User talk:DragonflySixtyseven/Guidelines for "in popular culture"
Idea[edit]
So far, I don't see any problems. A few suggestions though.
- 1) We want to differentiate between what are, in effect, works of art in popular culture and other kinds of things in popular culture. So, for instance, I completely agree that "Bob the Angry Flower" shouldn't be included in Ayn Rand in pop culture, with a few qualifications. If it significantly deals with the topic of the list in the content, even if not particularly exclusively, it might qualify for inclusion. So, making an example up, a five-minute flashback in an episode of The Simpsons to the Battle of Waterloo, with the characters dialoging with Napolean and whomever else, might qualify for inclusion. The one potential proviso if the item received a demonstrably substantial amount of independent coverage on that particular installment. Personally, I would think that anything that receives demonstrable substantial independent coverage would probably merit inclusion, at least initially in a Crucifixion in popular culture (List), for example.
- 2) Fot items which have lots of such appearances in pop culture, Lists may make sense as a separate article, leaving the main "in pop culture" article to discuss the broad themes (if any), most notable instances, etc.
- 3) Historical or geographic items in pop culture might be harder to determine. For instance, would every painting which is as per WP:NOTABILITY notably of London be eligible for inclusion in some sort of London in pop culture article? My guess would be, yes, as an item in a List of painings of London, for instance, but not necessarily in a London in popular culture article. Ditto, Richard III in popular culture, (God help us) Jesus in popular culture, and the like.
- 4) There could easily be two sections in such articles as a rule. One would be for overall themes or media, which might be the majority of content. Thereafter, a smaller bullet-point section for significant and notable variations in comparatively "minor" forms (such as, for instance, Joan of Arc in video games) could be used for notable and significant, if rather anomalous, matters.
- I hope some of this makes some degree of sense, anyway. John Carter (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- A couple of thoughts:
- This can get tricky. Consider, for instance, the image from a war bond poster at Crucifixion in art (gee, I wonder why that particular page keeps coming up?!). It's about selling war bonds and about war-related propaganda, rather than being about the historical or religious significance of crucifixion, and yet it does not seem (yet...) to be a concern that it would not belong on that page.
- I can imagine all sorts of arguments about whether something is or is not a "small" part of something. We all think we know it when we see it, but we have trouble drawing the line when other editors see it differently.
- I tend to think the existing practice of deriving notability from secondary source coverage is less problematic than trying to base it upon the judgments of editors.
- Looking at John's comments above, I'd be cautious about those bullet-point lists. We should try to avoid lists.
- --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- In response, single images, like the war bond poster, are going to be very hard, if not impossible, to declare the "subject" of. That one image does limit the image to an image of a crucifixion, so it would qualify as well as anything else. Regarding the other point about major vs. minor, yes, I intended (even if I didn't explicitly state) that all these items would best be included only if they receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources. However, that may not limit the material in some instances to a workably small amount, like the London in art possibility, where any number of works have probably been described in terms of their London connection. Only in those instances, where even after that narrowing the field the material is too long for one article, would I consider something like a separate list. And regarding the minor appearances I mentioned, like the mythical Joan of Arc in video games, which I think I made up without consulting the article, and was actually stunned by what I saw there, so my apologies, maybe a better example would be how to include A Distant Soil in an article on Sir Galahad in popular culture. There, he is one of the primary supporting characters and, so far as I remember, his being Galahad as opposed to virtually any other knight-in-armor type is basically completely unexplored, and he could be just any other knight for all the difference it would make. I was thinking primarily of items like that for inclusion in a separate, listlike, section toward the bottom. His appearance in that story is I think notable, largely as I remember because reviewers have said his identity as Galahad is never really explored and he could be, basically, any other Hollywood extra in armor for all the difference it would make. John Carter (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I meant the first three of my comments to apply to the RfC as a whole, and only the fourth to be a reaction to your comments. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- In response, single images, like the war bond poster, are going to be very hard, if not impossible, to declare the "subject" of. That one image does limit the image to an image of a crucifixion, so it would qualify as well as anything else. Regarding the other point about major vs. minor, yes, I intended (even if I didn't explicitly state) that all these items would best be included only if they receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources. However, that may not limit the material in some instances to a workably small amount, like the London in art possibility, where any number of works have probably been described in terms of their London connection. Only in those instances, where even after that narrowing the field the material is too long for one article, would I consider something like a separate list. And regarding the minor appearances I mentioned, like the mythical Joan of Arc in video games, which I think I made up without consulting the article, and was actually stunned by what I saw there, so my apologies, maybe a better example would be how to include A Distant Soil in an article on Sir Galahad in popular culture. There, he is one of the primary supporting characters and, so far as I remember, his being Galahad as opposed to virtually any other knight-in-armor type is basically completely unexplored, and he could be just any other knight for all the difference it would make. I was thinking primarily of items like that for inclusion in a separate, listlike, section toward the bottom. His appearance in that story is I think notable, largely as I remember because reviewers have said his identity as Galahad is never really explored and he could be, basically, any other Hollywood extra in armor for all the difference it would make. John Carter (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)