This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Manual of Style/Trivia sections page. |
|
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11Auto-archiving period: 60 days
![]() |
![]() |
Manual of Style ![]() ![]() | |||||||||
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is established consensus that examples from popular culture are "not self-sourcing", that is, "The source(s) cited should not only establish the verifiability of the pop culture reference, but also its significance." MOS:POPCULT "in popular culture" section currently suggests the cleanup of "unencyclopedically trivial" entries, but does not elaborate what they are. The article "In popular culture" does elaborate on this, and makes it clear: "Although some references may be plainly verified by primary sources, this does not demonstrate the significance of the reference" and "[examples] should be reserved for major, in-depth treatments of the subject that have had lasting significance". Should the quoted text from the consensus of the RfC discussion and the "in popular culture" article be added to MOS:POPCULT for clarification of what is "unencyclopedically trivial"? BrightRoundCircle ( talk) 15:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Is this policy only about sections, or does it also cover content? At times I run into editors who reject properly sourced content because they consider it trivial. Does this policy cover that aspect as well, or are there other policies which apply? -- BullRangifer ( talk) 02:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
See change here.
I made this change based on this 2015 RfC which was mentioned in the text, this long discussion at VPR, which has stalled with a fairly clear local consensus, and the guidance which already existed here.
There seems to be a clear consensus about some basic principles relating to this content: that material shouldn't be included just because it exists, that sourcing is required, that the source should be at least in significant part about the subject rather than about the thing referencing the subject, that prose is preferable to lists, and that it's often preferable to incorporate separate sections into the rest of the article.
Since there really doesn't seem like a lot of disagreement about those basic principles (which isn't to say no disagreement), I figured I'd boldly rewrite the section to be clearer about them. My hope is that we can shift the conversation from everyone agreeing about those principles to the specifics of the wording. I'll post a note to that VPR thread shortly. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
There seems to be a clear consensus about some basic principles relating to this content: that material shouldn't be included just because it exists, that sourcing is required, that the source should be at least in significant part about the subject.... This consensus may have a clear majority, but it also has a clear basis in the notability guideline in spite of the supporters claims otherwise, particularly WP:NRV, where you can see that the "basic principles" being applied to IPC article content are nearly verbatim for that of the same guidelines in WP:NRV that we use for the creation of articles. Furthermore, WP:NNC tells us the "basic principles" of notability were never intended to be used for article content, but for article creation. These changes are an abuse that thumb their nose at existing guidelines in order to justify what they think they think is a solution to a problem, but they have not solved it in correct or proper manner. Huggums537 ( talk) 05:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Regardless of whether this is useful guidance, this is the wrong place for it. This is a style guideline, not a content guideline. See #What this guideline is not: "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations." Before the rewrite, the IPC section only mentioned the 2015 RfC as a kind of postscript, after noting that "Wikipedia has no policies or guidelines addressing the content of pop-culture sections specifically". If we want to create such a guideline, I think it would need its own page, and consensus for it would need to be established with a well-advertised RfC. Dan from A.P. ( talk) 09:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Since this discussion seemed to have stalled, I reverted back to the status quo until a consensus could be arrived at. I was reverted by User:MichaelMaggs, who said that the change already has consensus. As I've noted above, I don't think that's the case. On this page, we have a numerical consensus of 4 against 2, which isn't much, and no qualitative consensus at all. The Village Pump discussion, as I've said, doesn't meet the requirement of "a high level of consensus from the entire community", because (a) the result was inconclusive, and (b) it took place in the middle of a very confused RfC on a completely different question ("Should Wikipedia continue to have sections titled In popular culture?"). I'd also add that the Village Pump proposal said nothing about making any changes to this particular page; it was simply a proposal for new text to be added... somewhere.
But since we're obviously not in agreement on this, I'd suggest the next step would be to request a formal close of the Village Pump discussion; that way, we can settle the issue of whether that discussion established a consensus to make these changes to the guideline. Would everyone be okay with that? Dan from A.P. ( talk) 15:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
This guideline obviously applies to trivia sections, but it seems to me that it specifically limits itself to that. I took part in a recent AfD, where the closer believed that this guideline also applied to a stand-alone list. I think this is a bit of a stretch, because I couldn't find explicit wording in this guideline that confirms that the scope covers more than trivia sections, and that it covers stand-alone lists (which are already covered by WP:SAL), or that the section MOS:POPCULT similarly covers articles (not just sections) specifically about popular culture (i.e. Frankenstein in popular culture). There has only been limited and tangential debate on this in the past (i.e. about half of the 2016 RfC, where BrightRoundCircle argued that it didn't cover standalone lists, which have their own criteria listed there.)
What is the current consensus on the scope of this guideline? Does it: (1) limit itself to trivia sections (with trivia defined by WP:HTRIVIA), or (2) also cover stand-alone lists, and/or (3) also cover "in popular culture" articles as a whole? Pilaz ( talk) 16:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
prose is usually preferable to a list format? I'm not too familiar with the MOS, but it's surprising to me that in a Wikipedia corner there's an article that recommends against lists when dealing with matters of popular culture. (2) Similarly, wouldn't Christmas in literature, which you have had a hand in improving in the context of an ongoing AfD, fail the third paragraph of MOS:POPCULT since
Cultural references about a subject (for example how it is presented in a movie, song, television show, etc.) should not be included simply because they exist. Rather, all such references should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary or tertiary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article? I'm pretty sure MOS:POPCULT is a lot more stringent than WP:LISTVERIFY. Do you see this is a potential case of guidelines contradicting each other? Pilaz ( talk) 20:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes, the content is in a stand-alone article.after
Sometimes this content is in its own section ("in popular culture" is common, but also "in the media", "cultural references", etc.), and sometimes it is included with other prose.TompaDompa ( talk) 16:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
My take: Every "X in popular culture" is always dependent on a notable topic X, and begins (theoretically, at least) as one component of an entry about X. We only have them as separate articles when they would take up too much space in the main article. Sometimes it's taken for granted that it would take up an undue amount of space in the main article, and so they begin right away as a stand-alone article. The guidance is about the relationship between the "in popular culture" material and the subject. I would not think the guidance for such material would suddenly become totally irrelevant the moment the material is spun out of the main article to a separate page, and I have trouble thinking of good reasons why we would apply completely different standards (or none at all, as the case may be). That said, it's true this page doesn't talk about stand-alone lists, and in the world of MOS debates, those distinctions are often intentional and/or need to be spelled out to avoid widespread conflict. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
