This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | → | Archive 65 |
User:SurreyJohn has raised the issue of "In Popular Culture" as they are treated in our guidelines. He raised the issue on the Guidelines subpage of he project talkpage, a subpage which has very few watchers. So I am copying the comments here for further discussion:
Why should "such edits should be discouraged"? I and I am sure others would be interested in what movie or film a piece has been used in. Very often it is what makes a piece popular to the masses. E.g. Barber's Adagio in the Elephant Man, Platoon and several other films. The actual article does have this information, so it is just this guideline that is at fault. Please do not judge who should be interested in what!
I suggest this section is removed (or reworded to include popular culture). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurreyJohn ( talk • contribs) 11:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record, I agree with SurreyJohn. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 05:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok; here's the proposal (original and revised versions): I've tried to take all points on board. However, I've deliberately omitted guidance on style (such as splitting a large list into a separate article) or restating guidance notes, as this is general guidance applicable to any article or section.
Often articles about works of classical music are sometimes edited along the following lines:
Work X was used in [movie/TV show/electronic game] Y.
Such edits should be discouraged, they are usually of little interest to readers who want to know about the musical work, and would be of greater interest to readers who want to know about the movie, TV show, or electronic game. For instance, viewers of these items often would like to know what music they are hearing. Except in extraordinary circumstances, contributions of this sort should be politely reverted. It may be useful to encourage the contributor to include the item in the article about the movie, TV show, or electronic game, if this has not already been done. See also: Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections.
Classical music often gets reused in popular culture, thus forming part of its modern history. This can often make a hitherto unknown work more popular. Therefore, where the music being described has had significant prominence in a film, TV commercial, song, etc., then its use should be described. This could be under a "Uses in Popular Culture" header, or something more specific such as "Use in Films". Try to include the part of the music used, where or how it was used, and which year.
The use should have significant prominence such as an introduction, reoccurring theme or background music to a popular film, the music to a pop song, or used in a long-running TV commercial. Where an article about the subject (e.g. film) already exists, a link should be made to the article, and that article should also include a link back to the music's article (i.e. both articles are cross-referenced).
A long list of trivial uses should be avoided. However, a balance must be sought between rejecting trivial uses whilst keeping a neutral point of view: If the music is mentioned in an article being references, or it is well sourced, then it should be kept, whereas if the use is poorly referenced and the subject (e.g. film) has no atricle is will likely be removed.
Discographies, staged performances, TV productions and other adaptations should be described under other headers.
Hopefully, the revised section can be accepted, but if not then the offending section should simply be removed. SurreyJohn (Talk) 09:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
It's been a while! Please could those who have contributed to the discussion (i.e. Voceditenore, Michael Bednarek, Ravpapa, Kosboot, Gerda Arendt, Cg2p0B0u8m, Stfg, or anyone else) give a brief acceptance or otherwise, before these changes are made. Whilst I agree on many of the above points I don't think they belong in this guidance. Trivia, writing style, references, splitting large topics into separate documents (eg. lists of works) are all dealt with under general guidance so need not be restated here. Instead, this guidance topic should be more focused on interpenetration of the general guidance. Thanks. SurreyJohn (Talk) 12:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, SurreyJohn, for your well-meant efforts. I suggest that the discussion we've had so far might be better reflected by something lik this:
Classical music often gets reused in popular culture. References to such uses, however, should be made with caution, since, especially when they refer to material that is in the public eye for only a limited period, they are likely to violate WP:UNDUE. In addition, such references must follow Wikipedia guidelines in general, as follows:
- They must be supported by a legitimate, peer-reviewed scholarly reference source.
- To avoid violations of WP:UNDUE, the source should be about the work of classical music, not about the item of popular culture.
Finally, if such references pile up and threaten to upset the overall a balance of the article, they should be separated into a linked satellite entitled "X in popular culture".
Yours very truly, Opus33 ( talk) 16:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
As counterexample of the "overdeveloped" and "somewhat right" examples I gave above, here's one I consider underdeveloped:
Although grateful for the contribution to the discussion, I’m afraid I too disagree with almost all of
Opus33’s suggestions, and agree with
Ravpapa. These music articles are about all aspects of a musical piece, not just its composition. Use in popular culture should not be excluded, deleted or hived off into another article (unless they overwhelm the core article). Demanding peer-reviewed sources (and Ephemerality) still seems to be being suggested as a tool to prevent content that some find uninteresting appearing in 'their articles'. I hope this is not the case. We should all keep a neutral point of view, and not try to bias sources to support our own views (see
WP:NPOV#Bias in sources).
Mozart’s Piano Concerto No 21 is a great example of the impact its use in a film has had. Over the past 6 years, the Andante has had over 30 million views in YouTube. The second most popular Mozart piano piece (half as many views) is Fur Elise, yet a large section has been removed from its article. The greatest Mozart "hit" here is a Rap with over 60 million views – a massive count by any standard and all three certainly justify inclusion in popular culture articles.
There are two aspects to including an item on popular culture. First the mere fact that "X was used in Y", and then the impact of that fact in making a piece popular.
So with the above feedback, I have revised and simplified the section as follows:
Classical music often gets reused in popular culture, thus forming part of its modern history. This can often make a hitherto unknown work more popular. Therefore, where the music being described has had significant prominence in a popular film, long-running TV commercial, pop song, or other subject, then its use should be described. Try to include the part of the music used, where or how it was used, and which year.
A long list of trivial uses should be avoided. However, a balance must be sought between rejecting trivial uses (see WP:TRIVIA) whilst keeping factual information. If the music’s use is well sourced, then it should be kept, whereas if the use trivial and there is no cited referenced it will likely be removed. See WP:IPC for further guidance.
Discographies, staged performances, TV productions and other adaptations should be described is their own section.
We need to move forward with this, so no please filibustering. Please limit feedback to the actual text of the proposed change and keep it brief. I appreciate that not everyone wants this content in 'their articles' so I do hope we can come to come agreement. Thanks, SurreyJohn (Talk) 11:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
SurreyJohn, I know you mean well but my sense at this point is you are trying to nag the project into doing something for which there is no consensus. Opus33 ( talk) 18:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I am following this discussion at a distance (so far) but I have to concur that I do not find any consensus. I always worry when someone advancing any view takes the attitude 'there has surely been enough discussion and expressing of views'/'We need to move forward with this, so no please filibustering', etc., which I find rather dismissive than consensual. In fact relatively few people have expressed views and they divide into camps which are some distance apart. My inclination is to those who hold reservations about SurreyJohn's enthusiasm. I think the suggestion above (by Kosboot?) to treat the proposal piece by piece might be helpful. (By the way, Für Elise is by Beethoven, not Mozart).-- Smerus ( talk) 19:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Kosboot, Stfg, and Smerus: Actually I think there is quite a lot of agreement here, although clearly not everyone agrees on every point. The topic have been discussed for 6 weeks, and as I instigated this I am trying to bring things to a conclusion. I'm doing my best to move things slowly forward. At this point I would rather see simple feedback on what we agree about, or some genuine suggestions at revised text that people are likely to find acceptable. There may be a majority view, but I doubt there will ever be complete agreement.
I dont agree "that the current standard is as good as we're going to get" - it "stinks":
If policy and/or guideline pages directly conflict, one or more pages need to be revised to resolve the conflict so that all of the conflicting pages accurately reflect the community's actual practices and best advice. As a temporary measure during that resolution process, if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume that the policy takes precedence.
I should also point out if anyone hasn't read the
WP:TRIVIA page that the guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections: It is better to have poorly presented information (facts) than not presented at all, and does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. "A selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information". I think that is the crux of the debate here, and we juse need to express what we do want in a new guideline.
SurreyJohn
(Talk)
16:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I would like to offer an analysis of this discussion that is startlingly different from my first post, and then make a suggestion that will be totally unacceptable to everyone.
