![]() | This page 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. |
Alright, this is starting to look like a real project! If you haven't noticed, I added a project infobox, assessment banner, and a new professional-looking userbox. Hope you don't mind, Father Goose, I edited your pic since it wasn't being used anywhere else, and removed the shadow cuz it didn't match the color of the banner. I think it was the best choice... colorful yet simple, and representative of this project. I've tested everything to make sure it all works, and after some bot gets done doing whatever it does, we can add an article stats table like you see on the other projects. I think thats it, now we just need to get out there and tag some articles... and please assess them when you do! Don't just leave them blank, please. On that note, if you're bored read another edition of As Wikipedia Turns. -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 09:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, there is already a project devoted to trivia anyway, regardless of whether or not they have the same goals as we do, they're already taking care of it. We really don't have enough members to be spreading our efforts so thin. I think focusing on "in pop culture" would be best, and hopefully we can attract new members through our banner. Do you think we should keep the trivial pursuit icon? I think it still says "pop culture" so I'd be willing to keep it... that and I'm lazy! Mmmkay, well if nobody else objects I'll take care of everything tomorrow... soon we will be WikiProject Popular Culture! Er... or WikiProject In Popular Culture? Dammit, I wish I didn't overthink everything. Thats what Wikipedia does to a person, you get so used to being nitpicked you start to nitpick yourself without thinking about it. Sigh... -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 07:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
lol, Thank you... someone slap me with a trout. Anyway, I guess nothing is going to change but our name. We can still do trivia improvment, and we're going to leave the references to trivia in our project goals and such. We're just going to concentrate on pop culture. BTW, I agree with you about the "list-class" articles, however, the option is still there to use it. If an article is never going to progess past a list (such as articles with "list" in the title) I think it should be used. Also, non-article pages such as categories and disambiguation pages can be tagged, and their importance should be listed as NA, in case anyone was wondering. Well, I have a GA review to attend to, so I'll take care of this later. Wish me luck! -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 23:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I beleive that the wikiproject is improving since you have a banner, an assessment drive, target articles for improvements and deletion notifications. Why not an automatic talkpage archiver?-- Lenticel ( talk) 00:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
One of my biggest gripes about in pop cult sections and arts of the past is the veritable ad hoc adding of items with no order or sense - like 'oh jim blow was in a tv show and he looked like x' and added as the odd editor came along and had a thought about it, and then another would. The other thing is also the extraordinarily high rate of items that are in culture in the United States and possibley nowhere else in the planet but there would be no qualification of that as such - as a consequence I am about to put a section in the project page that addresses that - cheers Satu Suro 04:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
OK apologies for the edit before consult - point taken Satu Suro 10:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi folks, I figured this was a pretty prominent plot device and there should be some refs out there for it, I reverted the pop culture bits removal and suggested 3 weeks was an adequate timespan to find some material or otherwise improve the section. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Keeping in line with what I felt has been a large scale community consensus development on In popular culture articles and sections, I have significantly rewritten the essay Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles. Please compare the new version with the old and make some comments. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 15:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Please also note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies/Cultural depictions of core biography figures. I think we should have a "see also" section on our project for theirs and perhaps on their project for ours? Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 19:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Scooby-Doo has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ultra! 15:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Now that most of the X in popular culture type article have been tagged and given a rough assessment, the time has come to start sorting through what we've got and figure out what to do with it. There are more than a handful that would be best written as prose and merged back into the original. There are even a few that would good AfD candidates, but in most of those cases I think it would be better to merge/redirect.
With most of the articles, the big problem is that they need a major cleanup. Simple improvements include removing nonnotable and duplicate entries, grouping items by type, roughly organizing the article by importance/area of most influence, and reassessing the article on the quality and importance scales. More indepth improvements include expanding and improving lede sections, adding pictures, citations, wikilinking, eliminated maintenance tags, and converting lists into prose.
We should also work on getting more articles to GA status. Currently there are Black Swan emblems and popular culture and Cultural depictions of spiders as GAs, but Jayne Mansfield in popular culture is currently nominated for GA. Maybe we can pick a few top importance articles and turn them into really good examples of quality pop culture articles. Suggestions? -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 01:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
A few articles were PRODed today. I removed the tag from some notable ones, but they will probably be listed soon:
Other less notable ones I left the PROD momentarily to see what others thought:
We should probably notify other wikiprojects etc. too. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
the use of the word excise seems a bit odd in the first line of the principles. Machete97 ( talk) 12:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Does/should our project here also cover popular culture or fictional timelines like Alien and Predator timeline or other list formatted articles, what about such things as List of Dragon Quest VIII characters, which are characters that appear both as toys and video games and so have a bit wider popular culture significance than say just for a video game wikiproject? Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 00:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
This article has received a GA review, but it is on hold pending improvements. Let's get this article to GA status. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 02:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The other day, somehow I found myself at the article " Magic negro" which had no projects attached and seemed like a good addition to our scope. It is well-sourced and doesn't seem to need any improvements at this time, but I thought it was interesting and IPC-related so I'm putting it out there if anybody wants to attempt some improvements. Btw, I haven't started working on an IPC barnstar but don't worry I haven't forgotten about it, I might start on it tomorrow. Happy editing, and I know it's early but Merry Independence Day!!! -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 00:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Please note that two editors have questioned the close, but were not answered by the deleting admin. Therefore, I recommend that a member of this project initiate a Wikipedia:Deletion review. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 18:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I want to join because I know that Pencak Silat has a lot of pop culture references. Angie Y. ( talk) 23:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion concerning a topic covered in David Mansour, " Sonic the Hedgehog," From Abba to Zoom: A Pop Culture Encyclopedia Of The Late 20th Century (Andrews McMeel Publishing, 2005), 450, has closed with the deleting admin suggesting a merge discussion continue at Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (character)#Proposed merge. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 20:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to create an IPC cleanup template, especially one that linked to the IPC essay. It would help raise awareness of the essay's reccomendations, and perhaps this Wikiproject as well. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 05:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
This xkcd cartoon was pretty funny... but after someone decided to add a link to this cartoon in the article Popular culture, an admin came along, reverted, and semi-protected the page. I thought the admin went a little overboard with these actions. Some editors abhor webcomics and "internet culture" in general, so this doesn't surprise me. I think the comic is hilarious, I laughed for a good minute. -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 05:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed User:JohnnyMrNinja/Water in popular culture. Apparently it's actually the subject of a college course!! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 02:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - , member of WikiProject Council. 14:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
So I was looking at some Good articles today, and I discovered another untagged GA class IPC article, Est and The Forum in popular culture. I'm too lazy to tag it right now, but this is showing there's still lots of good content out there we haven't found. We can't improve something we don't know is there. Does anyone have any efficient suggestions for how to do a search for pages starting with "Wikipedia Talk:" and ending with "in popular culture"? -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 23:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, I pondered on something Will Oakland said and wondered whether merging Doomsday films and Doomsday devices in popular culture into Doomsday device might be a good idea to make a meaty article capable of going to GA or FAC at some stage (with maybe a list of films being spun out at some stage), as given the concept of a doomsday deveice is in part fictional, isnt having an IPC article somewhat tautological? I created a merge template as I figured if done with care by people actually interested then info can be saved and improved rather than redirected. Just thorwing up the idea (figuratively) Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 282 articles are assigned to this project, of which 131, or 46.5%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:
If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 16:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catsuits in popular culture for concerns. Banjeboi 08:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks like the entire St. James Encyclopedia of Pop Culture is available online here. Care to check anyone? Aditya( talk • contribs) 15:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I have split Bikini in popular culture from the Bikini article. As you can guess, the article have quite a few kinks due to the split. These needs to be ironed out. There also is huge scope for expansion. Is it possible to request a few more helping hands to develop the article? A months work or so, and we easily could have a GA. Aditya( talk • contribs) 11:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am looking for some advise on a sub section I recently created, and was deleted, from this article. This is my single to the article in question. It involves President-elect Obama not knowing what the half-smoke was and Bill Cosby joking he would take his vote back b/c of it. I think some the members of this WikiProject might be able to offer me some advise as to whether or not this information is pertinent. To be clear I'm not looking for an "Attaboy" or a rubber stamp but serious consideration as to if this adds to the article or not. As a note I now realize I should have called the sub-section "In popular culture" a mistake I won't repeat in the future. Thanks Naufana : talk 02:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Has everyone read this page?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trivia_and_Popular_Culture/Discussion
Here are some interesting external web sites concering trivia.
