Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Popular Culture/Archive 1

message: As a very broad concept, including the influences of classical traditional culture as well is an integral part of the encyclopedia. Though in some respects it overlaps with trivia, this is not necessarily the case, and i think we would do well to keep the two as separate as  possible. DGG (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that as subjects, the two are not the same (except when editors add pop-culture references to Trivia sections, which is common).  But the problems inherent with each type of content tend to be very similar (poor sourcing, organization, and relevance), and as a result, the way editors respond to them is similar as well, so I think "how to maintain" both of them can be usefully discussed at the same time.--Father Goose 21:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular culture

message: On the project page in the "principle" sub-heading it states "We feel this is a case of a vocal minority overriding the interests of a scattered majority."  I wanted to expand on this point and make editors aware that any poll or discussion on wikipedia is biased towards the more hardcore editors and excludes the large majority of world wide readers that most likely love the trivia and IPC sections.  The casual users of wikipedia don't even have user names, and those that do have user names don't participate in discussions or polls, they just occasionally add a sentence or correct spelling and grammar.  In polling or statistical analysis, having a representative sample population is the most important requirement.  Anyway, I feel this point is important enough to include on the project page but I don't want the project page to turn into a discussion.  Should I draw the line here or are there any ideas on how to succintly add this point to the project page?  Perhaps expand the sentence I quoted above or create a new sub-heading called points to ponder or for your consideration.  I just feel trivia and IPC is a victim of this bias.  Thanks. Ozmaweezer 12:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you could produce any evidence, other than your own personal opinions, I have no doubt that policy and guidelines would be adjusted almost immediately. To date, however, all you seem to have pointed to in this matter is your own personal opinion. Certainly, you can be and are encouraged to try to propose changes to existing policies and guidelines, just like anyone else can. However, whatever anyone believes that the majority of editors think, wikipedia still has its own principles, which include building an encyclopedia. To the best of my knowledge, there are no other extant encyclopediae out there which regularly have trivia sections. On that basis, I believe that it is more than reasonable to say that it would be at least somewhat going against wikipedia's central principles to incorporate into itself something completely unique among encyclopediae. Having said all that, of course, if you were to want to pose changes to any existing guidelines or policies, you are clearly free to do so. Personally, I think making such points as you have above on the appropriate guideline or policy pages would be more productive than continuing to make such points here, particularly when there hasn't yet even been established consensus among the members of this project that your recent additions are really the beliefs of the members of the project, rather than just your own personal opinion. John Carter 13:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, but you see my point about "representative statistical sample populations" and it being a possible problem for all discussions and polls, including the trivia one in wikipedia, right?  One that should be taken into consideration when making decisions.  I think you're correct in everything you state.  I would like this project to rationally and intelligently come up with a more inclusive wikipedia trivia policy and then make it a proposal and eventually have it adopted.  I'm willing to abide by the outcome.  I can't argue your point about no encyclopdia in the known universe includes trivia and I think I'll add that to the "cons" section.  But can we get back to the topic proposed here.  How do I include this idea on the "project page?"  The idea about "sample populations" and trivia.  Thanks Ozmaweezer 13:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. However, simply saying that the results can't necessarily be trusted doesn't mean that the opposite of the results should be considered true either, which at least somewhat seems to be your contention. Without any evidence to support it, all that can be is an opinion. And, personally, I think that the only way that anyone can say that a given project has certain goals is to verify that the members of that project themselves say that that project has goals. Probably the best way to determine that is to poll the membership and see if they agree. If they do, I am sure that at least some of them will produce their own proposed phrasings of the idea. John Carter 13:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I get the feeling people visit a page and read the trivia section and laugh and follow a few of the links to other wiki articles and have some fun.  They tell a few friends to check it out.  Then they go back a month later and the whole section is gone, albeit because of zero sourcing.  This has happended to me anyway.  I guess that's all I'm trying to say. Ozmaweezer 14:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right, my opinion comes into play when I assume A) there is a vast silent majority, and B) this silent majority loves the trivia/IPC sections.  Unfortunately, I'm not independantly wealthy nor do I have the time to somehow prove the existance of nor poll this hypothetical majority to show they are in favor of the trivia/IPC Sections.  I just want to suggest that we take this possibility into consideration when making any decisions regarding trivia.  I think we can make an "educated guess" about the overall consensus about trivia in wikipedia rather than letting some "vocal minority" subset of the population concentrate the authority.  