Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections

Rewrote the popular culture section

See change here.

I made this change based on this 2015 RfC which was mentioned in the text, this long discussion at VPR, which has stalled with a fairly clear local consensus, and the guidance which already existed here.

There seems to be a clear consensus about some basic principles relating to this content: that material shouldn't be included just because it exists, that sourcing is required, that the source should be at least in significant part about the subject rather than about the thing referencing the subject, that prose is preferable to lists, and that it's often preferable to incorporate separate sections into the rest of the article.

Since there really doesn't seem like a lot of disagreement about those basic principles (which isn't to say no disagreement), I figured I'd boldly rewrite the section to be clearer about them. My hope is that we can shift the conversation from everyone agreeing about those principles to the specifics of the wording. I'll post a note to that VPR thread shortly. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

This is very good. I support it. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I support the section as you rewrote it. - Donald Albury 21:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Same, looks great to me. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm still opposed, but in the obvious minority. So, I guess it's c'est la vie for me... Huggums537 (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Although I support the new wording, I am going to wait until more editors chime in here before I start trying to trim such sections. - Donald Albury 16:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

What trimming would you like to see? MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to trimming items in "popular culture" sections that do not meet the criteria for inclusion, i.e., not supported by a reliable secondary source, etc. - Donald Albury 22:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah right, sorry I misunderstood. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Just so you are fully aware what you have accomplished here, I would like to point out that these changes were made based on: There seems to be a clear consensus about some basic principles relating to this content: that material shouldn't be included just because it exists, that sourcing is required, that the source should be at least in significant part about the subject.... This consensus may have a clear majority, but it also has a clear basis in the notability guideline in spite of the supporters claims otherwise, particularly WP:NRV, where you can see that the "basic principles" being applied to IPC article content are nearly verbatim for that of the same guidelines in WP:NRV that we use for the creation of articles. Furthermore, WP:NNC tells us the "basic principles" of notability were never intended to be used for article content, but for article creation. These changes are an abuse that thumb their nose at existing guidelines in order to justify what they think they think is a solution to a problem, but they have not solved it in correct or proper manner. Huggums537 (talk) 05:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• It seems like throughout these discussions you're repeatedly claiming that WP:N shouldn't apply to content, even while nobody is applying it to content. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! The great Oz has spoken!" -from The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) Huggums537 (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of whether this is useful guidance, this is the wrong place for it. This is a style guideline, not a content guideline. See #What this guideline is not: "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations." Before the rewrite, the IPC section only mentioned the 2015 RfC as a kind of postscript, after noting that "Wikipedia has no policies or guidelines addressing the content of pop-culture sections specifically". If we want to create such a guideline, I think it would need its own page, and consensus for it would need to be established with a well-advertised RfC. Dan from A.P. (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The section about this already existed. It's just been rewritten. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It existed as a style guideline. It's been rewritten as a content guideline. Dan from A.P. (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I didn't even bother reading the old RfC because it didn't seem relevant since it was discussed so long ago, but I think the point about creating a new guideline with a a well advertised RfC is very well made... Huggums537 (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

To what end? A style guide is inherently a content guide, and other parts of the MOS touch on content. As is, the trivia guideline is already a content guidline. Seems like bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay – whether or not this belongs in the MOS is a technical point; I don't want to get bogged down in that. My main point is that, prior to the rewrite, this guideline explicitly didn't make any suggestions about inclusion or exclusion criteria (that's what I meant by "content"). So to me, this rewrite doesn't represent the modification of an existing guideline, but the creation of an entirely new guideline. WP:PROPOSAL says: "Proposals for new guidelines and policies require discussion and a high level of consensus from the entire community." I don't believe this requirement is met by an inconclusive Village Pump discussion which took place within a subsection of a completely different discussion. Dan from A.P. (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Since this discussion seemed to have stalled, I reverted back to the status quo until a consensus could be arrived at. I was reverted by User:MichaelMaggs, who said that the change already has consensus. As I've noted above, I don't think that's the case. On this page, we have a numerical consensus of 4 against 2, which isn't much, and no qualitative consensus at all. The Village Pump discussion, as I've said, doesn't meet the requirement of "a high level of consensus from the entire community", because (a) the result was inconclusive, and (b) it took place in the middle of a very confused RfC on a completely different question ("Should Wikipedia continue to have sections titled In popular culture?"). I'd also add that the Village Pump proposal said nothing about making any changes to this particular page; it was simply a proposal for new text to be added... somewhere.

But since we're obviously not in agreement on this, I'd suggest the next step would be to request a formal close of the Village Pump discussion; that way, we can settle the issue of whether that discussion established a consensus to make these changes to the guideline. Would everyone be okay with that? Dan from A.P. (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Counting numbers on this page and ignoring the explicitly linked Village Pump discussion of which this is a continuation is hardly a fair representation of the extent of consensus. But I've no objection to having the VP discussion closed by a non-involved admin. Where any agreed text should best be placed is a separate issue. There are good arguments for saying that the MOS is not the best place: it's only there now as that's where someone who initially implemented the result of the 2015 RFC happened to put it. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I've posted a closure request at WP:CR. Dan from A.P. (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how anything like a consensus can be seen to have formed for this change being based on the 2015 RfC when not one single person from that discussion was pinged into the discussion about this change. Neither were any of them invited to discuss the change at village pump either... Huggums537 (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

In other words, none of them have been given any opportunity to examine new and opposing viewpoints that have developed in the more than five years since this so called consensus has taken place. I would hardly call that a fair implementation of change in consensus to the guideline. Huggums537 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Does this guideline (and its section MOS:POPCULT) apply to stand-alone lists or "in popular culture" articles?

This guideline obviously applies to trivia sections, but it seems to me that it specifically limits itself to that. I took part in a recent AfD, where the closer believed that this guideline also applied to a stand-alone list. I think this is a bit of a stretch, because I couldn't find explicit wording in this guideline that confirms that the scope covers more than trivia sections, and that it covers stand-alone lists (which are already covered by WP:SAL), or that the section MOS:POPCULT similarly covers articles (not just sections) specifically about popular culture (i.e. Frankenstein in popular culture). There has only been limited and tangential debate on this in the past (i.e. about half of the 2016 RfC, where BrightRoundCircle argued that it didn't cover standalone lists, which have their own criteria listed there.)

What is the current consensus on the scope of this guideline? Does it: (1) limit itself to trivia sections (with trivia defined by WP:HTRIVIA), or (2) also cover stand-alone lists, and/or (3) also cover "in popular culture" articles as a whole? Pilaz (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

All three, obviously. It would seem silly to implicitly suggest (or at the very least encourage) the creation of stand-alone articles (be they list articles or prose articles) for content whose sourcing is insufficient for inclusion in an existing article in order to have lower standards for the sourcing required. This is also in line with quite a few recent-ish WP:AfD discussions where TV Tropes-style content has been firmly rejected in favour of content with proper sourcing, e.g. WP:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction, and WP:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Those are definitely good points, TompaDompa, and it's great to have you in this discussion given your topical expertise and rewrites of articles in AfDs. I note that MOS:POPCULT was only brought up in one of those AfDs, however. There are also contradictions that are worth exploring, I think: (1) if it applies to stand-alone lists, then why does MOS:POPCULT specifically state prose is usually preferable to a list format? I'm not too familiar with the MOS, but it's surprising to me that in a Wikipedia corner there's an article that recommends against lists when dealing with matters of popular culture. (2) Similarly, wouldn't Christmas in literature, which you have had a hand in improving in the context of an ongoing AfD, fail the third paragraph of MOS:POPCULT since 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? I'm pretty sure MOS:POPCULT is a lot more stringent than WP:LISTVERIFY. Do you see this is a potential case of guidelines contradicting each other? Pilaz (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The underlying principles here are (mainly) that WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and that we are to cover each aspect of a topic in WP:PROPORTION to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Those principles do not apply in the same way to purely navigational lists (like the current version of Christmas in literature) whose sole purpose is to help the reader find the Wikipedia article(s) they are looking for as they do to TV Tropes-style lists. A properly constructed (not that all of them are, mind you) purely navigational list avoids becoming indiscriminate by having a judiciously chosen scope and appropriate inclusion criteria in combination with all entries having stand-alone Wikipedia articles; similar principles apply as with categories and navigational lists can become WP:INDISCRIMINATE in much the same ways as categories can represent WP:Overcategorization. WP:PROPORTION doesn't really enter into it for purely navigational lists because they do not cover the different aspects of the topic at all, they merely provide navigational aid. If Christmas in literature had for instance included brief descriptions of each work it would no longer have been a purely navigational list, but rather a TV Tropes-style list. I'm not terribly impressed by navigational lists in general (as my lack of enthusiasm at WP:Articles for deletion/Christmas in literature may have hinted at), but some are occasionally useful. TompaDompa (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you once again, but even then the contradictions I've raised remain undiscussed. What is your opinion of the concerns that I've raised about contradictions (1) and (2), when MOS:POPCULT applies to lists? Are those contradictions, in your opinion? Why does it not explicitly cover lists and articles within the guideline? Is it possible that MOS:POPCULT is intentionally or unintentionally vague on this? Those are the concerns that I'd like you and others to explore. Thanks again. Pilaz (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure I understand what you mean by (1), and I don't think (2) is a contradiction. Basically, a purely navigational list doesn't have any content, only links. It's pretty much a category in article space. WP:LISTVERIFY should be sufficient for inclusion if the list itself is a proper one. As for why the current text doesn't explicitly include stand-alone articles, I think that's just an oversight. We could trivially add Sometimes, the content is in a stand-alone article. after Sometimes this content is in its own section ("in popular culture" is common, but also "in the media", "cultural references", etc.), and sometimes it is included with other prose. TompaDompa (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Let me reformulate (1) from a question to a statement. (1) is specifically about prose versus list format for popular culture sections. MOS:POPCULT instructs the reader to prefer prose over list, for cultural references to the subject of the article. (There is an asterisk to this, however). There are no other mentions of prose vs list formatting in the guideline other than these two, but it's clear that there's a clear preference for prose (I would even go as far as to say that the guideline implicitly says "in a majority of cases"), with a minor caveat for "not always" presence. Now, if we read the guideline with a narrow scope like I do, meaning it can only apply to culture "sections", this guideline is beyond the scope of stand-alone lists, of which navigational lists are a subcategory. If we adopt your wide scope, that it applies beyond mere "in culture" sections but also to stand-alone lists, then we get an express recommendation to change stand-alone lists, including navigational lists, from list form to article form. Pretty outstanding given that nowhere else on Wikipedia there is a guideline stating that prose articles are preferrable to list articles, and that navigational lists should be written in prose. Don't you think? My interpretation as to why this mention of prose vs list exists is because editors back in 2006 were fed up with articles which had immense unreferenced trivia sections in bullet point format within an article written in prose, but that it was obvious that this article wouldn't apply to lists, since navigational lists are useful navigational tools, like you recognize. This is why this article never explicitly mentions stand-alone lists or articles. As for (2), "in culture" lists are not required to be navigational only, that's only your personal preference (which is understandable, but I don't share it). Lists live or fall on WP:LISTVERIFY, which requires the set to be covered in RS. But in WP:POPCULT, each item must be referenced to be worthy of inclusion (!). . We could expand the scope of the whole guideline to encompass stand-alone lists, but we shouldn't, because it would at present be in dissonance with WP:LISTVERIFY. Pilaz (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The reason I don't think it makes sense to apply MOS:POPCULT to purely navigational lists is that I don't think that such a collection of links constitutes "content", in much the same way I wouldn't consider a disambiguation page "content". With that in mind, I don't think there's anything strange about recommending the use of prose rather than list formatting (obviously a purely navigational list is better formatted as a list). My preference for "in culture" lists is that we not have any TV Tropes-style ones. That can either mean getting rid of them altogether or turning them into purely navigational lists as appropriate. I don't see the problem with MOS:POPCULT being stricter than WP:LISTVERIFY. I am strictly speaking about the MOS:POPCULT section, to be clear. TompaDompa (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Pilaz is right that the guideline as it stands is explicitly written to apply to sections only. See the "nutshell" summary text, the second sentence of the lead, and the phrase "trivia section" repeated throughout the page. We can argue about whether it ought to apply to stand-alone lists, but it currently doesn't. Dan from A.P. (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course MOS:POPCULT should apply to stand-alone articles/lists as well as to sections within other articles, otherwise we're just encouraging editors to move the poorly sourced content to another article. And as the WP:AfDs I linked above demonstrate, we applied this standard to stand-alone articles even before the current phrasing of MOS:POPCULT was adopted. I'll add the clarification I suggested above. TompaDompa (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