http://www.neatorama.com/2008/03/22/wikipedias-identity-crisis-keep-or-delete-trivia/
http://billso.com/2008/03/18/should-wikipedia-include-trivia/
http://www.economist.com/search/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354
http://www.economist.com/search/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354&mode=comment&intent=readBottom
http://www.economist.com/search/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354&mode=comment&intent=readBottom
http://www.includipedia.com/blog/2008/03/10/inclusionists-versus-deletionists-on-wikipedia.html
http://www.includipedia.com/wiki/Includipedia:About
http://www.includipedia.com/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.impactlab.com/2008/03/24/wikipedia-identity-crisis-part-2-keep-or-delete-trivia/
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080111152140AA8xEth
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiTrivia Ozmaweezer ( talk) 04:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems that over the past 4 or 5 months or so, all the excitement about trivia and popular culture seems to have died down, and it looks as if the problem is slowly resolving itself. New wording to {{ trivia}} make the template less abrasive and more subtle in it's guidance, and additionally the creation of {{ in popular culture}} has created a more problem specific template for certain sections.
However, it seems that while this WikiProject was successful in stemming the giant tide of AfDs and categorical removal, it still stands a long way between making articles acceptable, and making articles flourish. There is still a significant problem with IPC articles that really shouldn't exist, and this lowers the average quality of IPC articles. Quite a few articles under this project's scope should be cleaned up and merged with their parent articles, since the topics often do not meet the criteria for a stand alone article. I'd encourage anyone with some spare time to take a look at this project's Article Statistics, and see if you can improve the overall quality of our scope by integrating unnecessary articles. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 17:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Following the lead of other wikiprojects, I have created an article assessment instructions page. If anyone has an opinion on this page... as always, feel free to make some edits or discuss any changes on the talk page. Also, the old project banner has been replaced by a new metabanner template which simplifies both the coding of new banners and making any new changes to old banners. Happy editing. -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 21:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:34, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
I have recently discovered an article - Teardrop tattoo, and oddly enough there is no wikiproject tattoo so I thought it would be a good addition to our scope. Articles such as 555 (telephone number), Urban legend, and such are hard to define as "pop culture" and may well be within the scope of other potential projects which do not currently exist. But I think these are important additions as most of these articles are very notable topics which are usually orphaned (no projects attached) and need a lot of editing help. Merry St. Patrick's Day. -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 02:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems as if half the time when I find a "popular culture" section, it says
with a capital "P" and a capital "C", in disregard of Wikipedia:Manual of Style, which clear prescribes lower case:
Now I find there's a WikiProject devoted to popular culture references. Is this project (1) doing something to get people to comply with WP:MOS; or (2) doing something that makes them disregard WP:MOS; or (3) other (specfify)? Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
You miss the point. I wasn't criticizing the capitalization of the name of the project, but rather: headings within articles.
And you are wrong. Wikipedia:Manual of Style exists. Its existence matters. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The reason I "single them out" is precisely what I said above: the high frequency with which I find the all-capital-initials headings. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The answer is (3). We're not trying to "make people comply with the MoS" -- that's not the purpose of this project. When I personally do work on pop-culture sections and articles (and, heck, every other kind of article), I fix capitalization. I expect other project members do as well. But are we poring through Wikipedia's articles, trying to find miscapitalized "pop culture" sections? Not specifically. It doesn't strike me as the most pressing task facing us, or the most effective use of our time. Have you considered trying AWB, if this is a project you personally are interested in undertaking?-- Father Goose ( talk) 08:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Note Pan and Pan in popular culture, ditto Bugbear, Phoenix (mythology), Redcap, and Knife fight - I am trying to find the policy which states this isn't a good idea, but haven't the time for an MOS search. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
PS: I proposed a merge back of Bugbears in popular culture into Bugbear - discuss at Talk:Bugbear#Merger_proposal. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Also Sprites in popular culture into Sprite (creature), join the fun at Talk:Sprite_(creature)#Merger_proposal Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
This article has a Cultural Impact section that I think is a pretty good one, because all of the examples mentioned are very substantial references to the opera - for example, where characters in a TV show sing a song from HMS Pinafore. But it has been attacked by some editors as WP:Trivia. I am about to nominate the article for promotion to Featured Article. Can someone who has experience with WP:Featured Articles help me make a really clean argument that the section is not a collection of trivia, but rather is important information about how the subject has affected popular culture for over 100 years? Or, on the other hand, if you disagree, let me know. Also, if you can think of a way to improve the section so that it reads better, please let me know. Thanks for any help! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been so busy with other things, its been a while since I've devoted any time to improving project articles. Anyway, I came across this today: Olly olly oxen free, with a long list of pop culture references and absolutely zero cites. On another note, I've been working on my series of Trucking industry in the United States articles, possibly working my way toward a WP:Featured topic, which means massive amounts of work. One editor suggested that a pop culture article about truckers in the United States would be a welcome addition, seeing as how there should be plenty of third party sources regarding this subject. And he is right, there are plenty of them. So whenver I get a chance I'm going to create the article, my only problem is what to call it. United States truck drivers in popular culture, Cultural depictions of truck drivers (United States), Truck drivers in the United States in popular culture (hmm, too long?), or maybe Truck drivers in popular culture (United States). Anyone got any ideas? -- ErgoSum• talk• trib 19:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
There has been a recent increase in the removal of in popular culture and in fiction sections from numerous articles, along with the rapid nomination of many ipc articles for deletion. I am somewhat puzzled, for I thought we had all reached a consensus that such was accepted as content. Perhaps consensus is changing--or perhaps there is a small dedicated group determined to drive such change during a slow period at Wikipedia. If the general view has changed, then so be it, but I'm not convinced of that.