Again, however, back to my original point at the top of this thread, does anyone see this idea as important enough to integrate into the sentence referenced above on the "project page?"  I feel this was the original flaw in the poll cited on the project page which I believe too hastily steered wikipedia towards being a bit too aggressively anti-trivia with a 62% majority (I would hypothesize that 62% or more of total wikipedia readers support trivia sections).  I like the idea of the project page being a short summary of the current state of trivia, without it becoming a discussion.  Until now, all these arguments have gotten lost in meandering discussions and archive pages.  With this project page editors can be more informed, and thus I would like to mention the flaw in wikipedia "sample populations" on the project page.  Any suggestions or ideas?  Thanks Ozmaweezer 15:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Update: How about I add it into the paragraph describing the poll in the "links" section? Ozmaweezer 15:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the best thing to do would be to wait until other members respond with their suggestions? I hope you do realize that any changes you make to the main project page, particulrly quotes without sources cited, can and maybe, in some cases, should be reverted, particularly if they convey only the opinion of some individual members of the project. It's not like the page has to be fully laid out in the next four hours or something. In a case like this, when several people are already invovled, it is probably a much better idea to get the opinions of all parties involved rather than acting unilaterally and possibly rashly. John Carter 15:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Considering that those "hard core" editors are also probably the bigger donors to wikipedia, it makes sense that wikipedia would follow the examples of National Public Radio and PBS in catering to the audience which donates money to their effort. Also, the "hard core" editors are probably the ones who are most actively contributing to the content, although there are exceptions of editors who write an article out before they submit it. I also think you might be interested in the official policy of wikipedia at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and many trivia sections almost explicitly are indiscriminate collections of information, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a democracy, which your request for a vote by all editors would seem to be at least potentially opposed to. On that basis, collecting the viewpoints of all editors would probably be both extremely labourious and practically useless, as many editors are not particularly familiar with how to write articles and ultimately create content which, because of their failure to adhere to guidelines and policy, makes their content unfit for inclusion. That is one of the reasons why it is the case that those people who you call "hard core" editors, who also tend to be the ones who know most about how wikipedia does and does not work, tend to be the ones who write guidelines and policy. John Carter 15:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any bases, whatsoever, for these accusations about users who donate money having more of a voice? It's painfully absurd and is about the farthest from the truth as you can get. -- Ned Scott 07:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that particularly phrasing was used, I wholeheartedly apologize. What I meant to say was that it seems to me much more likely that what might be called the "committed" editor, who regularly edits articles, will be more likely to make individual monetary donations than the less committed editor. Certainly, what evidence both of the networks mentioned above have clearly indicates that the more regular users of their media are much more likely to donate money as individuals than the less regular user of their media. This doesn't take into account corporate donations, etc., but specifically refers to indivuals alone. And, basically, I think I've more or less heard that at least once on just about every local PBS and NPR pledge drive, although in neither case can I point out specific sources they themselves cited, other than saying things like "Our own research indicates..." John Carter 17:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this one goes to Ozmaweezer, who made the statement in question. John Carter 19:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took that as a direct quote from somewhere inside archive 7 or 8 of the trivia discussion.  I'll try to find a link to it. Ozmaweezer 12:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate being a rat but here is the link where I lifted the quote. Ozmaweezer 15:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, you haven't actually explained why you chose to quote it, why you didn't provide a link to the original discussion, why you didn't also quote the rebuttal, and what your purpose is.  All I can see is an attempt to besmirch something using a blatantly false statement.  Hiding Talk  10:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the inflammatory portion of the quote.  Are you ok with it now (see subpage)?  I never meant to offend you by quoting it.  I did provide a link to the original discussion, but admittedly it's a link to 8 pages of rambling archived discussion.  I didn't quote the rebuttal because, for me personally, it didn't make much sense.  I chose to quote it just to centralize and condense all the past arguments for and against trivia in this never ending (hopefully this project will end it) trivia debate.  My purpose was just to create a quick summary editors should read before they join this discussion page.  I never meant to besmirch anyone or anything.  Sorry.  The whole subpage is just a collection of quotes from all the past trivia debates.  More importantly, would you guys mind if I relocate this thread under the "scattered majority?" thread dealing with the aforementioned poll?  Thanks. Ozmaweezer 15:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For your consideration:  the "scattered majority" = silent majority/unspoken masses?