There's no evidence that anybody has or will be "encouraged" to move poorly sourced content to another article; and even if someone did, such behavior would be prohibited under gaming the system. Besides, like DanFromAnotherPlace mentioned below, WP:SPLIT only allows a split if the new article is notable in its own right, so an article that's truly miscellaneous trivia would likely fall at AfD on LISTN or other grounds (like WP:IINFO). There's a reason why 700+ of "popular culture"-related articles have been nominated for deletion at AfD over the years. Pilaz (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Whether the topic "X in popular culture" is viable for a stand-alone article on notability grounds is a separate question from the question of what kind of sourcing is required for the content found within the "X in popular culture" article. TompaDompa (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't your original concern that "poorly sourced content" from trivia sections could become their own article? Your concern has been addressed over the years at AfD by WP:LISTN/WP:N, WP:V and WP:IINFO, even before MOS:POPCULT existed. I don't think it's a separate question at all.Pilaz (talk) 11:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

My concern is the inclusion of such content at all. It's not allowed in "in popular culture" sections and it shouldn't be allowed in "X in popular culture" articles. I have given several examples of X in fiction/popular culture/whatever articles where the topic met our notability standards but the content was poorly sourced. Notability and content are not the same question. TompaDompa (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't WP:IINFO and WP:V make the application of MOS:POPCULT to lists redundant, though? Pilaz (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

MOS:POPCULT provides clear and specific guidance about the sourcing requirements for this kind of material. That means that the application of the underlying principles need not be discussed in each individual case. This is a good thing. TompaDompa (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

My take: Every "X in popular culture" is always dependent on a notable topic X, and begins (theoretically, at least) as one component of an entry about X. We only have them as separate articles when they would take up too much space in the main article. Sometimes it's taken for granted that it would take up an undue amount of space in the main article, and so they begin right away as a stand-alone article. The guidance is about the relationship between the "in popular culture" material and the subject. I would not think the guidance for such material would suddenly become totally irrelevant the moment the material is spun out of the main article to a separate page, and I have trouble thinking of good reasons why we would apply completely different standards (or none at all, as the case may be). That said, it's true this page doesn't talk about stand-alone lists, and in the world of MOS debates, those distinctions are often intentional and/or need to be spelled out to avoid widespread conflict. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's true that every "X in popular culture" is always dependent on a notable topic X. According to WP:SPLIT, an article should only be split if the subject of the new article is notable in its own right. So where the subject of "X in popular culture" has been discussed by multiple reliable sources per WP:LISTN, it's appropriate to have an article on that subject, but not otherwise. This is why editors can't evade the POPCULT guideline by splitting off the content into a new article. We couldn't have an article titled "Bone broth in popular culture", because that's not a notable topic. So to my mind, stand-alone lists like this shouldn't be treated as extensions of other articles, but as articles in their own right. And it makes sense that an article on the subject of "X in popular culture" would be broader in its coverage than a pop culture section at article X would be. It's unreasonable to ask that every source in an "X in popular culture" article should primarily discuss the subject of a different article. Dan from A.P. (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

In this scenario, they can still evade the POPCULT guideline, so to speak, if the content is poorly sourced but the topic is notable. That's what's been the issue in multiple articles that have been brought to AfD: notable topics with poorly sourced content. I don't think anybody is arguing that every source in an "X in popular culture" article should primarily discuss the subject of a different article, and it's not unreasonable to ask that every example in an "X in popular culture" article should come from a source that covers the topic "X in popular culture" – that's a fairly straightforward application of the core principle that Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources have said on a topic. TompaDompa (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, here's my understanding of the way people are interpreting this guideline. As written, the guideline says that a popular culture section in article X should only include examples taken from sources that provide in-depth coverage of the subject of X. But this seems to be being interpreted to mean that an article titled "X in popular culture" would still require examples to be taken from sources that cover the subject of X, rather than the subject of X in popular culture. If you (TompaDompa) don't interpret the guideline in this way, then presumably the thing we disagree on is what kind of sources fit the criteria. Take, for example, an article titled "Adolf Hitler in popular culture". I think that a review of the movie Downfall, discussing the way in which Hitler is portrayed in that movie as compared to previous portrayals, would be a source that covers the subject of Adolf Hitler in popular culture.

The purpose of this guideline is to ensure that our articles only include significant examples of cultural references, and to minimise trivial and unencyclopedic content. One way of doing this is to say that a pop culture section in article X should only cite sources covering the subject of X; but my argument is that this rule doesn't work when applied to "X in popular culture" articles, because a film review would fit the criteria in the latter case but not in the former. So different criteria are needed to decide what kinds of content to include in these articles. Our existing policies (eg. WP:V, WP:DUE, WP:NOT) suffice for this purpose, and there's no reason to try and extend this guideline to cover cases it was never designed for. Dan from A.P. (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

It seems like we actually agree on the question of what sources should be used. MOS:POPCULT says that the threshold for inclusion is that the example should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary or tertiary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article. This source should cover the subject of the article in some depth; it should not be a source about the cultural item which merely mentions the subject. The key phrase in my eyes is "subject of the article"—for the article "X in popular culture", the subject of the article is X in popular culture (not just X). Having MOS:POPCULT to refer to rather than having to derive it from first principles (so-to-speak) when discussing the sourcing required for "X in popular culture" articles is a good thing. TompaDompa (talk) 14:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Not all splits require the split content to be itself notability, as often the split itself is list type content that falls into WP:NLIST (notability doesn't necessarily apply). Split content should be done first with material that is the least essential to a comprehensive understanding of the topic, so "in pop culture" articles (which most of the time are list articles) are frequently a first pass. Masem (t) 15:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment about the evolution of MOS:POPCULT over time, and ping: SMcCandlish wrote the MOS:POPCULT section in 2015, originally titled "Not all "popular culture" material is trivia" (diff) and wrote the shortcut name that we still use today. He then renamed the section "In popular culture" and "Cultural references" material in June 2015 (diff). Very few consequential changes happened between 2015 and 2021, with editors mostly adding/removing essay-related commentary. On the talk page, between 2015 and 2021, there was one 2015 RfC about deprecating the use of "in popular culture" headers within articles and renaming them to limit the proliferation of trivia (which was agreed upon, but never fully settled on an alternative). Things substantially changed in September 2021, when Rhododendrites made a bold rewrite diff, justifying it on the grounds of a 2015 RfC at WP:V, and a village pump proposal which never closed and was quite chaotic, as some editors suggested, but was the driver of Rhododendrite's bold rewrite, which added an express recommendation (As with most article content, prose is usually preferable to a list format, regardless of where the material appears) and the example of Baby Yoda's bone broth. Both the RfC and the Village pump proposal almost exclusively concentrated on "pop culture sections"; Rhododendrite's rewrite received a fair amount of praise and criticism in the follow-up discussion, which I recommend reading for an overview of the issues it was trying to address and the current criticism of the MOS:POPCULT section. On September 24, MichaelMaggs made another significant edit, adding that at least one source for each reference should be added, which was narrowed by Johnbod on November 3 (diff). In November 2021 and December 2021, MOS:POPCULT began to be used to back deletion of stand-alone lists and "in popular culture"-related articles, which is why I opened this discussion on whether MOS:POPCULT applies to stand-alone lists and articles. To the pinged: if you haven't yet, consider contributing to this discussion on the scope of the guideline too! Pilaz (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Rhododendrite's bold rewrite, which added an express recommendation (As with most article content, prose is usually preferable to a list format, regardless of where the material appears) -- The section already said "Short cultural references sections should usually be entirely reworked into the main flow of the article. If a separate section for this material is maintained, the poorest approach is a list, which will attract the addition of trivia. It is preferable to develop a normal article section with well-written paragraphs..." -- The recommendation was already there. But to be clear, that particular "regardless of where the material appears" was about whether or not it's in its own section. I don't think I/others in that discussion intended that to reach beyond that. In other words, I don't think that the edit I made changes this from being about material in an article to also include stand-alone pages. My opinion on whether this should apply is the same regardless of whether we're looking at the old version of that section or the new version. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• Clearly not. This was never the intent of this section, which originated more with a pair of relevance and formatting intents. It seems to have been warped into something approaching a prohibition, and this clearly does not have consensus and is not what we need. We would lose quite significant (if usually imperfect) articles, like Albinism in popular culture. What determines whether a subject can have a stand-alone article (in list format or otherwise) is WP:N, and the topic of the portrayal of persons with albinism in popular culture is a subject that has attracted in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, ergo it passes WP:N. PS: The style advice in this page (which it should be scaled back to) should apply to stand-alone articles as well as embedded sections, of course.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC); revised 20:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Why would we lose any significant articles? If the topics meet our notability guidelines, these requirements for sourcing the content found within shouldn't be a problem. TompaDompa (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• I stand by what I said in the section above, that whatever the merits of Rhododendrite's proposed guidance, this page was the wrong place to add it. Prior to the rewrite, this page made a point of restricting itself to style questions (and in fact it still says, at MOS:TRIVIA#What this guideline is not: "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations.") The rewrite created a fundamental contradiction between the POPCULT section and the rest of the guideline, and we're seeing another aspect of the contradiction in the current discussion – this page was intended to apply only to trivia sections, and would need a total rewrite if we wanted to apply it to standalone lists as well.
  Personally, I think the correct thing to do after the Village Pump discussion would have been to start a new proposal to create a separate guideline page for pop culture content, possibly based on the essay WP:IPC. I still think this is the way to go. A well-advertised discussion on this would give lots more editors a chance to weigh in, which would avoid further complications down the line. Dan from A.P. (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• I absolutely agree that as a content guideline this is and has been since 2015 in entirely the wrong place. It mixes up style issues with content, and attempts within a top level 'Trivia sections' heading to regulate both "In popular culture" and "Cultural references" material regardless of triviality. It's also less than clear about its intended scope (separate section?, stand-alone article?, stand-alone list article?, article with navigation-only links?, material integrated into the main text?). While I supported the text as an improvement on what was there before (effectively a content restriction within the MOS introduced by way of a bold edit asserting that the conclusion of the 2015 RFC was "very clear"), it still leaves a lot to be desired.

