ARCHIVES

DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG

Barnstars, Awards, etc.

Reminders

Topical Archives:
Deletion & AfD,      Speedy & prod,         NPP & AfC,       COI & paid editors,      BLP,                              Bilateral relations
Notability,               Universities & academic people,       Schools,                       Academic journals,       Books & other publications
Sourcing,                Fiction,                                               In Popular Culture      Educational Program
Bias, intolerance, and prejudice

General Archives:
2006: Sept-Dec
2007: Jan-Feb , Mar-Apt , M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D 
2008: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2009: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2010: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2011: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2012: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2013: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2014: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2015: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2016: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2017: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2018: J, F, M , A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2019: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2020: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2021: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2022: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2023: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O

            DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG

DGG, you are a fantastic editor, and I (think I) understand where you are coming from in your passion in these AfDs. Regarding your comments on the one that I saw most recently ( Eiffel Tower in pop culture), I decided I needed to tell you where I am coming from in these situations. I am not against pop culture. Far from it, I think that serious academic study does not pay due attention to certain things because they consider them 'pop culture'. It is not the pop culture element itself that I am against in these articles. What grates me how notable the topic actually is. Pac-man, for instance, is notable. But has Pac-man had a significant impact on pop culture? If so, we should write an article on that impact and how and why it has become an influence in movies, television, and (especially, I would imagine) video games. Paradise Lost is also notable, but every reference to it in pop culture is equally non-notable. There is certainly a well written prose article to be written on how that poem has influenced our culture, and there is definitely scholarship out there on it. A list is not only notoriously difficult to maintain, but it does not provide anything to the reader. An article like 'Paradise Lost in popular culture' should really be Miltonian tradition and talk about Milton and his influence, not a list of things that may or may not have been influenced by him. Please understand that my votes in these AfDs have nothing to do with wanting to banish popular culture from Wikipedia, just to write prosaic, well sourced, and informative articles on these topics. I believe the first step in doing this is to delete these articles that are lists of trivia. I hope you see where I'm coming from? CaveatLector ^Talk 01:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your essay, which I think you should add to one of the debates. Let me respond briefly-- In the case of Pac-man and the like, a point could be made that that the page is not really necessary, for the entire discussion of pacman is about the subject IPC-- that's the inherent locus of the subject. For influence of X, then you are right that in general more academic titles are much better--and i would be suggesting them except the same parties have nominated several such articles and seemed it would just confuse the discussion. I'm not sure about Miltonic tradition--this is really over-formal and would sound strange to most WPedians. But there's a third point: the influence of Milton on literature, music, and so on, is a perfectly sound and delmited set of topics. But there is also the influence of Milton on non-literary things. The total sum of references and allusions in even the most trivial of places indicates the impact on the world as a whole, not just the literary or creative part, for it is assumed the viewer/reader will understand. And all of these allusions are related to each other--the set of them, how they are used, why people who have never read the works still use and understand them, is a topic, and the topic is best shown by the collocation of the findable references.

I'm not a specialist in this subject in the least, but I am a bibliographer. I once collected 18th and early 19th century references to Samuel Richardson's works--in the pre internet era, by systematic searching of likely places and by following leads, working in libraries which had perhaps 90% of the possible sources. I didn't work on visual references--I do not have the knowledge of the sources and the tools. And I could never work on 20th century media references at all, for the same reason. But for everything since about 1990, this is different now, and the place to do it is Wikipedia. There is a sense in which this is OR, but for the topics WP concentrates on, it's a logical extension. Gathering is not OR; only interpretation is. Even if WP is the not the place for the work, it's the place to collect the sources,. I don't want to do this work, but I don't want to destroy the sources for it. I am as a librarian horrified by the speed at which we are destroying access. I will still have access as an admin, and the material should certainly be transferred to another wiki--I can help with that but do not have the time to work on it or organize it-- and it is unnecessary--it could have been kept right here.

The question is how to build these up. The current way of deleting them first is so much the wrong way to go, that it is about this that I am fighting. I have things both at WP and in the RW I should be doing rather than defending or rewriting these, things I could do much better than this. So will you help preserve some of it? Will you, for example, help with the Eiffel Tower article, and categorize the ones you know. And then look for the sources for them individually? will you perhaps look at Irvine for a book discussing it to add to the references for the article? On a longer scale, will you rewrite at least the academic sections for some of the ones based on classical topics--your own field? Will you -- even -- be prepared to say at some of the AfDs, "keep, and edit." ? DGG ( talk) 02:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I am still at Penn at the moment, but I'll see what I can do (time is tight and the library isn't open all hours now because it's summer). As for the AfD's, you've convinced me to be a bit more lenient in what to give the delete to. Perhaps a Project is in order to get these articles policed and compiled into good articles, with some set and agreed upon guidelines. You should, by the way, mention your profession and how it's influencing your decisions in the AfDs, as it helps me understand greatly how some of these topics can, indeed, be notable and useful in the realm of encyclopediahood. As for Eiffel Tower in pop culture, I'll userfy it and see if i can't get to categorizing or fixing it up. CaveatLector ^Talk 02:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply

• For the rename, are you thinking something along the lines of "Yale in culture" or "Yale's influence on culture" or something like that but better-phrased than what I can think of at the moment? (Antelan)

• Keep let's try to think of a good title, sure, and discuss it on the article talk page. I agree that "..in popular culture" is fairly lame, and does indicate an inclination to collection really trivial stuff. Yale's influence on culture is a different matter entirely--Yale's influence on culture is the influence of the work done at Yale and by Yale graduates in the arts and other fields of civilized endeavor. We don't have any real articles of this orientation for any university, besides what's implied in the unviersity articles, and lists of X university people, and it would be a good series--an excellent idea--but it's separate. This article is on the effect that popular knowledge of Yale has on cultural artifacts--things written about Yale, or using Yale as a symbol, or as a theme. It is by the total accumulation of these themes that popular culture--contemporary culture-- is built. The orientation of these articles in WP is almost exclusively on what form of association: the artists, with some attention to the genre. They're easy to write. But the subjects of popular culture are also important. The different subjects that popular music or fiction or film uses indicates what the nature of the films or books or music is--its as important as the people who wrote it, as important as the technical aspects of the genre. These articles are harder to write. The individual items are minor in themselves in most cases--but the assemblage of them is not. In most genres, artists usually work on subjects--not all genres-- Abstract Expressionism comes to mind as an exception. But nobody just writes a love story. they write a love story about people of certain types in a certain setting. That a story refers to Yale indicates something -- they think it indicative, or they think that it will prove interesting.

since when does WP not write about "culture junk"? The glory of WP is that it covers all of it. Notoriously, one persons junk is another's deeply meaningful art. We cover all of what people care about that way. Some people find baseball teams relevant, some people find pokemon relevant, some Opera, and for these and for everything else there are millions who think that such indication is a sign of immaturity or arrogance. Now, the things their works are about are relevant too. The allusions they make in their works are relevant too. that is what culture is about.