message: ::::You're right, my opinion comes into play when I assume A) there is a vast silent majority, and B) this silent majority loves the trivia/IPC sections.  Unfortunately, I'm not independantly wealthy nor do I have the time to somehow prove the existance of nor poll this hypothetical majority to show they are in favor of the trivia/IPC Sections.  I just want to suggest that we take this possibility into consideration when making any decisions regarding trivia.  I think we can make an "educated guess" about the overall consensus about trivia in wikipedia rather than letting some "vocal minority" subset of the population concentrate the authority.  Again, however, back to my original point at the top of this thread, does anyone see this idea as important enough to integrate into the sentence referenced above on the "project page?"  I feel this was the original flaw in the poll cited on the project page which I believe too hastily steered wikipedia towards being a bit too aggressively anti-trivia with a 62% majority (I would hypothesize that 62% or more of total wikipedia readers support trivia sections).  I like the idea of the project page being a short summary of the current state of trivia, without it becoming a discussion.  Until now, all these arguments have gotten lost in meandering discussions and archive pages.  With this project page editors can be more informed, and thus I would like to mention the flaw in wikipedia "sample populations" on the project page.  Any suggestions or ideas?  Thanks Ozmaweezer 15:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: How about I add it into the paragraph describing the poll in the "links" section? Ozmaweezer 15:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the best thing to do would be to wait until other members respond with their suggestions? I hope you do realize that any changes you make to the main project page, particulrly quotes without sources cited, can and maybe, in some cases, should be reverted, particularly if they convey only the opinion of some individual members of the project. It's not like the page has to be fully laid out in the next four hours or something. In a case like this, when several people are already invovled, it is probably a much better idea to get the opinions of all parties involved rather than acting unilaterally and possibly rashly. John Carter 15:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consider "poor sample population" when interpreting the poll

message: Does wikipedia ever mass canvass every single user and do a community wide poll?  Perhaps that would help with alerting all editors about trivia.  The problems I see right away are as follows:A) people might vote to opppose just out of spite for being canvassed, B) the poll would have to take place over at least one to three months otherwise it would be biased towards hardcore editors who log in multiple times a day versus casual editors who might log in once every three months or less, C) it would need to provide the editor with a quick summary (see sub page) so that they could be well informed about all the subtle nuances before they vote from the gut.  This succint summary should include a discussion of not voting out of spite as well.  Just a thought. Ozmaweezer 13:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that those "hard core" editors are also probably the bigger donors to wikipedia, it makes sense that wikipedia would follow the examples of National Public Radio and PBS in catering to the audience which donates money to their effort. Also, the "hard core" editors are probably the ones who are most actively contributing to the content, although there are exceptions of editors who write an article out before they submit it. I also think you might be interested in the official policy of wikipedia at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and many trivia sections almost explicitly are indiscriminate collections of information, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a democracy, which your request for a vote by all editors would seem to be at least potentially opposed to. On that basis, collecting the viewpoints of all editors would probably be both extremely labourious and practically useless, as many editors are not particularly familiar with how to write articles and ultimately create content which, because of their failure to adhere to guidelines and policy, makes their content unfit for inclusion. That is one of the reasons why it is the case that those people who you call "hard core" editors, who also tend to be the ones who know most about how wikipedia does and does not work, tend to be the ones who write guidelines and policy. John Carter 15:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any bases, whatsoever, for these accusations about users who donate money having more of a voice? It's painfully absurd and is about the farthest from the truth as you can get. -- Ned Scott 07:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that particularly phrasing was used, I wholeheartedly apologize. What I meant to say was that it seems to me much more likely that what might be called the "committed" editor, who regularly edits articles, will be more likely to make individual monetary donations than the less committed editor. Certainly, what evidence both of the networks mentioned above have clearly indicates that the more regular users of their media are much more likely to donate money as individuals than the less regular user of their media. This doesn't take into account corporate donations, etc., but specifically refers to indivuals alone. And, basically, I think I've more or less heard that at least once on just about every local PBS and NPR pledge drive, although in neither case can I point out specific sources they themselves cited, other than saying things like "Our own research indicates..." John Carter 17:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any precedant or support for a "super poll?" 