I think that there is actually a lot more agreement here than appears at first reading. All these references to specific examples suggests that there are many different cases, and each needs to be handled differently. The stupendous success of the Gymnopedies as film music is certainly a phenomenon, and needs to be mentioned, and maybe even made into a separate article. The occasional appearances of the Death and the Maiden quartet in TV commercials is probably irrelevant. And that our friend Francis thought that Mozart 31 belonged to Love Story and not to Elvira Madigan is possibly one of the best arguments for including that fact in the article.
I think we all agree that there are cases where reuses of a piece are relevant to the article, and other cases where they are not. We just don't all agree on where the boundary falls. We need to deal with this on a case by case basis.
Under the circumstances, perhaps the best thing to do is to have no standard at all. Let's simply delete the standard, and fight it out on talk pages as the issue comes up. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 05:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Oops Reception history apparently redirects mistakenly to Reception theory, which displays a massive sourcing problem. That's not what I meant. wikt:reception history doesn't help either. So you'll have to understand me without the square brackets: "reception history". How and when and with how much success a composition was performed and recorded and otherwise referred to or presented is all part of the reception history, without confining it to some sort of badly explained "theory". -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Ravpapa, Francis Schonken, and Kosboot: Thanks for clearing up the confusion about Reception theory. I'm not sure I fully understand whats being suggested, but do accept ordered and structured information is preferable to random facts, and suggest that the WP:TRIVIA guideline may suffice (see my discussion above). I think the way forward is to reference WP:TRIVIA and WP:IPC, rather than repeat it. I do realise WP:IPC is an essay, so was careful not to call it a policy. Kosboot is absolutely right about admonishments, especially if there has been a lack of understand, and possibly edit wars in the past. Any guideline should be clear, unambiguous, and consistent with policy. SurreyJohn (Talk) 16:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Well I've left things another week and no more comments, so here is version 3. I hope you all realise I am trying to follow the Wikipedia Policy and Guidelines, which is why am involving you all to reach some sort of consensus. Sorry if you're all fed up with this. It's a thankless task for me as well!
Classical music often gets reused in popular culture, thus forming part of its modern history. This can often make a hitherto unfamiliar work more popular. Therefore, where the music being described has had significant prominence in a popular film, long-running TV commercial, pop song, or other subject, then its use should be described. Try to include the part of the music used, where or how it was used, and in which year. Ideally its use should be supported by citation (see WP:PROVEIT).
A long list of indiscriminate uses should be avoided (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE). However, if information is otherwise suitable, then it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all (see WP:TRIVIA).
Please refer to the " in popular culture" essay for further guidance.
SurreyJohn (Talk) 16:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Taking Kosboot's challenge:
I think in many cases something like this would be perfectly acceptable: "The popularity of the piece is shown by its use in Widely Known Film 1, [1] Widely Known Film 2, [2] and Widely Known Video Game Z, [3] and plenty of (unnamed lesser known) other productions. [4]" not the undigestable detail of Gymnopédies#Influences and cover versions -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 11:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Further on the topic of Gymnopédies#Influences and cover versions: too much detail often leads to incorrectness. Most of them say the used Gymnopédie is No. 1. Which is nonsense: when the background music is played by an orchestra characteristically starting with the harp arpeggios, that would be No. 3 (piano version) = No. 1 (Debussy orchestration). When it is played on the piano, it would usually be the actual No. 1 (in Satie's original piano version). So, less detail given can often lead to less confusion. Just say "Gymnopédie music is used in..." Explain the difference (as it is already in the article), but avoid inferring the detail from the primary source (unless when you know what you're talking about) -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
(and don't let it get swamped in a list where it is treated on "equal value" level with a lot of other productions that were less instrumental to nesting the music/composer in collective memory), examples:
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
We're telling and illustrating the reception history of the piece/composer: no "in popular culture" section unless when it's a discernable & broadly documented topic in that reception history.
Meaning, when there's two commercial recordings, no life concert (or staged performance) since the premiere (with little press criticism at the time), one instance of another composer re-using the theme of the piece (e.g. for a set of variations), and a single use in a TV commercial, there's no reason for separate "Performances", "Discography", "in popular culture" and the like sections, treat it all under "reception history". -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 14:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Francis for these very helpful analyses and proposals (breakdown aspects 1-3). I also subscribe to the reservations about the term "in popular culture". -- Smerus ( talk) 06:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Just brainstorming in front of you all but here's a draft of a nucleus of what I'd like to see inscribed in the relevant guidance:
Reception history starts with the earliest recorded comment regarding a composer's work, which may be implicit, like a publisher accepting or refusing the score for publication, or the applause (or lack thereof) at the first performance.
Reception history can be intertwined with the creation history of the work, for instance a composer reworking a composition after a first performance. Sometimes the first performance is notable in its own right so that it deserves a separate section in the article on the piece (e.g. Le sacre du printemps). In most cases a practical rule of thumb is to let a "Reception history" section start with the first performance or first publication of the final version of the work (whichever comes first), and let the rest of the history of the composition follow that. For articles on composers the reception history can be intertwined with the biographical account up to and including the reactions at the composer's death or funeral, and/or parts of that can be included in a "Reception history" section that starts after the biography sections.
It is important to keep in mind that you are telling an account of what happened with the composition (or a composer's opus) much like a biography of a person. Lists may come in handy for listing accolades or discographies, but apart from that the history that is told should have a flow that can keep a reader's attention.
...
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 13:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I think you've gone off on a tangent, and we need to get back to what this discussion was about. I realise this is intended as a brainstorming, but it like an essay about reception history, not a guideline. You appear to want us to make Reception history sections that cover pretty much everything except what the composer him/herself did. That seems to me to be a very bad idea in itself, lumping together too many diverse things, and I think it's unnecessary instruction creep. Some specific points:
This whole thing got started because it was suggested that we could improve our guideline about In popular culture sections. I think we need to get back to that scope and not get carried away. Two things I get from the discussions so far are:
I really don't think we need to do more than to improve the already quite good IPC section of our guideline a little. Your first two "break down points" help us to do that, but this "integrated view on reception history" approach is several steps too far, imho. Sorry.
BTW, when you hit an edit conflict and you allow your version to override the other editor's version, you should merge them, not merely bat the other version aside. You knew you were doing it, as revealed by the "oops" edit summary. When you discarded mine, you also removed my reinsertion of the mention of the Brooks film, which was cited. Please could you restore that to the article in whatever place you think appropriate.
Finally (at last!), "Best known use in film of the "Ride" is probably ..." is editorializing and is not supported by your source (which anyway is about the not-very-well-known 289-minute work print, not the cinema release). -- Stfg ( talk) 18:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Per Stfg's suggestion in the break down aspect 3 section above. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 11:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Stfg for pulling back on track, I appreciate that. If someone (anyone) wants to discuss a broader or different topic, I have no problem, but they should open up a new topic for discussion. Reception history covers the whole history of a work, not just (and possibly not even) its use in popular culture, so any reference to it within this small section is going to cause far more confusion than clarity. Guidelines are for providing clarity. SurreyJohn (Talk) 10:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
To bring up back into line and chronological order, I'm re-posting the last proposed version (now 4) and I hope you wont mind me demoting the three "breakdowns" to sub-sections of the previous version in order to keep some semblance of structure. Smerus: Yes, I think "other medium" is a no-brainer, so done that. I dont think there is sufficient agreement on what these sections are called, and not dictate any one title that must be used in this guidance. I would sooner leave it to author discretion and anyway, there is further guidance within WP:IPC. The sentence "Try to include the part of the music used, where or how it was used, and in which year" was an attempt to add flesh to the bones of otherwise bare facts. It can be kept, improved, or deleted, but I dont want to delete it based only on one persons feedback.
Classical music often gets reused in popular culture, thus forming part of its modern history. This can often make a hitherto unfamiliar work more popular. Therefore, where the music being described has had significant prominence in a popular film, long-running TV commercial, pop song, or other medium, then its use should be described. Try to include the part of the music used, where or how it was used, and in which year. Ideally its use should be supported by citation (see WP:PROVEIT).