every "X in popular culture" is always dependent on a notable topic X. According to WP:SPLIT, an article should only be split if the subject of the new article is notable in its own right. So where the subject of "X in popular culture" has been discussed by multiple reliable sources per WP:LISTN, it's appropriate to have an article on that subject, but not otherwise. This is why editors can't evade the POPCULT guideline by splitting off the content into a new article. We couldn't have an article titled "Bone broth in popular culture", because that's not a notable topic. So to my mind, stand-alone lists like this shouldn't be treated as extensions of other articles, but as articles in their own right. And it makes sense that an article on the subject of "X in popular culture" would be broader in its coverage than a pop culture section at article X would be. It's unreasonable to ask that every source in an "X in popular culture" article should primarily discuss the subject of a different article. Dan from A.P. ( talk) 22:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
evade the POPCULT guideline, so to speak, if the content is poorly sourced but the topic is notable. That's what's been the issue in multiple articles that have been brought to AfD: notable topics with poorly sourced content. I don't think anybody is arguing that
every source in an "X in popular culture" article should primarily discuss the subject of a different article, and it's not unreasonable to ask that every example in an "X in popular culture" article should come from a source that covers the topic "X in popular culture" – that's a fairly straightforward application of the core principle that Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources have said on a topic. TompaDompa ( talk) 07:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary or tertiary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article. This source should cover the subject of the article in some depth; it should not be a source about the cultural item which merely mentions the subject.The key phrase in my eyes is "subject of the article"—for the article "X in popular culture", the subject of the article is X in popular culture (not just X). Having MOS:POPCULT to refer to rather than having to derive it from first principles (so-to-speak) when discussing the sourcing required for "X in popular culture" articles is a good thing. TompaDompa ( talk) 14:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
"In popular culture" and "Cultural references" materialin June 2015 ( diff). Very few consequential changes happened between 2015 and 2021, with editors mostly adding/removing essay-related commentary. On the talk page, between 2015 and 2021, there was one 2015 RfC about deprecating the use of "in popular culture" headers within articles and renaming them to limit the proliferation of trivia (which was agreed upon, but never fully settled on an alternative). Things substantially changed in September 2021, when Rhododendrites made a bold rewrite diff, justifying it on the grounds of a 2015 RfC at WP:V, and a village pump proposal which never closed and was quite chaotic, as some editors suggested, but was the driver of Rhododendrite's bold rewrite, which added an express recommendation (
As with most article content, prose is usually preferable to a list format, regardless of where the material appears) and the example of Baby Yoda's bone broth. Both the RfC and the Village pump proposal almost exclusively concentrated on "pop culture sections"; Rhododendrite's rewrite received a fair amount of praise and criticism in the follow-up discussion, which I recommend reading for an overview of the issues it was trying to address and the current criticism of the MOS:POPCULT section. On September 24, MichaelMaggs made another significant edit, adding that at least one source for each reference should be added, which was narrowed by Johnbod on November 3 ( diff). In November 2021 and December 2021, MOS:POPCULT began to be used to back deletion of stand-alone lists and "in popular culture"-related articles, which is why I opened this discussion on whether MOS:POPCULT applies to stand-alone lists and articles. To the pinged: if you haven't yet, consider contributing to this discussion on the scope of the guideline too! Pilaz ( talk) 17:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Rhododendrite's bold rewrite, which added an express recommendation (As with most article content, prose is usually preferable to a list format, regardless of where the material appears)-- The section already said "Short cultural references sections should usually be entirely reworked into the main flow of the article. If a separate section for this material is maintained, the poorest approach is a list, which will attract the addition of trivia. It is preferable to develop a normal article section with well-written paragraphs..." -- The recommendation was already there. But to be clear, that particular "regardless of where the material appears" was about whether or not it's in its own section. I don't think I/others in that discussion intended that to reach beyond that. In other words, I don't think that the edit I made changes this from being about material in an article to also include stand-alone pages. My opinion on whether this should apply is the same regardless of whether we're looking at the old version of that section or the new version. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
This interpretation doesn't add any 'prohibitions', contrary to what has been stated above. It has, as demonstrated, led to the improvement of multiple articles. Whenever TRIVIA/POPCULT is brought up as an excuse to remove content, it's just a proxy for WP:IINFO or notability, which it supplements. Avilich ( talk) 14:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Whenever TRIVIA/POPCULT is brought up as an excuse to remove content, it's just a proxy for WP:IINFO or notability, which it supplements.[Emphasis added]. This is the precise reason I opposed implementing the guidance here in the first place since notability does not apply to content ( WP:NNC), but they swore up and down the guidance being here had nothing to do with notability. Yet, here we have demonstrable evidence editors are clearly equating this guidance as a proxy to notability. Also, I warned everyone more than once (2nd paragraph) this change in the guideline would lead to misuse, but my efforts were only met with mocking (also 2nd paragraph). I should have known the misapplications would come sooner rather than later. If any of the wordings to improve articles or lists belong anywhere, it's not here. This is for sections and content within sections not articles and lists. If you want to rewrite the entire notability guideline to allow for notability to apply to sections or content, then be my guest, but please stop trying to weasel it in other places first. Huggums537 ( talk) 13:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Cultural references about a subject (for example how it is presented in a movie, song, television show, etc.) should not be included simply because they exist. Rather, all such references should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary or tertiary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article. This source should cover the subject of the article in some depth; it should not be a source about the cultural item which merely mentions the subject.) is fine. If it absolutely needs to be moved, WP:NOT seems like a reasonable place. The two paragraphs that follow (
Take for example the subject of bone broth. You may wish to include mention of how Baby Yoda in The Mandalorian drank bone broth. An appropriate source might be Bon Appetit magazine, which is a reliable source for articles about soup. If Bon Appetit mentions how Baby Yoda drank bone broth, it may be suitable for inclusion in the bone broth article. By contrast, an article in Polygon reviewing the latest episode of The Mandalorian which does not go into any detail about bone broth but simply mentions that Baby Yoda drank some in that episode is not sufficient to include in the article because it does not provide any significant coverage of the subject of the article.and
Note that this sourcing requirement is a minimum threshold for inclusion of cultural references. Consensus at the article level can determine whether particular references which meet this criteria should be included.) could be included as explanatory footnotes. TompaDompa ( talk) 13:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
which views being represented are more or less predominant than others( WP:WEIGHT). Which is of course why I didn't say that it was. It's about treating
each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject( WP:PROPORTION). TompaDompa ( talk) 05:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Its meaning is only that trivial mentions from primary sources do not confer notability in the absence of reliable sources, not that an article having POPCULT-noncompliant content has any effect on its topic's notability.I know exactly what its meaning is. You have misunderstood as well as misinterpreted my point. Nobody has suggested anything about POPCULT-noncompliant content having an effect on its topic's notability.