message: The front page here mentions a poll I closed and notes I was not was not working on behalf of any known Wikipedia process.  Could someone perhaps outline what exactly is meant by that, so that I can work out if I need to take offence or not. :) Thanks, "closing" editor, Hiding Talk  19:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this one goes to Ozmaweezer, who made the statement in question. John Carter 19:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took that as a direct quote from somewhere inside archive 7 or 8 of the trivia discussion.  I'll try to find a link to it. Ozmaweezer 12:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate being a rat but here is the link where I lifted the quote. Ozmaweezer 15:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, you haven't actually explained why you chose to quote it, why you didn't provide a link to the original discussion, why you didn't also quote the rebuttal, and what your purpose is.  All I can see is an attempt to besmirch something using a blatantly false statement.  Hiding Talk  10:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the inflammatory portion of the quote.  Are you ok with it now (see subpage)?  I never meant to offend you by quoting it.  I did provide a link to the original discussion, but admittedly it's a link to 8 pages of rambling archived discussion.  I didn't quote the rebuttal because, for me personally, it didn't make much sense.  I chose to quote it just to centralize and condense all the past arguments for and against trivia in this never ending (hopefully this project will end it) trivia debate.  My purpose was just to create a quick summary editors should read before they join this discussion page.  I never meant to besmirch anyone or anything.  Sorry.  The whole subpage is just a collection of quotes from all the past trivia debates.  More importantly, would you guys mind if I relocate this thread under the "scattered majority?" thread dealing with the aforementioned poll?  Thanks. Ozmaweezer 15:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curious 

message: While there should be a reasonable expectation that editing and article maintenance should be efficient and productive, something being difficult is not a reason to exclude it.  So, editing trivia is problematic for all the stated reasons in the "cons" section of the sub page, but hopefully we'll come up with some better guidelines here to help this current conundrum.  Who ever said wikipedia should be easy? Ozmaweezer 13:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of the con about trivia being a constant source of aggravation for editors 

message: What exactly does trivia violate in the manual of style?  Articles should avoid bullet point lists of information?  Could we post some links to the non-compliances here?  ThanksOzmaweezer 13:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of trivia not complying with the manual of style 

message: Granted, most trivia/IPC lists I have seen don't even have one footnote, reference, or source.  However, that doesn't mean they can't be sourced, right?  Television episodes, music records, etc seem fairly easy to source. Ozmaweezer 13:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly. However, policy and guidelines do dictate that unsourced content should be removed. Removal does not imply that it cannot be added again, but it does mean that it should be removed if it isn't sourced. While it might be possible for individuals to add such sourcing after the fact, and I honestly encourage people to do so, it might well be a problem that sources for specific points cannot be found in the references checked. If that is the case, and certain content can't be verified, then that content could and eventually should be removed, although it could be readded if it is adequately sourced. Also, I can easily imagine a case when someone says "I have a source, I just can't find it right now" advocating on that basis for several years that the content in question be allowed to remain. Unfortunately, as I have found out elsewhere, there are editors out there who will say "my sources say (this)" and then the sources are checked and they say nothing of the kind. To prevent these possibly willfully dishonest editors from keeping their at best poorly sourced information in articles, these policies and guidelines were created, so that the person looking to remove unsourced content isn't looked on as the "bad guy" for trying to ensure that the content is verifiable. However, clearly, such content can be added back, if adequate sourcing is provided. Creating such policies is the only way I can think of to both assume good faith and ensure the integrity of the content. John Carter 17:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of con about trivia/IPC being unsourced 

message: I think it would be good if this project eventually came up with a short list of our conclusions assuming this discussion ever ends.  It seems impossible that we would all ever agree on anything but that is what we should aim for I suppose.  Perhaps, 200 years from now future editors will look back on us as idealistic trivia proponent heroes of wikipedia (assuming we're trivia proponents).  I'll start a Proposed list of this projects conclusions with a sub sub heading here.  Though I dare not put forth a proposal for fear of endless discussion.
===This project's temporary proposals for conclusions/consensus/take away/recommendations===
*All trivia/IPC bullet points must be adequately sourced, referenced, etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozmaweezer (talk • contribs) 12:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we eventually have a conclusions/consensus/take away section on the project page? 

message: *All trivia/IPC bullet points must be adequately sourced, referenced, etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozmaweezer (talk • contribs) 12:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This project's temporary proposals for conclusions/consensus/take away/recommendations

message: Feel free to add your thoughts here. Ozmaweezer 14:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fun quotes so as not to get to "heavy" or "heady" while discussing trivia 

message: The following sections of this discussion all seem to question what the purpose of this project is.  Any objections to moving them all as subheadings under a new heading called "What's the purpose of this wikiproject?"
*Restructure
*Good luck
*Any place to register opposition
*Two projects?
*Trivia sections
I like the overriding goal of figuring out "how to maintain" trivia sections. Ozmaweezer 13:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me.--Father Goose 18:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would only agree to that overriding goal if the word "trivia" were substituted, because if we used the statement directly above, it could very easily be stated it would seem to be very likely that our primary goal would be to contravene policy and guidelines, and that is something no WikiProject should ever make a goal of. John Carter 16:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that you have misread Ozmaweezer's post, like I did at first.  He's not proposing such a heading for the project page -- he's just proposing collecting some of the above discussion threads into one parent section on this page.--Father Goose 19:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  I reorganized the threads mentioned above under the new heading. Ozmaweezer 05:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any objections to starting a heading called "What's the purpose of this wikiproject?" 