The place for accumulating knowledge about this is Wikipedia. Gathering is not OR; only interpretation is. Even if WP is the not the place for the work, it's the place to collect the sources. I don't want to do this work, but I don't want to destroy the sources for it. I am as a librarian horrified by the speed at which we are destroying access. I will still have access as an admin, and the material should certainly be transferred to another wiki--I can help with that but do not have the time to work on it or organize it-- and it is unnecessary--it could have been kept right here.

The question is how to build these up. The current way of deleting them first is so much the wrong way to go, that it is about this that I am arguing this. I have things both at WP and in the RW I should be doing rather than defending or rewriting these, things I could do much better than this. So let us preserve this, and then improve it. Let us see if every one of these trivial references can be sourced and integrated. If we care about WP, let us preserve the content, even if it takes more than 5 days to do so. Every argument here comes down to "keep, and edit." DGG ( talk)

Hello. Though we are often on the opposite side of deletion debates, I thought you might want to read an essay I've written, found at User:Eyrian/IPC. I'd be interested to hear any feedback on its talk page. -- Eyrian 15:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Can I ask you to offer your thoughts on WP:RELEVANCE? It's a careful and ongoing attempt to cut a middle path on the subject of "trivia", among other things. Much obliged.-- Father Goose 09:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)) reply

use of such material

Sorry if I sounded arrogant, but there have been altogether too many simultaneous discussions of this, and I'm getting a little tired , and yes, exasperated at needing to say it all in some many place to meet the simultaneous comments. Freak104 confirms my uninformed guess that WP is a prime source of comic book information, which I consider an excellent thing. Now it remains to make some use of this by organizing it. Listing things by series and creators and major characters is the obvious first step. Discussing it by themes and allusions is the next. Fully analyzing this is of course OR, but collecting the material already in WP and finding outside references to support it is not. this is what the so called trivia sections now do in a primitive way, and the job now is to do it better. By analogy with other genres I know, and using the basic ideas of organising information familiar to librarians and bibliographers, the first step is to make articles on the various themes and so forth, collect the instances, group them in what logical way the material suggests, reference them exactly to the primary sources from which they came, and then look for additional sources discussing them. Then one normally looks for analogs in other media and genres, and adds them, to show the significance of the material to those not primarily interested in the form, working n a similar fashion. simultaneously one connects the material used in this genre, to articles based on the other genres. Some think there is probably a level of use too minor to be accounted for, but I think the history of scholarship shows otherwise. Most notably, it is the study of the minutia in paintings, that they are ascribed to their proper artists and the historical development of each artists work discerned--this is the basic method of art history. Similarly in literature, there is no allusion in Shakespeare too minor to illuminate Shakespeare, and every trifle has been studied. The day will come for comics too. The material here will be the initial aid in research until more sophisticated work becomes general. I apologize that I have probably repeated all the cliches of such work, but I do not mean to condescend or imply that they are not well known to anyone--I think this a good place to set down a general indication what can be done with such material in general, and hope those knowing the various fields will elaborate and correct. (from WP:Trivia Cleanup). DGG

...is extremely commendable, but it is more accurately described as rewriting (if not writing something completely different), not fixing. What, if anything does this have in common with this? That is the fundamental issue that lies at the heart of what I am doing: Every article that I have nominated (under the IPC/trivia campaign) is unsalvageable. Yes, you can rewrite it, but that has nothing to do with the article as it stands. Did that fact that "The late rapper Ol' Dirty Bastard sometimes referred to himself as Osiris" help you find resources about Egyptian themed murals in Indiana? Best to tear down these monstrosities so that good articles can be built. -- Eyrian 16:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to butt into DGG's talk page here, but I disagree with you on this, Eyrian. Best to take the article to a forum of collaborative effort, where it can be renamed and rebuilt. Flat deletion will only encourage argument and recreation of these problematic articles. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 22:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I did a lot of work on this one. Hopefully I have saved it from the Visigoths, as per the Heymann standard. Bearian 20:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC). Good job - DGG Thank you for your kind comments in this discussion. Bearian 01:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi. Can I ask you to offer your thoughts on WP:RELEVANCE? It's a careful and ongoing attempt to cut a middle path on the subject of "trivia", among other things. Much obliged.-- Father Goose 09:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Given your participation in recent AfDs involving lists, and given your track record for neutrality and diplomacy, I'd appreciate your input on the following:

Wikipedia: Village pump (policy)#Proposal to make a policy or guideline for lists

Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have on the topic. Sidatio 16:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply

FYI, this conversation has moved to User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines. I look forward to your continued input in order to reach a consensus on the issue! Sidatio 00:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Trivia discussion -- I nominate you to get things rolling. Please feel free to change the overview I already put up, or to simply post the first comment to invite discussion/tell people what they should be discussing.

21:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

please first consider whether the mediation on WP:relevance of content might first need to discuss this as a split. And then consider whether the discussion should have the word triva in it. Personally, I think it prejudges the issue--trivia by definition is trivial. I very strongly suggest immediately changing it "in popular culture"--in fact, not even as a move. Delete it and restart it cleanly. DGG ( talk) 21:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I think this would garner a better response from both sides if you created the page. I'm not exactly seen as an objective party in this. I think you should make the page wherever and named however you think is best.

Equazcion ( Talk •  Contribs)

21:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I've already nominated it for speedy deletion using {{ db-author}}. Go ahead and delete it.