The focus on Wikipedia's specific definition of notability and on the nominal difference betwen a section and a page is pedantic and of no consequence here.Tell that to the people who wrote WP:NNC. Article splits are a natural common part of the system, not gaming it. The fact these pop sections can be successfully split into their own articles is evidence of this. What encourages gaming is blurring the guidelines between the specific definition of notability and the content or sections within an article or list by trying to say they are "nominal differences that are pedantic ones of no consequence." The way to avoid blurring these lines is to keep the guidance for sections (content within articles) and pages (notability) in different places. I also disagree that
If any one is incorrectly associating content with notability, most of the time it's probably in that fashion, rather than in the way you're thinking.and I would say both are a big problem. Huggums537 ( talk) 05:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
The way to demonstrate that sources actually do consider example Y significant enough to warrant being covered in a X in fiction/popular culture/whatever context is to cite those sources.is a fundamental concept from the perspective of notability, which I have pointed out is not permitted to be applied to individual content within articles per WP:NNC so the restrictions themselves are not valid. Huggums537 ( talk) 08:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
"The style advice in this page (which it should be scaled back to) should apply to stand-alone articles as well as embedded sections, of course". He just mistakenly thought that POPCULT was being used to enforce some "prohibition" in the sense of notability. Moreover, another one said,
"I would not think the guidance for such material would suddenly become totally irrelevant the moment the material is spun out of the main article to a separate page, and I have trouble thinking of good reasons why we would apply completely different standards". I also don't see how, in your words,
"there exists rough consensus that this guideline and MOS:POPCULT do not currently apply to articles and stand-alone lists". Avilich ( talk) 02:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
...a less strict standard of quality, independent sourcing to show that others have identified the pop culture reference., but when you start requiring "significant coverage", and also require that your sources must now do the double duty of supporting their facts as well as supporting the main topic, then you've elevated it far beyond that. As Buzz Lightyear says, "To notability and beyond!"... Huggums537 ( talk) 09:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Personally, I still find that copypasting MOS:POPCULT elsewhere would be too invasive in its current form and some of the phrasing could even be contradictory (WP:GUIDELINEFORK), especially for its strict requirement to cite everything and to prefer a prose format, but this is not something that is at the moment shared collectively.I agree with this and think that the requirement for "significant coverage" for content within articles is also contradictory. When this is broken down to the most basic terms, we end up with simple restrictions being imposed to content within articles based on the fact that they are trivia. However, this same kind of content/trivia could occur on any article, list, or section across 6 million+ pages, yet those basic restrictions being imposed here would never ever pass as a "guiding principle" for adding/removing content/trivia to all of our articles, lists and sections. I'm opposed to adding any restriction for adding/removing content/trivia that has absolutely no support for adding/removing the same content/trivia across the board. Well, someone might argue the pop sections are particularly bad, so they need a special exception, and my reply would be the fact that people are removing whole pop articles even without MOS:POPCULT is proof this is not true and Pilaz has reminded us the WP:GUIDELINEFORK should be discouraged anyway. Huggums537 ( talk) 02:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
only if such a requirement also made a specific mention that allowed primary sources to be used as long as they are accompanied with the secondary sourceThere is nothing in the current phrasing that even remotely implies that this wouldn't be the case. The current phrasing mandates secondary/tertiary sources and makes no mention of primary sources one way or the other.
it has been argued this language does not refer to notability, but is a reference to DUE, and NOTThat's WP:PROPORTION, not WP:DUE. TompaDompa ( talk) 05:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
one more point that I have not previously touched upon... Either our policies support this kind of treatment for trivia in our articles or they don't.It's what I've been touching upon from the onset: yes, these 'restrictions' should apply to trivia anywhere, not just to the completely arbitrary limit of sections. Content policies and guidelines are applicable in whatever article or section said content happens to be. Avilich ( talk) 19:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
...yes, these 'restrictions' should apply to trivia anywhere, not just to the completely arbitrary limit of sections.Because, so far what the restrictions tell us about our policies are incorrect things that are not actually supported by our policies (and even go against them), such as primary sources are not allowed. This of course could not possibly be limited to trivia if our policies are supposed to be applied consistently everywhere, so primary sources would not be allowed for anything else listed in NOT, and in fact would have to be applied to any content anyone wanted to add to articles if we wanted our policy to be applied equally consistently. However, there is no consensus for eliminating primary sources from Wikipedia, so these restrictions are simply not supported by policy, and that doesn't even touch on the fact that the restrictions tell us our policies require "significant coverage" from our sources in order for content to be included within articles, but this simply is not true. None of our policies support requiring this, and if it did, we would have to apply it to all content, not just trivia, or one trivia section. Huggums537 ( talk) 03:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Because, so far what the restrictions tell us about our policies are incorrect things that are not actually supported by our policies (and even go against them), such as primary sources are not allowed.Where on Earth are you getting the idea that primary sources would be disallowed? TompaDompa ( talk) 05:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
the mandate for secondary/tertiary sources implies primary sources are not allowedNo, it doesn't. It implies that they aren't sufficient, which is completely different. TompaDompa ( talk) 15:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
This guideline is no more restrictive than it needs to be, nor are its limitations on primary sources much different from any other area in wikipedia.The fact that you can't add an entry with just a primary source alone is different from most of Wikipedia.
As a close analogy, articles on biographies and historical events use primary sources only for descriptive and straightforward statements that don't require interpretation.This statement is proof that our policies treat primary sources differently in other areas of Wikipedia than what these restrictions say our policies should treat trivia. Huggums537 ( talk) 22:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
destroying (AKA deleting)articles? I've presented quite a few examples of where applying this standard has instead resulted in articles being rewritten at a higher quality and thus not being deleted (see WP:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction, and WP:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction). The point is not getting rid of the articles, the point is improving the content. For that matter, where are you getting the idea that this somehow violates existing policies/guidelines? TompaDompa ( talk) 14:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
There's a reason why 700+ of "popular culture"-related articles have been nominated for deletion at AfD over the years.My reasoning for holding my position is that there are a great many times more numerous examples of the wanted destruction of these articles than examples of the wanted improvement, therefore the idea that we somehow need such guidance for the improvement of these articles is exceptionally faulty reasoning. As for the idea of how it violates policy, I have explained that to death in various places, so if you don't mind I will take MichaelMaggs advice, and give that part a rest. Huggums537 ( talk) 03:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Since several proposals have emerged, and to make the discussion move forward, I've opened this section to make them easier to scrutinize. Feel free to add your own. Discussion can of course continue in the section above or within the proposals. Pilaz ( talk) 16:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Cultural references about a subject (for example how it is presented in a movie, song, television show, etc.) should not be included simply because they exist. [...] Consensus at the article level can determine whether particular references which meet this criteria should be included.part) is good and serves to improve the quality of our articles on this subject. I note that the discussion has been listed at WP:ANRFC but I don't know that the discussion has really been focused enough to result in much of a consensus on any particulars. TompaDompa ( talk) 15:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
So there's agreement that this style page is not the ideal place for a content guideline, but no-one has yet suggested a better place to move it to. I can't think of a good place either. We also have the problem that this conversation is unlikely to get anywhere without wider input, but we can't solicit wider input until we've decided what the question is. I think the way out of this deadlock is to move the conversation to the Village Pump idea lab, so we can get more people involved without having to make a formal proposal.