A long list of indiscriminate uses should be avoided (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE). However, if information is otherwise suitable, then it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all (see WP:TRIVIA).
Please refer to the " in popular culture" essay for further guidance.
Thanks SurreyJohn (Talk) 10:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Classical music often gets reused in numerous mediums (film, tv, popular music, games, and others) thus forming part of its modern history (see WP:IPC). Where the music being described has had significant reuse in a film, TV commercial, pop song, or other medium, then its use should be described (in a section named "Cultural references"). Examples of reuses should have references to reliable sources. A long list of indiscriminate uses should be avoided (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE).
kosboot ( talk) 17:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Classical music often gets reused in numerous media which can form part of its modern history (see WP:IPC). This is particularly true if the reuse adds to the popularity of the classical work being used. In other cases, editors should consider whether the reuse will be of little interest to readers who want to know about the musical work, and would be of greater interest to readers who want to know about the movie, TV show, electronic game, etc. where it is used. Where the music being described has had notable reuse (defined by its mention in reliable sources) then its use should be described in a section with a suitable name (such as "Cultural references") with the references included. A long indiscriminate list of non-notable uses should be avoided (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE).
kosboot ( talk) 18:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
@ Kosboot:I am encouraged to see you are making progress, and clearly we have some proposals, albeit not final, that are better than the current standard.
SurreyJohn (Talk) 10:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Goodness golly, on Saturday I was an angel and on Sunday I was a devil. Now the weekend is over, can I just be an ordinary mortal again? Just wanted to point out a couple of things in WP:TRIVIA#What this guideline is not:
(my italics both times). WP:TRIVIA does not tells us we have to include or exclude any information; it tells us we need to develop our own local consensus, which is all this discussion is about. -- Stfg ( talk) 10:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I suppose we all agree that what is included in the "popular"-related sections should be notable. I see two lines of thought in the discussion of aspect/proposal #4 above:
(a bit a simplification but I think these are the alternative underlying rationales)
Maybe we should discuss this aspect somewhat further? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Include cases where the piece is used in other works (including movies, television, and so on) if such uses are notable (especially if referred to in reliable sources), and add to an understanding of the place of the piece in modern culture. Avoid long lists of reuses.
Re. "Avoid long lists of reuses" — maybe some nuance is missing here, e.g. Porgy and Bess discography is ostensibly nothing else than a "long list of reuses". Or would it be clear from the context this only applies to the "popular" reuses? Even then some nuance may be needed. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Per policy, WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it confined to facts: the ideas of others, published in reliable sources, are as encyclopedic as facts are. A good example of how coverage of a reuse can "add to an understanding of the place of the piece in modern culture" without original research is the example we've been looking at: the use of Ride of the Valkyries in Apocalypse Now. That paragraph simply and factually describes how the music is used in the film, and that factual description shows rather clearly what the piece is being used for in that item of modern culture. Other cases might be where "the significance of a particular piece of classical music in so-called popular culture has often been widely discussed in books and journals and even been the subject of doctoral dissertations", to quote this post by Voceditenore.
Mention in reliable sources isn't enough in itself to establish notability, as attested by several sections of WP:NOT. Some of this discussion has been trying to tease out what we mean by "notable" and "significant". I'm trying to contribute to that understanding. I have nothing against Wikipedia documenting the fact that the New World largo is used in the Hovis advert -- in the right place. But what does it tell us about the New World largo? Not much, imho, unless you can find some academic or similar source that tells us that this largo is evocative of cloth caps and shire horses, or whatever. Then we have something to say based on a source, and fine. Otherwise what makes it significant? One editor's POV that this and the Hamlet ad are "classics of their time"? They didn't even air internationally.
We seem to be getting nowhere. Are we going to need an RFC? -- Stfg ( talk) 17:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I feel like I may be on my own here, but why all the stringent conditions about (1) references, (2) notable, (3) add understanding. In the 2001 example, it was significantly used, verifiable and not disputed, and that's enough. There's been about 20 examples here and several hundred more in articles of uses which are of interest to our readers (all which could be impacted). No one has answered the question why it has to add understanding - Why Stfg? This is not some experts interpenetration of the composers thoughts or even about the music, but just a list (and/or details) of its use in popular culture. If x is used (significantly, popularly, or famously) in y, that should be enough. Kosboot pointed out early on that uses in popular rarely get discusses in reliable sources, so finding such sources may be impossible. Are you all trying to prevent content about populate culture in these articles ... really? ... With creep back towards the original version it certainly seems that way. SurreyJohn (Talk) 20:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
@ Stfg::For a while I was trying to keep to policy, simply to keep a neutral point of view and avoid disagreements, but that didnt work! I too am about the throw in the towel, at least for two weeks as Africa is beckoning.
@ Kosboot::I dont think we are angry either, just passionate ... well about music that is! There are some very good technical authors here for whom we are very grateful. There are some more younger less experiences authors too who need simple basic guidance and sometimes encouragement on adding information about their films, CDs (or are they MP3s now), and games. In that way, they may become enthusiastic and passionate about music too. I guess I'm saying to everyone, dont give them too many hoops to jump through. SurreyJohn (Talk) 23:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Members of WikiProject Classical Music have not been able to come to agreement on what to do with sections where a musical work is used or quoted in different media. Although such sections are named “in popular culture”in the style guidelines (see WP:IPC), members of this WikiProject note that not all uses are part of popular culture and suggest the use of more appropriate section titles such as “Cultural references”. Editors may wish to examine models in various articles:
This is actually much, much worse than the current unsatisfactory Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Uses in popular culture. At least that version doesn't say Gymnopédies#Influences_and_cover_versions is a "model" to consider, so there is at least hope it can be somewhat remedied under the current guidance. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 13:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Tweaking Kosboot Ravpapa's proposal above:
Include cases where the piece is used in other works (including movies, television, and so on), when such uses can be demonstrated by reliable sources, including primary sources within the limits of WP:PRIMARY: such sections should be written with an objective to explain the place of the piece in modern culture, or which reuses significantly contributed to the popularity of the piece. Generally for such sections running text is preferred over lists.
? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 14:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I dont like the references. Throwing in examples is more creep. They are atypical examples of long lists, and also no references. Just what were are trying to avoid. Nor Francis's tweek if it is putting a greater emphasis on references than what has been agreed. Actually I find it rather unclear. Also it is prohibiting simple "x was used in y" type encyclopedic and factual content. I feel we should try to put something together more neutral, very basic (so slightly better than nothing), and aligned with policy and current practice. Possibly two different options, possibly accept we don't agree and be honest about it, possibly add a sentence about choice of title and definitely refer to wp:ipc. Also provide a balanced view between wp:indiscriminate and wp:trivia with some sort of guidance (also to avoid long lists). Unless you dont want it, I'll try a version 6 later today - no time right now! If I do, it will be steady evolution, not big bang. If I were to start again (which I have no intention of doing) I would start by asking each of you to provide a list of requirements (say 6 to 10 simple bullet points), and then compare and qualify any new proposal against the lists. I'm ducking out of this in 3 days, but if anyone does want to start again, then I suggest you try this more structured approach. TTFN SurreyJohn (Talk) 14:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Include cases where the piece is used in other works (including movies, television, and so on), when such uses are verifiable in reliable sources, including primary sources within the limits of WP:PRIMARY: such sections should be written with an objective to explain the place of the piece in modern culture, or which reuses significantly contributed to the popularity of the piece. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections.
How about a tweek on Ravpapa's original:
Include cases where the piece is used in other works (including movies, television, and so on). It is preferable to refer to reliable sources that add to an understanding of the place of the piece in modern culture. Avoid long lists of reuses. See the policies on indiscriminate usage, miscellaneous information and the " In Popular Culture" essay for further information.
Here we get your points across, but do not add any extra burdens, instead relying on Wikipedia's various policies (including WP:SOURCES).