Equazcion ( Talk •  Contribs)

21:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be my hope for us inclusionists to sound out what it is we seek at Wikipedia:Relevance of content/Content policy analysis, and after we've aligned our goals, bring them to a broader venue for the "real" debate. Where is the root problem? At AfD? WP:TRIVIA? WP:NOT? All of them? Somewhere else? Can we come up with a fix that the broader community would agree to?-- Father Goose 23:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I think that's a bit ambitious. People feel strongly about the trivia issue, because they see it as an immediate problem. It won't be easy to convince everyone that content guidelines in general are what we should be talking about.

Equazcion ( Talk •  Contribs)

23:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

We can't have a private debate among just inclusionists, you know. :)

Let me ask some preliminary questions--here is as good a place as any:

1. There are two different decisions--what we really want, and what we think is politic to ask for--these may or may not be the same. Should we ask for less than we want, in order to get a ready compromise, or more, in order to bring the final result nearer what we want? If we try to make a true compromise offer, will we be gamed?
2. And do we have enough of a common position, or is this just a temporary working alliance?
3. Should our basic position be tolerance and quality, not N and V?
4. What do we want besides more flexible standards for articles? Is the main goal better standards for content, not justifying inclusionism.
5. and for questions of notability, should we deal with it primarily by changing process, not standards?
6. And in terms of standards, should we reach for accuracy keep/delete every time though argument, or bright-line rules?
7. Should we discuss IPC as a preliminary altogether separate issue--possibly one that should be discussed first and urgently.

My feelings on these points late tonight or tomorrow, but my questions indicate the way I am thinking DGG ( talk) 00:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't usually label myself. I don't consider myself an inclusionist, per se. What I believe is that overly-specific guidelines disrespect the intelligence of the editors. I think they're built with the goal in mind of taking away as much of the decision-making as possible from the individual editors, for fear that they won't be intelligent enough to make good decisions. I think that any ban on trivia or pop-culture across the board is a mistake, because even the average editor would support having limited lists of only truly noteworthy items. There's just this fear that trivia lists, for example, will inevitably become overwrought with obvious facts and other nonsense. And fear often leads to the loss of freedom. They're thinking that people will make bad decisions, so taking away their ability to choose will solve the problem, and the incidental loss of freedom is acceptable. Sorta... like... fascism, or a dictatorship, dare I say.

So if inclusionist means I want nothing removed and everything included, I'm no inclusionist. I just don't want the choice dictated to me. I want editors to be able to decide themselves what belongs in articles on a case-by-case basis. Trivia and pop-culture might be good for one article but not for another, and some items within those lists belong while others don't. So I might not be so much an inclusionist as I am a freedomist. You'll have to let me know what the definition of inclusionist actually is.

That was my contribution to #2. You guys will have to let me know how similar your feelings are on the matter.

As for #2, I think small steps are the best way to go. I don't think we're going to be successful in making a major change all at once, via compromise or otherwise. I'd be impressed if we could even get the trivia template deleted (and I see that as a pretty small step). If we aim for something big, I think we'll be dismissed by too many people as nuts (as all illuminati once were).

3 - I don't know what N and V stand for.

4 - I'll have to think about that one.

Ditto on 5.

6 - I don't know what IPC stands for.

Aaannnnd, I'm spent.

Equazcion ( Talk •  Contribs)

01:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

IPC is "in popular culture" it save a lot of typing :). , N is WP:Notability, and V is WP:Verifiability, the basic WP rules. They save a lot of typing too. Those wanting to work at AfD should learn them.

And work at AfD might convince you that case by case decision is an incredible amount of work, gives wild inconsistency and instability of decision, and is very susceptible to pressure groups one way or another. I seem to spend most of my WP life there, and I'd rather write articles on what I care about, which are not usually the things that take up the time at AfD. That, and helping newcomers adjust to the artificial reality here. I am willing to argue, and I hope I am moderately effective at it, but it is not what I really want to do. DGG ( talk) 01:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC) reply

So what do you want then? When you say you're an inclusionist, what does that mean to you? How does it actually differ from my description? And thanks for the explanation of the abbreviations.

Equazcion ( Talk •  Contribs)

01:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to maintain and improve the coverage of WP so important things are written about, and improve the quality so they are written about fairly, accurately, understandably. There are lots of deletionists who want just the same, but they want to start by removing all the low quality articles. I want to improve them. And I know by experience that the things that I think important, not everybody does, and therefore hope for mutual tolerance. And I want consistent, fair, reliable, stable, balanced, open process, ensured by similarly fair review. DGG ( talk) 02:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Ok, my focus is more on list sections than it is on the retention or deletion of whole articles. I'm not sure how relevant that is to inclusionism. Although I agree on fair balanced and open processes. Although balanced is gonna be a tough thing to dictate using policy. Balance depends on the people involved acting in a mature and objective fashion.

Equazcion ( Talk •  Contribs)

02:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

by balanced process I have in mind specifically a more equitable treatment of keep and delete decisions DGG ( talk) 03:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Okay, if we're going to hold it here, let me ask you to archive some old threads -- I'm on dialup.-- Father Goose 03:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Nah, on second thought, can we hold this anywhere else, even just a subpage of this page? User talk pages shouldn't become issue pages.-- Father Goose 03:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Moved to User:DGG/unified as requested. only this particular thread is being moved -- other related matters should remain here on the regular talk page. DGG ( talk) 04:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC) reply

The preliminary questions (my responses):

1. I want to hear what everyone really wants, with discussions of "what we can get" to follow. 2. See #1. 3. Notability, when properly applied, is really just an application of verifiability as applied to subjects as a whole. I find that reasonable. I'm not sure what tolerance and quality mean to you. 4. Inclusionism at the cost of other principles is a bad thing. The same is true of deletionism. My focus with the Relevance proposal is to attempt to bring at least some objectivity to "what should be kept" (or deleted). It dodges the question of list content at this time. 5. Fixing notability might require a two-fold approach: some reform of AfD and some reform of policy, especially as regards list articles. 6. Rules are good when true common standards are laid out, bad when they go beyond the common position. Discussion is required wherever gray areas remain. 7. Yes, I agree, popular culture articles/sections are the most pressing issue, since they're getting deleted by the bushel.

