Wikipedia talk:"In popular culture" content/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Request for comment: Are "in popular culture" entries "self-sourcing" or do they require a reference under Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources?

I have started an RfC on whether "in popular culture" entries are "self-sourcing" or, conversely, require a reference under Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.

The RfC is at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, so discussion is centralized there. Comments are welcome. Neutrality^talk 23:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Just noting for the record that the discussion was closed by Aervanath as follows:

The consensus is very clear that a secondary source is required in almost all cases. A tertiary source is even better, if available. In the rare case that a primary source is judged to be sufficient, it should be properly cited. The source(s) cited should not only establish the verifiability of the pop culture reference, but also its significance.

I'm wondering if any particular guideline might need to be updated due to weight of this consensus. - Location (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

It would certainly be nice if the guidelines could be updated such that there was a wiki-link that pointed directly to this information. Speaking as someone who frequently cleans-up IPC sections, I'd much rather refer editors to guideline text than have to go digging for the RfC each time. DonIago (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I added a ref for the RfC and a new shortcut: WP:IPCV. I hoped IPCV would be useful to say that IPC content must be verifiable. I had to fiddle around with the anchor because "#Content" was not working reliably, probably due to <div id="content" class="mw-body" role="main"> which is near the top of every page. Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

My only concern there, aside from the fact that the link doesn't, for me at least, go immediately to the relevant portion of the essay, is that it is linking to an essay. I can already see editors protesting that since it's an essay the ruling doesn't apply and disregarding the fact that the relevant portion of the essay is a link to an RfC. But tiny steps are better than none at all. DonIago (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the guideline issue is a problem, but there can't really be anything stronger for this issue. At least people can use WP:IPCV to find the RfC, although that requires some perseverance because it's in the reference at the end of the first sentence. Re the link: shortcuts which link to a section require that scripting be enabled in the browser. For example, WP:NOTHOWTO links to here, but your browser needs scripting enabled for that to work. Johnuniq (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality, DonIago, Johnuniq: I attempted an RfC which was largely ignored. It did, however, produce a useful conclusion (for me) that an example in an article should have sources cited that not only establish its verifiability, but also discuss it in the context of the article's topic. If you ever list it for RfC let me know. In the meantime you can use the templates {{Refexample}} and {{Better source example}} which link to the archived Wikipedia talk:Verifiability RfC. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I've been using {{In popular culture}} with regards to IPC lists that have insufficient sourcing to date, but I can see how these might be useful options. DonIago (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Mention Madness

IMO it is a consistent sign that an IPC list is need of pruning, when the majority of the examples have the form "[subject] is mentioned in [work]" without further details. Or perhaps the example quotes a bit of the work where the subject is mentioned, but without indicating why that bit might be of any interest within the work. Anyone adding a cultural example to an article has a burden of showing that the example matters to anyone. "Is mentioned in" examples stand out for their total failure to do so. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Checklist

The checklist in WP:IPCEXAMPLES is not in line with existing consensus. Thanks to the internet, it's trivial to find "multiple reliable sources" that "pointed out the reference." In addition "did the material use that [reference] for some reason" is ambiguous at best. The correct, consensus-backed way to decide if an IPC example is appropriate or not is whether the sources discuss its significance. The checklist should be removed. Bright☀ 17:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

XKCD removal

I've restored an earlier version of the XKCD mention, which was in the article for many years. A newer version was removed entirely on "In_popular_culture"_content&diff=802679326&oldid=785758954 September 27 without any explanation, and no explanation was given in further edit summaries as to why it doesn't belong. That's really not a consensus at all. This should remain in the article until clear reasons are given here for its removal and a clear consensus to remove it is reached. - BilCat (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Just going to ping a couple of the removing editors to see whether we can get their input on this: @Plantdrew:, @NewEnglandYankee:. DonIago (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I should give my reasons for keeping the content beyond the process reasons for restoring it: It's funny, and it perfectly illustrates (literally) the potential problems with IPC sections. - BilCat (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Doniago:, thanks for the ping. I admit to having a dislike for "In popular culture" as a generality, and I don't think this XKCD adds much. If anything, I think it's an example of what it humorously complains about. However, I don't feel strongly enough to kick up a fuss. If someone strongly wants it in, I won't object. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I, for one, would like to see it kept in. I think the removal of sourced content, even if meta-content, really should have a stronger consensus than what I've seen here, which I interpret as a bunch of individual editors taking a dislike to it, rather than a policy-based removal. Jclemens (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

It's totally inappropriate. This pop culture reference is exactly the kind that this essay advises against including. It's an unremarkable mention/appearance (being hidden as an easter egg in the title text of a single comic panel).

There have been numerous discussions rejecting the idea that "In popular culture content" is self-sourcing; secondary sources should mention the connection, citing the comic itself is not adequate sourcing. And the "this "In popular culture section"" (i.e., the pop culture section of this essay) is not actually mentioned in the comic; the comic refers to a hypothetical "Wood in popular culture" article with it's own "in popular culture" section.