Another issue that ought to be discussed is that the new rule does not work well in the common situation when the main subject is not a real entity such as bone broth, but a fictional character such as for example Puck (folklore). Articles on major fictional characters almost always attract lists of films/TV shows/plays/songs etc in which that character appears, and such entries are very seldom supported by an independent source. And indeed why should they, if the character is a major one within the film or whatever, and the film itself is notable?

I'd like to see a new well-publicized discussion, starting entirely from scratch, the aim being to

1. craft an entirely new Cultural references subject guideline, covering all of the above issues, and
2. restrict the MOS page to relevant style matters only.

MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• Of course not. 100% agree with SMC's interpretations of the LIST and N guidance as my own analysis of them has lead to the same conclusions. Am glad to see some free thinkers appearing such as DanFromAnotherPlace and Pilaz. Also am glad to see some open minded non-Wikipedified old timers such as MichaelMaggs as well... Huggums537 (talk) 09:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• For the record: at the time of that VP discussion, consensus seemed pretty clear, and the same small number of objections which followed here didn't seem like enough to overcome that. It's here because there was already guidance about what to include via its treatment of sourcing and because of a general preference to modify existing guidelines rather than trying to create new ones for each overlapping issue that comes up. All of this said, I appreciate that the VP subsection which led to this was a tangent off of that discussion. It seemed in line with practice/common interpretation of our existing guidelines, and there was a good amount of support for it there, so I went ahead and made the change, but I also think it's reasonable for people -- especially those who weren't involved in that VP discussion -- to insist on an RfC or some other mechanism. What I'm still worried about is that it's getting undone just because a few people have argued that it says something it doesn't say: that it applies to stand-alone lists. My own point of view is that it's good advice that could sensibly apply absent any other guidance on the topic, but the wording is clearly about sections. Any argument which relies on citing this to delete a stand-alone list is not a good argument on its own, and someone making a bad argument shouldn't be a reason to scrap the guidance that person rests their bad argument on. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

If we do end up having a new guideline, its wording ought to be extremely specific about what is and what is not covered, to avoid these sorts of queries repeatedly coming up. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that this advice also applies to standalone articles as well, but in light of concerns of the above, I think this part needs to be stressed 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. This source should cover the subject of the article in some depth; it should not be a source about the cultural item which merely mentions the subject. That is, a list that acknowledges how the topic has entered the popular culture and then uses secondary sources to include such information (as with The Catcher in the Rye in popular culture). That elevates it past the typical "ShoutOut" entry of a TVTropes page, or problems with editors just adding anything they think is relevant (see Irish mythology in popular culture).

I would think it would be smart to point out the situation around standalone lists, that they should only be broken out from the main topic if SIZE is of concern, and all facets related to sourcing are held to. I would also urge editors, if they can, to find sources that talk of the work entering the popular culture in broad terms to lead off such articles. --Masem (t) 19:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The difference between a trivia section and a trivia article is purely technical. Trivia is trivia regardless of where it is contained, which in turn has no bearing on how the encyclopedia is being improved. That POPCULT should cease to be applicable once a standalone article is created makes no sense logically, not to mention that policy proscribes the use of procedural details to obstruct concrete changes. There are several articles out there (example) which have been created as a split in order to accommodate excess listings of pop-culture mentions. I've also seen one such split performed because the trivial listings were thought to be sullying the parent article. There's no reason why these articles should receive immunity from this guideline.

  This interpretation doesn't add any 'prohibitions', contrary to what has been stated above. It has, as demonstrated, led to the improvement of multiple articles. Whenever TRIVIA/POPCULT is brought up as an excuse to remove content, it's just a proxy for WP:IINFO or notability, which it supplements. Avilich (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

  Ahah! Gotcha! Whenever TRIVIA/POPCULT is brought up as an excuse to remove content, it's just a proxy for WP:IINFO or notability, which it supplements. [Emphasis added]. This is the precise reason I opposed implementing the guidance here in the first place since notability does not apply to content (WP:NNC), but they swore up and down the guidance being here had nothing to do with notability. Yet, here we have demonstrable evidence editors are clearly equating this guidance as a proxy to notability. Also, I warned everyone more than once (2nd paragraph) this change in the guideline would lead to misuse, but my efforts were only met with mocking (also 2nd paragraph). I should have known the misapplications would come sooner rather than later. If any of the wordings to improve articles or lists belong anywhere, it's not here. This is for sections and content within sections not articles and lists. If you want to rewrite the entire notability guideline to allow for notability to apply to sections or content, then be my guest, but please stop trying to weasel it in other places first. Huggums537 (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  This isn't about notability, though, its about the other part you mention WP:IINFO, which is what this MOS is based on (as well as the base principle that notability itself derives from), not the notability factors. And IINFO does apply to article content regardless where it is (within article or in a stand-alone article). --Masem (t) 14:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  Don't tell me this guidance isn't about notability. Tell it to the people who just got through saying they have been using it as a proxy to notability to remove TRIVIA/POPCULT content. Huggums537 (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Let's try to focus on discussing how things can be improved, if they need to be, rather than arguing for who was "right" and who was "wrong" in past arguments. Huggums537, you've argued your position very extensively above, that's all available for anyone who wants to review it. What would be useful at this point is some specific wording that we can use as the basis for ongoing discussion, along with a suggestion as to where any new guideline should go, if not here. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying who is right or wrong. All I'm saying is that many other editors have recognized the guidance that was added here is indeed about notability as evidenced by the very fact of their actions to remove content based on using this guidance as a proxy for notability... Huggums537 (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

What wording you would like to see? Please don't just say it is wrong: what exactly, in your view, would make it right? If we need a new guideline, how should it be worded? MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Good question. I'll think on it. I know it should be somewhere else and not here though. Huggums537 (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@MichaelMaggs: I think the current phrasing (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. This source should cover the subject of the article in some depth; it should not be a source about the cultural item which merely mentions the subject.) is fine. If it absolutely needs to be moved, WP:NOT seems like a reasonable place. The two paragraphs that follow (Take for example the subject of bone broth. You may wish to include mention of how Baby Yoda in The Mandalorian drank bone broth. An appropriate source might be Bon Appetit magazine, which is a reliable source for articles about soup. If Bon Appetit mentions how Baby Yoda drank bone broth, it may be suitable for inclusion in the bone broth article. By contrast, an article in Polygon reviewing the latest episode of The Mandalorian which does not go into any detail about bone broth but simply mentions that Baby Yoda drank some in that episode is not sufficient to include in the article because it does not provide any significant coverage of the subject of the article. and Note that this sourcing requirement is a minimum threshold for inclusion of cultural references. Consensus at the article level can determine whether particular references which meet this criteria should be included.) could be included as explanatory footnotes. TompaDompa (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good example, in that there's no reason why if an RS like Polygon makes note of a reference in pop culture like to bone broth - of which food is nominally outside Polygon's wheelhouse - that that makes it inappropriate to include; there's no reason to give Bon Appetit more weight here in terms of an RS (and that I can also see leading to lots of arguments). Instead, we should ask whether within the RS the mention is made just in passing or if there's at least some discussion (even if just a sentence of two) to make it clear the RS was pointing this out as a reference. We probably also want to see if we can avoid the use of simple pop culture list articles that sites like WhatCulture tend to produce. --Masem (t) 06:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, to return to an issue I mentioned above, the current rule does not work when the main subject is a fictional character. In Puck (folklore), we have:

• Puck is also a major character in Michael Buckley's 2005–2012 book series The Sisters Grimm.

Assuming for the sake of discussion that the statement is true and that the book is notable, should we require this entry to be backed up with at least one reliable secondary or tertiary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article? Bear in mind that citing the book does not satisfy that test as the book itself is neither a secondary nor a tertiary source. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with requiring a secondary or tertiary source for that. Is this appearance a significant one? It is possible that the book is notable and the character appears in it but that the appearance is not a significant example of the character appearing in fictional works. The way to tell is to look at whether the body of reliable, published material on the subject (i.e. on the character) considers it to be a significant appearance. TompaDompa (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I just love how you all are discussing about how to decide if the book is "notable" and if the character made a "significant example" of a "significant appearance" to require a "secondary source" while the authors of these new rules deny that the restrictions have anything at all to do with enforcing notability to individual content within articles. It's very entertaining to see... Huggums537 (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Surely you are aware of the concept of giving different aspects of a topic due weight and that it is not the same thing as notability? TompaDompa (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Of course I am aware of the concept of due weight, but that is obviously not what is being discussed above. The problems with the claim that this is about due weight, and not notability; is that you are obviously discussing what is "notable" and "significant" about a topic versus which views being represented are more or less predominant than others. The difference is subtle, yet quite clear. Huggums537 (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

You're right, this isn't about which views being represented are more or less predominant than others (WP:WEIGHT). Which is of course why I didn't say that it was. It's about treating each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject (WP:PROPORTION). TompaDompa (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, the discussion was still obviously about "notability" and "significant coverage" no matter if you want to split hairs about what kind of weight you claim is being represented anyway. Huggums537 (talk) 11:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I would also add that it is a very problematic and troubling thing for these restrictions by the very fact we are even having this debate about whether the restrictions are violating notability guidance or not to begin with. We should not be imposing restrictions that have any doubt about violating guidance. Huggums537 (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Responding to that 'gotcha' concerning my comment above. Its meaning is only that trivial mentions from primary sources do not confer notability in the absence of reliable sources, not that an article having POPCULT-noncompliant content has any effect on its topic's notability. The focus on Wikipedia's specific definition of notability and on the nominal difference betwen a section and a page is pedantic and of no consequence here. Having the guideline apply only to sections encourages gaming of the system through artice splits and through claims that trivia confers notability ("how suitable a topic is for its own article"), eg. "this topic is notable b/c it appears on all these games and whatever". If any one is incorrectly associating content with notability, most of the time it's probably in that fashion, rather than in the way you're thinking. Avilich (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Its meaning is only that trivial mentions from primary sources do not confer notability in the absence of reliable sources, not that an article having POPCULT-noncompliant content has any effect on its topic's notability. I know exactly what its meaning is. You have misunderstood as well as misinterpreted my point. Nobody has suggested anything about POPCULT-noncompliant content having an effect on its topic's notability. The focus on Wikipedia's specific definition of notability and on the nominal difference betwen a section and a page is pedantic and of no consequence here. Tell that to the people who wrote WP:NNC. Article splits are a natural common part of the system, not gaming it. The fact these pop sections can be successfully split into their own articles is evidence of this. What encourages gaming is blurring the guidelines between the specific definition of notability and the content or sections within an article or list by trying to say they are "nominal differences that are pedantic ones of no consequence." The way to avoid blurring these lines is to keep the guidance for sections (content within articles) and pages (notability) in different places. I also disagree that If any one is incorrectly associating content with notability, most of the time it's probably in that fashion, rather than in the way you're thinking. and I would say both are a big problem. Huggums537 (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that if you split out a pop culture section to a standalone, and maybe 20% or less of the entries are sourced, it stands out as a bad standalone article, notability or not. Pop culture sections or stand-alones must have proper sources for each entry, that doesn't change where the items are located, but makes the problem more obvious if it is a standalone article. But if you have a standalone article of pop culture where 80% or more of the entries are sourced, now you're talking something that may be reasonable as a standalone. --Masem (t) 06:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, and that is why I made the distinction in my comment above between a "successful split". The thing that does change depending on where the items are located is the requirement of notability. If the items are located in a pop section, then notability is not required only verifiable sourcing (well actually now that they added the new rules you might as well say more than verifiable sources is required to the point of they must be more than notable entries since they also now require secondary sources to mention the main topic as well as supporting their facts), if the items are to be split to a new article or list, then notability is required for the creation of the new article or list. This is why the guidance must be not be muxed, and should exist in different places for different purposes. Huggums537 (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Or a way to see this: there's two separate applications of IINFO here: the first should apply to any entry for pop culture, in that there should be quality third-party sourcing to include each entry; the second is only in the case of standalone articles where notability factors for the concept "X in pop culture" should be considered. --Masem (t) 14:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we see the application of WP:IINFO is woefully inadequate to the additions made here since it does not go into any detail at all about the "secondary sourcing" or "significant coverage" which are the actual requirements by the additions made to this guidance. The only place that would be adequately applicable to cover the requirements made here is WP:SIGCOV and WP:WHYN. The problem is that WP:NNC prevents both SIGCOV and WHYN from being applied to content inside articles or lists (pop sections are content within articles). The additions made here were quite wordy with lots of explanation about the principles behind why they were imposing these requirements upon us, and involved lots of flashy analogy with baby yoda just make the ordinary requirements of secondary sourcing with significant coverage seem more palatable I guess. The issue I have with it all is that the requirements themselves that they want to impose are not supported by any other guidance, so in an attempt to overcome this, what they try to do is point to the guidance that supports all the principles they talked about. However, none of the wordy principles or flashy analogies are even needed whatsoever for the purpose of implementing such simple requirements. If you strip away all the extra crap and focus on the requirements being imposed, then IINFO doesn't really apply at all. Huggums537 (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