I like kosboot's first version too (from the version 4 section), before it got modified. I must have missed it and only commented on the revised version. Again, it doesn't add extra burdens but simply relies on WP's regular guidelines. SurreyJohn (Talk) 19:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Include cases where the piece is used in other works (including movies, television, and so on). It is preferable to refer to third party reliable sources that add to an understanding of the place of the piece in modern culture. Avoid long lists of reuses.
See the policies on indiscriminate usage, miscellaneous information and the " In Popular Culture" essay for further information.
Like: Perhaps not with Francis, but I can live with this proposal ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurreyJohn ( talk • contribs) [7]
Include cases where the piece is used in other works (including movies, television, and so on), referring to third-party reliable sources that add to an understanding of the place of the piece in modern culture. Avoid long lists of reuses.
See the policies on indiscriminate usage, miscellaneous information and the " In Popular Culture" essay for further information.
Another topic I see in previous discussions: should the guidance expressly allow for "temporary stages" of popular-related entries in an article, or is it sufficient to enclose a general reference to existing guidance for that? In other words, should we say something like: a list is better than nothing failing the time to write it out in fluent text? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
This discussion is now 19,378 words long (much longer than my MA thesis was!). Perhaps a better way to tackle the problem and use everyone's time, especially those of you who are keen to keep these lists/sections in articles, is to pick three more articles with "Pop culture" sections and really work on those sections to make them good models to present to prospective editors. Add references for all the entries. Copyedit the entries for succinctness and coherence. William Tell Overture#Cultural references and Nessun Dorma#Cultural references and adaptations are existing examples of reasonable sections in connected prose and list format respectively. Do that for three more articles, preferably the ones which are currently the worst offenders. It simply isn't true that references can't be found for uses of classical music in popular culture. There are loads of books and articles on the subject. It took me all of five minutes to reference three items in the previously completely unreferenced The Hebrides (overture)#In popular culture. Showing people a good model is much more effective than telling them what to do and not to do (and then asking them to read several more pages of alphabet soup so that they can get even more confused). In the process, you would be doing an immense service to readers by showing them where to find out more about the uses of classical music in popular culture in good sources. Voceditenore ( talk) 17:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I welcome Voceditenore's approach: let's find/improve the examples we like, and use them in the guidance (which, BTW, is completely covered by the guidance at Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance#Role of examples, so lets follow that guidance on how to write guidance and "treat it as a rule") -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
... or in other words "this guidance topic should be more focused on interpenetration of the general guidance" which I said way way back. Actually after the initial sigh of seeing another section, I think I agree with just about all of this. SurreyJohn (Talk) 00:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe this way:
Include cases where the piece is used in other works (including movies, television, and so on). When available, it is preferable to refer to third party reliable sources that add to an understanding of the place of the piece in modern culture. Avoid long lists of reuses. See the policies on primary source usage, balancing of aspects, verifiability and indiscriminate usage. Further information in the guideline on miscellaneous information and the In Popular Culture essay.
(threw in another relevant policy-level one: WP:BALASPS) -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Or:
The objective of such sections is to add to an understanding of the place of the piece in modern culture. Examples of where the piece is used in other works (including movies, television, and so on) can, with moderation, be included based on primary sources: give prominence to content based on third party reliable sources where available. See the policies on primary source usage, balancing of aspects, verifiability and indiscriminate usage. Further information in the guideline on miscellaneous information and the In Popular Culture essay.
(sentence flow, and getting rid of the alleged weasel word) -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
The objective of such sections is to add to an understanding of the place of the piece in modern culture. That narrative should be verifiable in reliable sources: examples of where the piece is used in other works (including movies, television, and so on) can, with moderation, be included based on reliable primary sources: the focus should however shift to content based on reliable third party sources when these have "in popular culture" info regarding the piece. See policies on primary source usage, balancing of aspects and indiscriminate usage. Further information in the guideline on miscellaneous information and the In Popular Culture essay.
This is my final version for the next few weeks, and would like it considered as part of any RFC in my absence.
Classical music often gets reused in popular culture, thus forming part of its modern history. This reuse can often add to the popularity of the classical work being used, as well as providing further insights to the music being described.
Where the music being described has had significant prominence such as an introduction or reoccurring theme to a popular film; used for a long-running national TV commercial; a pop song; or in other media, then its use should be described. Where possible, add suitably sourced details of its use such as Samuel Barber's Adagio for Strings being described as sad music, played at the funerals of J.F.Kennedy, Albert Einstein and Princess Grace, and has also appeared in the scores to a number of films, including The Elephant Man and Platoon [9]. A list of indiscriminate or trivial uses should be avoided (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE). However, if information is otherwise suitable, then it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all (see WP:TRIVIA).
Please refer to the " in popular culture" essay for further guidance.
This is clearly my proposal. I'm not sure how the RFC process will work out, but may I suggest that it may be a good idea for other interested parties to add their own preferred version. Thanks SurreyJohn (Talk) 01:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Let me try again (revision 5a) ... After more time to think, I'm rather unhappy with this example. Firstly, examples describing the mood of the music are the exception rather than the rule; I’m not sure Barber’s adagio was used at Kennedy’s funeral; and also while it is good to describe the popular use of the music (which is encyclopedic factual information), I’m uneasy describing the music itself as "sad music" (which is subjective). The guidance may be more acceptable without the example:
Classical music often gets reused in popular culture, thus forming part of its modern history. This reuse can often add to the popularity of the classical work being used, as well as providing further insights to the music being described.
Where the music being described has had significant prominence such as an introduction or reoccurring theme to a popular film; used for a long-running national TV commercial; a pop song; or in other media, then its use may be described. A list of indiscriminate or trivial uses should be avoided (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE). However, if information is otherwise suitable, then it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all (see WP:TRIVIA).
Please refer to the " in popular culture" essay for further guidance.
This is not an attempt to write a historical article or section, but simply document uses in popular/modern culture, albeit in a structured and coherent manner. SurreyJohn (Talk) 15:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
As it may be difficult to settle on just one version for this issue, how about an RFC along the following lines? Two versions are offered: SurreyJohn's version 5a (currently immediately above this, at 15:13, 26 November 2014) and Francis's version above at 10:03, 7 November 2014. !Voters may support either version (or both, if happy with either) or may support a "no change" option. !Voting sections are for supports-with-rationale for that option only -- no opposes or threaded discussion -- and a further section is provided for threaded discussion. (The restriction against threaded discussion in the !voting sections has been used effectively in several RFCs and does, I think, help to avoid things descending into bickering. It may also provide clarity for the closer.) I am willing to create such an RFC if wanted. -- Stfg ( talk) 08:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I am very confused. Is there an RFC or isn't there? The entire discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Request for Comment is not about the guideline, but about the RFC itself. The RFC is framed in a way that certainly does not reflect the opinions expressed on this page. It has attracted no comments whatsoever, and understandably so: the discussion there so far certainly discourages participation.
I suggest that we close the RFC on that page, and create another one here. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 04:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
To put an end to assumptions about what I would or wouldn't support, and about my reasons: my real preference is for a much simpler version. Here's a draft:
Classical music often gets reused in modern culture, thus forming part of its modern history. This reuse can often add to the popularity of the classical work being used, as well as providing further insights into the music being described. When writing about such reuse in articles about classical music, please observe policies and guidelines such as WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:TRIVIA and WP:BALASPS.
That's all. The first two sentences are those proposed by SurreyJohn except that I have replaced "popular culture" with "modern culture" in order not to exclude anything (popular culture is included in modern culture, but the reverse is not true) and done a very minor copy edit (insights to → insights into). Then just link to relevant policies and guidelines, not excluding anything, while remembering that listing things to be included can be read as excluding other things or giving them lower priority. This proposal doesn't mention WP:IPC. I'm not opposed to adding that one, but have omitted it for now because sometimes people object to guidelines citing essays, as doing so implies that the essay has the same level of consensus as the guideline. -- Stfg ( talk) 09:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | → | Archive 65 |
User:SurreyJohn has raised the issue of "In Popular Culture" as they are treated in our guidelines. He raised the issue on the Guidelines subpage of he project talkpage, a subpage which has very few watchers. So I am copying the comments here for further discussion:
Why should "such edits should be discouraged"? I and I am sure others would be interested in what movie or film a piece has been used in. Very often it is what makes a piece popular to the masses. E.g. Barber's Adagio in the Elephant Man, Platoon and several other films. The actual article does have this information, so it is just this guideline that is at fault. Please do not judge who should be interested in what!