But we'd still need an "idea" to bring to the idea lab, so I suggest reviving SMcCandlish's 2015 proposal to "develop a content guideline on encyclopedic relevance" based on the essays WP:HTRIV and WP:IPC. This proposal didn't get a lot of attention at the time, possibly because of the amount of work it would involve; but if the community wants a pop culture content guideline, I think creating a new page is the only way to go about it, and this seems like a sensible approach. (I personally don't think we need a pop culture content guideline, so I wouldn't be prepared to take the lead on this. I just want to get this style guideline back the way it was.) Dan from A.P. ( talk) 14:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
no-one has yet suggested a better place to move it to; I suggested WP:NOT in early January. The most logical place there would to me seem to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. One could simply add a bullet point there stating that Wikipedia articles should not be
Lists of popular culture references or appearances., and copy the contents from here in the way I suggested back in January.In response to the suggestion immediately above that we create a guideline to standardize the layout of "in popular culture" articles, I must say that I find that to be a bad idea. There is no reason to assume that a "one size fits all" approach would be the best way to go about it. For some subjects, dividing the article into sections by medium might make the most sense. For other topics, it might make more sense to do it chronologically. For others still, the most appropriate way could be by theme/aspect/whatever. In some cases, it might be best to use a combination of some kind. This should be assessed for each article individually. TompaDompa ( talk) 15:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I just made a change to the lead section, which now says: "It was once common practice on Wikipedia for articles to include lists of isolated information, which were often grouped into their own section. These sections were typically given names such as "Trivia", "Facts", "Miscellanea", "Other information" and "Notes" (not to be confused with "Notes" sections that store reference citation footnotes). For an example of this practice, see the John Lennon trivia section from December 10 2005." It has been my experience that a lot of people cite this policy to argue about what information should appear on Wikipedia, which this page clearly states it is not. I thought it would improve clarity, to rearrange and give the lead section a bit of a past tense feel. This policy was made back around 2007 iirc because Trivia sections were very common on Wikipedia (you could even say it was plagued by them). Now, these sections have largely been removed and are very rare. I hope this improves the policy but welcome comments. Mozzie ( talk) 01:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
This policy definitely needs some reworking. It mentions the point of having these restrictions is to not include trivial references within these sections, but the method for identifying whether something is trivial here is completely ineffective. Why would a Bon Appetit article mentioning the bone broth in The Mandalorian make it either a trivial or significant reference for bone broth itself? If a trusted source that goes in-depth about trees mentioned that a tree appears in The Avengers, would we include that "a tree appears in The Avengers" on the Tree page's "In popular culture" section?. Bon Appetit could easily make a list of every time "bone broth" has been uttered in a movie or TV show, too. The point here is to identify whether the subject of the reference has a noteworthy impact within the pop-culture object itself, not whether the source we are referencing goes in-depth about the subject in matters unrelated to the pop-culture object. Also, the point of a source is to verify that certain information can be trusted; we cannot use a source to determine whether a certain reference is noteworthy or not, which this policy seems to encourage us to do. Aberration ( talk) 13:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Another fault of this approach is that it means a subject that has appeared in exactly one movie but has had 1000 articles written about it has had more cultural impact over a subject that has appeared in 100,000 movies but has no articles written about it. It conflates the popularity of the fictional media or the source we use for it vs. the popularity of the subject itself. Aberration ( talk) 16:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
It actually prevents us from ever using an official source about Subject B.– Yes, that's the point. Or more accurately, it prevents us from using such a source in isolation. An article on Subject A shouldn't be built upon a foundation of sources on Subject B. Per WP:PROPORTION:
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.—"on the subject" is key there. TompaDompa ( talk) 20:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful.TompaDompa ( talk) 20:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
In general, what determines if information is relevant to be included in an article is what coverage that information gets in sources on the topic of the article at hand. That's a very fundamental part of how Wikipedia works. TompaDompa ( talk) 21:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
But doesn't that make only articles as viable sources?No, it doesn't mean that at all. Books (e.g. The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy) can be perfectly serviceable sources, even ideal sometimes.
Official sources aren't articles, so they don't have the concept of "coverage" to them.– I have no idea what you're trying to say here. It's borderline nonsensical.
Inclusion of 'popular culture' content in contexts like this requires an independent source to demonstrate significance - to show that uninvolved commentators care enough about the connection to consider it worth writing about.
POPCULT is currently worded to prefer secondary and tertiary sources for background information and plot details, which contradicts our already existing "Writing about fiction" policy.– No, that's not right either. MOS:POPCULT not even about "background information and plot details", it's about references to one thing appearing in another.
I'd strongly recommend that before you start griping about Wikipedia policy on sourcing you take the time to actually read it.TompaDompa ( talk) 13:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I would say significance in this case is established through the fact the pop-culture reference was made in the first place– I'm sure you would say that, but that makes no difference for Wikipedia's purposes. What matters for our purposes is what reliable sources deem relevant.
We do not see benefit from sourcing information on sci-fi series from The Greenwood Encyclopedia rather than, for example, an official source on Star Trek.– You are entitled to your opinion about what the best way to construct an encyclopaedia is, but this runs counter to the core fundamentals of how Wikipedia works. If Wikipedia worked the way you want it to, it would be a secondary source. But it's not, and it's not intended to be—Wikipedia is by design a tertiary source. You don't have to like or agree with that approach to writing an encyclopaedia, but it behooves you to abide by it.
The pop-culture references we include are simply background details on fictional characters.– No, that's complete nonsense. " Frodo Baggins' parents died when he was twelve" is (in-universe) background information on a fictional character. " Frodo Baggins was named Bingo in the earliest drafts" might be called real-life background on a fictional character. " Psylla frodobagginsi is named after Frodo Baggins" is a reference to a fictional character. Of those three, only the first is what WP:WAF is talking about in the passage you referred to above. TompaDompa ( talk) 15:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
My point is that pop-culture sections almost exclusively contain information like the very first Frodo example you brought up.– What on Earth are you on about? Pop-culture sections contain information like " Frodo Baggins' parents died when he was twelve"? What pop-culture section would that be on, hypothetically? TompaDompa ( talk) 16:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.That's about different aspects, not contradictory viewpoints. TompaDompa ( talk) 16:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
We should have a specific policy that provides examples of what kind of information is relevant for these sections– that would still necessitate editors evaluating the information contained in the sources to determine whether it meets those criteria. And it would be a terrible instance of WP:Instruction creep.