More detailed thoughts tomorrow. And for what it's worth, I self-identify as an eventualist.-- Father Goose 09:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC) reply

"Popular culture" overview

First, my personal position: I think long "In popular culture" lists don't generally belong in articles about the subject that's being referenced. (Coverage of a subject's influence on culture or art is appropriate, but not as a free-for-all list.) I do think "in popular culture" lists are fine as stand-alone list articles, as long as it's limited to verifiable entries. However, verification of these entries must often come from primary sources, such as: "The Simpsons episode XYZ contains a spoof of The Sopranos." Anybody who's seen that episode would easily recognize the spoof for what it was, and I personally am willing to consider that a verification, and valid source. If it's a primary source that can't be checked ("oh, my professor said so-and-so"), or is speculative or unlikely: "The part where Milhouse swings on the vine first then refuses to swing it back to Lisa and Bart is characteristic of Alfred Molina's character in the opening scene of Raiders of the Lost Ark." [1], then it's not verifiable.

However, Wikipedia's, either through its rules or common practice, does not permit using primary sources for verification in this manner. There's some tolerance for quoting primary print sources, but not other media. In the case of movies or TV shows, the primary source is often the only source for things like plot summaries (reviews, if they exist, usually provide only minimal plot description).

A second problem is that WP:Notability doesn't exclude list articles, so they fall under its scope. This means that "List of (notable things)" is not notable unless a list of that variety is already the subject of scholarship outside of Wikipedia. The difference between featured lists and ones that get deleted is sometimes pretty minimal. Even perfectly-sourced lists are potential deletion fodder: List of Harry Potter parodies. There is basically no guidance on Wikipedia as to what constitutes an acceptable list topic and what doesn't. There are efforts to change this (such as User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines), but they're far from adoption.-- Father Goose 00:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello! You suggested that I include references in my AfD posts in the future. Anyway, good news: for two of the "in popular culture" discussions today, I actually found some excellent links. For Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jet_pack_in_popular_culture, I found a Popular Science article on how "From Buck Rogers to 007, the jetpack has fueled our greatest personal-technology fantasies," and for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_three_wise_monkeys_in_popular_culture, I found an article published in a scholarly journal on the three wise monkeys' "truly astonishing impact on our popular culture." I am so elated that such articles actually do exist in published reputable sources and I found them incredibly quickly. Perhaps we should require AfD nominators to make some effort to find these sources first? Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 14:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Great--these are closer than the ones I'v been finding. Now the question is whether the people still holding out on the other side will accept them. If he doesn't,perhaps at least it will indicate that they object to this content regardless of how good it might be. DGG ( talk) 19:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the reply. If Popular Science and a scholarly journal found on JSTOR are not reputable and reliable references, than I don't know what is! So, hopefully, these will be sufficient. :) Also, you may want to see what I found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Kong in popular culture, as some of these in popular culture topics have books even written about them! Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 19:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I see that they are in fact being ignored. Suggestion: abandon the weakest articles, or those where there is no prior support from others. Then try to get not just the one reference but a/ general references to the notability of the concept, and b/ sources to at least a few of the items. Concentrate on gettinga few god ones kept as models.

Okay, I'll do my best. Have a nice night! Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 00:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC) reply

You might start with Hell in entertainment and other popular culture I think it might repay the work. DGG ( talk) 05:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC) reply

pan> ^T/ _C 05:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Orangemike re-deleted an section in Corset article without/against consensus again. What to do? -- 78.0.18.147 11:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Masterfully done! -- 83.131.80.42 23:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC) reply

DGG's edit made sense, unlike the original section (which I feel was deleted in accordance with consensus, thank you!). I still feel it's Undue Emphasis (especially on catsuits), but it's not the silly spot-the-corset game which the original list would lend itself to. -- Orange Mike 15:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply

agreed that the catsuit part needs further expansion--so does the rest of the material--it doesnt even mention what I think the most notable use: Gone With the Wind. DGG ( talk) 15:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply

"agreed"? I'm saying it should go out, not get expanded. None of this stuff is very notable; it might be relevant for a Corsetry wiki or fetishist forum, but I really don't see why you think it belongs here at all, much less at greater length!? -- Orange Mike 18:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply

we obviously disagree on the importance of this material--I've given my reasons at length at multiple AfDs. The use by notable artists of a particular theme is notable, and goes under the theme as well as the artist. As a general field, it forms one of the parts of the academic study of cinema etc and popular interest as well. (In art history in fact it's the basis of dating and provenance). When editing this sort of material I remove references from non-notable artists, judging in fields I do not know by the WP entries, as for a list. I'll do the GWTW tonight--it's one of the most famous scenes in the movie. I notice you use the term "very notable"--but it doesnt have to be very notable or even notable to be acceptable content, that standard applies only to articles. And even for article notable, not very notable is the standard. One could indeed make an encyclopedia of only the very notable, but it wouldn't be WP--there are other projects with that goal. I replied hoping your comment was an attempt to find some common ground. (My current suggestion is to abandon video game uses as in practice unsourcable, to accept other cultural refs, and to integrate bio into the bio. and adaptations into the main section on versions.) DGG ( talk) 18:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Please take a look at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Why in popular culture articles are an asset to Wikipedia and do not violate policies and feel free to add additional instructions or edit what I have to make it more acceptable if necessary. Thanks! Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 19:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG. Thank you for the kind comment on my userpage. I think that a precendent that some "in popular culture" articles are OK for Wikipedia has been set by this stage. One IPC article, Turtles and tortoises in popular culture was deleted after an AfD way back in July. I saved a copy of the deleted article, and I think I can write an acceptable version of it now. What is the etiquette in such cases? Should I ask the closing admin to undelete the old article first, or just go ahead and post a rewrite of it? Bláthnaid 23:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Work on it offline, then ask someone (like me) for an opinion. I would suggest limiting it to the individual items you can find a reference for, such as the review, mentioning the signif. of the turtle, etc. I'd certainly eliminate songs etc where only the title is relevant, & video game characters for which there is no available source. Better a really sound small article. Then copy it to your user space, and ask a Deletion Review. There are other routes, but I think for a really sound article this is the best way. Let's try to show at DR that a good one is possible--the article in its final version already had good general references. It's a good example to try. DGG ( talk) 00:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I'll do that. I should have a revised version of the article in my sandbox by tomorrow. Bláthnaid 12:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Rough draft of the article is finished. I'd appreciate your thoughts on it, if you have some time to look at it here. Bláthnaid 23:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Could you please spend a moment to add your 2 cents to Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Sections vs. collections and also Wikipedia:Requested moves#September 12, 2007? There seems to be a continued campaign to remove any mention of Trivia sections, but no real attempt to get alternative viewpoints to the table. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey, I've been told you would have a lot to say about Wikipedia:Notability (in popular culture). Please take a look at that page and give us your thoughts. MessedRocker ( talk) 14:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