The best response, of course, is to improve and source this material properly. It won't prevent people for trying to remove them, but it will help convince the community that they ought to stay in. Some of the sections and articles are in urgent need of some work. I've started upgrading, but I cannot do it all. (I did not list here the ones that I thought were altogether hopeless, or too small to bother with at all). It is not argument, but sourcing and fuller content that will do the job.
As for ipc, see the appropriate sections of: (Some of the arguments for removing the sections use the argument that if an article on the ipc was deleted, the section ought not remain at all. )
and the AfDs for:
and the recreated article
DGG ( talk) 03:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I've been googling for free trivia questions, like ones in Trivial Pursuit but haven't found anything significant collection. So I thought, why not put together some as a Wikimedia project, for example as a page in Wikiversity? Or is there already something like that somewhere? Mikael Häggström ( talk) 14:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure it's no secret that popular music articles, many of which contain references to guitars, are badly overlinked. Common term and generalised linking is now not the normal practice, and need specific rationale. This includes the linking of the general common terms such as "guitar", "singer", "songwriter", "author", "poet", "activist", whether in main text or infobox.
I have been auditing the linking, slowly, in a few popular culture articles. Unfortunately, a member of the guitar WikiProject has been reverting tese audits WRT infoboxes. The reasons given have ranged from:
There is also a sense that infoboxes should be carpeted blue for aesthetic reasons: the last is clearly an abuse of wikilinking, which loses its effect if every word is blue. Infoboxes are, in any case, a mixture of black and blue, and always will be. The question becomes to what extent the useful links should stand out rather than being swamped.
A related issue is the style-guide rule discouraging adjacent links, and encouraging specific linking. "Guitar", for example, would be much better unlinked at the top, and if the artist played a certain type of guitar, Guitar#Types of guitars is the better target, in the appropriate section. This is what would help the readers, not a formulaic carpet-bombing of infoboxes with double square brackets. Times have changed.
Apart from going against WP:LINK, this practice is diluting the many important, valuable links in popular culture articles. Among these are, of course, the titles of songs, albums and other artists. These should not be diluted by links that are not useful to an understanding of the topic, and that all English-speakers should know the definition of. (I have unlinked "roses", "divorce", "suicide", and many other dictionary words, as well as the seemingly formulaic "singer", "musician", "artist", "activist", etc.).
I ask that editors take the opportunity to support the cleaning up of the "sea of blue" problem to make wikilinking in popular-culture articles work a lot better for our readers. Tony (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
A question at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Linking_to_a_wiki_for_pop_culture_references might benefit from the perspective of people at this project. In particular, if a list of pop culture/'trivia' items is inappropriate for the Wikipedia encyclopedia, should it be moved to another website (e.g., Wikia), and if so, should the usual rules about WP:External links be "ignored" to permit a link to the relocated content? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
A heads up - I have proposed History of cats be moved to Cultural depictions of cats — This article is really about cat culture and folklore through the ages rather than history per se. I am not saying there shouldn't be an article on the history of cats, but this ain't it. My suggestion would be to move this to Cultural depictions of cats. Additionally I think I have the sources to make it a Good Article one day....Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 19:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Discussion relevant to the project: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Any_.28reasonable.29_objections.3F -- Cybercobra (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm new to the Project, just thought I'd introduce myself. Sean ( talk || contribs) 04:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Not that I can take credit for it. I noticed List of cultural references in The Cantos, which definitely falls under this project's scope, so I added it. Yay. We also have the former featured list Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc -- if someone would be willing to clean up the unsourced entries, we could get it back on WP:FL.-- Father Goose ( talk) 01:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Shinigami in popular culture has been nomianted for deletion at AfD 76.66.202.139 ( talk) 06:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.
We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.
If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 05:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Satyrs in popular culture has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.208.129 ( talk) 06:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Tang in popular culture has been nominated for deletion. It was recently split from the main article. 70.29.210.174 ( talk) 04:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated List of cultural references in The Cantos for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.-- Gimme danger ( talk) 20:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Vercingetorix in popular culture has been prodded for deletion 70.29.208.69 ( talk) 03:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
New article Icons of American culture, as yet just a stub, is in need of feedback: comments and contributions from anyone interested. ProfDEH ( talk) 19:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Silver Surfer has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Tom B ( talk) 19:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
FYI, DeLorean time machine has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 06:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Mary Celeste in popular culture has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 06:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Deletion review discussion regarding Golden Raspberry Award winners, please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 1. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 20:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
USS Indianapolis in popular culture has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.13.227 ( talk) 07:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Also nominated Fomalhaut, Alpha Centauri, Sirius, Epsilon Eridani and several others. All opinions welcome. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 13:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
This term has plenty of sources, is found in prestigious magazines, and is used by popular authors, as well as being the name of a mixed drink. μηδείς ( talk) 22:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Please comment on RfC on WP:WPACT, trivia and popular culture sections in car and motorcycle articles. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 15:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles ( BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.
The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>> Wikipedia:WikiProject Popular culture/Archive 2/Unreferenced BLPs<<<
If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.
Thank you.
Needs cites - maybe a broadening of scope to Smuggling in fiction? See talk. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I note a couple of articules have just been put up for AfD related to slogans used by two leading Australian TV stations. I think it belongs here. The articles need refs and citations etc but I think they can be fixed. They are:
Do they belong here? AWHS ( talk) 11:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Popular Culture articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Is this wikiproject related to the task force WP:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture ? 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 06:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick ( talk) 20:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Crossmr ( talk) removed the entire "in popular culture" section in the article Numbers station, with an edit that it was mere "trivia". I restored it with a note that it was not "trivia" but appeared to be acceptible content under Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. Crossmr removed it again and accused me of edit warring and violating all sort of rules. It seems to me that this content was interesting and something that readers might look for in that article. I don't much feel like getting into the minutia of this, but if anyone cares to comment on this you can at Talk:Numbers station#Removal of "In popular culture section". Ecphora ( talk) 02:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion about deleting a reference to the Futurama episode Rebirth from the popular culture section of the article Chinese room.*
An editor who admits s/he has not seen the Futurama episode, and who admits s/he is critical of the Chinese room argument, repeatedly removed the entry. S/he filed an RfC which has generated comments by several editors saying the popular culture section should be removed entirely. Complaint has been made that quoting the dialog verbatim amounts to OR, even though WP policy holds fictional works may serve as the source of their own content.
My opinion is that:
this is an example of editorial distaste,
I think readers can decide for themselves whether to read this material.
Editors can comment on the RfC discussion here.
