Talk:Kickline

Lucky Luke saloon dancers

WP:RSPRIMARY "Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

The dance pattern has been used by cartoonists Morris and Goscinny in their Lucky Luke series to illustrate saloon dancers.

@Nikkimaria: You don't need secondary sources to give evidence that 1+1=2. The reference is only to give proof that the iconic kickline dancing movement has been used in the Lucky Luke's portrait of the wild west. It is a statement regarding a matter of fact; the reference is not used to interpret any complicated context. This would be only needed if there is an evaluation, saying that this dance move was never used at this time or in this region or give any other additional information about kicklines introduced in the expansion of the American frontier. But the sentence only says that in the comic series this dance pattern was used, which is a) true and b) adds up to the iconic value so that even comic authors in the second half of the 20th century used it. --Gunnar (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Gunnar, as per this discussion references in popular culture do need reliable secondary sourcing indicating the significance of the reference. A primary source does not satisfy that. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

You are probably mixing up notability (of a whole article) and significance (of a reference). As with 1+1=2 this is just a matter of fact, and therefore, the "should" is only a recommendation, which allows for non-interpretive claims & analyses to use a primary source. --Gunnar (talk) 11:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

If you read the discussion linked, it's clear that community consensus on the matter is for stronger sourcing than you suggest. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"As long as a popcult item in an article is totally descriptive, without any analysis or interpretation, it is sourced by the item itself, in precisely the same way that every plot section in every film article and many book articles are self-sourcing - that is, based on the editor's experience of seeing the film or reading the book." - If I understand you correctly, no reference is needed as the topic is self-sourcing, similar to elements in the bible? See for example: "The first account (Genesis 1:1–2:3) employs a repetitious structure of divine fiat and fulfillment, then the statement "And there was evening and there was morning, the [xth] day," for each of the six days of creation." as written in Genesis_creation_narrative#Structure. I strongly believe that the fact that saloon dancers in Luky Luke use the kickline figure is totally descriptive without any flavour of interpretation, and therefore your evangelism in this case is somewhat over the top. See: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point - you are removing valid content which is undisputable true. --Gunnar (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Being "undisputable true" doesn't mean "required to be included" (see WP:NOT), and the specific quote you cite was not the consensus of the discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

You are kind of funny with your argumentative style. You cite a 7 year old discussion, and I quote the one argument, which I support and even given the parallel situation regarding quoting parts from a famous book (without needing a secondary or tertiary source), any you just say: ah, no, this is not what I meant. What exactly do you mean - it might be easier for others when you write down what you mean, and not referring to a large blob or text similar to a Vogonian information system. I keep on saying: If you prefer, you don't need a secondary source if it serves only descriptive purposes, as it is self-sourcing (new world learned) in the same way content of the bible is referenced. Regarding your link to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia isnot: "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover, or the total amount of content" together with the fact that the article is a stub, I wonder why you insist to cut valuable information. As you may have noticed, the article is grouped in two parts: one describes what a kickline is and the second one gives examples of kicklines of which the Lucky Luke portrayal belongs to, undergirding the iconic nature of this show dance move. WP:NOTCOMPULSORY asks you to focus on improving the encyclopedia itself and not be demanding with silly rules which obvious don't apply here. --Gunnar (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Cultural references about a subject (for example how it is presented in a movie, song, television show, etc.) should not be included simply because they exist. Rather, all such references should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary or tertiary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article.. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you aware that you are running out of arguments? You started with some semiformal staff with a talk page, and lost some ground regarding self-sourcing nature of literature (which includes works like comics but also the bible). Now you are referring to a style guide which also says: "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all." - So please stop sham battles about formal points but come back to the core of Wikipedia, and reply to my arguments: The kickline article is still a stub, although it was started as a redirect in 2008. Any added content will make it richer. At the current stage there is no danger that the article will be flooded with insignificant details so the important lines will be lost in a sea of needless text. My proposal for you is to invest your Wikipedia spare time in improving articles and not in inhibiting others to do so. --Gunnar (talk) 09:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The core of your argument is that any content is good. You have not demonstrated that this particular content is "otherwise suitable", that it makes the article "richer", or that it improves the article for it to be included when (at least as has been so far presented) there is no secondary sourcing indicating its significance to the topic. If you don't choose to do so, that's your decision - but that means the content will be excluded. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

No, my argument is that mentioning that the dance movement is not only popular in revue shows, but also in cheerleading (which is different from dance shows). It is even so popular it has been used in literature (popular fiction) - if you allow to call comics this way. This occurence is an important part of the spectrum to be shown in the second part of the stub. And, no, you are mislead about your assumption on secondary sourcing. As the result of our discussion, see above, this is not needed if the sentence in the Wikipedia article is only descriptive without any interpretatory content. The question of WP:Notability refers to the whole article, and not each sentence within the article. --Gunnar (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

This occurence is an important part of the spectrum to be shown in the second part of the stub Your evidence? As the result of our discussion, see above, this is not needed if the sentence in the Wikipedia article is only descriptive without any interpretatory content Our discussion did not conclude that, and it directly contradicts the applicable guideline. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

First, you need to understand what a guideline is. A guideline gives guidance but is not a collection of hard requirements. For instance, there are medical guidelines, which describe the gold standard in the treatment of a common medical condition. But if the treatment protocol does not apply or does not work, then the protocol is case-specifically modified and individualised. Then, let's have a look what you cited above: "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." This paragraph only cites that there is no automatism that true facts must be included in an article - everything is debateable through the process of consensus finding by contributors. Same for the styleguide MOS:POPCULT - you do not need to hide yourself behind some ostensible formalism. You need to present some arguments by yourself.

I keep on saying that the kickline article is a stub, and I would be very happy if you could add some content which enriches the article. I feel very sad about your behaviour, clipping the few sentences instead of adding stuff. If the presentation of a kickline in popular media was innumerable and already countless examples had been mentioned in the article, I could agree that less is more and that we should focus on the more important instances. This would indeed justify a discussion which instances to mention and which not. But this is not the case, it is still a short stub waiting for you to to expand it with additional pieces of information and not removing the few which are there. --Gunnar (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)