of the piece in modern culture", or even not to refer to any sources at all.


 * The mistake I and others have been making here, but I will not make again, is to bend over backwards to meet every requirement of SurreyJohn, while he does not do the same for us. All I'm looking for is the criterion of relevance to an understanding of the work (including its place in modern culture). I'm prepared to accept "refer to  sources that add to an understanding of the place of the piece in modern culture" as an expression of this, but not to wording that makes this optional. If we don't have this, then any Randy in Boise can find a YouTube video of someone demonstrating a Christmas dinner menu to a background of music from Ravel's Mother Goose, or omelette recipes to a background of "The Ballet of Unhatched Chicks in their Shells" and insert it and, of course, we'd never think of "rejecting" it (I suppose he means reverting it). How fatuous!


 * If we can't agree on that much, then we have no consensus. Or rather, we have the existing guideline, which represents the consensus of the Wikiproject members up to this point. Consensus can change, which is what this discussion is about, but to do it we need a new consensus. If we can't agree here, we need the input of the rest of the project, which has been all but silenced by this ridiculously long and repetitious discussion. That means an RFC. Your choice, but imho it's close to time for this whole discussion to be closed.


 * And I'm afraid I need to say this: In the discussion of Kosboot's revision, Francis wrote, 'It should generally be avoided to write guidance depending on assumptions of what would be of "interest to readers"...', and I immediately agreed. Yet an hour after that, SurreyJohn popped up to comment, "I do agree with Francis first point about "interest to readers" and think stfg is still pushing in the direction of his interests and not the wider audience." This an hour or so after I had agreed with Francis on that self-same point. Anyone who knows my work on Wikipedia, with all the major copy edits I've done, many on articles on subjects that don't interest me at all, to help other editors towards their FACs and GANs, will already know how obscene that personal attack is. I want an apology for it. And it's not the only example of ABF we've had here: here is the accusation of filibustering. So yes, I do think that someone here is fighting and yes, I am angry, and have been all week. It's time this bludgeoning stopped. --Stfg (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes, but let's concentrate less on the persons participating can we? I mean, I acknowledge what you say but think it largely irrelevant to the current debate. I don't start mentioning my expertise in guideline-writing, and my involvement in trivia guidelines some ten years ago, do I? Irrelevant, I'm just a Wikipedian, that's all, and I accept you all as the same. Don't need to know the rest. I see it when it pops up, I choose to ignore it, while not what's going to help us reach an agreement. Just think of it: wouldn't starting an aspect #9 section about the behaviour of participants in this debate be an absolute absurdity?
 * On the content of the matter: it is a fact that reliable third party sources are not always available on "in popular culture" reception, so "as available" is in order, and when they are they should get the focus. Basic rules, policy (WP:PRIMARY, WP:BALASPS, etc.)
 * True about the inadvertent suggestion "unreliable" sources may seem to have been exempted with the prior formulation. Let's make it a bit more explicit:


 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that version is excellent, thank you. On the first bit, I was subjected to a rather egregious personal attack, and I feel that editors have the right to express their feelings about such things. Better here, where it can be said and moved on from, rather than a visit to the drama boards, where it would run and run and editors' standings might be compromised, n'est-ce-pas? I don't need to prolong it. Thanks for acknowledging it. --Stfg (talk) 10:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Tx, indeed let's keep the drama boards out of this, and I apologize for the sharpness of my words which were undeserved on your person. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing to apologize for. You're working to keep the discussion on topic and consensus-driven, and I appreciate that. Hoping to learn what others think of your latest version now. --Stfg (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm just about to go on holiday and this has really p'd me off! I had been ignoring these attacks but it's about time I defended myself. My exclamation about filibustering was directed at reception history which linked to reception theory. I had not heard of reception theory, so I hope you can understand my exclamation! Francis soon cleared up the confusion caused by a misredirect. Asking people to stay focused was reasonable, especially after considering the growth of this talk topic. I never used "shouty capitals". Then your comment "The mistake I and others have been making here, but I will not make again, is to bend over backwards to meet every requirement of SurreyJohn", yet I suppose you forever insisting about adding understanding is acceptable. My requirement should be everyone's - not to have a guideline that conflicts with policy. And then me accused of bludgeoning while you want an apology!
 * My apologies to you if you took the filibustering comment as a personal attack. It was never intended as such.
 * As for the latest proposal. Well better than the current guideline, but surely the "objective" of the popular culture section is to report facts about the use in modern culture, as per the WP:TRIVIA style guide (and adding understanding is a bonus). The guidance should be to explain how to do that, advising on what is relevant or significant and what should (or not) be included, but not guidance about sources (which apply to everything regardless). It may not be the intention, but I can still envisage editors saying "Sorry, you cant report x was used in y because it doesnt add understanding".