--- *The Chinese room argument deals with whether computer programs simulating a person well enough can actual be said to constitute real conscious minds. In the Futurama episode, Leela is killed and a computer simulation of her personality is created. (A clip of her simulation is available here at comedy central - unfortunately I can only find the full episode at websites like tvshack.) Subsequent to Robot-Leela's creation and the moral dilemmas it creates the question arises whether she really has a mind or is just a simulation, and the robot Leela alludes to the dilemma, asking "Am I just an automaton, or can a machine of sufficient complexity legitimately achieve consciousness?" ---
μηδείς ( talk) 01:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The usage of alleyway is under discussion, see Talk:Alleyway#Requested_move -- 65.95.14.34 ( talk) 08:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Additional opinions are requested here. Thank you for your help. Doniago ( talk) 16:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
has a pop culture section needing referencing too. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 07:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
For Nuclear_holocaust#Nuclear_holocaust_in_popular_culture - gotta be notable, surely...? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 07:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Ditto pop culture bits and pieces in Édith Piaf Casliber ( talk · contribs) 07:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Whole-body_transplant#Whole-body_transplants_in_popular_culture Casliber ( talk · contribs) 07:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
As before, additional opinions are requested here regarding the criteria for inclusion in a popular culture list article. Thank you for your feedback. Doniago ( talk) 20:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Please add your comments and support for Popular Culture references (not trivia!) in this article at Talk:Honky-tonk#Cultural references/Trivia section. Wahrmund ( talk) 21:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
For anyone interested, Coyotes in popular culture is an article rife with unsourced list items. I've tagged it accordingly today, and will give it at least a couple of months before I take any action on existing items. Doniago ( talk) 03:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm proposing a wikiproject to cover fictional lists, since this covers fictional things, every article in the scope of this wikiproject would also fall under Popular Culture. I was hoping maybe some of you here might be interested in the proposal, maybe you have some suggestions and hopefully some of you might like to help out and sign up. Thanks! Ncboy2010 ( talk) 15:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in the discussion of pop culture in the McRib article at Talk:McRib#Significance_of_items_in_pop_culture.— Bagumba ( talk) 17:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion on Talk:Zombie (fictional) regarding article scope. The result may lead move and/or merge proposals for this article and Zombie. This flows from a failed move proposal archived at Talk:Zombie. Zombie (fictional) is a high importance article to this project and receives many hits, so I'm posting this notice as an FYI to interested editors as currently there are only two of us sorting this out. LaTeeDa ( talk) 23:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
...so can anybody tell me why on my user page I have a category saying that I am? Is this a result of a userbox or something of that nature?
RedSoxFan274
(leave a message
~contribs)
04:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
For example, take Vampires in popular culture. Suppose I'm editing that article, and I want to add an example of a video game about vampires. Do I need to cite a reliable source? (Obviously, video games tend not to be " reliable sources".) 150.135.161.45 ( talk) 23:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
A counterexample would be The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo; the book and the two films made from it all featured a motorcycle, but in each version a different kind of bike was used, and no note was taken of it other than by film and motorcycle buffs. The fact that Lisbeth Salander rides a motorcycle at all is important to the character and the plot, but which particular bike is of little consequence. It's unimportant trivia.
You can get away with weaker sourcing than we see on Kawasaki GPZ900R, but personally I wouldn't bother. When I see third party sources that aren't genre-specific, I know I've got a solid addition to the encyclopedia. You can sneak things in with less but don't be surprised if it gets deleted right away, or in six months or a year. And then you would have wasted your time. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 00:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I got the Americana page to a reasonable state of consistency by weeding out all the examples, relevant and otherwise, to provide a reasonable guide to what the term means and encompasses. Now, an editor is adding what I consider to be unbalanced and misleading material, making a case for including what may be completely wrong examples, certainly not sufficiently typical or iconic. An obsession with Lana Del Rey and David Lynch seems to underpin this. Help needed to sort this out. ProfDEH ( talk) 06:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I didn't want to just start editing the "Fictional pinnipeds" articles without approval, but I'd like to point out some characters that I'm surprised weren't mentioned there: Rotor (from the "Sonic The Hedgehog" series), a fictional walrus, Gomamon and his digivolution line (which are all seal/walrus based) in the "Digimon" series, and Sealia (also from "Sonic") and Sully ("Danger Rangers"), both seals.
MadeInTheShade ( talk) 21:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
We're currently fixing the Cultural depictions of elephants let's make it a GA article in the same vein as Cultural depictions of spiders!-- Lenticel ( talk) 10:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
FYI, I just mentioned this project on Talk:Shinto in popular culture. Cheers. In ictu oculi ( talk) 04:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
The coverage of the article Shinto in popular culture is under discussion at talk:Shinto in popular culture -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 04:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Deletion discussion ongoing about whether or not this article page should exist.
Please see deletion discussion page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human–goat sexual intercourse, if you wish to voice your opinion. — Cirt ( talk) 15:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
As part of a quality improvement project on a topic related to freedom of speech, I've greatly expanded upon and improved the quality of the article at page, Fuck (film). Any further suggestions for additional secondary sources and referencing would be appreciated, at the article's talk page. — Cirt ( talk) 20:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Underground culture has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 04:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I've listed the article Fuck (film) for peer review.
Help with furthering along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1.
— Cirt ( talk) 00:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
image:Andy Warhol's imagine of Jackie Kennedy mourning at John F. Kennedy's funereal.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 06:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
There is currently two RfC's at Talk:Hookup culture (which is also being considered for deletion here), that would benefit from community participation. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The usage of Gojira is under discussion, see talk:Gojira#Requested move 2 -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 10:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. We're having a discussion on the fate of Horrible Histories TV show at: Horrible Histories (2009 TV series)#Moving on. As a relevant Wikiproject, we would greatly appreciate it if you would voice your opinion on the talk page, or to have a crack at editing and improving it. Thankyou for your time. :)-- Coin945 ( talk) 13:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedians,
I would like to propose -- here as to avoid the talk-page of the template which seems quite unused -- the Inclusion of the Article [Prostration] in logical consequence as it being the most formal gesture (in western thought) after genuflection and bow. The article could, I believe, also use some expansion in regards to the use of prostration in European contexts which I am unable to provide as my knowledge is anecdotal.
Sincerely -- 79.195.115.134 ( talk) 13:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
image:Compact Cassette Logo.svg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 05:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
image:The world's most northerly ATM machine.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 05:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
image:Flag of Anonymous.jpeg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.129.3 ( talk) 01:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Fuck (film) is a candidate for Featured Article quality — comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1.
Thank you for your time,
— Cirt ( talk) 18:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Where does one go to request a re-assessment of an article within this project's purview? Here? Okay...
Cultural depictions of elephants has recently undergone a major overhaul, and is likely to achieve a higher rating. In any case, additional input from a new pair of eyes would be appreciated and any improvements are welcome.
~Thanks, ~Eric F:
71.20.250.51 (
talk)
22:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC))
I've listed the article Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for peer review.
Help with furthering along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1.