This proposed guideline is so that WP:NOT#TRIVIA can be returned to Wikipedia. It is distinct from Wikipedia:Trivia sections in that it is a content policy, not a style policy. This guideline states that trivia may be removed.

I know in advance this is not your point of view, and this proposal may be seen as in competition with the Wikipedia:Relevance of content guideline, which I think is mostly your work. However, I'm hoping you can find elements of my proposal that might help your proposal, and I'm hoping I can receive some feedback from you about what is needed to make my proposal better.

As I've stated at WP:VPP, it doesn't help my proposal for contradictory philosophies to be introduced — this is, after all, a proposed guideline and does not need to contradict itself. However, I would also be interested in feedback from people have problems with excluding trivia, and you are an experienced editor who I trust can collaborate in good faith. I'm hoping you might have a few specific suggestions on how this guideline can be made better, preferably on a relevant Talk page, either mine or Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia.

If you are not interested in supporting this proposal in any way, I won't hold it against you, but I think I can only benefit from your suggestions. / edg ☺ ★ 14:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC). reply

I have replied at the VP discussion--I do have some suggestions. I do think we need a guideline--I don't wantto be aguing this in 10 different places forwver. But it should reflect the factors that do seem to matter and still be flexible enough so people of all tendencies can support it. The Relevance of content section is, however, not my work. It was written almost entirely by User:Father Goose, and the history will show I made one single edit only. [2]. Even on the talk page I only made two comments-- [3] and then [4] Maybe they have influenced the subsequent discussion. But my interest in that guideline page is about something else: balance and proportion in general. DGG ( talk) 18:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

But where do you want to centralize the discussion--I'll copy it there. DGG ( talk) 20:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

No one seems to think Wikipedia:Avoid trivia was useful in its current form, so I'm retiring it as an unneeded distraction. At least now I know.

As to where this discussion should continue, I dunno. I'll follow it wherever, but it seems deadlocked in 2 or 3 places. And "deadlocked" is optimistic on my part; really it's moving toward abandoning trivia exclusion of any kind. / edg ☺ ★ 01:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

There is an immense amount of article content labeled trivia ( or not labeled trivia) which is inconsequential or infantile and should be removed. How to do it fairly I do not know--see my long comment above to Becksguy. But it's interesting we see the trend differently--I think I am fighting against all odds to try to retain notable content. T reason this problem is so difficult is, in my view,the over-zealous actions of those who tried and are still trying to delete everything resembling popular culture. If there had been a reasonable effort at removing clearly inappropriate content, it would have gone much more smoothly. But anything that appears to be a concerted effort to remove wholesale any sort of article or content that is not liked, tends not surprisingly, to arouse opposition. DGG ( talk) 01:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

article content labeled trivia (or not labeled trivia) which is inconsequential or infantile ... should be removed.

I don't see how a consensus can form around any means of doing this. The current environment is hostile to content restrictions of this sort, and there is considerable momentum for removing what already exists. At a later time when things have cooled down, there will be considerable precedent for retaining such content. Already plenty of editors think In popular culture and Trivia sections are standard features. / edg ☺ ★ 03:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

as for popular culture, I do think it should be a standard feature whenever there is enough material. As for the content of trivia sections, I think the consensus is that the usable material should be distributed in the article in a more appropriate way. I don't support inadequate articles or weak content & I think we can find a way by which reasonable people can work together for a reasonable compromise goal. One in which there may be articles that perhaps not everyone agrees are justified, but where the content is as good as possible. That's my goal in general on a number of topics--to stop disputing borderline cases of notability and work on content. And in getting the real junk out and keeping it out. DGG ( talk) 04:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

• Sorry to badger you with attention requests, but you may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (in popular culture) which started yesterday. Not sure if discussion there would be redundant with other forums; your input is welcome. Best, — xDanielx</s

Dear DGG, I don't know if you saw this, but it may interest you. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 01:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Just wanted to let you know about Wikipedia:Notability (in popular culture), in case you didn't know about it. Someone created it recently as a proposal.

Totally appropriate, dude. I completely agree with you. I'm watching the conversation to see how it goes...but I can't imagine wholesale removal of Triva or Pop Culture sections without an attempt to incorporate the content into the aricle makes any sense at all...unless it's a new rule come down the pike... Dreadstar † 20:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC) reply

There's an ANI thread about the whole situation here with some consensus slowly building in a subsection.-- chaser - t 22:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Interesting. They may need to better deliniate the WP:V issues from the WP:TRIVIA issues, they're separate, imho. Removal of unsourced content from the trivia sections is fine, but is the baby being thrown out with the bathwater when the entire trivia section is deleted - as in reliably sourced trivia? "Reliably sourced trivia" - is there such a thing? It almost sounds like an oxymoron....heh. I'm not sure if I like trivia sections or not, but we don't currently prohibit them. Thanks for pointing it out, Chaser! Dreadstar † 03:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply

trivia can in practice mean relatively trivial, or utterly trivial. But unfortunately it has been widely used outside WP to mean "collection of miscellaneous curious facts about a person or thing, some of which may actually be important but some are just amusing" and the use of our trivia sections copies this. We're stuck with the word, because the rest of the world uses it, and because of the intrinsic meaning it has a negative connotation to many sensible people, which is not always reflected in the material.