 * A comment on a talk page in 2007 from one of our editors reads: "There's an intensive campaign going on now to kill off all the "in popular culture" articles". Unless it is clear and unambiguous that this is no longer the case, I believe we have a significant underlying problem and need a WP:RFC. I have therefore gone ahead and requested the RFC from the guideline page. I am really sorry to have to do this, but please dont anyone take it personal. Sometimes different people have different views, and we have to ask for mediation.  Surrey John    (Talk) 10:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's the link: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines. --Stfg (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Not taking it personally, but all it seems to do is to call for discussion, which is what we're doing here. Beware WP:FORUMSHOP. if you're still here, please enjoy your holiday and don't worry. Nothing is going to get stitched up and set in stone while you're away. --Stfg (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Re. "the "objective" of the popular culture section is to report facts about the use in modern culture" (bolding added) — when the objective would be, as such, "reporting facts about (whatever)" this would fall short the WP:INDISCRIMINATE policy. The "helpful" part in the guidance I proposed is to indicate how one goes from an "indiscriminate collection of information" to encyclopedical content in such sections: the first recommendation is to take an encyclopedical objective, striving to relate an account of the "place of the piece in modern culture". --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also you are wrong in suggesting the Manual of Style/Trivia sections would state that "reporting facts" is an objective for whatever. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Use in popular culture (revision 5) for RFC
This is my final version for the next few weeks, and would like it considered as part of any RFC in my absence.
 * 1) Para 1: Introduction, defining what is meant here by classical music (i.e. not Classical era), our understanding of popular culture and why we have this section.
 * 2) Para 2: The guidance, with example, balancing acceptable and unacceptable content.
 * 3) Para 3: Further information

This is clearly my proposal. I'm not sure how the RFC process will work out, but may I suggest that it may be a good idea for other interested parties to add their own preferred version. Thanks  Surrey John    (Talk) 01:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The still most problematic part is, I think: "..., then its use should be described. Where possible, add suitably sourced details ..." (emphasis added)
 * imho the "popular culture" details should be driven by the overall overview of the history of the piece, not the other way around: here the proposal seems to be to let the content of these sections to be driven by all the details that "can" be provided, and then, unexplained by the proposal, somehow magically a "history" of the piece in modern times emerges. Imho it's putting the cart before the horse. And only reflects the current often problematic development of these sections. In other words, not really the helpful guidance needed that would translate the "immovable policies" into practical recommendations.
 * when suitable sourcing of details is not possible they can't be included, in that case we're not even talking WP:BALASPS or uses allowed per WP:PRIMARY yet, they should be excluded for basic WP:V reasons. So yes, this proposed guidance goes counter to policy, so not possible to put it anywhere, even if there would be a considerable majority in favour of it: (local) consensus can not trump basic content policy (and, as such, it can't even be proposed in an RfC).
 * Further,
 * some details given in this proposed guidance are rephrasings of other guidance/essays (e.g. "it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all")... it was agreed above not to do that.
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with all of that. --Stfg (talk) 10:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Let me try again (revision 5a) ... After more time to think, I'm rather unhappy with this example. Firstly, examples describing the mood of the music are the exception rather than the rule; I’m not sure Barber’s adagio was used at Kennedy’s funeral; and also while it is good to describe the popular use of the music (which is encyclopedic factual information), I’m uneasy describing the music itself as "sad music" (which is subjective). The guidance may be more acceptable without the example:

This is not an attempt to write a historical article or section, but simply document uses in popular/modern culture, albeit in a structured and coherent manner. Surrey John   (Talk) 15:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for RFC
As it may be difficult to settle on just one version for this issue, how about an RFC along the following lines? Two versions are offered: 's version 5a (currently immediately above this, at 15:13, 26 November 2014) and Francis's version above at 10:03, 7 November 2014. !Voters may support either version (or both, if happy with either) or may support a "no change" option. !Voting sections are for supports-with-rationale for that option only -- no opposes or threaded discussion -- and a further section is provided for threaded discussion. (The restriction against threaded discussion in the !voting sections has been used effectively in several RFCs and does, I think, help to avoid things descending into bickering. It may also provide clarity for the closer.) I am willing to create such an RFC if wanted. --Stfg (talk) 08:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't forget the third option, which I am more and more convinced is the right one: have no guideline in this matter at all. We have nothing to add to existing guidelines and essays. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Good idea, can do. (Everyone is being very quiet. I'll only create the RFC is there's a clear desire for it.) --Stfg (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd give it some more effort first to combine my last proposal with SurreyJohn's last proposal before going RfC. I think an RfC might still yield little result at this point in time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Popular culture sections tend to revolve around film, television and popular music. The (highest-level) projects relating to these should be asked for their opinion on RfC contents, and then invited to participate in the RfC. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Francis and Andy. In that case, I won't raise one just yet, but will await developments along those lines. --Stfg (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, as long as the currently ongoing RfC on this topic is active it would be a bit impolite to ask the Wikipedia community at large a "second opinion" on the same topic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary; it is impolite to exclude - by deliberately omitting to invite - other interested parties. Doing so would run the risk of an outcome which does not have the consensus of the community. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Andy. The intent of the WP:RfC is to ask a wider (and neutral) audience for their help and opinion concerning disputes and policies. It the meantime it is still a good idea to try to find a settlement that describes current practice, and to allow (relevant and significant) miscellaneous information (as per WP:TRIVIA).
 * !Vote?: Like Ravpapa, I would rather see no guideline than one which prohibits miscellaneous information, so that gives 4 options to vote on. However, the clear aim should be to have some guideline, especially as there are disagreements, so if there is to be a vote, which I doubt will be conclusive, then it should be one person one vote, and preferably only two options to choose from. Entering two horses (i.e. Stfg's preferred two options) in a three horse race is not a fair contest! The WP:VOTE guidance summaries the situation perfectly: "The aim of many guidelines is primarily to describe current practice, to help editors to understand how Wikipedia works. This means that it is not necessary, and in many cases unwise, to call a vote or straw poll on a proposed policy or guideline. If a proposal is not controversial, doing a head count is not necessary; if a proposal is controversial, doing a headcount to see where the majority lies will not resolve the controversy, and may polarize it further. The controversy may spill onto the poll itself, causing debate on its mechanics. When editors consider a poll ill-advised, they should explain why and if appropriate should vote against the poll itself."  Surrey John    (Talk) 14:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think both Andy and SurreyJohn misunderstood the content of my last remark above: the current RfC on this topic *is* asking the community at large to give input. I object to have two concurrent RfC's on the same topic, as that would be asking the same community a "second opinion" on the opinion they have already been asked for. Not sure where it is, but I suppose it is somewhere in the guidelines that it is not such a great idea to have two competing RfC's at the same time about the same topic: first conclude the first, and then see whether a second is needed. This was an answer to the suggestion above to start such second RfC now.
 * I want to add this thought: I think it would have been better if an RfC would not have been initiated on this as a one-person initiative (which happened for the current RfC). Again, I'm quite sure it is somewhere in the guidelines that preferably surveys are properly prepared, meaning, at least there is some consensus among participants as to which questions are going to be asked etc.
 * The option of closing the current RfC (which didn't yield much practical result thusfar imho), and prepare a new one is open for me. If we can't agree to close the current one (yet), and that seems what is going on, then indeed let's wait until the current one is concluded, then see whether another one is needed, and if so, prepare it together per the guidelines. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not understand Entering two horses (i.e. Stfg's preferred two options) in a three horse race is not a fair contest and would appreciate clarification of this. I suggested two options: your most recent one and Francis's most recent one. I also agreed that Ravpapa's suggestion was a good idea to include; that doesn't mean I prefer it. I have signalled support for several versions in this debate, and I don't believe anyone but me can possibly know which is currently my preferred version. I have said I won't raise an RFC right now, and I won't, but please clarify your remark.
 * I agree with Francis that it's normal before launching an RFC to first build a consensus on what question should be asked, which is why I asked about it first, and why, when people signalled that they didn't want it, I said I wouldn't do it. --Stfg (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I am very confused. Is there an RFC or isn't there? The entire discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines is not about the guideline, but about the RFC itself. The RFC is framed in a way that certainly does not reflect the opinions expressed on this page. It has attracted no comments whatsoever, and understandably so: the discussion there so far certainly discourages participation.

I suggest that we close the RFC on that page, and create another one here. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

A simpler version
To put an end to assumptions about what I would or wouldn't support, and about my reasons: my real preference is for a much simpler version. Here's a draft:

That's all. The first two sentences are those proposed by except that I have replaced "popular culture" with "modern culture" in order not to exclude anything (popular culture is included in modern culture, but the reverse is not true) and done a very minor copy edit (insights to → insights into). Then just link to relevant policies and guidelines, not excluding anything, while remembering that listing things to be included can be read as excluding other things or giving them lower priority. This proposal doesn't mention WP:IPC. I'm not opposed to adding that one, but have omitted it for now because sometimes people object to guidelines citing essays, as doing so implies that the essay has the same level of consensus as the guideline. --Stfg (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Appended this proposal to the current RfC (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines, and gave my opinion there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So far there have been 7 agrees to this proposal, but Opus33 is currently opposing and requesting more "editorial participation". If anyone hasent already done so and are willing to provide feedback/RfC, please click on the above link and provide your accept or reject choice with a brief justification why. Thanks  Surrey John    (Talk) 10:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)