![]() | This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The secretly true purpose of this category of articles, of all of these articles, is to keep trivial garbage out of their main articles. Take any well visited article, which we'll call fooo, and before long it will begin to amass a long section of useless crappy trivia. No matter how much effort you put into removing the trivia, it keeps coming back. So you create fooo in popular culture, move all the trivia there, and suddenly the main article is bright and shining and free, while the "in popular culture" article contains all the useless info about Simpsons and videogames references. -- Xyzzyplugh 17:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Let the pop culture accumulate long enough and you might buff it up into a featured list: Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc. Durova 21:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Should musical groups and pieces that are referenced in popular culture ( Rush in popular culture, The Planets in popular culture, etc.) be seperated into a sub-category for connvinence? Or perhaps more generally, should "In popular culture" be given a larger number of sub-categories? 66.24.236.62 23:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Most of these items are hardly encyclopedia articles but ad hoc unsystematic lists of american tv and film grabs - is anyone going to do an overview article or even attempt to take it out of some of the most problematic set of articles in wikipedia? featured list? hardly. SatuSuro 02:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I question the legitimacy and effectiveness of the entire Category:In popular culture and related subcats and articles contained therein. Having read the rationale above for the existence of this cat and related articles I think this The Wrong Way to go about removing uncyclopedic content, because these cats legitimise the existence of trivia, and are currently creating a string of Cfd debates. The creation and existence of this cat is verging on WP:Point.
Popular culture is seen as different to High culture. High culture is seen as involving literature, art and film, and popular culture is seen as pop music, fashion, comics and - again - film. So there is a blurry distinction in the very naming of the cats and articles, opening up potential disputes. With Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_1#Category:Wolves_in_popular_culture there is the question that does a mention of a wolf in one particular film constitute pop culture or high culture. Is Teen Wolf considered pop culture, while The Company of Wolves is considered high culture - and what about Dances with Wolves - would that appear in both categories? And in this section - Popular culture#Contested definitions of Popular culture - there is revealed some dispute about the very definitions of pop culture, thus revealing that the cats are already based on dispute and contention. Also, I dont see a Category:In high culture which might indicate a systemic bias.
This entire project is unstable, unsound and uncyclopedic. I propose that rather than the piecemeal debates and deletions that are currently taking place, that we rid Wikipedia of them all in one go. I am suggesting that this main cat, all the subcats and all the articles contained inside that contain the title "in popular culture" be proposed for removal. SilkTork 14:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
This category should really only contain articles that end with "in popular culture" "in fiction" or start with "Cultural depections of", or some variation of those. There are many things in this category that would fit much better in Category:Popular culture or one of it's subcategories. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 03:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The secretly true purpose of this category of articles, of all of these articles, is to keep trivial garbage out of their main articles. Take any well visited article, which we'll call fooo, and before long it will begin to amass a long section of useless crappy trivia. No matter how much effort you put into removing the trivia, it keeps coming back. So you create fooo in popular culture, move all the trivia there, and suddenly the main article is bright and shining and free, while the "in popular culture" article contains all the useless info about Simpsons and videogames references. -- Xyzzyplugh 17:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Let the pop culture accumulate long enough and you might buff it up into a featured list: Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc. Durova 21:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Should musical groups and pieces that are referenced in popular culture ( Rush in popular culture, The Planets in popular culture, etc.) be seperated into a sub-category for connvinence? Or perhaps more generally, should "In popular culture" be given a larger number of sub-categories? 66.24.236.62 23:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Most of these items are hardly encyclopedia articles but ad hoc unsystematic lists of american tv and film grabs - is anyone going to do an overview article or even attempt to take it out of some of the most problematic set of articles in wikipedia? featured list? hardly. SatuSuro 02:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I question the legitimacy and effectiveness of the entire Category:In popular culture and related subcats and articles contained therein. Having read the rationale above for the existence of this cat and related articles I think this The Wrong Way to go about removing uncyclopedic content, because these cats legitimise the existence of trivia, and are currently creating a string of Cfd debates. The creation and existence of this cat is verging on WP:Point.
Popular culture is seen as different to High culture. High culture is seen as involving literature, art and film, and popular culture is seen as pop music, fashion, comics and - again - film. So there is a blurry distinction in the very naming of the cats and articles, opening up potential disputes. With Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_1#Category:Wolves_in_popular_culture there is the question that does a mention of a wolf in one particular film constitute pop culture or high culture. Is Teen Wolf considered pop culture, while The Company of Wolves is considered high culture - and what about Dances with Wolves - would that appear in both categories? And in this section - Popular culture#Contested definitions of Popular culture - there is revealed some dispute about the very definitions of pop culture, thus revealing that the cats are already based on dispute and contention. Also, I dont see a Category:In high culture which might indicate a systemic bias.
This entire project is unstable, unsound and uncyclopedic. I propose that rather than the piecemeal debates and deletions that are currently taking place, that we rid Wikipedia of them all in one go. I am suggesting that this main cat, all the subcats and all the articles contained inside that contain the title "in popular culture" be proposed for removal. SilkTork 14:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
This category should really only contain articles that end with "in popular culture" "in fiction" or start with "Cultural depections of", or some variation of those. There are many things in this category that would fit much better in Category:Popular culture or one of it's subcategories. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 03:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)