in popular culture,however, is a respected academic term for a way of studying literature and society, and is to some extent the currently popular specialty, both in writing and in courses for students. There are some old-fashioned people who think it a diversion from serious analysis, but they are a small minority. Some seem to have gotten involved with Wikipedia and are trying to restrict us to their preferred limitations. DGG ( talk) 03:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Excellent analysis of the situation, DGG. I guess we'll have to convince those old-fashioned minds so we can serve our readers properly by keeping up with everyone's trivial pursuits..;) Dreadstar † 03:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply

In fact, I came to my position by realising that my idea of serious topics was seen by others as a prime example of the pursuit of the trivial--that the academic world I have spent my career assisting was regarded by many here as not worth the attention. I have always myself been rather poor at the literal game of Trivial Pursuit--I would not make a good editor of such materials. The only way of preserving minority interests is live and let live. Some call it intellectual freedom and the promotion of diversity. DGG ( talk) 04:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Well said. From reading your userpage bio, I knew you came from an academic background of the world of scholarly information, and your experience there is very helpful to our project. I'm very glad to have you contributing and I'm glad to have run across you here. Me? Well, I never liked the game of trivial pursuit...it always seemed...oh, I don't know...trivial? :D My head is so full of trivia in certain areas it's almost scary sometimes...and I use these bits of trivia to try and inject humor or interesting bits of info when I'm communicating with other editors here...heck, I've done it on this page... Trivia can be a effective tool..but beware of the power of dark side of the triv...oh, wait, never mind...another trivial leap 'o the braincells...;) Dreadstar † 05:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I think you're correct on your analysis of "Trivia" vs. "In popular culture", I think some analysis of some things in current mainstream culture is entirely appropriate. I tend to draw the line at "Is the in popular culture article or section prose based on sourced and verifiable analysis of the subject's impact on popular culture, or is it just a list of when it's appeared in this that or something else?" The first case is acceptable and appropriate, the second has to go. This being said, what would you say to working together on a project? I think it would be easy enough to find sourced analysis of a major subject's impact on modern culture, and we could set up an article to "show how it's done", as it were. Let me know if you'd be interested. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply

As mentioned, I'm not the ideal person for most of these topics, as I do not know the sources for popular music or television, nor can I really judge importance. In those fields I use WP to learn, not to write. And so I think that perhaps smaller more focused articles -- or perhaps sections-- are clearer: "Dragons in computer games", for example. But I agree that everyone involved in this question ought to contribute to the writing as well as the discussion. Let me look for one that might interest both of us.

the question of the validity and appropriateness of list articles affects more than this topic, though the discussion is often inter-twined. In general, to be frank, I like lists and tables wherever they are appropriate. I think WPedians often write these clearer than they write prose. The sort of long turgid paragraphs used for many articles contributes to vague thinking and vague sourcing. It takes real skill to make descriptive paragraphs interesting and clear, but anyone who understands the subject should be able to do a fair outline. Would people here could write better, but we must adapt our demands to our abilities. DGG ( talk) 06:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I noticed that you mentioned to an editor that the fictional debates are not one and the same. I had just finished applying the following to all 3 related AFD's.

Note to closing admin Several AfDs regarding the same basic subjects/premises are open concurrently, and largely involve the same editors (and same viewpoints). It may be beneficial to consider the following AFDs at the same time: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional applications of real materials‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional chemical substances, A-M‎

Cheers! / Blaxthos 00:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC) reply

creative use of the template! i think the best solution is to rewrite in somewhat smaller pieces whether or not these are deleted now. And there are too much of IPC/trivia related problems for one day. 01:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Any more input on User:Mangojuice/PC? Mango juice ^talk 19:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply

as a start, change to /Cultural references. Second, are you aiming for user space or WP space. I would suggest WP space. Depending on which, I will look at details again DGG ( talk) 19:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Aiming at a WP space essay, at Wikipedia:Popular culture. I don't like "cultural references" because people have the understanding that "cultural references" refers to sections such as the "references in" lists I talk about. BTW, I saw your point about "explaining humor" - obviously you're right, it's relevant and worthwhile to explain plot, but there's a limit, so that bit could stand some rewriting. Mango juice ^talk 19:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply

You may be right about "references" let's look around at what others have tried as page titles for this material.My point is, that much of the material may not in either direction be "popular" culture. Uses of Moby Dick or the Bible is not making use of popular culture. In the other directions, a theme used by, say, Rushdie, does not quite fit either. Not even all of film fits into this category. I have sometimes thought some of the sections should be dealt with separately (video games in particular, since there are still very few conventional secondary references.) as for location, do you mean as a replacement? or a subpage? The original is just an essay--subpages are generally discouraged except in user space. It might be interesting, though, to have a good way of doing a collection of different people's essays. DGG ( talk) 22:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi DGG - on a CFD discussion you noted * Keep Many of the AfD discussions on such lists close as calling for the exactly opposite treatment--to use the category. doing this is at cross purposes. There are several ongoing discussions on how to deal with such articles, and this change is at the least premature.DGG (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC). Do you have links for the "several ongoing discussions" on this topic? It's of great concern to me, as well. -- lquilter 18:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

starting point: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Trivia is what Wikipedia does best, Wikipedia talk:Relevance of content , and see Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles , Wikipedia talk :Trivia sections.

Lots of interesting stuff on the trivia/IPC debate, but I haven't found much on the AFD/CFD boomerang problem in which a list goes up for AFD and people say "let's make it a category" and the same category goes up for CFD and people say "not appropriate for a category; listify". Or am I missing something? -- lquilter 15:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC) reply