I suggest this section is removed (or reworded to include popular culture). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurreyJohn ( talk • contribs) 11:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record, I agree with SurreyJohn. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 05:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok; here's the proposal (original and revised versions): I've tried to take all points on board. However, I've deliberately omitted guidance on style (such as splitting a large list into a separate article) or restating guidance notes, as this is general guidance applicable to any article or section.
Often articles about works of classical music are sometimes edited along the following lines:
Work X was used in [movie/TV show/electronic game] Y.
Such edits should be discouraged, they are usually of little interest to readers who want to know about the musical work, and would be of greater interest to readers who want to know about the movie, TV show, or electronic game. For instance, viewers of these items often would like to know what music they are hearing. Except in extraordinary circumstances, contributions of this sort should be politely reverted. It may be useful to encourage the contributor to include the item in the article about the movie, TV show, or electronic game, if this has not already been done. See also: Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections.
Classical music often gets reused in popular culture, thus forming part of its modern history. This can often make a hitherto unknown work more popular. Therefore, where the music being described has had significant prominence in a film, TV commercial, song, etc., then its use should be described. This could be under a "Uses in Popular Culture" header, or something more specific such as "Use in Films". Try to include the part of the music used, where or how it was used, and which year.
The use should have significant prominence such as an introduction, reoccurring theme or background music to a popular film, the music to a pop song, or used in a long-running TV commercial. Where an article about the subject (e.g. film) already exists, a link should be made to the article, and that article should also include a link back to the music's article (i.e. both articles are cross-referenced).
A long list of trivial uses should be avoided. However, a balance must be sought between rejecting trivial uses whilst keeping a neutral point of view: If the music is mentioned in an article being references, or it is well sourced, then it should be kept, whereas if the use is poorly referenced and the subject (e.g. film) has no atricle is will likely be removed.
Discographies, staged performances, TV productions and other adaptations should be described under other headers.
Hopefully, the revised section can be accepted, but if not then the offending section should simply be removed. SurreyJohn (Talk) 09:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
It's been a while! Please could those who have contributed to the discussion (i.e. Voceditenore, Michael Bednarek, Ravpapa, Kosboot, Gerda Arendt, Cg2p0B0u8m, Stfg, or anyone else) give a brief acceptance or otherwise, before these changes are made. Whilst I agree on many of the above points I don't think they belong in this guidance. Trivia, writing style, references, splitting large topics into separate documents (eg. lists of works) are all dealt with under general guidance so need not be restated here. Instead, this guidance topic should be more focused on interpenetration of the general guidance. Thanks. SurreyJohn (Talk) 12:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, SurreyJohn, for your well-meant efforts. I suggest that the discussion we've had so far might be better reflected by something lik this:
Classical music often gets reused in popular culture. References to such uses, however, should be made with caution, since, especially when they refer to material that is in the public eye for only a limited period, they are likely to violate WP:UNDUE. In addition, such references must follow Wikipedia guidelines in general, as follows:
- They must be supported by a legitimate, peer-reviewed scholarly reference source.
- To avoid violations of WP:UNDUE, the source should be about the work of classical music, not about the item of popular culture.
Finally, if such references pile up and threaten to upset the overall a balance of the article, they should be separated into a linked satellite entitled "X in popular culture".
Yours very truly, Opus33 ( talk) 16:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
As counterexample of the "overdeveloped" and "somewhat right" examples I gave above, here's one I consider underdeveloped:
Although grateful for the contribution to the discussion, I’m afraid I too disagree with almost all of
Opus33’s suggestions, and agree with
Ravpapa. These music articles are about all aspects of a musical piece, not just its composition. Use in popular culture should not be excluded, deleted or hived off into another article (unless they overwhelm the core article). Demanding peer-reviewed sources (and Ephemerality) still seems to be being suggested as a tool to prevent content that some find uninteresting appearing in 'their articles'. I hope this is not the case. We should all keep a neutral point of view, and not try to bias sources to support our own views (see
WP:NPOV#Bias in sources).
Mozart’s Piano Concerto No 21 is a great example of the impact its use in a film has had. Over the past 6 years, the Andante has had over 30 million views in YouTube. The second most popular Mozart piano piece (half as many views) is Fur Elise, yet a large section has been removed from its article. The greatest Mozart "hit" here is a Rap with over 60 million views – a massive count by any standard and all three certainly justify inclusion in popular culture articles.
There are two aspects to including an item on popular culture. First the mere fact that "X was used in Y", and then the impact of that fact in making a piece popular.
So with the above feedback, I have revised and simplified the section as follows:
Classical music often gets reused in popular culture, thus forming part of its modern history. This can often make a hitherto unknown work more popular. Therefore, where the music being described has had significant prominence in a popular film, long-running TV commercial, pop song, or other subject, then its use should be described. Try to include the part of the music used, where or how it was used, and which year.
A long list of trivial uses should be avoided. However, a balance must be sought between rejecting trivial uses (see WP:TRIVIA) whilst keeping factual information. If the music’s use is well sourced, then it should be kept, whereas if the use trivial and there is no cited referenced it will likely be removed. See WP:IPC for further guidance.
Discographies, staged performances, TV productions and other adaptations should be described is their own section.
We need to move forward with this, so no please filibustering. Please limit feedback to the actual text of the proposed change and keep it brief. I appreciate that not everyone wants this content in 'their articles' so I do hope we can come to come agreement. Thanks, SurreyJohn (Talk) 11:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
SurreyJohn, I know you mean well but my sense at this point is you are trying to nag the project into doing something for which there is no consensus. Opus33 ( talk) 18:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I am following this discussion at a distance (so far) but I have to concur that I do not find any consensus. I always worry when someone advancing any view takes the attitude 'there has surely been enough discussion and expressing of views'/'We need to move forward with this, so no please filibustering', etc., which I find rather dismissive than consensual. In fact relatively few people have expressed views and they divide into camps which are some distance apart. My inclination is to those who hold reservations about SurreyJohn's enthusiasm. I think the suggestion above (by Kosboot?) to treat the proposal piece by piece might be helpful. (By the way, Für Elise is by Beethoven, not Mozart).-- Smerus ( talk) 19:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Kosboot, Stfg, and Smerus: Actually I think there is quite a lot of agreement here, although clearly not everyone agrees on every point. The topic have been discussed for 6 weeks, and as I instigated this I am trying to bring things to a conclusion. I'm doing my best to move things slowly forward. At this point I would rather see simple feedback on what we agree about, or some genuine suggestions at revised text that people are likely to find acceptable. There may be a majority view, but I doubt there will ever be complete agreement.
I dont agree "that the current standard is as good as we're going to get" - it "stinks":
If policy and/or guideline pages directly conflict, one or more pages need to be revised to resolve the conflict so that all of the conflicting pages accurately reflect the community's actual practices and best advice. As a temporary measure during that resolution process, if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume that the policy takes precedence.
I should also point out if anyone hasn't read the
WP:TRIVIA page that the guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections: It is better to have poorly presented information (facts) than not presented at all, and does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. "A selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information". I think that is the crux of the debate here, and we juse need to express what we do want in a new guideline.
SurreyJohn
(Talk)
16:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I would like to offer an analysis of this discussion that is startlingly different from my first post, and then make a suggestion that will be totally unacceptable to everyone.
