Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories in popular culture

message: the film "top of the heap" includes a fantasy sequence in which the lead character imagines he is an "astronaut" participating in the hoaxing of a moon landing in a film studio...........  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.206.70 (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Film

message: Would this article be better at 
Apollo hoax theories in popular culture
Considering it comes from the Apollo hoax theories article. Metty 17:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be named Moon landing conspiracy theories in popular culture 99.146.122.70 (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: This is a very poor article.  It is a long list of disjointed entries, very few of which have any cited sources.  Many of these are extremely trivial with absolutely no notability, and some have only a passing relevance to "Apollo Hoax", in a connection that is only the opinion of the contributing author.  In all seriousness, I can't imaging anyone attempting to read the this article, or gathering any knowledge from it.  What it needs is cut down to a least a quarter of its size, proper citing and some sort of indication of the place "Apollo Hoax" has in popular culture. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: PER WP:BOLD I'm removing some of the completely un-noteworthy trivia and will post it below. I can understand the arguments at the AfD as to why this may be an important topic, but really could do without pointless trivia.Polyamorph (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very Poor 

message: I removed a vast quantity of irrelevant trivia from this article, see the above thread. I'm not necessarily saying that what is left is necessarily noteworthy either, but it seems a good place to start. The President Clinton and Norman Mailer quotes are certainly notable and this topic could indeed be a useful resource for someone researching the "Apollo hoax", provided it is expanded with credible sources and non-trivial information. Thoughts? Polyamorph (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This popular culture article shows how many times in popular culture the hoax has been mentioned, showing how it has spread.  That is the point of this.  You have two people against your removal so far, and no one supporting it.  Form a real consensus please.  Dream Focus 17:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The above trivia does not belong in wikipedia. There have been many comments on the AfD saying that the trivia must be removed. I simply did that. Poor form on your part for 1. reverting my good faith attempts at actually improving the article so that it contains only notable information, and 2. removing the  template. Polyamorph (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Many?  Uh, no.  Most people said keep.  And some believe that every single thing in a popular culture article is in fact trivia.  What makes mention in one notable work trivia but not others?  Is it the ratings of the television show, the sales of the book, what?  Do you just remove things you don't like, or is there a method to this?  Dream Focus 17:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My interpretation is that most people said keep but with some pruning required, and besides consensus isn't formed by vote counting and instead by weighing up the valid arguments. Escape Orbit mentioned pruning the article to a quarter of it's size and "Could do with a clear out of uncited trivia". BeSkepticalOfAll highlighted some very notable points, which I kept in. Bearian said notable examples can be kept and trivia removed. User:Jclemens suggested trimming the listings. etc. I didn't agree with the delete arguments as I think they were tarring the entire article with the same brush as the pointless trivia. I made a point of listing everything that I removed here on this talk page so that if I removed listings that others deemed notable they could be re-added easily. Ultimately I won't support keeping an article this full of such trivial nonsense and was trying to improve it, inline with what I saw as consensus. i.e. that the trivial stuff has to go. You can disagree with that but that doesn't make your viewpoint consensus either. Polyamorph (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and in answer to your question, I kept all the entries which dealt significantly with the hoax stories, and only removed those which had a passing reference to it. Polyamorph (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

text: I accidentally removed the rescue template, and have thus put it back again.  Simple mistake.  As the most active long term member of the Rescue Squadron, I'm certainly not trying to remove that.  Dream Focus 17:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, thanks for putting it back. Polyamorph (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean slate 

message: A recent AfD resulted in keep, so it has been decided that this material is suitable for inclusion on wikipedia. I have already removed a lot of unsourced and possibly un notable entries during AfD. At the time this wasn't the most popular thing to do and in hindsight I should have waited. So if there is anything that I removed that should have been kept feel free to discuss here. Additionally, if there is still cleanup needed in the article, lets discuss it here before removing more content. Polyamorph (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would definitely advocate removing the long quotes in the "In print" section. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The former president of the nation that did the Apollo landing making a statement like that, is very relevant to this article.  Both quote explain why the hoax still exist in popular culture, why some still believe it was all a hoax.  Dream Focus 21:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article cleanup 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Moon landing conspiracy theories in popular culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120218033840/http://www.bostonphoenix.com/supplements/the_best/00/text/OE_BASE_BEHAVIOR.html to http://www.bostonphoenix.com/supplements/the_best/00/text/OE_BASE_BEHAVIOR.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Moon landing conspiracy theories in popular culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130620195436/http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/09/23/margaret-atwoods-just-wondering-about-that-silly-moon-landing-hoax/ to http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/09/23/margaret-atwoods-just-wondering-about-that-silly-moon-landing-hoax/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150417044114/http://kuruvinda.com/Ref3b.aspx to http://kuruvinda.com/Ref3b.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)