Thank you for your time,
— Cirt ( talk) 01:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I've added Fuck (film) to TFA nominations, discussion is at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#Fuck_.28film.29. — Cirt ( talk) 22:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt ( talk) 06:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
Alright, this is starting to look like a real project! If you haven't noticed, I added a project infobox, assessment banner, and a new professional-looking userbox. Hope you don't mind, Father Goose, I edited your pic since it wasn't being used anywhere else, and removed the shadow cuz it didn't match the color of the banner. I think it was the best choice... colorful yet simple, and representative of this project. I've tested everything to make sure it all works, and after some bot gets done doing whatever it does, we can add an article stats table like you see on the other projects. I think thats it, now we just need to get out there and tag some articles... and please assess them when you do! Don't just leave them blank, please. On that note, if you're bored read another edition of As Wikipedia Turns. -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 09:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, there is already a project devoted to trivia anyway, regardless of whether or not they have the same goals as we do, they're already taking care of it. We really don't have enough members to be spreading our efforts so thin. I think focusing on "in pop culture" would be best, and hopefully we can attract new members through our banner. Do you think we should keep the trivial pursuit icon? I think it still says "pop culture" so I'd be willing to keep it... that and I'm lazy! Mmmkay, well if nobody else objects I'll take care of everything tomorrow... soon we will be WikiProject Popular Culture! Er... or WikiProject In Popular Culture? Dammit, I wish I didn't overthink everything. Thats what Wikipedia does to a person, you get so used to being nitpicked you start to nitpick yourself without thinking about it. Sigh... -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 07:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
lol, Thank you... someone slap me with a trout. Anyway, I guess nothing is going to change but our name. We can still do trivia improvment, and we're going to leave the references to trivia in our project goals and such. We're just going to concentrate on pop culture. BTW, I agree with you about the "list-class" articles, however, the option is still there to use it. If an article is never going to progess past a list (such as articles with "list" in the title) I think it should be used. Also, non-article pages such as categories and disambiguation pages can be tagged, and their importance should be listed as NA, in case anyone was wondering. Well, I have a GA review to attend to, so I'll take care of this later. Wish me luck! -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 23:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I beleive that the wikiproject is improving since you have a banner, an assessment drive, target articles for improvements and deletion notifications. Why not an automatic talkpage archiver?-- Lenticel ( talk) 00:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
One of my biggest gripes about in pop cult sections and arts of the past is the veritable ad hoc adding of items with no order or sense - like 'oh jim blow was in a tv show and he looked like x' and added as the odd editor came along and had a thought about it, and then another would. The other thing is also the extraordinarily high rate of items that are in culture in the United States and possibley nowhere else in the planet but there would be no qualification of that as such - as a consequence I am about to put a section in the project page that addresses that - cheers Satu Suro 04:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
OK apologies for the edit before consult - point taken Satu Suro 10:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi folks, I figured this was a pretty prominent plot device and there should be some refs out there for it, I reverted the pop culture bits removal and suggested 3 weeks was an adequate timespan to find some material or otherwise improve the section. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Keeping in line with what I felt has been a large scale community consensus development on In popular culture articles and sections, I have significantly rewritten the essay Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles. Please compare the new version with the old and make some comments. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 15:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Please also note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies/Cultural depictions of core biography figures. I think we should have a "see also" section on our project for theirs and perhaps on their project for ours? Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 19:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Scooby-Doo has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ultra! 15:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Now that most of the X in popular culture type article have been tagged and given a rough assessment, the time has come to start sorting through what we've got and figure out what to do with it. There are more than a handful that would be best written as prose and merged back into the original. There are even a few that would good AfD candidates, but in most of those cases I think it would be better to merge/redirect.
With most of the articles, the big problem is that they need a major cleanup. Simple improvements include removing nonnotable and duplicate entries, grouping items by type, roughly organizing the article by importance/area of most influence, and reassessing the article on the quality and importance scales. More indepth improvements include expanding and improving lede sections, adding pictures, citations, wikilinking, eliminated maintenance tags, and converting lists into prose.
We should also work on getting more articles to GA status. Currently there are Black Swan emblems and popular culture and Cultural depictions of spiders as GAs, but Jayne Mansfield in popular culture is currently nominated for GA. Maybe we can pick a few top importance articles and turn them into really good examples of quality pop culture articles. Suggestions? -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 01:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
A few articles were PRODed today. I removed the tag from some notable ones, but they will probably be listed soon:
Other less notable ones I left the PROD momentarily to see what others thought:
We should probably notify other wikiprojects etc. too. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
the use of the word excise seems a bit odd in the first line of the principles. Machete97 ( talk) 12:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Does/should our project here also cover popular culture or fictional timelines like Alien and Predator timeline or other list formatted articles, what about such things as List of Dragon Quest VIII characters, which are characters that appear both as toys and video games and so have a bit wider popular culture significance than say just for a video game wikiproject? Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 00:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
This article has received a GA review, but it is on hold pending improvements. Let's get this article to GA status. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 02:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The other day, somehow I found myself at the article " Magic negro" which had no projects attached and seemed like a good addition to our scope. It is well-sourced and doesn't seem to need any improvements at this time, but I thought it was interesting and IPC-related so I'm putting it out there if anybody wants to attempt some improvements. Btw, I haven't started working on an IPC barnstar but don't worry I haven't forgotten about it, I might start on it tomorrow. Happy editing, and I know it's early but Merry Independence Day!!! -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 00:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Please note that two editors have questioned the close, but were not answered by the deleting admin. Therefore, I recommend that a member of this project initiate a Wikipedia:Deletion review. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 18:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I want to join because I know that Pencak Silat has a lot of pop culture references. Angie Y. ( talk) 23:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion concerning a topic covered in David Mansour, " Sonic the Hedgehog," From Abba to Zoom: A Pop Culture Encyclopedia Of The Late 20th Century (Andrews McMeel Publishing, 2005), 450, has closed with the deleting admin suggesting a merge discussion continue at Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (character)#Proposed merge. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 20:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to create an IPC cleanup template, especially one that linked to the IPC essay. It would help raise awareness of the essay's reccomendations, and perhaps this Wikiproject as well. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 05:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
This xkcd cartoon was pretty funny... but after someone decided to add a link to this cartoon in the article Popular culture, an admin came along, reverted, and semi-protected the page. I thought the admin went a little overboard with these actions. Some editors abhor webcomics and "internet culture" in general, so this doesn't surprise me. I think the comic is hilarious, I laughed for a good minute. -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 05:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed User:JohnnyMrNinja/Water in popular culture. Apparently it's actually the subject of a college course!! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 02:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ? " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - , member of WikiProject Council. 14:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
So I was looking at some Good articles today, and I discovered another untagged GA class IPC article, Est and The Forum in popular culture. I'm too lazy to tag it right now, but this is showing there's still lots of good content out there we haven't found. We can't improve something we don't know is there. Does anyone have any efficient suggestions for how to do a search for pages starting with "Wikipedia Talk:" and ending with "in popular culture"? -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 23:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, I pondered on something Will Oakland said and wondered whether merging Doomsday films and Doomsday devices in popular culture into Doomsday device might be a good idea to make a meaty article capable of going to GA or FAC at some stage (with maybe a list of films being spun out at some stage), as given the concept of a doomsday deveice is in part fictional, isnt having an IPC article somewhat tautological? I created a merge template as I figured if done with care by people actually interested then info can be saved and improved rather than redirected. Just thorwing up the idea (figuratively) Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 282 articles are assigned to this project, of which 131, or 46.5%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:
If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 16:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catsuits in popular culture for concerns. Banjeboi 08:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks like the entire St. James Encyclopedia of Pop Culture is available online here. Care to check anyone? Aditya( talk • contribs) 15:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I have split Bikini in popular culture from the Bikini article. As you can guess, the article have quite a few kinks due to the split. These needs to be ironed out. There also is huge scope for expansion. Is it possible to request a few more helping hands to develop the article? A months work or so, and we easily could have a GA. Aditya( talk • contribs) 11:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am looking for some advise on a sub section I recently created, and was deleted, from this article. This is my single to the article in question. It involves President-elect Obama not knowing what the half-smoke was and Bill Cosby joking he would take his vote back b/c of it. I think some the members of this WikiProject might be able to offer me some advise as to whether or not this information is pertinent. To be clear I'm not looking for an "Attaboy" or a rubber stamp but serious consideration as to if this adds to the article or not. As a note I now realize I should have called the sub-section "In popular culture" a mistake I won't repeat in the future. Thanks Naufana : talk 02:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Has everyone read this page?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trivia_and_Popular_Culture/Discussion
Here are some interesting external web sites concering trivia.