Now the example given on this page no longer is vaporware. Go have a look: Stock_(food)#In_popular_culture Cheers CapnZapp ( talk) 18:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Your input would be appreciated at Talk:Valley View Center#The “In Popular Culture” section should stay. Thank you. -- Magnolia677 ( talk) 10:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Manual of Style/Trivia sections page. |
|
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11Auto-archiving period: 60 days
![]() |
![]() |
Manual of Style ![]() ![]() | |||||||||
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is established consensus that examples from popular culture are "not self-sourcing", that is, "The source(s) cited should not only establish the verifiability of the pop culture reference, but also its significance." MOS:POPCULT "in popular culture" section currently suggests the cleanup of "unencyclopedically trivial" entries, but does not elaborate what they are. The article "In popular culture" does elaborate on this, and makes it clear: "Although some references may be plainly verified by primary sources, this does not demonstrate the significance of the reference" and "[examples] should be reserved for major, in-depth treatments of the subject that have had lasting significance". Should the quoted text from the consensus of the RfC discussion and the "in popular culture" article be added to MOS:POPCULT for clarification of what is "unencyclopedically trivial"? BrightRoundCircle ( talk) 15:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Is this policy only about sections, or does it also cover content? At times I run into editors who reject properly sourced content because they consider it trivial. Does this policy cover that aspect as well, or are there other policies which apply? -- BullRangifer ( talk) 02:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
See change here.
I made this change based on this 2015 RfC which was mentioned in the text, this long discussion at VPR, which has stalled with a fairly clear local consensus, and the guidance which already existed here.
There seems to be a clear consensus about some basic principles relating to this content: that material shouldn't be included just because it exists, that sourcing is required, that the source should be at least in significant part about the subject rather than about the thing referencing the subject, that prose is preferable to lists, and that it's often preferable to incorporate separate sections into the rest of the article.
Since there really doesn't seem like a lot of disagreement about those basic principles (which isn't to say no disagreement), I figured I'd boldly rewrite the section to be clearer about them. My hope is that we can shift the conversation from everyone agreeing about those principles to the specifics of the wording. I'll post a note to that VPR thread shortly. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
There seems to be a clear consensus about some basic principles relating to this content: that material shouldn't be included just because it exists, that sourcing is required, that the source should be at least in significant part about the subject.... This consensus may have a clear majority, but it also has a clear basis in the notability guideline in spite of the supporters claims otherwise, particularly WP:NRV, where you can see that the "basic principles" being applied to IPC article content are nearly verbatim for that of the same guidelines in WP:NRV that we use for the creation of articles. Furthermore, WP:NNC tells us the "basic principles" of notability were never intended to be used for article content, but for article creation. These changes are an abuse that thumb their nose at existing guidelines in order to justify what they think they think is a solution to a problem, but they have not solved it in correct or proper manner. Huggums537 ( talk) 05:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Regardless of whether this is useful guidance, this is the wrong place for it. This is a style guideline, not a content guideline. See #What this guideline is not: "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations." Before the rewrite, the IPC section only mentioned the 2015 RfC as a kind of postscript, after noting that "Wikipedia has no policies or guidelines addressing the content of pop-culture sections specifically". If we want to create such a guideline, I think it would need its own page, and consensus for it would need to be established with a well-advertised RfC. Dan from A.P. ( talk) 09:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Since this discussion seemed to have stalled, I reverted back to the status quo until a consensus could be arrived at. I was reverted by User:MichaelMaggs, who said that the change already has consensus. As I've noted above, I don't think that's the case. On this page, we have a numerical consensus of 4 against 2, which isn't much, and no qualitative consensus at all. The Village Pump discussion, as I've said, doesn't meet the requirement of "a high level of consensus from the entire community", because (a) the result was inconclusive, and (b) it took place in the middle of a very confused RfC on a completely different question ("Should Wikipedia continue to have sections titled In popular culture?"). I'd also add that the Village Pump proposal said nothing about making any changes to this particular page; it was simply a proposal for new text to be added... somewhere.
But since we're obviously not in agreement on this, I'd suggest the next step would be to request a formal close of the Village Pump discussion; that way, we can settle the issue of whether that discussion established a consensus to make these changes to the guideline. Would everyone be okay with that? Dan from A.P. ( talk) 15:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
This guideline obviously applies to trivia sections, but it seems to me that it specifically limits itself to that. I took part in a recent AfD, where the closer believed that this guideline also applied to a stand-alone list. I think this is a bit of a stretch, because I couldn't find explicit wording in this guideline that confirms that the scope covers more than trivia sections, and that it covers stand-alone lists (which are already covered by WP:SAL), or that the section MOS:POPCULT similarly covers articles (not just sections) specifically about popular culture (i.e. Frankenstein in popular culture). There has only been limited and tangential debate on this in the past (i.e. about half of the 2016 RfC, where BrightRoundCircle argued that it didn't cover standalone lists, which have their own criteria listed there.)
What is the current consensus on the scope of this guideline? Does it: (1) limit itself to trivia sections (with trivia defined by WP:HTRIVIA), or (2) also cover stand-alone lists, and/or (3) also cover "in popular culture" articles as a whole? Pilaz ( talk) 16:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
prose is usually preferable to a list format? I'm not too familiar with the MOS, but it's surprising to me that in a Wikipedia corner there's an article that recommends against lists when dealing with matters of popular culture. (2) Similarly, wouldn't Christmas in literature, which you have had a hand in improving in the context of an ongoing AfD, fail the third paragraph of MOS:POPCULT since
Cultural references about a subject (for example how it is presented in a movie, song, television show, etc.) should not be included simply because they exist. Rather, all such references should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary or tertiary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article? I'm pretty sure MOS:POPCULT is a lot more stringent than WP:LISTVERIFY. Do you see this is a potential case of guidelines contradicting each other? Pilaz ( talk) 20:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes, the content is in a stand-alone article.after
Sometimes this content is in its own section ("in popular culture" is common, but also "in the media", "cultural references", etc.), and sometimes it is included with other prose.TompaDompa ( talk) 16:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
My take: Every "X in popular culture" is always dependent on a notable topic X, and begins (theoretically, at least) as one component of an entry about X. We only have them as separate articles when they would take up too much space in the main article. Sometimes it's taken for granted that it would take up an undue amount of space in the main article, and so they begin right away as a stand-alone article. The guidance is about the relationship between the "in popular culture" material and the subject. I would not think the guidance for such material would suddenly become totally irrelevant the moment the material is spun out of the main article to a separate page, and I have trouble thinking of good reasons why we would apply completely different standards (or none at all, as the case may be). That said, it's true this page doesn't talk about stand-alone lists, and in the world of MOS debates, those distinctions are often intentional and/or need to be spelled out to avoid widespread conflict. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