That particular line was used more a few months back, where one or two editors were consistently following a pattern of first splitting off content from a main article as too long to keep together, then nominating the split one for deletion as non notable. But it wasnt back-and-forth, it was just nominated as better in a category. I'll find some afds where this was used. The general question of list vs category is a tricky one, because it also concerns the question of whether redlinks should be removed from lists--whether they can and should include content not sufficiently notable for a WP article. What's going on there is an overlapping movement of general opposition to lists. A great many major lists are being nominated as indiscriminate because they contain a large number of items. I want to look for some AfDs where the list was kept , so it will still be visible. I think the answer is to always have both if there are enough to justify a category. I dont see how we can decide a priori which way or organization is better. DGG ( talk) 16:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I think there are lots of good reasons to like one or the other, depending on the situation. But then I am fairly inclusive on lists and on redlinks, too. (The redlink think actually annoys me quite a bit, because of course there are lots of systemic bias issues involved in it.) I really think there should be some sort of list for monitoring AFD/CFDs that center on the category/list question, to ensure some consistency of approach across the two discussions. I guess I'll propose that at the cat/list/infobox page. -- lquilter 17:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC) reply

from the AfD: Do you really think that all IPC articles are inherently unencylopedic? The kind that usually wind up at AfD tend to be a terrible mess, but there are a few good ones out there. -- Nick Penguin_{( contribs)} 02:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC) reply

passing by. I think that almost all of them are in fact encyclopedic as summaries and reorganisations of material elsewhere. DGG ( talk) 03:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC) reply

.......... (copied here by Stifle)

Yes, I do, but primarily because I am a deletionist. Stifle ( talk) 10:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC) reply

As a deletionist then, what do you want deleted? all articles on all topics? or what do you think in particular applies here to all of them? ? (I note that I am in general an inclusionist, but only in general--I almost never say all of anything should be kept -- or deleted. And the balance varies by topic--for example, i think most primary school articles contain only dictionary information & should be deleted or merged or redirected--but that's most, not all. For the topic here, IPC, I said almost all. Definitely not all--some of them are incurably overspecific or overbroad or inadequate. DGG ( talk) 13:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't have a copy of the article, in either state. In fact, I actually rather think it works better as a category than as a List article. =) Powers ^T 20:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC) reply

This was prodded. Do you think it can (or should) be rescued? Bearian ( talk) 23:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC) reply

(butting in) Surely yes, this would have to be one of the more notable cultural themes. To be safe, the article needs at least two sources where smuggling as a theme is discussed in some journal/book about films/movies/literature/whatever. I will have a look too. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply

yes, that would be safer,but it actually shouldn't be necessary: a number of different references that a notable book has this theme--or even obvious titles--ought to be sufficient -- considering the weird decision swe sometimes get from AfD, safe is better. Anyway there's additional proof: there is a Library of Congress Subject heading Smuggling -- Drama which is evidence its a notable enough subject to be a subject heading for multiple works. [5]. In particular, I think that the fact that they classified a work there is reason that , if that were is notable, it could be listed here. (BTW, LC does not normally classify novels according to subject headings, except for children's novels, so this approach won't work for novels.) DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC) reply

You seem to be the expert on this stuff round here! I came across M. C. Escher in popular culture ( AfD discussion) in the usual random-Wikipedia-exploring way, and it's a really untidy article. My first thought was to delete but after a look around it seems like this sort of article isn't deleted. I'd therefore like to clean it up. Could you point me towards a good example of this type of article that I can reference, and suggest some pointers for me please? Thanks, Bigger digger ( talk) 14:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply

I took the opportunity to write an rather long essay that others may also find useful:

There is no policy, every instance is different, and opinion here is sharply divided. There are some people (like me) who will support almost every one of the articles as a mater of principle as core content for an encyclopedia with especially good coverage of popular culture, and some who will oppose them all as a matter of principle as being unimportant matters of trivial concern, appropriate only for a fan wiki but not for a serious work of reference like Wikipedia. (various terms of Wikipedia jargon are used in support or defense, but what I have just said are I think the motivations for the two basic alternatives. In an actual discussion on deletion, the decision depends on who shows up on the debate. Generally the ones that are about the very best known works, because people see that name and look at the debate and want to keep everything on a really important character. When it's someone less widely recognized, few people show up except the ones who are concerned with deleting. Obviously it helps if everything is sourced, but ideally the sources should not just that the use exist, but that someone has actually said that they represents a significant use of the work being referred to work. In most cases, one would think this obvious, but the people who object to these articles usually seize on that point, because few of our present articles really fulfill it.

But they could. There is an abundance of good print sources & some good web sources dealing with almost everything conceived of in Wikipedia, including popular culture. . This should not be surprising: popular culture is a subject of academic study, and papers on the influence of X on y are the mainstay of academic writing in the humanities. The best place to look in general is WorldCat and Google Books; and then Google Scholar for journal articles. Most of the material in Google Scholar is available in any good academic library, and the main branches of even medium sized public libraries have much of it available through collection like JSTOR and Academic Search. The books may need to be gotten by interlibrary loan, but every library in the US, Canada, and UK will do it, though it takes a few weeks. Unfortunately, some are likely to be reference books, which are usually not available in interlibrary loan.

Two excellent general ones, unfortunately reference books in every library I've checked, are

Pendergast, Tom, and Sara Pendergast. St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture. Detroit: St. James Press,

Browne, Ray B., and Pat Browne. The Guide to United States Popular Culture. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University Popular Press, 2001, (the Browne book has considerable amount of its content readable by Google books for many specific names and things)

What the M._C._Escher_in_popular_culture needs most is arrangement and selection: Divide by medium, and eliminate any cultural references found in works that do not have a Wikipedia article, at least one about the author or artist.

As for references, the Brown book has an available section [6] . There is also the more academic M.C. Escher Centennial Conference, M. C. Escher, Doris Schattschneider, and Michele Emmer. M.C. Escher's Legacy: A Centennial Celebration : Collection of Articles Coming from the M.C. Escher Centennial Conference, Rome, 1998. Berlin: Springer, 2003.

Wow, thank you, what a reply. I didn't intend to make you go off in search of sources, but thanks for your efforts. What I was really after was a similar article where the layout is in some way organised and it's not an aesthetic nightmare, so I have some idea of what direction to strike off in. I thought your involvement, or at least your user page note, would mean you know of some. Can you suggest a few for me please? Don't search for them, I'll happily look for some if you don't have any to hand, but I thought you would be a useful shortcut! Bigger digger ( talk) 23:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply

See User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing and some of the similar articles that I've rescued, listed there. In general, a random list of occurrences in film and television is uninformative to the reader. As DGG points out, popular culture is studied in scholarly literature. However, the people that study it do not do what Wikipedia editors so often do, which is make a list of occurrences and hope that after some critical mass is reached an article will magically arise. If you look at the literature, it's often vastly different in scope and structure to the random grab-bag articles that Wikipedians grow.