message: This page was the subject of an MfD discussion closed on 23 October 2007.  The result was Keep, although this in no way prejudices a decision to merge, redirect, reform, or delete the project that may develop at this talk page. Xoloz 15:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay! Ozmaweezer 05:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MfD Result Notice

message: Oddly enough, the things you propose doing are exactly what I tend to do, and yet I have been considered a 'deletionist' for it... Ah well, I suppose some people see with higher contrast than others. Skittle 16:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, either the purpose of this project is misunderstood (perhaps the overview needs some rewriting), or that inclusionists and deletionists are far more aligned on this matter than is usually perceived to be the case -- with a "fringe" on either side attracting all the attention.--Father Goose 17:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My final comment was supposed to indicate that, yes, the wiki-editing world does not really split into deletionists and inclusionists, unless one ignores what people say, think and do. A few people seem to perceive a huge difference between two homogenous camps, one aimed at populating wikipedia with everything that can possibly be written, the other aimed at removing everything except for a few dry sentences about maths. Needless to say, this is a rather odd perception :) Skittle 17:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there are few people who cannot agree with the principles of this Wiki-association: meta:Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists SteveBaker 03:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Luck! 

message: I've moved a lot of the material Ozmaweezer added relating to general discussion of trivia to a /Discussion subpage so as to separate the project's tasks from general debate over trivia and popular culture in general.  I hope this step meets with approval.
I've also outlined what tasks are probably the most useful we could try to accomplish at this time (cleanup, rescue, salvage, etc.)  I added a cautionary note to the "list of deleted trivia sections" Ozmaweezer started to make it clear that we are not here to do battle, but to improve the encyclopedia.--Father Goose 21:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, could you provide a link to the discussion subpage here and on the project page.  Thanks. Ozmaweezer 10:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here it is.  Please read this succint summary of the trivia debate in order to be a well informed editor.  Thanks Ozmaweezer 12:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's important to maintain this sub page to keep points/counterpoints form being lost in meandering discussions about trivia and constantly re-treading old ground.  Also, please provide descriptive headings on this discussion page to keep all the different topics discussed seperate and visible.  Thanks Ozmaweezer 14:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructure 

message: :::I think it's important to maintain this sub page to keep points/counterpoints form being lost in meandering discussions about trivia and constantly re-treading old ground.  Also, please provide descriptive headings on this discussion page to keep all the different topics discussed seperate and visible.  Thanks Ozmaweezer 14:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Purpose of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trivia_and_Popular_Culture/Discussion this succint summary of the trivia debate/sub page]

message: ===Edit the following "pro:"===
I would like to see a slight edit/clarification of the following "pro" on the subpage:
*Help demonstrate the interconnectedness of varied subjects and expose readers to those subjects.
I would like to have it read:
*Help demonstrate the interconnectedness of varied subjects by way of internal links to other articles and expose readers to those subjects.
That's just my opinion. Ozmaweezer 05:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another suggestion is I would like to add another proposal to the list of "past proposals" on the subpage.  My new proposal is to change the trivia template to read "This trivia section needs cleaning up." Ozmaweezer 05:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go right ahead and implement both suggestions.  You don't have to get clearance from anyone to make any changes to nearly any part of Wikipedia.  If we happen to disagree with the changes, we can always undo them and/or discuss them (see WP:BRD for a great overview of this approach).--Father Goose 08:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, but in the case of the trivia template, be aware of how contentious every change to it has been.  Then make the change anyway.  Like I said, people can always undo it... and maybe, just maybe, they won't.--Father Goose 08:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject Trivia and Popular Culture suggestions 

message: I would like to see a slight edit/clarification of the following "pro" on the subpage:
*Help demonstrate the interconnectedness of varied subjects and expose readers to those subjects.
I would like to have it read:
*Help demonstrate the interconnectedness of varied subjects by way of internal links to other articles and expose readers to those subjects.
That's just my opinion. Ozmaweezer 05:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit the following "pro:"