If you prefer, this can be approached from a perspective of accurately reflecting the treatment each example gets in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. If sources on X in fiction/popular culture/whatever don't cover example Y, neither should we. The way to demonstrate that sources actually do consider example Y significant enough to warrant being covered in a X in fiction/popular culture/whatever context is to cite those sources. TompaDompa (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

It appears to me that what you are attempting to do here is explain to me the concepts validating the restrictions from a different perspective I might understand, but what you fail to realize is that I understand perfectly, and The way to demonstrate that sources actually do consider example Y significant enough to warrant being covered in a X in fiction/popular culture/whatever context is to cite those sources. is a fundamental concept from the perspective of notability, which I have pointed out is not permitted to be applied to individual content within articles per WP:NNC so the restrictions themselves are not valid. Huggums537 (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Except no, that wasn't WP:NOTABILITY I was describing. It was WP:PROPORTION, which does apply to content within articles. TompaDompa (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Whatever. It doesn't matter either way. I have already proven elsewhere in the discussion that neither of those guidelines (or any other ones for that matter) would allow these types of restrictions for preventing bad trivia in our normal article space, and so these restrictions are simply not supported by our policies and guidelines no matter how badly supporters might wish them to be. Huggums537 (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

"Nobody has suggested anything about POPCULT-noncompliant content having an effect on its topic's notability" -- exactly, thanks for proving and acknowledging my point. You still haven't shown proof of anybody using this guideline incorrectly, or demonstrated why someone copying a section's content into a new page suddenly makes it exempt from POPCULT. Avilich (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

United Nations in popular culture (2nd nomination) is a good illustration of POPCULT being applied incorrectly, since rough consensus in this discussion is that POPCULT does not extend beyond trivia sections. Pilaz (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

That was not an article about the "UN in popular culture", that was a "List of trivial mentions of the UN in popular culture". So clearly POPCULT applies ("Cultural references about a subject ... should not be included simply because they exist"). There is no reason why it being standalne rather than a subsection should have any bearing on the guideline's applicability. Also, the majority did not find the interpretation "incorrect", and neither did the closer, who acknowledged the policy basis for the deletion. Avilich (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The closer was right to use WP:IINFO and WP:V, although I disagree with his assessment of the sources. But like you've recognized POPCULT was used as a proxy for the two policies above, while everything in this guideline only talks about sections - as evidenced by the "in the nutshell", the second sentence of the lead, and "sections" peppered throughout. The closer was mistaken in assuming that POPCULT applied. The POPCULT writers themselves have confirmed in writing above that they did not foresee that the application of POPCULT would go beyond trivia sections. You're entitled to your own interpretation or whether they ought to apply, but as of the time of this writing and per the conversation above, there is no consensus that it applies to articles or stand-alone lists. If it makes you feel any better, 700+ popular culture articles have been wiped out without ever needing to resort to POPCULT. Pilaz (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Not really. SMcCandlish said above, "The style advice in this page (which it should be scaled back to) should apply to stand-alone articles as well as embedded sections, of course". He just mistakenly thought that POPCULT was being used to enforce some "prohibition" in the sense of notability. Moreover, another one said, "I would not think the guidance for such material would suddenly become totally irrelevant the moment the material is spun out of the main article to a separate page, and I have trouble thinking of good reasons why we would apply completely different standards". I also don't see how, in your words, "there exists rough consensus that this guideline and MOS:POPCULT do not currently apply to articles and stand-alone lists". Avilich (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

This is what I was trying to stress above and that we may be speaking of two different things. There's the appropriateness/notability/sourcing for each individual pop culture mention, which I agree with the above that MOS:POPCULT is meant to cover, and then there's the question of notability of a separate "X in popular culture" page which MOS:POPCULT should not apply to the notability or stand-alone nature of the page, but per my first point, does apply to inclusion of each item within it. That is, MOS:POPCULT is not guidance on a standalone page, but does implicitly caution that each item should fit the sourcing requirements of MOS:POPCULT, and if they don't you likely won't have reason for a standalone page. But that's all more based on notability directly and other page content guidance (like WP:V). --Masem (t) 02:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

We are actually speaking about more than two different things because there is the question about how notability is not even supposed to be being applied to any individual mentions of article content in the first place per WP:NNC. Bad trivia could occur in any article outside of pop sections, but creating the same kind of guidance that was created here for the individual entries in all of our articles would be totally unacceptable, and so it is for these individual entries as well. Huggums537 (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

A nit: notability is not automatically used to determine article content, but editors by consensus can agree to limit inclusion on lists to only notable entries if desired (for example List of Harvard Law School alumni). Now, in terms of pop culture sections or standalones, its not an issue of applying notability to each entry, but a less strict standard of quality, independent sourcing to show that others have identified the pop culture reference. --Masem (t) 04:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't be raising such a hell of a big fuss if the only thing these restrictions required was ...a less strict standard of quality, independent sourcing to show that others have identified the pop culture reference., but when you start requiring "significant coverage", and also require that your sources must now do the double duty of supporting their facts as well as supporting the main topic, then you've elevated it far beyond that. As Buzz Lightyear says, "To notability and beyond!"... Huggums537 (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