http://www.neatorama.com/2008/03/22/wikipedias-identity-crisis-keep-or-delete-trivia/
http://billso.com/2008/03/18/should-wikipedia-include-trivia/
http://www.economist.com/search/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354
http://www.economist.com/search/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354&mode=comment&intent=readBottom
http://www.economist.com/search/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354&mode=comment&intent=readBottom
http://www.includipedia.com/blog/2008/03/10/inclusionists-versus-deletionists-on-wikipedia.html
http://www.includipedia.com/wiki/Includipedia:About
http://www.includipedia.com/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.impactlab.com/2008/03/24/wikipedia-identity-crisis-part-2-keep-or-delete-trivia/
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080111152140AA8xEth
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiTrivia Ozmaweezer ( talk) 04:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems that over the past 4 or 5 months or so, all the excitement about trivia and popular culture seems to have died down, and it looks as if the problem is slowly resolving itself. New wording to {{ trivia}} make the template less abrasive and more subtle in it's guidance, and additionally the creation of {{ in popular culture}} has created a more problem specific template for certain sections.
However, it seems that while this WikiProject was successful in stemming the giant tide of AfDs and categorical removal, it still stands a long way between making articles acceptable, and making articles flourish. There is still a significant problem with IPC articles that really shouldn't exist, and this lowers the average quality of IPC articles. Quite a few articles under this project's scope should be cleaned up and merged with their parent articles, since the topics often do not meet the criteria for a stand alone article. I'd encourage anyone with some spare time to take a look at this project's Article Statistics, and see if you can improve the overall quality of our scope by integrating unnecessary articles. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 17:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Following the lead of other wikiprojects, I have created an article assessment instructions page. If anyone has an opinion on this page... as always, feel free to make some edits or discuss any changes on the talk page. Also, the old project banner has been replaced by a new metabanner template which simplifies both the coding of new banners and making any new changes to old banners. Happy editing. -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 21:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:34, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
I have recently discovered an article - Teardrop tattoo, and oddly enough there is no wikiproject tattoo so I thought it would be a good addition to our scope. Articles such as 555 (telephone number), Urban legend, and such are hard to define as "pop culture" and may well be within the scope of other potential projects which do not currently exist. But I think these are important additions as most of these articles are very notable topics which are usually orphaned (no projects attached) and need a lot of editing help. Merry St. Patrick's Day. -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 02:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems as if half the time when I find a "popular culture" section, it says
with a capital "P" and a capital "C", in disregard of Wikipedia:Manual of Style, which clear prescribes lower case:
Now I find there's a WikiProject devoted to popular culture references. Is this project (1) doing something to get people to comply with WP:MOS; or (2) doing something that makes them disregard WP:MOS; or (3) other (specfify)? Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
You miss the point. I wasn't criticizing the capitalization of the name of the project, but rather: headings within articles.
And you are wrong. Wikipedia:Manual of Style exists. Its existence matters. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The reason I "single them out" is precisely what I said above: the high frequency with which I find the all-capital-initials headings. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
The answer is (3). We're not trying to "make people comply with the MoS" -- that's not the purpose of this project. When I personally do work on pop-culture sections and articles (and, heck, every other kind of article), I fix capitalization. I expect other project members do as well. But are we poring through Wikipedia's articles, trying to find miscapitalized "pop culture" sections? Not specifically. It doesn't strike me as the most pressing task facing us, or the most effective use of our time. Have you considered trying AWB, if this is a project you personally are interested in undertaking?-- Father Goose ( talk) 08:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Note Pan and Pan in popular culture, ditto Bugbear, Phoenix (mythology), Redcap, and Knife fight - I am trying to find the policy which states this isn't a good idea, but haven't the time for an MOS search. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
PS: I proposed a merge back of Bugbears in popular culture into Bugbear - discuss at Talk:Bugbear#Merger_proposal. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Also Sprites in popular culture into Sprite (creature), join the fun at Talk:Sprite_(creature)#Merger_proposal Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
This article has a Cultural Impact section that I think is a pretty good one, because all of the examples mentioned are very substantial references to the opera - for example, where characters in a TV show sing a song from HMS Pinafore. But it has been attacked by some editors as WP:Trivia. I am about to nominate the article for promotion to Featured Article. Can someone who has experience with WP:Featured Articles help me make a really clean argument that the section is not a collection of trivia, but rather is important information about how the subject has affected popular culture for over 100 years? Or, on the other hand, if you disagree, let me know. Also, if you can think of a way to improve the section so that it reads better, please let me know. Thanks for any help! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been so busy with other things, its been a while since I've devoted any time to improving project articles. Anyway, I came across this today: Olly olly oxen free, with a long list of pop culture references and absolutely zero cites. On another note, I've been working on my series of Trucking industry in the United States articles, possibly working my way toward a WP:Featured topic, which means massive amounts of work. One editor suggested that a pop culture article about truckers in the United States would be a welcome addition, seeing as how there should be plenty of third party sources regarding this subject. And he is right, there are plenty of them. So whenver I get a chance I'm going to create the article, my only problem is what to call it. United States truck drivers in popular culture, Cultural depictions of truck drivers (United States), Truck drivers in the United States in popular culture (hmm, too long?), or maybe Truck drivers in popular culture (United States). Anyone got any ideas? -- ErgoSum• talk• trib 19:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
There has been a recent increase in the removal of in popular culture and in fiction sections from numerous articles, along with the rapid nomination of many ipc articles for deletion. I am somewhat puzzled, for I thought we had all reached a consensus that such was accepted as content. Perhaps consensus is changing--or perhaps there is a small dedicated group determined to drive such change during a slow period at Wikipedia. If the general view has changed, then so be it, but I'm not convinced of that.