every "X in popular culture" is always dependent on a notable topic X. According to WP:SPLIT, an article should only be split if the subject of the new article is notable in its own right. So where the subject of "X in popular culture" has been discussed by multiple reliable sources per WP:LISTN, it's appropriate to have an article on that subject, but not otherwise. This is why editors can't evade the POPCULT guideline by splitting off the content into a new article. We couldn't have an article titled "Bone broth in popular culture", because that's not a notable topic. So to my mind, stand-alone lists like this shouldn't be treated as extensions of other articles, but as articles in their own right. And it makes sense that an article on the subject of "X in popular culture" would be broader in its coverage than a pop culture section at article X would be. It's unreasonable to ask that every source in an "X in popular culture" article should primarily discuss the subject of a different article. Dan from A.P. ( talk) 22:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
evade the POPCULT guideline, so to speak, if the content is poorly sourced but the topic is notable. That's what's been the issue in multiple articles that have been brought to AfD: notable topics with poorly sourced content. I don't think anybody is arguing that
every source in an "X in popular culture" article should primarily discuss the subject of a different article, and it's not unreasonable to ask that every example in an "X in popular culture" article should come from a source that covers the topic "X in popular culture" – that's a fairly straightforward application of the core principle that Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources have said on a topic. TompaDompa ( talk) 07:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary or tertiary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article. This source should cover the subject of the article in some depth; it should not be a source about the cultural item which merely mentions the subject.The key phrase in my eyes is "subject of the article"—for the article "X in popular culture", the subject of the article is X in popular culture (not just X). Having MOS:POPCULT to refer to rather than having to derive it from first principles (so-to-speak) when discussing the sourcing required for "X in popular culture" articles is a good thing. TompaDompa ( talk) 14:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
"In popular culture" and "Cultural references" materialin June 2015 ( diff). Very few consequential changes happened between 2015 and 2021, with editors mostly adding/removing essay-related commentary. On the talk page, between 2015 and 2021, there was one 2015 RfC about deprecating the use of "in popular culture" headers within articles and renaming them to limit the proliferation of trivia (which was agreed upon, but never fully settled on an alternative). Things substantially changed in September 2021, when Rhododendrites made a bold rewrite diff, justifying it on the grounds of a 2015 RfC at WP:V, and a village pump proposal which never closed and was quite chaotic, as some editors suggested, but was the driver of Rhododendrite's bold rewrite, which added an express recommendation (
As with most article content, prose is usually preferable to a list format, regardless of where the material appears) and the example of Baby Yoda's bone broth. Both the RfC and the Village pump proposal almost exclusively concentrated on "pop culture sections"; Rhododendrite's rewrite received a fair amount of praise and criticism in the follow-up discussion, which I recommend reading for an overview of the issues it was trying to address and the current criticism of the MOS:POPCULT section. On September 24, MichaelMaggs made another significant edit, adding that at least one source for each reference should be added, which was narrowed by Johnbod on November 3 ( diff). In November 2021 and December 2021, MOS:POPCULT began to be used to back deletion of stand-alone lists and "in popular culture"-related articles, which is why I opened this discussion on whether MOS:POPCULT applies to stand-alone lists and articles. To the pinged: if you haven't yet, consider contributing to this discussion on the scope of the guideline too! Pilaz ( talk) 17:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Rhododendrite's bold rewrite, which added an express recommendation (As with most article content, prose is usually preferable to a list format, regardless of where the material appears)-- The section already said "Short cultural references sections should usually be entirely reworked into the main flow of the article. If a separate section for this material is maintained, the poorest approach is a list, which will attract the addition of trivia. It is preferable to develop a normal article section with well-written paragraphs..." -- The recommendation was already there. But to be clear, that particular "regardless of where the material appears" was about whether or not it's in its own section. I don't think I/others in that discussion intended that to reach beyond that. In other words, I don't think that the edit I made changes this from being about material in an article to also include stand-alone pages. My opinion on whether this should apply is the same regardless of whether we're looking at the old version of that section or the new version. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
This interpretation doesn't add any 'prohibitions', contrary to what has been stated above. It has, as demonstrated, led to the improvement of multiple articles. Whenever TRIVIA/POPCULT is brought up as an excuse to remove content, it's just a proxy for WP:IINFO or notability, which it supplements. Avilich ( talk) 14:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Whenever TRIVIA/POPCULT is brought up as an excuse to remove content, it's just a proxy for WP:IINFO or notability, which it supplements.[Emphasis added]. This is the precise reason I opposed implementing the guidance here in the first place since notability does not apply to content ( WP:NNC), but they swore up and down the guidance being here had nothing to do with notability. Yet, here we have demonstrable evidence editors are clearly equating this guidance as a proxy to notability. Also, I warned everyone more than once (2nd paragraph) this change in the guideline would lead to misuse, but my efforts were only met with mocking (also 2nd paragraph). I should have known the misapplications would come sooner rather than later. If any of the wordings to improve articles or lists belong anywhere, it's not here. This is for sections and content within sections not articles and lists. If you want to rewrite the entire notability guideline to allow for notability to apply to sections or content, then be my guest, but please stop trying to weasel it in other places first. Huggums537 ( talk) 13:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Cultural references about a subject (for example how it is presented in a movie, song, television show, etc.) should not be included simply because they exist. Rather, all such references should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary or tertiary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article. This source should cover the subject of the article in some depth; it should not be a source about the cultural item which merely mentions the subject.) is fine. If it absolutely needs to be moved, WP:NOT seems like a reasonable place. The two paragraphs that follow (
Take for example the subject of bone broth. You may wish to include mention of how Baby Yoda in The Mandalorian drank bone broth. An appropriate source might be Bon Appetit magazine, which is a reliable source for articles about soup. If Bon Appetit mentions how Baby Yoda drank bone broth, it may be suitable for inclusion in the bone broth article. By contrast, an article in Polygon reviewing the latest episode of The Mandalorian which does not go into any detail about bone broth but simply mentions that Baby Yoda drank some in that episode is not sufficient to include in the article because it does not provide any significant coverage of the subject of the article.and
Note that this sourcing requirement is a minimum threshold for inclusion of cultural references. Consensus at the article level can determine whether particular references which meet this criteria should be included.) could be included as explanatory footnotes. TompaDompa ( talk) 13:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
which views being represented are more or less predominant than others( WP:WEIGHT). Which is of course why I didn't say that it was. It's about treating
each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject( WP:PROPORTION). TompaDompa ( talk) 05:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Its meaning is only that trivial mentions from primary sources do not confer notability in the absence of reliable sources, not that an article having POPCULT-noncompliant content has any effect on its topic's notability.I know exactly what its meaning is. You have misunderstood as well as misinterpreted my point. Nobody has suggested anything about POPCULT-noncompliant content having an effect on its topic's notability.