In any non-list standalone article, most sources are doing double (or even triple) duty: showing evidence for the information presented via WP:V, showing that there has been significant coverage of a topic for notability/standalone purposes per WP:N, and then creating relevance and other factors related to NOR and NPOV at times. For pop culture items, WP:V should absolutely be met, but should show that it wasn't the editor themselves that said "hey, X is referenced in Y" as that can be interpretation and thus inappropriate per NOR, hence why there should be reliable third-party sourcing to support that (not necessarily secondary sources). Whether to spin off pop culture lists into standalone ones can be done either simply due to the large number of sourced pop culture items (as with the reasonable allowance of WP:NLIST), or if there is actually significant coverage of "X appears in pop culture" in addition to lists of items, then you've met WP:N. But key is that you start with something that meets WP:V and NOR before that can be considered, hence the need to look at how to judge any individual pop culture entry whether in a section or a standalone list. --Masem (t) 13:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that most sources are doing double or triple duty, and think the concept is debatable, as well as not easily quantifiable. When you consider the fact that all of our primary, and tertiary sources are doing neither of two of the duties you mentioned, and a significant amount of our secondary sources contribute nothing to notability as evidenced by the fact that articles get deleted all the time due to having plenty of secondary sourcing, but none do the duty of contributing to the notability of the article, then it is easy to see that statement is debatable. I pretty much agree with you about the rest of your statement. Huggums537 (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Primary and teriary sources, as long as they are third party works, serve the WP:V aspect. Also keep in mind that notability is more than just have secondary sources, but having significant coverage from secondary sources. --Masem (t) 20:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, and it indeed seems that not everyone here is thinking of the same thing. I pretty much agree with you that POPCULT will measure the appropriateness of each item and source, and that the quantity and quality of these items and sources will determine notability. That some entire articles will get removed is, then, merely due to the lack of adequate sources and items (notability), rather than a direct consequence of POPCULT itself. That's what I meant above when mentioning "notability" and "POPCULT" in the same sentence, which may have been poorly worded and ambiguous. Moon in science fiction is an article that has been reworked into GA-tier prose using POPCULT as a guideline, and it would be silly to argue that the effort was illegitimate because the entire article, as opposed to a mere section, was reworked. Avilich (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• I have read all of your thoughtful comments, and it seems to me that there exists rough consensus that this guideline and MOS:POPCULT do not currently apply to articles and stand-alone lists, due to how the guideline seems to limit itself in writing to sections and in light of the comments brought forward by the writers of MOS:POPCULT. Whether the guideline and MOS:POPCULT ought to apply to stand-alone lists and articles is another question, and there has been a lot more disagreement and discussion about this on both sides. I want to state for the record that I agree that a content guideline should not exist within a MOS guideline; I think editors in this discussion have broadly agreed to that, with quite a few expressing the desire to see some or all of MOS:POPCULT moved elsewhere. Personally, I still find that copypasting MOS:POPCULT elsewhere would be too invasive in its current form and some of the phrasing could even be contradictory (WP:GUIDELINEFORK), especially for its strict requirement to cite everything and to prefer a prose format, but this is not something that is at the moment shared collectively. If there is appetite to move it partially or integrally somewhere else, I am happy to support it just because of the MOS/content guideline distinction and because it may legitimately improve lists and articles that deal with the issue. What I recommend is that we open a subsection in this discussion called Proposals to indentify (1) what we'd like to see preserved, removed, or altered (2) a target to insert this content. This is not an easy task, because we're essentially trying to obtain the best of both worlds and we should strive to remember that perfection should not be the enemy of the good, but I'm confident we'll get somewhere. After we have a few proposals, we could probably engage in an RfC at the chosen target page. Pilaz (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  Personally, I still find that copypasting MOS:POPCULT elsewhere would be too invasive in its current form and some of the phrasing could even be contradictory (WP:GUIDELINEFORK), especially for its strict requirement to cite everything and to prefer a prose format, but this is not something that is at the moment shared collectively. I agree with this and think that the requirement for "significant coverage" for content within articles is also contradictory. When this is broken down to the most basic terms, we end up with simple restrictions being imposed to content within articles based on the fact that they are trivia. However, this same kind of content/trivia could occur on any article, list, or section across 6 million+ pages, yet those basic restrictions being imposed here would never ever pass as a "guiding principle" for adding/removing content/trivia to all of our articles, lists and sections. I'm opposed to adding any restriction for adding/removing content/trivia that has absolutely no support for adding/removing the same content/trivia across the board. Well, someone might argue the pop sections are particularly bad, so they need a special exception, and my reply would be the fact that people are removing whole pop articles even without MOS:POPCULT is proof this is not true and Pilaz has reminded us the WP:GUIDELINEFORK should be discouraged anyway. Huggums537 (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  I would counter that by the same logic, the fact that there is pushback against fixing or removing such articles and that the creation of new such articles ahas not ceased is proof that we do need strict guidance about what kind of sourcing should be required. TompaDompa (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  Well, maybe we do need some guidance about what kind of sourcing is required, but the current restrictions that require "significant coverage" and other issues brought up by Pilaz above, and Michael Maggs elsewhere are not only in conflict with current policy and guideline, but they are actually prevented by our policies and guidelines by virtue of the fact that if we tried to enact them on any other articles our guidelines would prevent it. Heck, if we decided that we wanted to end bad trivia on all our articles using our "strict guidance" right now, we could not do it. We would have to rewrite and eliminate core parts of major guidance before that would be possible. First, we would have to eliminate WP:NNC (and all references to it in the notability guideline), then we would have to rewrite all of our sourcing policies, and make it so that primary sources are no longer allowed on Wikipedia (I mean if we really, really want policy to actually support these restrictions for our articles that have bad trivia...) Until all of that happens, I'm afraid there just isn't any support at all in our guidance for for putting these restrictions in all of our articles to prevent bad trivia, and I think it is a really, really good thing we can't do it, because I sure would hate to think that from now on I would never ever be able to use a primary source again, or that I would have to make sure every sentence I add to Wikipedia is "significant" just because some brilliant people thought that what we needed was more severe restrictions to solve our trivia problems. Huggums537 (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  Also, just to point out the obvious, if these restrictions are not supported by our guidance for use in our articles, then it should be evident that the restrictions simply have no support by our policies and guidelines. Proponents of the restrictions might try to confuse you by saying the "principles" have support, and point to guidance such as DUE or NOT, but don't be fooled. The "principles" and the "restrictions" are two different things, but they will try to mux them together so that the support for the "principles" can be "lent" to the restrictions which actually have no support. However, nobody gives a rat's behind if Jesus himself supports your "principles", or your morals, desires, or anything else extrinsic to the restrictions, even if he has the tablets of Moses in hand. The only thing that counts at the end of the day is what restrictions are being imposed - the actual effect being produced... Huggums537 (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  You are making progress difficult by constantly posting walls of text reiterating your point in ever new ways. Please excuse me for repeating myself just this once: what wording would you like to see? Please don't just say it is wrong: what exactly, in your view, would make it right? If we need a new guideline, how should it be worded? MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think some wording requiring simple verifiable sources is sufficient. When the subject was first brought up at village pump the complaint was that there were a great deal of entries that were completely unsourced. I think that even though we may already have policies in place that pretty much require this, having it set it stone specifically for these sections will be a good tool for elimination of a great deal of the problem without intruding too much on the liberties of other editors who might have a need to make unconventional entries under unusual circumstances. Huggums537 (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  Only requiring "simple verifiable sources" for cultural references means not requiring any sources at all, because the work itself is always a primary source. That wouldn't solve anything at all. TompaDompa (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  I guess I could see that. I'm not really for it, but I suppose I would support requiring secondary sourcing for pop sections as a compromise to solve the problem, but only if such a requirement also made a specific mention that allowed primary sources to be used as long as they are accompanied with the secondary source. I would also want to see any restrictions involving "significant coverage" removed because even though it has been argued this language does not refer to notability, but is a reference to DUE, and NOT; the fact still remains that the language is too iffy. It's not a slam dunk. We should not be incorporating debatable restrictions when the debate is something as important as whether the restrictions violate policy or not. Huggums537 (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  only if such a requirement also made a specific mention that allowed primary sources to be used as long as they are accompanied with the secondary source There is nothing in the current phrasing that even remotely implies that this wouldn't be the case. The current phrasing mandates secondary/tertiary sources and makes no mention of primary sources one way or the other. it has been argued this language does not refer to notability, but is a reference to DUE, and NOT That's WP:PROPORTION, not WP:DUE. TompaDompa (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  The mandate for secondary/tertiary sources is itself the implication that primary sources are not allowed. Again, splitting hairs about which kind of weight is being argued does not change the fact the language is questionable about violating policy. Huggums537 (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  Most editors in this discussion argue that the conclusion of the 2015 RFC, which is where this all started, is too lax not too tight. Requiring nothing more than a verifiable source would make it far easier to add trivial content to cultural/pop lists. I doubt there are many editors who want that. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  See my above comment. I guess I shoulda put it here... Huggums537 (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I feel like it is important for me to make one more point that I have not previously touched upon, and that is these restrictions present to us an extraordinary double standard by virtue of the fact that they want to apply the treatment of policy to trivia in two fold ways depending on where the trivia resides. Our policies say that we should treat trivia in our articles in one way, but these restrictions say our policies treat trivia in our articles much more strictly if they happen to be in pop sections. Either our policies support this kind of treatment for trivia in our articles or they don't. Huggums537 (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

one more point that I have not previously touched upon... Either our policies support this kind of treatment for trivia in our articles or they don't. It's what I've been touching upon from the onset: yes, these 'restrictions' should apply to trivia anywhere, not just to the completely arbitrary limit of sections. Content policies and guidelines are applicable in whatever article or section said content happens to be. Avilich (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I actually agree with you 100% that policies should apply consistently everywhere. But, I disagree the restrictions are supported by policy. I don't think you fully understand the implications of saying, ...yes, these 'restrictions' should apply to trivia anywhere, not just to the completely arbitrary limit of sections. Because, so far what the restrictions tell us about our policies are incorrect things that are not actually supported by our policies (and even go against them), such as primary sources are not allowed. This of course could not possibly be limited to trivia if our policies are supposed to be applied consistently everywhere, so primary sources would not be allowed for anything else listed in NOT, and in fact would have to be applied to any content anyone wanted to add to articles if we wanted our policy to be applied equally consistently. However, there is no consensus for eliminating primary sources from Wikipedia, so these restrictions are simply not supported by policy, and that doesn't even touch on the fact that the restrictions tell us our policies require "significant coverage" from our sources in order for content to be included within articles, but this simply is not true. None of our policies support requiring this, and if it did, we would have to apply it to all content, not just trivia, or one trivia section. Huggums537 (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Because, so far what the restrictions tell us about our policies are incorrect things that are not actually supported by our policies (and even go against them), such as primary sources are not allowed. Where on Earth are you getting the idea that primary sources would be disallowed? TompaDompa (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the mandate for secondary/tertiary sources implies primary sources are not allowed. The fact that you have said primary sources are not mentioned one way or the other is irrelevant since the requirement for secondary sourcing obviates the need for that to be mentioned. Obviously, you could not add an entry using a primary source alone if secondary/tertiary sources are required. Thus primary sources alone are not allowed in pop sections according to what the restrictions say about our policies, nor would they be allowed if the restrictions were expanded to all trivia across Wikipedia, and they would not be allowed if these restrictions were expanded to all of our content according to what the restrictions say our policies are about content in our articles. That is why I say that what these restrictions are saying about our policies is wrong. Huggums537 (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

the mandate for secondary/tertiary sources implies primary sources are not allowed No, it doesn't. It implies that they aren't sufficient, which is completely different. TompaDompa (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• This guideline is no more restrictive than it needs to be, nor are its limitations on primary sources much different from any other area in wikipedia. As a close analogy, articles on biographies and historical events use primary sources only for descriptive and straightforward statements that don't require interpretation. Similarly, cultural items that have received some commentary in secondary sources will have a priority (in terms of inclusion) over those who have not. If these standards did not exist, the "Moon in science fiction" article would still be a bare listing (without any meaningful commentary) of everything down to Call of Duty and Legend of Zelda. Avilich (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  This guideline is no more restrictive than it needs to be, nor are its limitations on primary sources much different from any other area in wikipedia. The fact that you can't add an entry with just a primary source alone is different from most of Wikipedia. As a close analogy, articles on biographies and historical events use primary sources only for descriptive and straightforward statements that don't require interpretation. This statement is proof that our policies treat primary sources differently in other areas of Wikipedia than what these restrictions say our policies should treat trivia. Huggums537 (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Huggums537: What are you getting at? What is it you want? What are you proposing? TompaDompa (talk) 08:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  I've mentioned it tons of times. We need to remove the language and restrictions related to "significant coverage" since it is too questionable about if it could be interpreted as being related to notability or not. Huggums537 (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  If the sole objection you have is that it might be confused with the meaning of "significant coverage" in WP:Notability, that's a trivial fix: replace the sole instance of "significant coverage" with "in-depth coverage". TompaDompa (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  The "trivial fix" that has been made is a start, but doesn't even begin to come close to covering my objections to these restrictions. In order to understand my full objections, I would have to explain how I realize there are a group of people who don't like pop sections or pop articles due to them attracting unwanted trivia, and I'm just fine with people destroying (AKA deleting) said articles or sections through proper AfC or RfC discussions if so many people don't like them because of bad trivia. This is the proper way to destroy this stuff if you don't like it. However, what I am not ok with is inventing rules that conflict with other guidance designed for the destruction of sections because those same rules can then be used as setting a precedent for the destruction of other sections simply because someone says WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is not the proper way to get rid of the bad stuff and this type of rule setting sets Wikipedia itself up for destruction as a whole eventually. Huggums537 (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  What are you talking about? Where are you getting the idea that this is about destroying (AKA deleting) articles? I've presented quite a few examples of where applying this standard has instead resulted in articles being rewritten at a higher quality and thus not being deleted (see WP:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction, and WP:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction). The point is not getting rid of the articles, the point is improving the content. For that matter, where are you getting the idea that this somehow violates existing policies/guidelines? TompaDompa (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  First of all, congratulations on finding successes at improving articles. This is always welcome, and needed. However, I get the idea about this being way more about the destruction of articles based upon pure logic. Much earlier in the discussion Pilaz stated; There's a reason why 700+ of "popular culture"-related articles have been nominated for deletion at AfD over the years. My reasoning for holding my position is that there are a great many times more numerous examples of the wanted destruction of these articles than examples of the wanted improvement, therefore the idea that we somehow need such guidance for the improvement of these articles is exceptionally faulty reasoning. As for the idea of how it violates policy, I have explained that to death in various places, so if you don't mind I will take MichaelMaggs advice, and give that part a rest. Huggums537 (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  I guess it's not fair to say that idea is faulty without explaining why. The information I have so far shows a disturbing trend (in both practice, and policy proposals) for a far much greater leaning towards the destruction of articles, than the improvement of them. The problem with this is that as Wikipedians, it should be one of our primary responsibilities to lean more towards policies and practices that support the improvement of articles over the destruction of them. We are losing tons and tons more articles than we are improving under the current regime. Obviously, what we are doing, what we currently have, and are continuing to do all in the name of "improving articles" is not working, and is actually having the opposite effect. We need to take a much closer look at what is happening with our current practices, as well as guidance, and examine the effects more carefully. Huggums537 (talk) 10:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  It appears to me that the tighter grip of control the current regime wishes to be holding by placing ever more increasing restrictions only results in the community not having any control in their grasp, but rather more neglected articles oozing through their fingers in alarming numbers, culminating in an ever widening gap between the destroyed articles, and improved ones... Huggums537 (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposals

Since several proposals have emerged, and to make the discussion move forward, I've opened this section to make them easier to scrutinize. Feel free to add your own. Discussion can of course continue in the section above or within the proposals. Pilaz (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @TompaDompa: @DanFromAnotherPlace:, @Rhododendrites:, @SMcCandlish:, @MichaelMaggs:, @Huggums537:, @Masem:, @Avilich: thank you for your continued participation.