The best response, of course, is to improve and source this material properly. It won't prevent people for trying to remove them, but it will help convince the community that they ought to stay in. Some of the sections and articles are in urgent need of some work. I've started upgrading, but I cannot do it all. (I did not list here the ones that I thought were altogether hopeless, or too small to bother with at all). It is not argument, but sourcing and fuller content that will do the job.
As for ipc, see the appropriate sections of: (Some of the arguments for removing the sections use the argument that if an article on the ipc was deleted, the section ought not remain at all. )
and the AfDs for:
and the recreated article
DGG ( talk) 03:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I've been googling for free trivia questions, like ones in Trivial Pursuit but haven't found anything significant collection. So I thought, why not put together some as a Wikimedia project, for example as a page in Wikiversity? Or is there already something like that somewhere? Mikael Häggström ( talk) 14:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure it's no secret that popular music articles, many of which contain references to guitars, are badly overlinked. Common term and generalised linking is now not the normal practice, and need specific rationale. This includes the linking of the general common terms such as "guitar", "singer", "songwriter", "author", "poet", "activist", whether in main text or infobox.
I have been auditing the linking, slowly, in a few popular culture articles. Unfortunately, a member of the guitar WikiProject has been reverting tese audits WRT infoboxes. The reasons given have ranged from:
There is also a sense that infoboxes should be carpeted blue for aesthetic reasons: the last is clearly an abuse of wikilinking, which loses its effect if every word is blue. Infoboxes are, in any case, a mixture of black and blue, and always will be. The question becomes to what extent the useful links should stand out rather than being swamped.
A related issue is the style-guide rule discouraging adjacent links, and encouraging specific linking. "Guitar", for example, would be much better unlinked at the top, and if the artist played a certain type of guitar, Guitar#Types of guitars is the better target, in the appropriate section. This is what would help the readers, not a formulaic carpet-bombing of infoboxes with double square brackets. Times have changed.
Apart from going against WP:LINK, this practice is diluting the many important, valuable links in popular culture articles. Among these are, of course, the titles of songs, albums and other artists. These should not be diluted by links that are not useful to an understanding of the topic, and that all English-speakers should know the definition of. (I have unlinked "roses", "divorce", "suicide", and many other dictionary words, as well as the seemingly formulaic "singer", "musician", "artist", "activist", etc.).
I ask that editors take the opportunity to support the cleaning up of the "sea of blue" problem to make wikilinking in popular-culture articles work a lot better for our readers. Tony (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
A question at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Linking_to_a_wiki_for_pop_culture_references might benefit from the perspective of people at this project. In particular, if a list of pop culture/'trivia' items is inappropriate for the Wikipedia encyclopedia, should it be moved to another website (e.g., Wikia), and if so, should the usual rules about WP:External links be "ignored" to permit a link to the relocated content? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
A heads up - I have proposed History of cats be moved to Cultural depictions of cats — This article is really about cat culture and folklore through the ages rather than history per se. I am not saying there shouldn't be an article on the history of cats, but this ain't it. My suggestion would be to move this to Cultural depictions of cats. Additionally I think I have the sources to make it a Good Article one day....Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 19:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Discussion relevant to the project: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Any_.28reasonable.29_objections.3F -- Cybercobra (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm new to the Project, just thought I'd introduce myself. Sean ( talk || contribs) 04:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Not that I can take credit for it. I noticed List of cultural references in The Cantos, which definitely falls under this project's scope, so I added it. Yay. We also have the former featured list Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc -- if someone would be willing to clean up the unsourced entries, we could get it back on WP:FL.-- Father Goose ( talk) 01:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Shinigami in popular culture has been nomianted for deletion at AfD 76.66.202.139 ( talk) 06:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.
We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.
If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 05:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Satyrs in popular culture has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.208.129 ( talk) 06:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Tang in popular culture has been nominated for deletion. It was recently split from the main article. 70.29.210.174 ( talk) 04:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated List of cultural references in The Cantos for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.-- Gimme danger ( talk) 20:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Vercingetorix in popular culture has been prodded for deletion 70.29.208.69 ( talk) 03:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
New article Icons of American culture, as yet just a stub, is in need of feedback: comments and contributions from anyone interested. ProfDEH ( talk) 19:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Silver Surfer has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Tom B ( talk) 19:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
FYI, DeLorean time machine has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 06:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Mary Celeste in popular culture has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 06:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Deletion review discussion regarding Golden Raspberry Award winners, please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 1. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 20:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
USS Indianapolis in popular culture has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.13.227 ( talk) 07:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Also nominated Fomalhaut, Alpha Centauri, Sirius, Epsilon Eridani and several others. All opinions welcome. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 13:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
This term has plenty of sources, is found in prestigious magazines, and is used by popular authors, as well as being the name of a mixed drink. μηδείς ( talk) 22:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Please comment on RfC on WP:WPACT, trivia and popular culture sections in car and motorcycle articles. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 15:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles ( BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.
The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>> Wikipedia:WikiProject Popular culture/Archive 2/Unreferenced BLPs<<<
If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.
Thank you.
Needs cites - maybe a broadening of scope to Smuggling in fiction? See talk. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I note a couple of articules have just been put up for AfD related to slogans used by two leading Australian TV stations. I think it belongs here. The articles need refs and citations etc but I think they can be fixed. They are:
Do they belong here? AWHS ( talk) 11:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Popular Culture articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Is this wikiproject related to the task force WP:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture ? 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 06:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick ( talk) 20:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Crossmr ( talk) removed the entire "in popular culture" section in the article Numbers station, with an edit that it was mere "trivia". I restored it with a note that it was not "trivia" but appeared to be acceptible content under Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. Crossmr removed it again and accused me of edit warring and violating all sort of rules. It seems to me that this content was interesting and something that readers might look for in that article. I don't much feel like getting into the minutia of this, but if anyone cares to comment on this you can at Talk:Numbers station#Removal of "In popular culture section". Ecphora ( talk) 02:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion about deleting a reference to the Futurama episode Rebirth from the popular culture section of the article Chinese room.*
An editor who admits s/he has not seen the Futurama episode, and who admits s/he is critical of the Chinese room argument, repeatedly removed the entry. S/he filed an RfC which has generated comments by several editors saying the popular culture section should be removed entirely. Complaint has been made that quoting the dialog verbatim amounts to OR, even though WP policy holds fictional works may serve as the source of their own content.
My opinion is that:
this is an example of editorial distaste,
I think readers can decide for themselves whether to read this material.
Editors can comment on the RfC discussion here.