The focus on Wikipedia's specific definition of notability and on the nominal difference betwen a section and a page is pedantic and of no consequence here.Tell that to the people who wrote WP:NNC. Article splits are a natural common part of the system, not gaming it. The fact these pop sections can be successfully split into their own articles is evidence of this. What encourages gaming is blurring the guidelines between the specific definition of notability and the content or sections within an article or list by trying to say they are "nominal differences that are pedantic ones of no consequence." The way to avoid blurring these lines is to keep the guidance for sections (content within articles) and pages (notability) in different places. I also disagree that
If any one is incorrectly associating content with notability, most of the time it's probably in that fashion, rather than in the way you're thinking.and I would say both are a big problem. Huggums537 ( talk) 05:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
The way to demonstrate that sources actually do consider example Y significant enough to warrant being covered in a X in fiction/popular culture/whatever context is to cite those sources.is a fundamental concept from the perspective of notability, which I have pointed out is not permitted to be applied to individual content within articles per WP:NNC so the restrictions themselves are not valid. Huggums537 ( talk) 08:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
"The style advice in this page (which it should be scaled back to) should apply to stand-alone articles as well as embedded sections, of course". He just mistakenly thought that POPCULT was being used to enforce some "prohibition" in the sense of notability. Moreover, another one said,
"I would not think the guidance for such material would suddenly become totally irrelevant the moment the material is spun out of the main article to a separate page, and I have trouble thinking of good reasons why we would apply completely different standards". I also don't see how, in your words,
"there exists rough consensus that this guideline and MOS:POPCULT do not currently apply to articles and stand-alone lists". Avilich ( talk) 02:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
...a less strict standard of quality, independent sourcing to show that others have identified the pop culture reference., but when you start requiring "significant coverage", and also require that your sources must now do the double duty of supporting their facts as well as supporting the main topic, then you've elevated it far beyond that. As Buzz Lightyear says, "To notability and beyond!"... Huggums537 ( talk) 09:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Personally, I still find that copypasting MOS:POPCULT elsewhere would be too invasive in its current form and some of the phrasing could even be contradictory (WP:GUIDELINEFORK), especially for its strict requirement to cite everything and to prefer a prose format, but this is not something that is at the moment shared collectively.I agree with this and think that the requirement for "significant coverage" for content within articles is also contradictory. When this is broken down to the most basic terms, we end up with simple restrictions being imposed to content within articles based on the fact that they are trivia. However, this same kind of content/trivia could occur on any article, list, or section across 6 million+ pages, yet those basic restrictions being imposed here would never ever pass as a "guiding principle" for adding/removing content/trivia to all of our articles, lists and sections. I'm opposed to adding any restriction for adding/removing content/trivia that has absolutely no support for adding/removing the same content/trivia across the board. Well, someone might argue the pop sections are particularly bad, so they need a special exception, and my reply would be the fact that people are removing whole pop articles even without MOS:POPCULT is proof this is not true and Pilaz has reminded us the WP:GUIDELINEFORK should be discouraged anyway. Huggums537 ( talk) 02:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
only if such a requirement also made a specific mention that allowed primary sources to be used as long as they are accompanied with the secondary sourceThere is nothing in the current phrasing that even remotely implies that this wouldn't be the case. The current phrasing mandates secondary/tertiary sources and makes no mention of primary sources one way or the other.
it has been argued this language does not refer to notability, but is a reference to DUE, and NOTThat's WP:PROPORTION, not WP:DUE. TompaDompa ( talk) 05:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
one more point that I have not previously touched upon... Either our policies support this kind of treatment for trivia in our articles or they don't.It's what I've been touching upon from the onset: yes, these 'restrictions' should apply to trivia anywhere, not just to the completely arbitrary limit of sections. Content policies and guidelines are applicable in whatever article or section said content happens to be. Avilich ( talk) 19:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
...yes, these 'restrictions' should apply to trivia anywhere, not just to the completely arbitrary limit of sections.Because, so far what the restrictions tell us about our policies are incorrect things that are not actually supported by our policies (and even go against them), such as primary sources are not allowed. This of course could not possibly be limited to trivia if our policies are supposed to be applied consistently everywhere, so primary sources would not be allowed for anything else listed in NOT, and in fact would have to be applied to any content anyone wanted to add to articles if we wanted our policy to be applied equally consistently. However, there is no consensus for eliminating primary sources from Wikipedia, so these restrictions are simply not supported by policy, and that doesn't even touch on the fact that the restrictions tell us our policies require "significant coverage" from our sources in order for content to be included within articles, but this simply is not true. None of our policies support requiring this, and if it did, we would have to apply it to all content, not just trivia, or one trivia section. Huggums537 ( talk) 03:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Because, so far what the restrictions tell us about our policies are incorrect things that are not actually supported by our policies (and even go against them), such as primary sources are not allowed.Where on Earth are you getting the idea that primary sources would be disallowed? TompaDompa ( talk) 05:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
the mandate for secondary/tertiary sources implies primary sources are not allowedNo, it doesn't. It implies that they aren't sufficient, which is completely different. TompaDompa ( talk) 15:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
This guideline is no more restrictive than it needs to be, nor are its limitations on primary sources much different from any other area in wikipedia.The fact that you can't add an entry with just a primary source alone is different from most of Wikipedia.
As a close analogy, articles on biographies and historical events use primary sources only for descriptive and straightforward statements that don't require interpretation.This statement is proof that our policies treat primary sources differently in other areas of Wikipedia than what these restrictions say our policies should treat trivia. Huggums537 ( talk) 22:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
destroying (AKA deleting)articles? I've presented quite a few examples of where applying this standard has instead resulted in articles being rewritten at a higher quality and thus not being deleted (see WP:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction, and WP:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction). The point is not getting rid of the articles, the point is improving the content. For that matter, where are you getting the idea that this somehow violates existing policies/guidelines? TompaDompa ( talk) 14:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
There's a reason why 700+ of "popular culture"-related articles have been nominated for deletion at AfD over the years.My reasoning for holding my position is that there are a great many times more numerous examples of the wanted destruction of these articles than examples of the wanted improvement, therefore the idea that we somehow need such guidance for the improvement of these articles is exceptionally faulty reasoning. As for the idea of how it violates policy, I have explained that to death in various places, so if you don't mind I will take MichaelMaggs advice, and give that part a rest. Huggums537 ( talk) 03:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Since several proposals have emerged, and to make the discussion move forward, I've opened this section to make them easier to scrutinize. Feel free to add your own. Discussion can of course continue in the section above or within the proposals. Pilaz ( talk) 16:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Cultural references about a subject (for example how it is presented in a movie, song, television show, etc.) should not be included simply because they exist. [...] Consensus at the article level can determine whether particular references which meet this criteria should be included.part) is good and serves to improve the quality of our articles on this subject. I note that the discussion has been listed at WP:ANRFC but I don't know that the discussion has really been focused enough to result in much of a consensus on any particulars. TompaDompa ( talk) 15:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
So there's agreement that this style page is not the ideal place for a content guideline, but no-one has yet suggested a better place to move it to. I can't think of a good place either. We also have the problem that this conversation is unlikely to get anywhere without wider input, but we can't solicit wider input until we've decided what the question is. I think the way out of this deadlock is to move the conversation to the Village Pump idea lab, so we can get more people involved without having to make a formal proposal.