Proposed timeline by Pilaz

1. Discuss and agree on which parts of this guideline may be moved;
2. Identify one or more candidates where the parts of the guideline selected can be moved;
3. Start a RfC at the target location or a Village pump discussion;
4. After the RfC/Village pump discussion has closed and parts of this guideline have been moved, remove unnecessary duplication and work towards making WP:Manual of Style/Trivia sections more like a style guideline than a content guideline.

• Support as proponent of the timeline. Pilaz (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support some kind of formal process. This seems as good as any. Huggums537 (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Simply moving parts of the guideline, as proposed here, won't help much. And redrafting will require a level of constructive collaboration which is currently lacking. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. I have considerable experience doing such MoS cleanup. What usually happens is that much of it can merge out to sections at other MoS pages that already have strong consensus, and what remains will be a mix of style guidance that is pertinent, and claptrap that can be removed (typically non-style claptrap that conflicts with extant policy).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support with the commonsense stipulation that a popular culture entry which already has a linked Wikipedia page which includes reputable sources doesn't need an in-line source. Many lists consist of a large number of items (see List of single-artist museums as an example) where WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IGNOREALLRULES would apply that the links already provide the cites. There are a limited number of Wikipedia editors, and that number is declining, who are willing to do the extra layer of source work when entries are already obviously sourced a click away. At this point in Wikipedia's history Commonsense should prevail on these already obviously sourced entries, a commonsense viewpoint which has been in use for decades. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  Concur with Randy Kryn on that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Not everyone here is even on the same page, and people are discussing or thinking different things. This started out as a concern about a mostly technical difference between sections and full articles, but then people started talking about notability in a way that was very impertinent, and now there's someone proposing that restrictions on primary sources be relaxed altogether. If participants here can't even agree on what is being discussed, a RfC will be a waste of time or counterproductive. Avilich (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment This isn't much of a proposal to have an opinion on one way or the other when the first step (agreeing on which parts of this guideline may be moved) is kind of missing so far. As Avilich noted, people are discussing vastly separate things here. The initial question was simply whether the guideline applies to both articles and sections or only sections. Later, the discussion has touched upon whether the contents of the guideline should be moved elsewhere so as not to mix guidance about style and guidance about content. The discussion has also touched upon altering the contents of the guideline entirely. The applicability, placement, and contents of the guideline are three separate issues that need to be discussed separately. The first and especially second of these can (at least in theory) be fairly simple to resolve. The third is a much different story. For the record, my positions are respectively that the applicability should include articles, that the current placement is okay but that WP:NOT might be more appropriate, and that the content (specifically the 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. [...] Consensus at the article level can determine whether particular references which meet this criteria should be included. part) is good and serves to improve the quality of our articles on this subject. I note that the discussion has been listed at WP:ANRFC but I don't know that the discussion has really been focused enough to result in much of a consensus on any particulars. TompaDompa (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The sourcing policy we should be following is already outlined here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction#Sources_of_information. See the below Talk topic for more details. Basically, what this policy is suggesting directly contradicts the requirements for sourcing outlined in "Writing about fiction" and would have us require secondary and tertiary sources for easily verifiable plot and background details. The policy for what we should include in these sections should NOT be dependent on the content of the source itself, which seems to be what the proponents are suggesting. It should be a simple set of internal guidelines for what kind of information is considered trivial and what would be significant. The source should only be used to verify the information we add is true and not a subject to determine relevance. Aberration (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

  @AberrationForced, this could be a possible way forward to get the changes you seek. Huggums537 (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Possible way forward

So there's agreement that this style page is not the ideal place for a content guideline, but no-one has yet suggested a better place to move it to. I can't think of a good place either. We also have the problem that this conversation is unlikely to get anywhere without wider input, but we can't solicit wider input until we've decided what the question is. I think the way out of this deadlock is to move the conversation to the Village Pump idea lab, so we can get more people involved without having to make a formal proposal.

But we'd still need an "idea" to bring to the idea lab, so I suggest reviving SMcCandlish's 2015 proposal to "develop a content guideline on encyclopedic relevance" based on the essays WP:HTRIV and WP:IPC. This proposal didn't get a lot of attention at the time, possibly because of the amount of work it would involve; but if the community wants a pop culture content guideline, I think creating a new page is the only way to go about it, and this seems like a sensible approach. (I personally don't think we need a pop culture content guideline, so I wouldn't be prepared to take the lead on this. I just want to get this style guideline back the way it was.) Dan from A.P. (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support. I think that from this discussion there's appetite to have a content guideline for "in popular culture" articles, and I don't see anything wrong with coming up with a proposal (I also don't want to take the lead on this, but I am happy to contribute). I think a content guideline would resolve the issues that have been discussed above: sourcing (individual/section/as a whole), prose vs list format, finding a common ground on what constitutes "popular culture", etc. Personally, I also think we need a real MOS:POPCULTURE in a separate MOS page that tries to give some order to the remaining 328 "in popular culture" pages (out of 821; 493 are currently redirects). It boggles my mind to have that many pages and no real order in which to arrange sections, for example. Just look at how different Che Guevara in popular culture, Frankenstein in popular culture, and Japanese mythology in popular culture are. Pilaz (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I don't know that it's entirely accurate to say that no-one has yet suggested a better place to move it to; I suggested WP:NOT in early January. The most logical place there would to me seem to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. One could simply add a bullet point there stating that Wikipedia articles should not be Lists of popular culture references or appearances., and copy the contents from here in the way I suggested back in January.
  In response to the suggestion immediately above that we create a guideline to standardize the layout of "in popular culture" articles, I must say that I find that to be a bad idea. There is no reason to assume that a "one size fits all" approach would be the best way to go about it. For some subjects, dividing the article into sections by medium might make the most sense. For other topics, it might make more sense to do it chronologically. For others still, the most appropriate way could be by theme/aspect/whatever. In some cases, it might be best to use a combination of some kind. This should be assessed for each article individually. TompaDompa (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• This has clearly completely stalled out. We could either try to re-develop a content guideline on encyclopedic relevance, as suggested in this sub-thread, or propose (at WT:NOT) merging some of MOS:POPCULT into WP:NOT#INDICRIMINATE as suggested in the sub-thread above, or even both, but neither has happened, and it takes work to do either of these. I'm not presently wanting to take on either, at least not in the absence of continued interest in seeing any action on this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Haven't participated in guidance discussions in a long time, but got alerted to this old discussion and like the idea even though it prolly is stalled out. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Change to article lead

I just made a change to the lead section, which now says: "It was once common practice on Wikipedia for articles to include lists of isolated information, which were often grouped into their own section. These sections were typically given names such as "Trivia", "Facts", "Miscellanea", "Other information" and "Notes" (not to be confused with "Notes" sections that store reference citation footnotes). For an example of this practice, see the John Lennon trivia section from December 10 2005." It has been my experience that a lot of people cite this policy to argue about what information should appear on Wikipedia, which this page clearly states it is not. I thought it would improve clarity, to rearrange and give the lead section a bit of a past tense feel. This policy was made back around 2007 iirc because Trivia sections were very common on Wikipedia (you could even say it was plagued by them). Now, these sections have largely been removed and are very rare. I hope this improves the policy but welcome comments.Mozzie (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

"In popular culture" policy completely misses its own point

This policy definitely needs some reworking. It mentions the point of having these restrictions is to not include trivial references within these sections, but the method for identifying whether something is trivial here is completely ineffective. Why would a Bon Appetit article mentioning the bone broth in The Mandalorian make it either a trivial or significant reference for bone broth itself? If a trusted source that goes in-depth about trees mentioned that a tree appears in The Avengers, would we include that "a tree appears in The Avengers" on the Tree page's "In popular culture" section?. Bon Appetit could easily make a list of every time "bone broth" has been uttered in a movie or TV show, too. The point here is to identify whether the subject of the reference has a noteworthy impact within the pop-culture object itself, not whether the source we are referencing goes in-depth about the subject in matters unrelated to the pop-culture object. Also, the point of a source is to verify that certain information can be trusted; we cannot use a source to determine whether a certain reference is noteworthy or not, which this policy seems to encourage us to do. Aberration (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The point here is to identify whether the subject of the reference has a noteworthy impact within the pop-culture object itself, not whether the source we are referencing goes in-depth about the subject in matters unrelated to the pop-culture object.
I think you have this backwards, or at least orthogonal. If a specific pop culture referent is important to the universe it appears in, that can be described in the article about the universe making the reference. The universe doesn't get tacked on to the article about the referent.

To use your example, if the Flatwoods monster, or some reimagining of it, is so important to Yu-Gi-Oh, then the article about the specific franchise instalment where it is a recurring character can get a line or table entry about the Flatwoods monster, not the other way round. Folly Mox (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

But all the current examples of the Flatwoods monster are simply referencing the universes in which it appears, as does every single "Pop culture" section I've come across. This isn't just about the Flatwoods thing too. My problem with this policy is it's trying to use sources to demonstrate cultural significance, but a topic such as this amounts to a list of appearances in fictional and cultural media. There is no depth of cultural significance you can extract from this -- none of the articles linked even demonstrate such a depth other than mentioning appearances as we do. As a reader who wants to verify this information, I am more interested that the source leads me to an official source (if possible) that confirms the appearance actually exists. A policy about what should be included in this section should not rely on using our source link implementation for that. Aberration (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Another fault of this approach is that it means a subject that has appeared in exactly one movie but has had 1000 articles written about it has had more cultural impact over a subject that has appeared in 100,000 movies but has no articles written about it. It conflates the popularity of the fictional media or the source we use for it vs. the popularity of the subject itself. Aberration (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I find your objections confusingly presented. The idea is, to include something about Subject B in an article on Subject A, the source cited must be a reliable source for Subject A, and needs to go into some depth about Subject A (in addition to, of course, talking about Subject B). Using the bone broth example: to include something about the Mandalorian in an article about bone broth, the source cited must be a reliable source for bone broth, and needs to go into some depth about bone broth (in addition to, of course, talking about the Mandalorian). This is a minimum requirement, of course. There's still WP:WEIGHT, etc. to consider. If you think this is unclear or undesirable, what would you propose? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. The main benefit of MOS:POPCULT is having something to point to without having to explain WP:PROPORTION from scratch every single time. In general, an article on X should be based on sources on X. If you want to mention Y in an article about X, it is not enough for sources on Y to mention X—sources on X need to mention Y. This is just one particular application of that general principle. TompaDompa (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I find the need for the source to go in-depth about Subject A unnecessary. What requirement is that fulfilling for us? It actually prevents us from ever using an official source about Subject B. I think this would be a good requirement only if the soup in The Mandalorian wasn't identified within the show itself, and thus the expert opinion of someone knowledgeable about Subject A would become relevant. But if it's already confirmed to be bone broth within the show itself, I don't see how their additional information on bone broth is useful for the fact bone broth appeared in The Mandalorian—which is the information we want sourced. Aberration (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It actually prevents us from ever using an official source about Subject B. – Yes, that's the point. Or more accurately, it prevents us from using such a source in isolation. An article on Subject A shouldn't be built upon a foundation of sources on Subject B. Per WP:PROPORTION: An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.—"on the subject" is key there. TompaDompa (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe that policy is missing the forest for the trees in a case like this. It seems to only be relevant within the context of real-life events; I don't see how you can extend it to documenting fictional information. Ultimately, the question is whether we are providing true and reliable information. For fictional events, we do not need to care about some vague nuances about whether there's due or undue weight to certain subjects. Fictional events can be absolutely confirmed to be true by an official source regardless of the weight they place on their subjects. Aberration (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not in the business of deciding what aspects are relevant to include, we leave that to the sources. It sounds like what you're looking for is more akin to TV Tropes or Fandom. TompaDompa (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, we are talking about a policy we have specifically chosen to follow, which from what I've gathered in this convo, doesn't consider the differences between documenting real-life events and documenting fictional information.