message: :Another suggestion is I would like to add another proposal to the list of "past proposals" on the subpage.  My new proposal is to change the trivia template to read "This trivia section needs cleaning up." Ozmaweezer 05:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go right ahead and implement both suggestions.  You don't have to get clearance from anyone to make any changes to nearly any part of Wikipedia.  If we happen to disagree with the changes, we can always undo them and/or discuss them (see WP:BRD for a great overview of this approach).--Father Goose 08:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, but in the case of the trivia template, be aware of how contentious every change to it has been.  Then make the change anyway.  Like I said, people can always undo it... and maybe, just maybe, they won't.--Father Goose 08:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Add the following proposal

message: I agree most encyclopedias don't have trivia sections in their articles.  Although, I have a feeling if I went to the library and looked hard enough I might find something analgous in some encyclopedia somewhere.  The point is most encyclopedias don't have articles on "The Big Lebowski," "Kim Kardashian," or "Tila Tequila" either.  So, should we eliminate all articles that aren't in other encyclopedias too?  It just seems like a poor argument. Ozmaweezer 14:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the specific encyclopedias for films, etc., probably would have articles on many of these subjects. I have in front of me right now the Biographical Encyclopedia of Scientists. And, guess what? No trivia sections in any of the entries. John Carter 15:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we all agree Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia however it is still an encyclopedia and the content should be encyclopedic in nature. It is true that much of what is currently found in trivia sections is unencyclopedic and that this is a big "con" associated with having the sections at all, it takes a lot of hard work and constant maintenance to keep a trivia section in good encyclopedic condition. Stardust8212 15:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a bit of an aside to John's point, last night while I was reflecting on the trivia problem and browsing some examples, I noticed that trivia sections are most likely to occur in articles in the arts, humanities, biography and specific locations, while they are least likely to occur in pure science and math articles. I think the reason for this is that the former more directly include the more "human" aspect of the subject, while the latter tend to be a little more objective/removed from the subject in that regard. Perhaps some of the disagreement with the existence of trivia/IPC sections has to do with an argument that runs like this (forgive me for putting words in the mouths of others): "Some specific types of articles get along find without trivia sections, and since every article is supposed to be fundamentally the same (in that it adequately describes a subject), then no articles should have a trivia section." --Nick Penguin 16:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can think of very few articles were a true trivia section or article is really the best solution--possibly some popular culture subjects or memes where the entire subject is trivial but nonethless noteworthy for WP purposes.  Certainly not one called by that name. Cultural influences -- that's another matter. DGG (talk) 07:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It can take a lot of hard work and maintenance to keep any article in good encyclopedic condition, trivia section or no.  But I guess this is especially true of trivia sections, since it's easy to tack on any fact, usually unsourced.  With any luck, this WikiProject will minimize that drawback and highlight the advantages of trivia and IPC sections.--Father Goose 21:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm speaking mostly from my work with episode articles where the popular culture references grow without end or citation (I add them when I find them but they're few and far between) for example: . Just in general the trivia type sections require a lot more babysitting, just my experience perhaps. Stardust8212 23:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: the episode articles need a great deal of babysitting in general. If you've been working with them you know that better than I. And this is also true with a good many of the subjects where trivia sections are much used--other edits there are also often quite problematic. there's a lot of lazy editing in WP, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. it's a good place to start fixing, ofcourse, since its so conspicuous. DGG (talk) 08:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, the episode articles should be locked or at least the "trivia" section should be locked and the template should ask editors to submit ideas on the discussion page.  This is one of the "past proposals" on this project's subpage. Ozmaweezer 13:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So far as I remember, articles have to be locked by an administrator and they really only do that in articles which have an active "edit war" ongoing. I doubt very seriously we would find an admin willing to lock an article simply because it has an extant trivia section. The fact that that trivia section will also be, probably, unreferenced, and that we would thus be often asking an admin to lock an article for the purpose of retaining unsourced material in it, makes such a proposal inherently problematic. John Carter 14:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict)This is essentially page protection and as I understand it most administrators are uncomfortable protecting any page for long periods of time because it goes against the idea of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I think that particular proposal is not really a long term solution to the problem. And DGG, I agree, this is just a part of the problem but I think it is a good place to start. Stardust8212 14:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: right, this is page protection,and, speaking as an admin, this is not a remotely possible solution--it is very much against the rules for this to be done in order to prevent people from working with a section or an article--any one of us who tried it would not be an admin much longer.  The last person who tried this sort of thing --in his case to remove sections and then lock the articles--is now up for removal of the admin status at the Arbitration Commission. The only method that will work is persistent efforts at consensus, and explanations of what we are trying to do. DGG (talk) 07:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It just seems that an article about an episode can only have so much written about it.  At some point it would be done.  I guess locking it would go against the idea of an encyclopedia anyone can edit but it would help control the trivia section. Ozmaweezer 13:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem, of course is that "when it is done" is open to question. It could well be that the person who as his or her first professional job provided the voice for Snowball in a given episode of The Simpsons winds up winning the best actor Academy Award some years later. At that point, adding a mention regarding that episode being the first professional appearance of someone who was honestly a nonentity at the time the show was made would be notable and justify inclusion of that information in the article. We can't predict the future, and locking any article on the basis of saying "it's done" is pretty much both a violation of wikipedia's being something everyone can edit and a serious impediment to making required changes later. John Carter 13:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of the "con" about trivia/IPC sections being inappropriate to an encyclopedia 