I think that there is actually a lot more agreement here than appears at first reading. All these references to specific examples suggests that there are many different cases, and each needs to be handled differently. The stupendous success of the Gymnopedies as film music is certainly a phenomenon, and needs to be mentioned, and maybe even made into a separate article. The occasional appearances of the Death and the Maiden quartet in TV commercials is probably irrelevant. And that our friend Francis thought that Mozart 31 belonged to Love Story and not to Elvira Madigan is possibly one of the best arguments for including that fact in the article.
I think we all agree that there are cases where reuses of a piece are relevant to the article, and other cases where they are not. We just don't all agree on where the boundary falls. We need to deal with this on a case by case basis.
Under the circumstances, perhaps the best thing to do is to have no standard at all. Let's simply delete the standard, and fight it out on talk pages as the issue comes up. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 05:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Oops Reception history apparently redirects mistakenly to Reception theory, which displays a massive sourcing problem. That's not what I meant. wikt:reception history doesn't help either. So you'll have to understand me without the square brackets: "reception history". How and when and with how much success a composition was performed and recorded and otherwise referred to or presented is all part of the reception history, without confining it to some sort of badly explained "theory". -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Ravpapa, Francis Schonken, and Kosboot: Thanks for clearing up the confusion about Reception theory. I'm not sure I fully understand whats being suggested, but do accept ordered and structured information is preferable to random facts, and suggest that the WP:TRIVIA guideline may suffice (see my discussion above). I think the way forward is to reference WP:TRIVIA and WP:IPC, rather than repeat it. I do realise WP:IPC is an essay, so was careful not to call it a policy. Kosboot is absolutely right about admonishments, especially if there has been a lack of understand, and possibly edit wars in the past. Any guideline should be clear, unambiguous, and consistent with policy. SurreyJohn (Talk) 16:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Well I've left things another week and no more comments, so here is version 3. I hope you all realise I am trying to follow the Wikipedia Policy and Guidelines, which is why am involving you all to reach some sort of consensus. Sorry if you're all fed up with this. It's a thankless task for me as well!
Classical music often gets reused in popular culture, thus forming part of its modern history. This can often make a hitherto unfamiliar work more popular. Therefore, where the music being described has had significant prominence in a popular film, long-running TV commercial, pop song, or other subject, then its use should be described. Try to include the part of the music used, where or how it was used, and in which year. Ideally its use should be supported by citation (see WP:PROVEIT).
A long list of indiscriminate uses should be avoided (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE). However, if information is otherwise suitable, then it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all (see WP:TRIVIA).
Please refer to the " in popular culture" essay for further guidance.
SurreyJohn (Talk) 16:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Taking Kosboot's challenge:
I think in many cases something like this would be perfectly acceptable: "The popularity of the piece is shown by its use in Widely Known Film 1, [1] Widely Known Film 2, [2] and Widely Known Video Game Z, [3] and plenty of (unnamed lesser known) other productions. [4]" not the undigestable detail of Gymnopédies#Influences and cover versions -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 11:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Further on the topic of Gymnopédies#Influences and cover versions: too much detail often leads to incorrectness. Most of them say the used Gymnopédie is No. 1. Which is nonsense: when the background music is played by an orchestra characteristically starting with the harp arpeggios, that would be No. 3 (piano version) = No. 1 (Debussy orchestration). When it is played on the piano, it would usually be the actual No. 1 (in Satie's original piano version). So, less detail given can often lead to less confusion. Just say "Gymnopédie music is used in..." Explain the difference (as it is already in the article), but avoid inferring the detail from the primary source (unless when you know what you're talking about) -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
(and don't let it get swamped in a list where it is treated on "equal value" level with a lot of other productions that were less instrumental to nesting the music/composer in collective memory), examples:
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
We're telling and illustrating the reception history of the piece/composer: no "in popular culture" section unless when it's a discernable & broadly documented topic in that reception history.
Meaning, when there's two commercial recordings, no life concert (or staged performance) since the premiere (with little press criticism at the time), one instance of another composer re-using the theme of the piece (e.g. for a set of variations), and a single use in a TV commercial, there's no reason for separate "Performances", "Discography", "in popular culture" and the like sections, treat it all under "reception history". -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 14:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Francis for these very helpful analyses and proposals (breakdown aspects 1-3). I also subscribe to the reservations about the term "in popular culture". -- Smerus ( talk) 06:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Just brainstorming in front of you all but here's a draft of a nucleus of what I'd like to see inscribed in the relevant guidance:
Reception history starts with the earliest recorded comment regarding a composer's work, which may be implicit, like a publisher accepting or refusing the score for publication, or the applause (or lack thereof) at the first performance.
Reception history can be intertwined with the creation history of the work, for instance a composer reworking a composition after a first performance. Sometimes the first performance is notable in its own right so that it deserves a separate section in the article on the piece (e.g. Le sacre du printemps). In most cases a practical rule of thumb is to let a "Reception history" section start with the first performance or first publication of the final version of the work (whichever comes first), and let the rest of the history of the composition follow that. For articles on composers the reception history can be intertwined with the biographical account up to and including the reactions at the composer's death or funeral, and/or parts of that can be included in a "Reception history" section that starts after the biography sections.
It is important to keep in mind that you are telling an account of what happened with the composition (or a composer's opus) much like a biography of a person. Lists may come in handy for listing accolades or discographies, but apart from that the history that is told should have a flow that can keep a reader's attention.
...
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 13:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I think you've gone off on a tangent, and we need to get back to what this discussion was about. I realise this is intended as a brainstorming, but it like an essay about reception history, not a guideline. You appear to want us to make Reception history sections that cover pretty much everything except what the composer him/herself did. That seems to me to be a very bad idea in itself, lumping together too many diverse things, and I think it's unnecessary instruction creep. Some specific points:
This whole thing got started because it was suggested that we could improve our guideline about In popular culture sections. I think we need to get back to that scope and not get carried away. Two things I get from the discussions so far are:
I really don't think we need to do more than to improve the already quite good IPC section of our guideline a little. Your first two "break down points" help us to do that, but this "integrated view on reception history" approach is several steps too far, imho. Sorry.
BTW, when you hit an edit conflict and you allow your version to override the other editor's version, you should merge them, not merely bat the other version aside. You knew you were doing it, as revealed by the "oops" edit summary. When you discarded mine, you also removed my reinsertion of the mention of the Brooks film, which was cited. Please could you restore that to the article in whatever place you think appropriate.
Finally (at last!), "Best known use in film of the "Ride" is probably ..." is editorializing and is not supported by your source (which anyway is about the not-very-well-known 289-minute work print, not the cinema release). -- Stfg ( talk) 18:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Per Stfg's suggestion in the break down aspect 3 section above. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 11:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Stfg for pulling back on track, I appreciate that. If someone (anyone) wants to discuss a broader or different topic, I have no problem, but they should open up a new topic for discussion. Reception history covers the whole history of a work, not just (and possibly not even) its use in popular culture, so any reference to it within this small section is going to cause far more confusion than clarity. Guidelines are for providing clarity. SurreyJohn (Talk) 10:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
To bring up back into line and chronological order, I'm re-posting the last proposed version (now 4) and I hope you wont mind me demoting the three "breakdowns" to sub-sections of the previous version in order to keep some semblance of structure. Smerus: Yes, I think "other medium" is a no-brainer, so done that. I dont think there is sufficient agreement on what these sections are called, and not dictate any one title that must be used in this guidance. I would sooner leave it to author discretion and anyway, there is further guidance within WP:IPC. The sentence "Try to include the part of the music used, where or how it was used, and in which year" was an attempt to add flesh to the bones of otherwise bare facts. It can be kept, improved, or deleted, but I dont want to delete it based only on one persons feedback.
Classical music often gets reused in popular culture, thus forming part of its modern history. This can often make a hitherto unfamiliar work more popular. Therefore, where the music being described has had significant prominence in a popular film, long-running TV commercial, pop song, or other medium, then its use should be described. Try to include the part of the music used, where or how it was used, and in which year. Ideally its use should be supported by citation (see WP:PROVEIT).