> All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

I'm also confused by this part. If there are no alternative views on the matter, like I believe it is in most pop-culture info cases, shouldn't that policy automatically become irrelevant for this case? Aberration (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the coverage found in the sources. The relative weight given to different aspects is part of that. If our articles give a lot of weight to an aspect the sources don't, we aren't properly reflecting the coverage in the sources. This applies to coverage of fiction as well as real-life subjects. TompaDompa (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you point to an example of fiction properly being sourced this way? I have never seen such a thing. Aberration (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure. See e.g. Sun in fiction. That's an article on a subject (the Sun) appearing in fiction, where the relative weight of different aspects is determined by coverage in sources on the overarching topic—Sun in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

> Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.

Also, I think you're misusing "aspect" here. Like I said, there is no reliable source that states bone broth did NOT appear in The Mandalorian or that the Flatwoods monster did not appear in Yu-Gi-Oh!. You seem to be using it to refer to the subjects of the sourced article, but this is not what that term refers to in that policy. Aberration (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

"Aspect 1 is worth mentioning, but aspect 2 is not" is a viewpoint, including when it comes to fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

But there is no aspect 2 here. Aberration (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're trying to get at with that comment. What aspects sources choose to discuss is an expression of their viewpoint that those aspects are worth mentioning. That's really all you need to understand (or accept without understanding). TompaDompa (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

And I still think you don't understand what an "aspect" is for that policy. It only comes into play when there are alternative viewpoints held by reliable sources. Aberration (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. Read WP:PROPORTION again. TompaDompa (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't really explain the definition.

> Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.

This is what I'm basing my conclusions on. The widely held view is that bone broth appeared in The Mandalorian. Both Bon Appetit and an official source for The Mandalorian would hold this view. And not a single reliable source holds the view that it doesn't. PROPORTION here would be a case if we gave more sources for articles that hold the opinion that bone broth does not appear in the series as opposed to ones that hold the widely held belief that it does. I honestly don't see why you even brought up PROPORTION here. Aberration (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You are conflating relevance and veracity. Something being true doesn't make it relevant (and thus appropriate for inclusion). I suggest WP:NOT as further reading about Wikipedia not striving to include all true information—in particular WP:NOTEVERYTHING, which says Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. TompaDompa (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

But this information is appropriate to be included. The question is only what source should be used. We are discussing the example provided in this policy and and example that got removed due to a user who believed the source was inadequate, not the information. Aberration (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You say it's appropriate. But what determines if some piece of information is appropriate to be included isn't your opinion, or mine, or any other editor's, but rather the coverage found in the sources. TompaDompa (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The coverage is appropriate here, as both sources confirm the same information. One is even better, since it's an official source. Aberration (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You're back to arguing that the information is correct. That's unrelated to whether it's relevant. You should also probably read up on what kinds of sources are considered ideal on Wikipedia. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The information is relevant 'cuz it's used in the example in this policy. It would be worded the same with either source used. This discussion is exclusively about which source should be preferred, and your argument that the source retroactively determines whether the information is relevant or not (in a vacuum) seems ludicrous to me. I understand that we obviously can't include unsourced information, but whether the information we are talking about is relevant or not is not part of the discussion. It already hypothetically is since, again, it's included in this policy's examples. Aberration (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

In general, what determines if information is relevant to be included in an article is what coverage that information gets in sources on the topic of the article at hand. That's a very fundamental part of how Wikipedia works. TompaDompa (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

But doesn't that make only articles as viable sources? Official sources aren't articles, so they don't have the concept of "coverage" to them. This seems like a pretty arbitrary restriction for something we don't have a use for in cases like these.

The policy we should be following is already outlined here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction#Sources_of_information. It says "background information on fictional creatures" are appropriately sourced through a primary source. POPCULT is currently worded to prefer secondary and tertiary sources for background information and plot details, which contradicts our already existing "Writing about fiction" policy. Aberration (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

But doesn't that make only articles as viable sources? No, it doesn't mean that at all. Books (e.g. The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy) can be perfectly serviceable sources, even ideal sometimes.
Official sources aren't articles, so they don't have the concept of "coverage" to them. – I have no idea what you're trying to say here. It's borderline nonsensical.
On MOS:WAF, you're confusing being a WP:Reliable source in terms of the information being correct with establishing relevance, which is a completely orthogonal aspect. I think AndyTheGrump explained it rather neatly to you at WP:RSN#Independence of source: Inclusion of 'popular culture' content in contexts like this requires an independent source to demonstrate significance - to show that uninvolved commentators care enough about the connection to consider it worth writing about.
POPCULT is currently worded to prefer secondary and tertiary sources for background information and plot details, which contradicts our already existing "Writing about fiction" policy. – No, that's not right either. MOS:POPCULT not even about "background information and plot details", it's about references to one thing appearing in another.
I can only echo AndyTheGrump's sentiment from the above-linked WP:RSN thread: I'd strongly recommend that before you start griping about Wikipedia policy on sourcing you take the time to actually read it. TompaDompa (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I would say significance in this case is established through the fact the pop-culture reference was made in the first place, not the fact an uninvolved commentator pointed out the reference. That's basically my whole problem with this policy. We could easily have an uninvolved commentator or some epic tree encyclopedia point out that a tree appeared in The Avengers, and that would still count as trivial information, regardless of what kind of in-depth article that information came from. Clearly, this is not something we can deduce from the content of the source, like you're suggesting. It is also in conflict with WP:Relevance to suggest that the same information can be relevant or not relevant dependent on its source.

The pop-culture references we include are simply background details on fictional characters. This is also how an uninvolved commentator would write about them.

My point about "coverage" is that it is insignificant to the subject at hand and seems to have been arbitrarily decided on for no apparent reason. We do not see benefit from sourcing information on sci-fi series from The Greenwood Encyclopedia rather than, for example, an official source on Star Trek. Aberration (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I would say significance in this case is established through the fact the pop-culture reference was made in the first place – I'm sure you would say that, but that makes no difference for Wikipedia's purposes. What matters for our purposes is what reliable sources deem relevant.
We do not see benefit from sourcing information on sci-fi series from The Greenwood Encyclopedia rather than, for example, an official source on Star Trek. – You are entitled to your opinion about what the best way to construct an encyclopaedia is, but this runs counter to the core fundamentals of how Wikipedia works. If Wikipedia worked the way you want it to, it would be a secondary source. But it's not, and it's not intended to be—Wikipedia is by design a tertiary source. You don't have to like or agree with that approach to writing an encyclopaedia, but it behooves you to abide by it.
The pop-culture references we include are simply background details on fictional characters. – No, that's complete nonsense. "Frodo Baggins' parents died when he was twelve" is (in-universe) background information on a fictional character. "Frodo Baggins was named Bingo in the earliest drafts" might be called real-life background on a fictional character. "Psylla frodobagginsi is named after Frodo Baggins" is a reference to a fictional character. Of those three, only the first is what WP:WAF is talking about in the passage you referred to above. TompaDompa (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, this has not been decided yet, as the discussion is still open in one the above topics, so my opinion is just as valid as yours, and I believe you are misinterpreting Wikipedia's policies, not that I'm particularly suggesting we go against them. In my view, my opinion is covered by our "How to write fiction" and "What Wikipedia is not" policies, and you're the one suggesting something that goes against them.

The "Psylla frodobagginsi" point is not the same thing. That is an example of a fictional object influencing real life, not the other way around. My point is that pop-culture sections almost exclusively contain information like the very first Frodo example you brought up. Aberration (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's WP:Core content policies do not get suspended when the topic at hand is fiction. Your viewpoint amounts to arguing that they should be—that inclusion should be based on primary sources and Wikipedia become a secondary source. If you want to bring about that change, this is not the venue.

My point is that pop-culture sections almost exclusively contain information like the very first Frodo example you brought up. – What on Earth are you on about? Pop-culture sections contain information like "Frodo Baggins' parents died when he was twelve"? What pop-culture section would that be on, hypothetically? TompaDompa (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, not that example obviously. But something like, "Frodo Baggins lives in a hut." on the "Huts in popular culture" section.

Like I said, your assertion that inclusion is not based on primary sources in certain cases is wrong. The "writing fiction" policy already covers that it is correct for fictional background information. Aberration (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

If sources on huts (in popular culture) mention Frodo Baggins living in one, that's perfectly reasonable to include. That would make it an aspect that sources on the topic at hand deem relevant to mention. Including it would reflect the coverage in sources on the topic.

Surely you understand that WP:Writing about fiction is about fiction articles? You don't use it for writing about fiction on completely different articles. TompaDompa (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that using the primary source for Lord of The Rings would be enough. "Writing about fiction" is about any topic related to fiction, which obviously would include Pop culture. Aberration (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Right, you're saying that using the primary source would be enough. MOS:POPCULT explicitly says it isn't. This is the same approach as taken to non-fiction topics—articles should reflect secondary sources. You would have us turning Wikipedia into a secondary source. TompaDompa (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and that contradicts the "Writing about fiction" policy, which says certain topics related to fiction should reflect primary sources. Wikipedia is indeed a secondary source for certain fictional topics, already. Aberration (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

You can use primary sources for writing about in-universe details that are plainly evident from the source material in articles about fiction or fictional elements. They are not to be used for justifying inclusion of dubiously-relevant information on fiction-adjacent articles; that's just misapplying WP:WAF. You would have Wikipedia turning into TV Tropes. TompaDompa (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

"In popular culture" is not a fiction-adjacent article. It is an article specifically about fiction. Aberration (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

X in fiction/popular culture/whatever is fiction-adjacent in the sense that it is not about any specific piece of fiction, which is the relevant point here. The same thing applies to e.g. Western (genre), which likewise is not to be based on primary sources. TompaDompa (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I might point out that WP:Relevance is an essay, but a more pertinent point is that it's talking about relevance from a perspective that is orthogonal to the one under discussion here. If an aspect is relevant, that will be demonstrated by reliable independent sources discussing it. TompaDompa (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

And which policy did you derive that from? That is the only topic on how to determine relevance that I could find. (And please do not link WP:Proportion again, 'cuz that one's only relevant when there are alternative views supported by many reliable sources.) Aberration (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

You do not have a correct understanding of WP:PROPORTION. It is not about alternative views in that sense; that would be WP:DUE. WP:PROPORTION says For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. That's about different aspects, not contradictory viewpoints. TompaDompa (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

> Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.