message: I just thought that you should be notified with the new Afd. I believe you should have an IPC Afd box in your main page. --Lenticel (talk) 06:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads-up.  I'll add it to the "Article improvement" section.--Father Goose 07:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPC Afd 

message: I've ominated Frogs in popular culture for deletion here. You can move anything you think is worthy of keeping into the Frog article--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 18:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or you can vote to keep the article. Either-or. Equazcion • argue/improves • 18:12, 12/19/2007
Thanks for the courtsey notice. --NickPenguin(contribs) 18:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Frogs in popular culture]] 

message: For a little while I was maintaining Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Popular culture to keep track of voting trends. I will move closed discussions linked from this page there, and I guess we'll cross post new AfDs as they come up. –Pomte 11:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion sorting 

message: There's thread discussion "In popular culture" sections in articles there. Anyone interested to take a look? Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard|Admin noticeboard]] 

message: I noticed that since the inception of this project, there are only "defensive" movements such as Afd saving and cleanup. Although your work is commendable, I think that you need to do "offensive" movements as well which means improving articles to GA/FA articles rather than just keeping deletionists at bay. I suggest that you improve Cultural depictions of spiders which is a failed GA nom. There are a lot of refs there so it is easy for you to get started. Cheers!--Lenticel (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going on the offensive 

message: The above article is currently a nominee for inclusion in the next release version of wikipedia. I regret to say that I have yet to pass it into inclusion based on the great length of the trivia/pop culture section. The article is about an extremely significant figure, but right now the amount of coverage it gives to popular culture is at best poorly explained, and at worst a possible violation of WP:Undue weight. If editors with this project would be interested in perhaps addressing these issues on the above article, I believe all parties involved would be very appreciative. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed items from the IPC list that were only passing mentions/references of Biko, and the current version of the list now only contains major tributes or media where Biko is a predominant feature. Hope this helps. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Steve Biko]] 

message: Before discovering this project, I made a userbox describing my views on this subject.
This is the code:  
Feel free to post this on your userpage! ErgoSum88 (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox 

message: Here's one to ruminate on - this is potentially a very good article and there would be loads of material in TV and film about phone numbers. May need a rename to Phone numbers in film and television or Fictional phone numbers or... as it becomes generalised once the article gets underway. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good find, I'm going to post it on the main page for improvement. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

text: It's in better shape than some articles.  I don't think it's in immediate danger of being deleted, at least, and article rescue is this project's highest-priority job (in my view).  I added an anecdote about Michael Moore to it though, and while I was at it, Hornymanatee.com to Fictitious domain name.  Whee!--Father Goose (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It may not be as bad as the other articles, but you know how it goes around here. Everything could use some improvement. Some of the references cited are not inline, and I counted three "citation needed" tags. I think this one would be easy to improve, it seems to be a well-known phenomenon. When I have time, I will attempt to clean it up. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to clean up some grammar.  Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[555 (telephone number)]] 