Compare Portrayals of Mormons in popular media ( AfD discussion) and Portrayals of God in popular media ( AfD discussion) to Portrayals of Mormons in popular media and God In Fiction to see the difference between Wikipedia articles written the cargo-cult way and articles written on the bases of sources analysing the subjects at hand. Witness final girl, which we turned from a redirect into an article, based upon sources that had actually analysed the popular culture concept, rather than simply collected lists of occurrences as had happened at List of final girls ( AfD discussion) and List of films featuring a final girl ( AfD discussion), where the outcome was markedly, and rightly, different.

One of our biggest "in popular culture" problems was Mintrick ( talk · contribs), who didn't like "popular culture" sections of articles that xe deemed only needing to have mediæval culture and classical culture pop references. From xyr actions, we gained a lot of article splits that xe was not shy about stating were to remove bad content from the "main article". The article that you are looking at was created in the same way and, per Talk:M. C. Escher#Popular Culture reference removed, for much the same bad reasons, alas. Rather than dealing with the bad content the right way, by turning it into good content in situ, it is swept under the rug to live indefinitely in an article that the editors who swept it away didn't make any effort to work upon. It's out of sight, therefore out of mind. Bad and lazy writing is collected and not dealt with; and Wikipedia's article count boast goes up by one. ☺

The ultimate irony, perhaps, is that this is a "popular culture sweeping under the rug" of a subject that is itself a popular culture reference. Most of these items are related to Relativity, notice. Relativity was itself a pop culture interpretation of an optical illusion known as the Schröder stairs ( File:Schroeder's stairs.svg), which H. Schröder wrote about in the journal Annalen der Physik und Chemie in 1858, which you'll find discussed in serious books on psychology, perception, and neuroscience (albeit grouped with other such "reversing" figures such as the stacked cubes, the Thiéry figure, and the Necker cube), and which we don't even have an article on. This is actually Schröder stairs in popular culture in popular culture, and doubly bad for being so.

P.S.: If you want to use sources about M. C. Escher's artistic legacy, note that the article that you're looking at is not M. C. Escher's legacy. ☺ Uncle G ( talk) 13:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply

• sigh - the minimum at this stage would be merging M. C. Escher's legacy and M. C. Escher in popular culture. Even M. C. Escher is not a very big article itself. I'll propose something at the merging page. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 18:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
• Listed at Talk:M. C. Escher's legacy Casliber ( talk · contribs) 18:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you Uncle G — why don't you make all these exciting tidbits available from your user page? DGG, thanks for hosting this learning experience. <joke>And boo to Casliber for coming along and spotting a problem with all of this.</joke> I guess I'll wait on the merge to wiggle out whilst digesting all of the information provided and getting some sources together. Bigger digger ( talk) 20:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC) reply
    • If people looked at Special:PrefixIndex/User:Uncle G/, they'd find the page that tells them how I know that no-one in the AFD discussion of Grove Avenue, London ( AfD discussion) has really properly read the history books, even the ones being cited. ☺

      More seriously: You'll find that three of these are in the Wikipedia:Editor's index. Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing is mentioned at User:TKD#Lists. Perhaps it needs to be more easily locatable. Uncle G ( talk) 00:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Enjoy my prediction at List of magical negro archetypes in fiction ( AfD discussion), by the way. Uncle G ( talk) 19:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply

It would seem I disagree with DGG over there, nevermind! Amazing how the article history follows your Cargo cult essay. On other points, I think I'm fairly good at sniffing out things here, but had never come across WP:EITW before. And I don't tend to think about doing a userspace search to find out about other editors, is that something others do regularly? Perhaps Uncle G would consider a link on his user page to the pages or Special:PrefixIndex/User:Uncle G/? Bigger digger ( talk) 23:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC) reply

==

The ones I chainsawed were full of things like "[Name of show] has an episode [with very similar but not identical name], an obvious shout-out", which is original research, or "[Name of show] mentioned this in very faint passing". I fail to see how one line of throwaway dialogue in a 22-minute episode warrants a relevant mention. Something more obvious, like "The creator of [show Y] cites [show X] as a primary influence" is fine on both Show Y and Show X's articles, as long as the claim is verified. But I just don't think we need every tangential little mention, especially in list form, which looks ugly. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 16:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC) reply

first of all, I would never say that everything in these sections was good, but you deleted the entire sections, the good and bad indiscriminately. (What I consider bad is analogies that are not documented or obvious, and of uses in non-notable works or unimportant contexts.) So are you telling me you had examined every item there and found that there was nothing useable in them according to your standards? I don't think so, because you consistently cite the worst, and use it as the justification for everything.

Second, your standard is wrong--At the very least there's certainly a general consensus that it is fully sufficient for the item to be significant in the work, not only if it is the primary theme or influence of it. But below even being important, even the little details are significant, for they are what show the cultural influence of a prior work , or natural or human-made object, or theme. This is how the cultural network is built. The significance of something is that it becomes a standard example that others will recognize. Entire art forms are constructed around this principle: parody, mash-up, collage, sampling. But even in ordinary work, its important what is shown: this is the sort of thing people study in not just literature and cultural studies, but history. There are books and articles, both scholarly and popular, written on , for example, the specific naval references in Jane Austen. or the geographic elements used by Shakespeare,the drinks people drink in a fictional work, the legendary characters or historical events they assume the audience will know about. This sort of information should be part of the content of a comprehensive encyclopedia like ours, which is not limited except by what people want to include.

Third, with respect to documentation, that something is the main theme or important or occurs in a work can be sourced from the work itself. It's one of the standard exceptions for the use of primary sources.

Finally, the wholesale elimination of the dozens of sections , some of them from major articles, in the course of a few days, done without discussion--and especially the reverts when people restored them-- were unconstructive. Even from your point of view, indiscriminate over-hasty zeal diminishes the value of what you were doing. You use the word "chainsawed." It was an accurate description, but perhaps you didn't mean to use it, for that word has the implications of vandalism. Had you instead taken out the worst of the junk, it would have been a positive contribution. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC) reply