But we'd still need an "idea" to bring to the idea lab, so I suggest reviving SMcCandlish's 2015 proposal to "develop a content guideline on encyclopedic relevance" based on the essays WP:HTRIV and WP:IPC. This proposal didn't get a lot of attention at the time, possibly because of the amount of work it would involve; but if the community wants a pop culture content guideline, I think creating a new page is the only way to go about it, and this seems like a sensible approach. (I personally don't think we need a pop culture content guideline, so I wouldn't be prepared to take the lead on this. I just want to get this style guideline back the way it was.) Dan from A.P. ( talk) 14:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
no-one has yet suggested a better place to move it to; I suggested WP:NOT in early January. The most logical place there would to me seem to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. One could simply add a bullet point there stating that Wikipedia articles should not be
Lists of popular culture references or appearances., and copy the contents from here in the way I suggested back in January.In response to the suggestion immediately above that we create a guideline to standardize the layout of "in popular culture" articles, I must say that I find that to be a bad idea. There is no reason to assume that a "one size fits all" approach would be the best way to go about it. For some subjects, dividing the article into sections by medium might make the most sense. For other topics, it might make more sense to do it chronologically. For others still, the most appropriate way could be by theme/aspect/whatever. In some cases, it might be best to use a combination of some kind. This should be assessed for each article individually. TompaDompa ( talk) 15:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I just made a change to the lead section, which now says: "It was once common practice on Wikipedia for articles to include lists of isolated information, which were often grouped into their own section. These sections were typically given names such as "Trivia", "Facts", "Miscellanea", "Other information" and "Notes" (not to be confused with "Notes" sections that store reference citation footnotes). For an example of this practice, see the John Lennon trivia section from December 10 2005." It has been my experience that a lot of people cite this policy to argue about what information should appear on Wikipedia, which this page clearly states it is not. I thought it would improve clarity, to rearrange and give the lead section a bit of a past tense feel. This policy was made back around 2007 iirc because Trivia sections were very common on Wikipedia (you could even say it was plagued by them). Now, these sections have largely been removed and are very rare. I hope this improves the policy but welcome comments. Mozzie ( talk) 01:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
This policy definitely needs some reworking. It mentions the point of having these restrictions is to not include trivial references within these sections, but the method for identifying whether something is trivial here is completely ineffective. Why would a Bon Appetit article mentioning the bone broth in The Mandalorian make it either a trivial or significant reference for bone broth itself? If a trusted source that goes in-depth about trees mentioned that a tree appears in The Avengers, would we include that "a tree appears in The Avengers" on the Tree page's "In popular culture" section?. Bon Appetit could easily make a list of every time "bone broth" has been uttered in a movie or TV show, too. The point here is to identify whether the subject of the reference has a noteworthy impact within the pop-culture object itself, not whether the source we are referencing goes in-depth about the subject in matters unrelated to the pop-culture object. Also, the point of a source is to verify that certain information can be trusted; we cannot use a source to determine whether a certain reference is noteworthy or not, which this policy seems to encourage us to do. Aberration ( talk) 13:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Another fault of this approach is that it means a subject that has appeared in exactly one movie but has had 1000 articles written about it has had more cultural impact over a subject that has appeared in 100,000 movies but has no articles written about it. It conflates the popularity of the fictional media or the source we use for it vs. the popularity of the subject itself. Aberration ( talk) 16:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
It actually prevents us from ever using an official source about Subject B.– Yes, that's the point. Or more accurately, it prevents us from using such a source in isolation. An article on Subject A shouldn't be built upon a foundation of sources on Subject B. Per WP:PROPORTION:
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.—"on the subject" is key there. TompaDompa ( talk) 20:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful.TompaDompa ( talk) 20:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
In general, what determines if information is relevant to be included in an article is what coverage that information gets in sources on the topic of the article at hand. That's a very fundamental part of how Wikipedia works. TompaDompa ( talk) 21:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
But doesn't that make only articles as viable sources?No, it doesn't mean that at all. Books (e.g. The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy) can be perfectly serviceable sources, even ideal sometimes.
Official sources aren't articles, so they don't have the concept of "coverage" to them.– I have no idea what you're trying to say here. It's borderline nonsensical.
Inclusion of 'popular culture' content in contexts like this requires an independent source to demonstrate significance - to show that uninvolved commentators care enough about the connection to consider it worth writing about.
POPCULT is currently worded to prefer secondary and tertiary sources for background information and plot details, which contradicts our already existing "Writing about fiction" policy.– No, that's not right either. MOS:POPCULT not even about "background information and plot details", it's about references to one thing appearing in another.
I'd strongly recommend that before you start griping about Wikipedia policy on sourcing you take the time to actually read it.TompaDompa ( talk) 13:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I would say significance in this case is established through the fact the pop-culture reference was made in the first place– I'm sure you would say that, but that makes no difference for Wikipedia's purposes. What matters for our purposes is what reliable sources deem relevant.
We do not see benefit from sourcing information on sci-fi series from The Greenwood Encyclopedia rather than, for example, an official source on Star Trek.– You are entitled to your opinion about what the best way to construct an encyclopaedia is, but this runs counter to the core fundamentals of how Wikipedia works. If Wikipedia worked the way you want it to, it would be a secondary source. But it's not, and it's not intended to be—Wikipedia is by design a tertiary source. You don't have to like or agree with that approach to writing an encyclopaedia, but it behooves you to abide by it.
The pop-culture references we include are simply background details on fictional characters.– No, that's complete nonsense. " Frodo Baggins' parents died when he was twelve" is (in-universe) background information on a fictional character. " Frodo Baggins was named Bingo in the earliest drafts" might be called real-life background on a fictional character. " Psylla frodobagginsi is named after Frodo Baggins" is a reference to a fictional character. Of those three, only the first is what WP:WAF is talking about in the passage you referred to above. TompaDompa ( talk) 15:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
My point is that pop-culture sections almost exclusively contain information like the very first Frodo example you brought up.– What on Earth are you on about? Pop-culture sections contain information like " Frodo Baggins' parents died when he was twelve"? What pop-culture section would that be on, hypothetically? TompaDompa ( talk) 16:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.That's about different aspects, not contradictory viewpoints. TompaDompa ( talk) 16:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
We should have a specific policy that provides examples of what kind of information is relevant for these sections– that would still necessitate editors evaluating the information contained in the sources to determine whether it meets those criteria. And it would be a terrible instance of WP:Instruction creep.
Now the example given on this page no longer is vaporware. Go have a look: Stock_(food)#In_popular_culture Cheers CapnZapp ( talk) 18:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Your input would be appreciated at Talk:Valley View Center#The “In Popular Culture” section should stay. Thank you. -- Magnolia677 ( talk) 10:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)