--- *The Chinese room argument deals with whether computer programs simulating a person well enough can actual be said to constitute real conscious minds. In the Futurama episode, Leela is killed and a computer simulation of her personality is created. (A clip of her simulation is available here at comedy central - unfortunately I can only find the full episode at websites like tvshack.) Subsequent to Robot-Leela's creation and the moral dilemmas it creates the question arises whether she really has a mind or is just a simulation, and the robot Leela alludes to the dilemma, asking "Am I just an automaton, or can a machine of sufficient complexity legitimately achieve consciousness?" ---
μηδείς ( talk) 01:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The usage of alleyway is under discussion, see Talk:Alleyway#Requested_move -- 65.95.14.34 ( talk) 08:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Additional opinions are requested here. Thank you for your help. Doniago ( talk) 16:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
has a pop culture section needing referencing too. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 07:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
For Nuclear_holocaust#Nuclear_holocaust_in_popular_culture - gotta be notable, surely...? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 07:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Ditto pop culture bits and pieces in Édith Piaf Casliber ( talk · contribs) 07:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Whole-body_transplant#Whole-body_transplants_in_popular_culture Casliber ( talk · contribs) 07:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
As before, additional opinions are requested here regarding the criteria for inclusion in a popular culture list article. Thank you for your feedback. Doniago ( talk) 20:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Please add your comments and support for Popular Culture references (not trivia!) in this article at Talk:Honky-tonk#Cultural references/Trivia section. Wahrmund ( talk) 21:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
For anyone interested, Coyotes in popular culture is an article rife with unsourced list items. I've tagged it accordingly today, and will give it at least a couple of months before I take any action on existing items. Doniago ( talk) 03:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm proposing a wikiproject to cover fictional lists, since this covers fictional things, every article in the scope of this wikiproject would also fall under Popular Culture. I was hoping maybe some of you here might be interested in the proposal, maybe you have some suggestions and hopefully some of you might like to help out and sign up. Thanks! Ncboy2010 ( talk) 15:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in the discussion of pop culture in the McRib article at Talk:McRib#Significance_of_items_in_pop_culture.— Bagumba ( talk) 17:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion on Talk:Zombie (fictional) regarding article scope. The result may lead move and/or merge proposals for this article and Zombie. This flows from a failed move proposal archived at Talk:Zombie. Zombie (fictional) is a high importance article to this project and receives many hits, so I'm posting this notice as an FYI to interested editors as currently there are only two of us sorting this out. LaTeeDa ( talk) 23:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
...so can anybody tell me why on my user page I have a category saying that I am? Is this a result of a userbox or something of that nature?
RedSoxFan274
(leave a message
~contribs)
04:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
For example, take Vampires in popular culture. Suppose I'm editing that article, and I want to add an example of a video game about vampires. Do I need to cite a reliable source? (Obviously, video games tend not to be " reliable sources".) 150.135.161.45 ( talk) 23:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
A counterexample would be The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo; the book and the two films made from it all featured a motorcycle, but in each version a different kind of bike was used, and no note was taken of it other than by film and motorcycle buffs. The fact that Lisbeth Salander rides a motorcycle at all is important to the character and the plot, but which particular bike is of little consequence. It's unimportant trivia.
You can get away with weaker sourcing than we see on Kawasaki GPZ900R, but personally I wouldn't bother. When I see third party sources that aren't genre-specific, I know I've got a solid addition to the encyclopedia. You can sneak things in with less but don't be surprised if it gets deleted right away, or in six months or a year. And then you would have wasted your time. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 00:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I got the Americana page to a reasonable state of consistency by weeding out all the examples, relevant and otherwise, to provide a reasonable guide to what the term means and encompasses. Now, an editor is adding what I consider to be unbalanced and misleading material, making a case for including what may be completely wrong examples, certainly not sufficiently typical or iconic. An obsession with Lana Del Rey and David Lynch seems to underpin this. Help needed to sort this out. ProfDEH ( talk) 06:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I didn't want to just start editing the "Fictional pinnipeds" articles without approval, but I'd like to point out some characters that I'm surprised weren't mentioned there: Rotor (from the "Sonic The Hedgehog" series), a fictional walrus, Gomamon and his digivolution line (which are all seal/walrus based) in the "Digimon" series, and Sealia (also from "Sonic") and Sully ("Danger Rangers"), both seals.
MadeInTheShade ( talk) 21:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
We're currently fixing the Cultural depictions of elephants let's make it a GA article in the same vein as Cultural depictions of spiders!-- Lenticel ( talk) 10:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
FYI, I just mentioned this project on Talk:Shinto in popular culture. Cheers. In ictu oculi ( talk) 04:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
The coverage of the article Shinto in popular culture is under discussion at talk:Shinto in popular culture -- 65.92.180.137 ( talk) 04:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Deletion discussion ongoing about whether or not this article page should exist.
Please see deletion discussion page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human–goat sexual intercourse, if you wish to voice your opinion. — Cirt ( talk) 15:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
As part of a quality improvement project on a topic related to freedom of speech, I've greatly expanded upon and improved the quality of the article at page, Fuck (film). Any further suggestions for additional secondary sources and referencing would be appreciated, at the article's talk page. — Cirt ( talk) 20:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Underground culture has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 04:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I've listed the article Fuck (film) for peer review.
Help with furthering along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1.
— Cirt ( talk) 00:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
image:Andy Warhol's imagine of Jackie Kennedy mourning at John F. Kennedy's funereal.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 06:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
There is currently two RfC's at Talk:Hookup culture (which is also being considered for deletion here), that would benefit from community participation. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The usage of Gojira is under discussion, see talk:Gojira#Requested move 2 -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 10:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. We're having a discussion on the fate of Horrible Histories TV show at: Horrible Histories (2009 TV series)#Moving on. As a relevant Wikiproject, we would greatly appreciate it if you would voice your opinion on the talk page, or to have a crack at editing and improving it. Thankyou for your time. :)-- Coin945 ( talk) 13:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedians,
I would like to propose -- here as to avoid the talk-page of the template which seems quite unused -- the Inclusion of the Article [Prostration] in logical consequence as it being the most formal gesture (in western thought) after genuflection and bow. The article could, I believe, also use some expansion in regards to the use of prostration in European contexts which I am unable to provide as my knowledge is anecdotal.
Sincerely -- 79.195.115.134 ( talk) 13:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
image:Compact Cassette Logo.svg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 05:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
image:The world's most northerly ATM machine.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 05:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
image:Flag of Anonymous.jpeg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.129.3 ( talk) 01:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Fuck (film) is a candidate for Featured Article quality — comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1.
Thank you for your time,
— Cirt ( talk) 18:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Where does one go to request a re-assessment of an article within this project's purview? Here? Okay...
Cultural depictions of elephants has recently undergone a major overhaul, and is likely to achieve a higher rating. In any case, additional input from a new pair of eyes would be appreciated and any improvements are welcome.
~Thanks, ~Eric F:
71.20.250.51 (
talk)
22:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC))
I've listed the article Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties for peer review.
Help with furthering along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/archive1.
Thank you for your time,
— Cirt ( talk) 01:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I've added Fuck (film) to TFA nominations, discussion is at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#Fuck_.28film.29. — Cirt ( talk) 22:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt ( talk) 06:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)