message: Hi fellow members!  Just so you're aware, a discussion regarding our project is going on here.  Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: I think a simple graphic of an old style TV set or perhaps a microphone would do. As far as the scope of our project, I think a lot of "internet memes" are a target for deletion, and obviously any article with "in popular culture" in the title or a header named as such is a target. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe two pictures for the banner would work best, showing some memorabilia (buttons, posters, toys, whatever) of a pair of big names, like Elvis, Marilyn, and the like? Does anyone have any such items that could be photographed for such pictures? John Carter (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just thinking, maybe you could do an image with "IPC" with the letters made up of different images (I might be a lampstand, P be a phone etc.). I was thinking of making the image a collage as this will represent what Pop culture is--Lenticel (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea Lenticel, but I'm not sure how effective it would be with such a small graphic. Anyway, wouldn't TPC be better? As in "Trivia and Popular Culture" or even T&PC which is my usual shorthand for this project. (Also I made this conversation a seperate thread, since this discussion has turned from assesment to the project graphic.) --ErgoSum88 (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm ok with TPC rather than IPC if that would represent the project better. Well, should the image as letters are too unwieldy then you could do a TPC or T&PC image where each letter is made up of a crazy font (crazier than Comic San serif).--Lenticel (talk) 07:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I did a quick n' dirty mockup of a possible icon ("Multimedia icon", the 8th in the gallery below).  I don't think we have to get too fancy.  I'm not too sold on the idea of using letters in the icon either; the "trivia" and "popular culture" aspects of the project may yet split, and "TPC" has no particular established meaning (except Transaction Processing Performance Council, maybe).--Father Goose (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should add something in the icon that represents the visual arts, books and comics. Perhaps a pen or paintbrush will do. I hope this wouldn't clutter the image.--Lenticel (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does get harder to visually balance it with each added element.  The icon's not super-important either way.  Perhaps what we could do is merge my idea with Ergo's and put "T&PC" over the three items.--Father Goose (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The shortcut is WP:WPTPC, and I already made a little icon with letters in it... so... too late! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 11:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

text: *How about a different font? It can easily be changed and possibly made a light shade of gray so it doesn't stick out so much. Or, I can just make the TV screen blank, no big deal. I just want to get something going so we can at least have a banner. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Use any icon, or even none at all.  We can change it later.  Oh wait!  I just remembered a "Trivial Pursuit" icon I created months ago for possible use in the  template.  (added above)--Father Goose (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the Trivial Pursuit icon most appropriate as it's not specific to a medium. –Pomte 22:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Project Graphic

message: Image:Musical note nicu bucule 01.svg
Image:TV Camera.png
Image:Gramophone.svg
Image:TV Antik copy.jpg
Image:Tv studio camera.png
Image:Nuvola apps multimedia.png
Image:Applications-television.svg
Image:Multimedia icon.png
Image:TV-T&PC.png|Edited by ErgoSum88
Image:TV-T&PC.svg|Version 2-sans letters
Image:Trivial Pursuit icon.png
*I like the last icon, the TV with the T&PC written inside. However, I'm not so crazy about the writing, and I think an icon with just the TV could stand on it's own. --NickPenguin(contribs) 13:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *How about a different font? It can easily be changed and possibly made a light shade of gray so it doesn't stick out so much. Or, I can just make the TV screen blank, no big deal. I just want to get something going so we can at least have a banner. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Use any icon, or even none at all.  We can change it later.  Oh wait!  I just remembered a "Trivial Pursuit" icon I created months ago for possible use in the  template.  (added above)--Father Goose (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the Trivial Pursuit icon most appropriate as it's not specific to a medium. –Pomte 22:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Candidate gallery

message: Dear fellow members, I propose we attempt to get more good and featured "in popular culture" articles.  To be coordinated, why not focus on these two first?  Classical elements in popular culture and Godzilla in popular culture.  Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At a minimum, we could do the necessary maintenance to restore Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc to WP:FL.--Father Goose (talk) 04:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: May I re-suggest Cultural depictions of spiders that I posted a while ago?--Lenticel (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I suggested the two above, because I did about as much as I could with them at the time and hope that someone is able to take them to the next level.  I made 29 edits to Classical elements in popular culture and 23 edits to Godzilla in popular culture.  I will see if I can do anything further on the spider article, though.  Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I already nominated Cultural depiction of spiders for GA. Hopefully it passes this time. Perhaps you should study Champagne in popular culture to see if you get some ideas off it. I believe the article is a very good example as some IPC deletionists even voted keep.--Lenticel (talk) 10:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am trying to look for some commentary about some of the material to make the article less in-universe, as well as doing some copyediting. Found a nice bit in Robert Graves :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

text: UPDATE: The article has passed GA status.--Lenticel (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to read that.  Bravo!  Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Good articles

message: Hey, a new source will be coming out that you may want to check out.  See here.  Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New ''Star Wars'' Encyclopedia On The Way?