A long list of indiscriminate uses should be avoided (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE). However, if information is otherwise suitable, then it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all (see WP:TRIVIA).
Please refer to the " in popular culture" essay for further guidance.
Thanks SurreyJohn (Talk) 10:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Classical music often gets reused in numerous mediums (film, tv, popular music, games, and others) thus forming part of its modern history (see WP:IPC). Where the music being described has had significant reuse in a film, TV commercial, pop song, or other medium, then its use should be described (in a section named "Cultural references"). Examples of reuses should have references to reliable sources. A long list of indiscriminate uses should be avoided (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE).
kosboot ( talk) 17:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Classical music often gets reused in numerous media which can form part of its modern history (see WP:IPC). This is particularly true if the reuse adds to the popularity of the classical work being used. In other cases, editors should consider whether the reuse will be of little interest to readers who want to know about the musical work, and would be of greater interest to readers who want to know about the movie, TV show, electronic game, etc. where it is used. Where the music being described has had notable reuse (defined by its mention in reliable sources) then its use should be described in a section with a suitable name (such as "Cultural references") with the references included. A long indiscriminate list of non-notable uses should be avoided (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE).
kosboot ( talk) 18:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
@ Kosboot:I am encouraged to see you are making progress, and clearly we have some proposals, albeit not final, that are better than the current standard.
SurreyJohn (Talk) 10:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Goodness golly, on Saturday I was an angel and on Sunday I was a devil. Now the weekend is over, can I just be an ordinary mortal again? Just wanted to point out a couple of things in WP:TRIVIA#What this guideline is not:
(my italics both times). WP:TRIVIA does not tells us we have to include or exclude any information; it tells us we need to develop our own local consensus, which is all this discussion is about. -- Stfg ( talk) 10:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I suppose we all agree that what is included in the "popular"-related sections should be notable. I see two lines of thought in the discussion of aspect/proposal #4 above:
(a bit a simplification but I think these are the alternative underlying rationales)
Maybe we should discuss this aspect somewhat further? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Include cases where the piece is used in other works (including movies, television, and so on) if such uses are notable (especially if referred to in reliable sources), and add to an understanding of the place of the piece in modern culture. Avoid long lists of reuses.
Re. "Avoid long lists of reuses" — maybe some nuance is missing here, e.g. Porgy and Bess discography is ostensibly nothing else than a "long list of reuses". Or would it be clear from the context this only applies to the "popular" reuses? Even then some nuance may be needed. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Per policy, WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it confined to facts: the ideas of others, published in reliable sources, are as encyclopedic as facts are. A good example of how coverage of a reuse can "add to an understanding of the place of the piece in modern culture" without original research is the example we've been looking at: the use of Ride of the Valkyries in Apocalypse Now. That paragraph simply and factually describes how the music is used in the film, and that factual description shows rather clearly what the piece is being used for in that item of modern culture. Other cases might be where "the significance of a particular piece of classical music in so-called popular culture has often been widely discussed in books and journals and even been the subject of doctoral dissertations", to quote this post by Voceditenore.
Mention in reliable sources isn't enough in itself to establish notability, as attested by several sections of WP:NOT. Some of this discussion has been trying to tease out what we mean by "notable" and "significant". I'm trying to contribute to that understanding. I have nothing against Wikipedia documenting the fact that the New World largo is used in the Hovis advert -- in the right place. But what does it tell us about the New World largo? Not much, imho, unless you can find some academic or similar source that tells us that this largo is evocative of cloth caps and shire horses, or whatever. Then we have something to say based on a source, and fine. Otherwise what makes it significant? One editor's POV that this and the Hamlet ad are "classics of their time"? They didn't even air internationally.
We seem to be getting nowhere. Are we going to need an RFC? -- Stfg ( talk) 17:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I feel like I may be on my own here, but why all the stringent conditions about (1) references, (2) notable, (3) add understanding. In the 2001 example, it was significantly used, verifiable and not disputed, and that's enough. There's been about 20 examples here and several hundred more in articles of uses which are of interest to our readers (all which could be impacted). No one has answered the question why it has to add understanding - Why Stfg? This is not some experts interpenetration of the composers thoughts or even about the music, but just a list (and/or details) of its use in popular culture. If x is used (significantly, popularly, or famously) in y, that should be enough. Kosboot pointed out early on that uses in popular rarely get discusses in reliable sources, so finding such sources may be impossible. Are you all trying to prevent content about populate culture in these articles ... really? ... With creep back towards the original version it certainly seems that way. SurreyJohn (Talk) 20:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
@ Stfg::For a while I was trying to keep to policy, simply to keep a neutral point of view and avoid disagreements, but that didnt work! I too am about the throw in the towel, at least for two weeks as Africa is beckoning.
@ Kosboot::I dont think we are angry either, just passionate ... well about music that is! There are some very good technical authors here for whom we are very grateful. There are some more younger less experiences authors too who need simple basic guidance and sometimes encouragement on adding information about their films, CDs (or are they MP3s now), and games. In that way, they may become enthusiastic and passionate about music too. I guess I'm saying to everyone, dont give them too many hoops to jump through. SurreyJohn (Talk) 23:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Members of WikiProject Classical Music have not been able to come to agreement on what to do with sections where a musical work is used or quoted in different media. Although such sections are named “in popular culture”in the style guidelines (see WP:IPC), members of this WikiProject note that not all uses are part of popular culture and suggest the use of more appropriate section titles such as “Cultural references”. Editors may wish to examine models in various articles:
This is actually much, much worse than the current unsatisfactory Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Uses in popular culture. At least that version doesn't say Gymnopédies#Influences_and_cover_versions is a "model" to consider, so there is at least hope it can be somewhat remedied under the current guidance. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 13:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Tweaking Kosboot Ravpapa's proposal above:
Include cases where the piece is used in other works (including movies, television, and so on), when such uses can be demonstrated by reliable sources, including primary sources within the limits of WP:PRIMARY: such sections should be written with an objective to explain the place of the piece in modern culture, or which reuses significantly contributed to the popularity of the piece. Generally for such sections running text is preferred over lists.
? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 14:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I dont like the references. Throwing in examples is more creep. They are atypical examples of long lists, and also no references. Just what were are trying to avoid. Nor Francis's tweek if it is putting a greater emphasis on references than what has been agreed. Actually I find it rather unclear. Also it is prohibiting simple "x was used in y" type encyclopedic and factual content. I feel we should try to put something together more neutral, very basic (so slightly better than nothing), and aligned with policy and current practice. Possibly two different options, possibly accept we don't agree and be honest about it, possibly add a sentence about choice of title and definitely refer to wp:ipc. Also provide a balanced view between wp:indiscriminate and wp:trivia with some sort of guidance (also to avoid long lists). Unless you dont want it, I'll try a version 6 later today - no time right now! If I do, it will be steady evolution, not big bang. If I were to start again (which I have no intention of doing) I would start by asking each of you to provide a list of requirements (say 6 to 10 simple bullet points), and then compare and qualify any new proposal against the lists. I'm ducking out of this in 3 days, but if anyone does want to start again, then I suggest you try this more structured approach. TTFN SurreyJohn (Talk) 14:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Include cases where the piece is used in other works (including movies, television, and so on), when such uses are verifiable in reliable sources, including primary sources within the limits of WP:PRIMARY: such sections should be written with an objective to explain the place of the piece in modern culture, or which reuses significantly contributed to the popularity of the piece. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections.
How about a tweek on Ravpapa's original:
Include cases where the piece is used in other works (including movies, television, and so on). It is preferable to refer to reliable sources that add to an understanding of the place of the piece in modern culture. Avoid long lists of reuses. See the policies on indiscriminate usage, miscellaneous information and the " In Popular Culture" essay for further information.
Here we get your points across, but do not add any extra burdens, instead relying on Wikipedia's various policies (including WP:SOURCES).