This is the leading header in the Balance section. It clearly only applies in the case of contradicting viewpoints. And again, you are misunderstanding what an aspect is. The case we are talking about has only one aspect -- in the bone broth example, the aspect is bone broth being something Baby Yoda drinks. Aberration (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I daresay the quoted passage from WP:PROPORTION is completely nonsensical when viewed from your perspective of what "aspect" means. And again, "X is worth mentioning" is a viewpoint, even if it is an implicit one. TompaDompa (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I am honestly entirely confused by what you mean with this. In the bone broth example, what is the "X" in your example? Aberration (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Bone broth being drunk by Baby Yoda in The Mandalorian. TompaDompa (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

And I don't see what the conflict is here with what I'm saying, honestly. My suggestion would be, for example, linking to an official source that confirms Baby Yoda drinks bone broth, even if it doesn't go in-depth on bone broth itself. Aberration (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

That would mean determining whether something should be included based on an evaluation of non-independent sources. It would not reflect the relative weight given to different aspects by sources on the topic of the article at hand—bone broth. You would have us turning Wikipedia into a secondary source. TompaDompa (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

No, you're again misusing the term "weight", as it's only appropriate when there are alternative views. "Weight" does not apply to topic relevance, which this discussion is about. Wikipedia is already a secondary source for certain fictional topics, as outlined in the "Writing about fiction" policy. Aberration (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, the exact opposite. I'm saying that determining whether something is relevant should not be based on an evaluation of any kind of source, independent or not. The source's only use should be verification in a case like this. We should have a specific policy that provides examples of what kind of information is relevant for these sections, before we think about which source we should use for it. That is the principle of WP:Relevance and WP:NOT as well. Aberration (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

"Weight" certainly applies to the amount of space devoted to different aspects. If the article on Carrie Fisher had three times the word count in the "Early life" section as in the "Career" section, that would be a clear example of improper weighting of different aspects.

We should have a specific policy that provides examples of what kind of information is relevant for these sections – that would still necessitate editors evaluating the information contained in the sources to determine whether it meets those criteria. And it would be a terrible instance of WP:Instruction creep.

There is no need to reinvent the wheel here; how to write quality articles (or sections) on X in fiction/popular culture/whatever is a solved problem, and it has been for a decade and a half. You can read the 2008 essay WP:CARGO, but the main takeaway is to locate secondary sources that analyse the overarching topic and use those to construct the article, including their analysis and perhaps some examples to illustrate the analysis. The above-mentioned Sun in fiction is an example of an article constructed using this approach. TompaDompa (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

This thread is TL;DR for me, but even if there have been 10,000 films and books featuring characters who are teachers and that have all had reviews and analyses written about them that mention that the character is a teacher, I still wouldn't expect to see an "In popular culture" section at Teacher listing all of those 10,000 films and books.

Maybe this scenario is ridiculous and not comparable to, say, bone broth, because teachers are everywhere and everyone knows what a teacher is, while bone broth is more, perhaps, esoteric, and editors might have more of a sense of "We need to show how significant this is". That amounts to insisting on it, and I'd say that isn't Wikipedia's job to insist or persuade. Or maybe it's a matter of showing how clever we are that we found that such-and-such is actually mentioned in such-and-such places, and how cool is that? That isn't appropriate here.

The sort of situation that caused me most recently to ponder on this was my discovery of an "In popular culture" section in Martinique, (PS: which TompaDompa has, since I wrote this, pared way down) in which two entries are:

• In the lyrics of Irving Berlin's 1933 song Heat Wave, the dancer referred to by the title "came from the island of Martinique".
• In the 1950 Warner Bros. Looney Tunes cartoon 8 Ball Bunny, Bugs Bunny sings about landing on the island of Martinique while Playboy Penguin carves a dugout canoe.

Imagine if there were a similar section in United States, with similar entries. Largoplazo (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, that is my point. We need a policy that doesn't rely on the content of the source to determine relevance. Aberration (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

This is long, but I'll echo what TompaDompa said. Coverage in reliable third party sources is a minimum requirement. If it's not covered anywhere, then there's no way to verify it, and it should not be included. That said, Largoplazo gives a good explanation for why the minimum is still WP:INDISCRIMINATE, just using teachers as an example. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mainstream films with skiing scenes is another textbook example. Reading our policies together, it's safe to say that we would need some real depth of coverage, and not merely a mention, in the interest of WP:WEIGHT and WP:PROPORTION. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Why are people bringing up those policies when they're only relevant for when there are reliably sourced alternative viewpoints? I think people misunderstanding those policies is what has caused the current POPCULT policy to miss its own point.

The only related essays for this policy are WP:Relevance and WP:NOT. Relevance is not at all related to neutrality, which is what WEIGHT and PROPORTION care about. Aberration (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I would humbly submit that if it seems like everyone else has misunderstood something, the explanation might be that you have. TompaDompa (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• The very fact the page states "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information" seems to mostly defeat the effort of having a whole intricate section dealing with what information can be included or excluded, by relegating the whole section to the rank of a mere recommendation that thus cannot be enforced... Veverve (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Bone broth in popular culture

Now the example given on this page no longer is vaporware. Go have a look: Stock_(food)#In_popular_culture Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

And I see that it was reverted by @Oknazevad as "the definition of a meaningless and irrelevant trivia item". I'm not going to edit the article, given that so many people seem to have such strong views, but I would submit that a stronger example is required.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Content dispute at Valley View Center

Your input would be appreciated at Talk:Valley View Center#The “In Popular Culture” section should stay. Thank you. --Magnolia677 (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Mixed message

"Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information." "Lists of miscellaneous information can be useful for developing a new article". That's a mixed message. We can preserve the advice on what to do if a trivia section already exists without saying anything that might encourage the creation of such a section. This was my attempt, but it was reverted. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we should avoid unintentionally encouraging the creation of trivia lists/sections. TompaDompa (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree too, but I'd keep "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information" right at the top, rather than presenting the history first as you proposed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

There's also of course a direct conflict between "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information" and the last section, which does that very thing. But that's another discussion. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The obvious solution would be to remove the "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information" passage as plainly incorrect. TompaDompa (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it's plainly incorrect. Or at best, this guideline is silent on what to include/exclude because we have WP:NOT. I agree with TompaDompa's suggestion. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I think MOS:PopCult sets the standard for inclusion quite well. A pop culture section (which is sometimes called a trivia section) is justified so long as its entries adheres to those standards -- that is, they are actually, in depth, and/or in a key relevant manner, about the article subject. "Miscellaneous information" is not that.

Perhaps we should just rename all trivia sections to "in popular culture", and strengthen the guideline here so that MOS:POPCULT is at the top (positive rule), while a stronger MOS:TRIVIA guideline -- that miscellania is simply not allowed (negative rule) -- be a subsection SamuelRiv (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Given that there seems to be agreement above that the idea behind it was good, I have partially restored the WP:BOLD edit. Feel free to tweak it further. TompaDompa (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I made some tweaks myself. I'm trying to operate within the consensus, so feel free to tweak any words that feel inaccurate. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I made this edit partly because it seemed like reliability was overemphasized. If something is dubious, then we should find a valid source or remove it, but this page is not principally about that. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This edit by 183.89.250.246 was reverted by Moxy, the reason given being Just messed up in coming links...... pages of this nature should be edit confirmed. I am not sure what is meant by that first part; as far as I can tell there are no redirects to the section that was removed (and even if there were, anyone clicking such a link would still get to the same page even if not to that section). If the issue is purely procedural that an IP editor edited the WP:MOS, I should think that the clearly outlined reasoning behind the edit and the demonstrated willingness to discuss their edits in good faith here on the talk page should outweigh those concerns. The edit was, to my eye, a clear improvement. TompaDompa (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Discovered the page change by following a link to a section that didn't exist anymore. Have posted a request for more input.... we have a nice amount of reverts and unreverts and reverts again. Should have more\other experience editors involved here. "editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards". Moxy🍁 02:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Which edits violated 1RR or ORR? What I'm seeing is editors making changes after collaborative discussion on the talk page, and two reverts without edit summaries by editors uninvolved in that discussion.

In any event, I agree with TompaDompa that the changes are an improvement. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree, too. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Need more input clearly. Mass change by a few needs a review. Moxy🍁 03:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy, I have two questions:

1. Where did you encounter the incoming link?
2. Do you object to the change itself, or just to the fact that the incoming link didn't work? (The latter could be fixed with an {{anchor}} template, but if you think this guideline needs one of the removed sentences, then that requires a different discussion.)

WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello ...from a talk page. That said have no clue about the mass change over the past months. Only thing I can see is that editors linking here saying the MoS NOW allows junk lists. Moxy🍁 16:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like some editors have fundamentally misunderstood. Could you provide details of where you saw those links, please? Which talk page? MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

That's precisely the opposite of what this discussion concluded and what the new version said. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The edit was reinstated by the IP editor based on this discussion, which was then reverted by Randy Kryn with the reason given being the wording implies that deleting the section is the default edit while the paragraph is clearer. I tried rephrasing it a bit further while removing the mixed message that was correctly identified by the IP editor. It could probably be tweaked and improved further. TompaDompa (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like an improvement to me. We should make suggestions about how to handle existing trivia sections, which generally is to move the content and then delete the section. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Between these two versions, I still think the first is better. The intro already states twice (beginning of each paragraph) that trivia sections should be avoided, so there's no need to immediately say that again. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I would also be fine with a version that omits that particular "Trivia sections should be avoided" and just goes right into "If a trivia section already exists ...". It's the removal of "Simply deleting ..." that I most strongly support. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I have no particular attachment to that "Trivia sections should be avoided" and agree that removing the "Simply deleting ..." part is a good thing. I'll note that Randy Kryn just added a similar "Trivia sections should not simply be removed from articles in all cases." with the edit reason stating added back a sentence and this section seems to have been heavily edited and major wording removed. Please return the data, trivia sections are seen of great value by some editors and this article seems to have been taken over by dletionists; I think this is a step in the wrong direction. I think the above suggestion to start the paragraph with "If a trivia section already exists" is a good one. TompaDompa (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. Simply deleting a trivia section is not always the best course of action was, ironically enough, my attempt to merge something from a mostly redundant section that I had previously tried to delete outright. The whole page seemed to have a fair amount of redundancy and disjointedness, as well as contradictions. Anything we re-add should be non-redundant and logically presented. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

That helps. I find that the lead feels unclear and uses language more appropriate for an essay. I made a revision to use more guideline-based language, referring to the body of this guideline (e.g.: "MOS:POPCULT"). Shooterwalker (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Having been eying this, and agree that the IP changes are more concise without losing the spirit of the section. Only thing I would add is that proseification, if possible, is also a way of improving a trivia section. — Masem (t) 14:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I inserted a reference to prose and MOS:PROSE in the lead. If someone wanted to make it more clear and prominent I would support that. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Hatnotes

The hatnotes at the top seem a bit unwieldy. The second one seems reasonable, but the first could be shortened or removed. The first three pages are all linked below, and the other two probably could be. Not a big deal, but this seems like another instance of clutter. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure which page you're talking about. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections (which does have two long hatnotes), or another page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that one. Someone who goes to WP:TRIVIA might possibly have had a different page in mind, but still something closely related to this topic. 183.89.250.246 (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

We may have lost a bit in the clean-up. But on the whole it is easier to read and covers basically the same material. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)