The comic (but not the title text) does indeed perfectly illustrate the potential problems with IPC sections. If xkcd must be mentioned here (and xkcd pop culture mentions have inspired an essay of their own), include the comic panel as an illustration, not the meta-reference in the title text. I'm sure Randall Munroe would be happy to release it CC-BY-SA, as he has done for other panels. Plantdrew (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for finally explaining why you removed this. This page is an essay, not an an article, so it doesn't have to abide by the same referencing rules as articles. That said, I'd be fine with including the panel image itself if permission can be obtained, and/or incorporating the mention into the essay body rather than as a pop culture item. - BilCat (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

XKCD is "licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License.", which I'm pretty sure is compatible. I also agree that the rules for inclusion in an article do not apply to inclusion in an essay, which makes the repeated removals more understandable, but less justified. Jclemens (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Passing mention or whole series?

Page seems to say the former isn't appropriate, but what if a whole series dedicated to some ancient myth? Like Nurarihyon and Nurarihyon no Mago. -- Mentifisto 12:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The series you're talking about is entirely pop culture and does not belong on a folklore page. The characters in the series are only loosely based on folklore. There's no need to list anime that feature folkloric characters on the folklore pages, just like we don't list Castlevania, Monster Squad, or the thousand other Dracula-themed works on the Dracula page. Further, nurarihyon is not an ancient myth, and there are numerous notes on that page requesting users stop adding references to that manga/anime series to the page. It's minor pop culture trivia, and even if you like the show, it does not belong on the folklore page. If you think it's important, you can place a link to the Nurarihyon page on the Nura:_Rise_of_the_Yokai_Clan page. Osarusan (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

was IPC deprecated?

I'm getting old, my memory is certainly not what it was, but I have a feeling that at some moment in WP history, IPC sections were discouraged, with apparently an intent to get rid of them altogether. I came to this article, (hm, essay) precisely to check what's what, as in YInMn some events were mentioned that were merely marketing attempts by certain companies to associate themselves to a momentary but significant viral phenomenon, and I needed to move those out of the main article but not get rid of them altogether, an IPC seemed like the right thing to do. But, I found no mention of IPCs being actually discouraged per se. so I'm OK, right? :-) YamaPlos talk 00:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Why do articles have popular culture sections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1540:1F90:5857:9D0E:307A:6C82 (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Origin of phrase "In Popular Culture"

It recently came up, when did the phrase first originate, with who and where? Not a matter of great importance, but part of Wikipedia history since it has been so pervasive and influential. The earliest known date is [1] from 2005, an anecdotal find. -- GreenC 18:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Teaching in popular culture was created 17:50, 29 April 2004 by User:Mjklin. Some close misses in section headers: 05:27, 6 February 2003 "Popular Culture" in Jeopardy!, 01:03, 15 January 2004 "The symphony in cinema and popular culture" in Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven). —Cryptic 19:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The 2003 Jeopardy! works, the word "In" not essential. And strangely appropriate, a show of obscure trivia. -- GreenC 19:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

15:47, 21 December 2001 "Batman in Popular Culture" in Batman, found in the 11 January 2003 dump. (The only other section headers in that dump titled 'in popular culture' were in Female genital mutilation since 07:05, 30 September 2002 and Vampirism since 05:14, 26 November 2002.) You might be able to find an earlier one by looking at the 2001 and 2002 dumps - and if you really want to use the Batman one, you should, since lots of history went missing in the early software migrations, so that may not have been the edit that added the header. The actual question of interest, though, isn't "When was the first time this phrase happen to be used in an article section header?", it's "What was the common ancestor of the IPC section titles we now have?" Certainly they were widespread by late 2004, and not at all so in early 2003. —Cryptic 20:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I can scour dumps. What would you think as a way to find a common ancestor? Maybe count the number of instances each month 2003-2004, see if there is a noticeable uptick somewhere. -- GreenC 04:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

..and created a history section in project space, repeating what you said, where things stand. -- GreenC 04:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• And don't forget "In popular culture in popular culture" [2]. EEng 05:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Popularity

Why are "In Popular Culture" subparagraph sections so disliked? Eschoryii (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Because they often attract unencyclopedic trivia. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, it's just kind of a strange, stereotyped shorthand. Often the article would be improved by framing any notable subset of such additions as 'response', or 'legacy', and so on (I'd say 'references', but that's already taken). Arlo James Barnes 04:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

More guidance on "appearances in popular culture" and similar sections?

I think that further clarification and guidance in this area would solve some of the problems. "Appearances in popular culture" can be a coatrack / trivia magnet because it suggests that any appearance of the topic in popular culture justifies putting it into the article. So the heading can either be a coatrack/excuse/magnet, or it can just be a place to put stuff that would merit being in the article anyway. I think that there are a few metrics / ideas missing that would help in this area.

Perhaps one hidden in plain sight is that if there is a different main reason for appearance in an article it should not be listed under "appearances in popular culture" section. To use an obvious example to illustrate, a video that Britney Spears makes is technically an "appearance in popular culture" but it would not be put into a section named that.

Another is to recognize that if there are many instances of the article subject, and appearance is less meaningful. If the subject of the article is "Airplanes", there are millions of airplanes and billions of such appearances and so appearance of an airplane in popular culture is meaningless. But if there is only 1 of them, it becomes more meaningful. In the Wright Flyer article, depiction of it in a movie is more meaningful. But if they removed the Wright flyer from the museum, and used it in filming a movie, the actual participation of the one-and-only would be even more meaningful, but also merits being in the article somewhere else. The participation makes it a part of the plane's history.

Maybe one question for guidance would be: Would it merit being in the article even if the "popular culture" heading didn't exist? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)