I like kosboot's first version too (from the version 4 section), before it got modified. I must have missed it and only commented on the revised version. Again, it doesn't add extra burdens but simply relies on WP's regular guidelines. SurreyJohn (Talk) 19:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Include cases where the piece is used in other works (including movies, television, and so on). It is preferable to refer to third party reliable sources that add to an understanding of the place of the piece in modern culture. Avoid long lists of reuses.
See the policies on indiscriminate usage, miscellaneous information and the " In Popular Culture" essay for further information.
Like: Perhaps not with Francis, but I can live with this proposal ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurreyJohn ( talk • contribs) [7]
Include cases where the piece is used in other works (including movies, television, and so on), referring to third-party reliable sources that add to an understanding of the place of the piece in modern culture. Avoid long lists of reuses.
See the policies on indiscriminate usage, miscellaneous information and the " In Popular Culture" essay for further information.
Another topic I see in previous discussions: should the guidance expressly allow for "temporary stages" of popular-related entries in an article, or is it sufficient to enclose a general reference to existing guidance for that? In other words, should we say something like: a list is better than nothing failing the time to write it out in fluent text? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
This discussion is now 19,378 words long (much longer than my MA thesis was!). Perhaps a better way to tackle the problem and use everyone's time, especially those of you who are keen to keep these lists/sections in articles, is to pick three more articles with "Pop culture" sections and really work on those sections to make them good models to present to prospective editors. Add references for all the entries. Copyedit the entries for succinctness and coherence. William Tell Overture#Cultural references and Nessun Dorma#Cultural references and adaptations are existing examples of reasonable sections in connected prose and list format respectively. Do that for three more articles, preferably the ones which are currently the worst offenders. It simply isn't true that references can't be found for uses of classical music in popular culture. There are loads of books and articles on the subject. It took me all of five minutes to reference three items in the previously completely unreferenced The Hebrides (overture)#In popular culture. Showing people a good model is much more effective than telling them what to do and not to do (and then asking them to read several more pages of alphabet soup so that they can get even more confused). In the process, you would be doing an immense service to readers by showing them where to find out more about the uses of classical music in popular culture in good sources. Voceditenore ( talk) 17:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I welcome Voceditenore's approach: let's find/improve the examples we like, and use them in the guidance (which, BTW, is completely covered by the guidance at Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance#Role of examples, so lets follow that guidance on how to write guidance and "treat it as a rule") -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
... or in other words "this guidance topic should be more focused on interpenetration of the general guidance" which I said way way back. Actually after the initial sigh of seeing another section, I think I agree with just about all of this. SurreyJohn (Talk) 00:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe this way:
Include cases where the piece is used in other works (including movies, television, and so on). When available, it is preferable to refer to third party reliable sources that add to an understanding of the place of the piece in modern culture. Avoid long lists of reuses. See the policies on primary source usage, balancing of aspects, verifiability and indiscriminate usage. Further information in the guideline on miscellaneous information and the In Popular Culture essay.
(threw in another relevant policy-level one: WP:BALASPS) -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Or:
The objective of such sections is to add to an understanding of the place of the piece in modern culture. Examples of where the piece is used in other works (including movies, television, and so on) can, with moderation, be included based on primary sources: give prominence to content based on third party reliable sources where available. See the policies on primary source usage, balancing of aspects, verifiability and indiscriminate usage. Further information in the guideline on miscellaneous information and the In Popular Culture essay.
(sentence flow, and getting rid of the alleged weasel word) -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
The objective of such sections is to add to an understanding of the place of the piece in modern culture. That narrative should be verifiable in reliable sources: examples of where the piece is used in other works (including movies, television, and so on) can, with moderation, be included based on reliable primary sources: the focus should however shift to content based on reliable third party sources when these have "in popular culture" info regarding the piece. See policies on primary source usage, balancing of aspects and indiscriminate usage. Further information in the guideline on miscellaneous information and the In Popular Culture essay.
This is my final version for the next few weeks, and would like it considered as part of any RFC in my absence.
Classical music often gets reused in popular culture, thus forming part of its modern history. This reuse can often add to the popularity of the classical work being used, as well as providing further insights to the music being described.
Where the music being described has had significant prominence such as an introduction or reoccurring theme to a popular film; used for a long-running national TV commercial; a pop song; or in other media, then its use should be described. Where possible, add suitably sourced details of its use such as Samuel Barber's Adagio for Strings being described as sad music, played at the funerals of J.F.Kennedy, Albert Einstein and Princess Grace, and has also appeared in the scores to a number of films, including The Elephant Man and Platoon [9]. A list of indiscriminate or trivial uses should be avoided (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE). However, if information is otherwise suitable, then it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all (see WP:TRIVIA).
Please refer to the " in popular culture" essay for further guidance.
This is clearly my proposal. I'm not sure how the RFC process will work out, but may I suggest that it may be a good idea for other interested parties to add their own preferred version. Thanks SurreyJohn (Talk) 01:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Let me try again (revision 5a) ... After more time to think, I'm rather unhappy with this example. Firstly, examples describing the mood of the music are the exception rather than the rule; I’m not sure Barber’s adagio was used at Kennedy’s funeral; and also while it is good to describe the popular use of the music (which is encyclopedic factual information), I’m uneasy describing the music itself as "sad music" (which is subjective). The guidance may be more acceptable without the example:
Classical music often gets reused in popular culture, thus forming part of its modern history. This reuse can often add to the popularity of the classical work being used, as well as providing further insights to the music being described.
Where the music being described has had significant prominence such as an introduction or reoccurring theme to a popular film; used for a long-running national TV commercial; a pop song; or in other media, then its use may be described. A list of indiscriminate or trivial uses should be avoided (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE). However, if information is otherwise suitable, then it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all (see WP:TRIVIA).
Please refer to the " in popular culture" essay for further guidance.
This is not an attempt to write a historical article or section, but simply document uses in popular/modern culture, albeit in a structured and coherent manner. SurreyJohn (Talk) 15:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
As it may be difficult to settle on just one version for this issue, how about an RFC along the following lines? Two versions are offered: SurreyJohn's version 5a (currently immediately above this, at 15:13, 26 November 2014) and Francis's version above at 10:03, 7 November 2014. !Voters may support either version (or both, if happy with either) or may support a "no change" option. !Voting sections are for supports-with-rationale for that option only -- no opposes or threaded discussion -- and a further section is provided for threaded discussion. (The restriction against threaded discussion in the !voting sections has been used effectively in several RFCs and does, I think, help to avoid things descending into bickering. It may also provide clarity for the closer.) I am willing to create such an RFC if wanted. -- Stfg ( talk) 08:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I am very confused. Is there an RFC or isn't there? The entire discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Request for Comment is not about the guideline, but about the RFC itself. The RFC is framed in a way that certainly does not reflect the opinions expressed on this page. It has attracted no comments whatsoever, and understandably so: the discussion there so far certainly discourages participation.
I suggest that we close the RFC on that page, and create another one here. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 04:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
To put an end to assumptions about what I would or wouldn't support, and about my reasons: my real preference is for a much simpler version. Here's a draft:
Classical music often gets reused in modern culture, thus forming part of its modern history. This reuse can often add to the popularity of the classical work being used, as well as providing further insights into the music being described. When writing about such reuse in articles about classical music, please observe policies and guidelines such as WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:TRIVIA and WP:BALASPS.
That's all. The first two sentences are those proposed by SurreyJohn except that I have replaced "popular culture" with "modern culture" in order not to exclude anything (popular culture is included in modern culture, but the reverse is not true) and done a very minor copy edit (insights to → insights into). Then just link to relevant policies and guidelines, not excluding anything, while remembering that listing things to be included can be read as excluding other things or giving them lower priority. This proposal doesn't mention WP:IPC. I'm not opposed to adding that one, but have omitted it for now because sometimes people object to guidelines citing essays, as doing so implies that the essay has the same level of consensus as the guideline. -- Stfg ( talk) 09:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)