Will "In Popular Culture" be deprecated?

[Ming]

Find out here.

Consensus thus far seems to be to keep the wretched things but call them something less "classist".

[AndyTheGrump]

Rename them 'collection of random bollocks someone with no life cares about'.

[Zoloft]

"Fancruft" is good.

[Poetlister]

Much of it is unsourced and should be removed unless a reliable source can be found.

As the saying goes, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Give him Wikipedia and he will have a list of references to fish in Family Guy."

[LargelyRecyclable]

This is one of those things where the shrinking and often unreasonably self-important class of people who actually edit and maintain Wikipedia frequently diverge from the desires of its actual readership. I know editors think Wikipedia is serious business, but the reality is that it's supposed to be written for a general readership, and the general readership comes to Wikipedia wanting to know which Marvel movies Norse mythological figures have appeared in. In the end, it's a question of what people actually want to know, and that's how it should be.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Find out here.

Consensus thus far seems to be to keep the wretched things but call them something less "classist".

Couldn't it be replaced with a mandatory list of Simpson's episodes which reference the article topic, like an infobox?

[Beeblebrox]

I hate these sections, but I think we're stuck with them, and probably with the name as well. My way of dealing with overly-long ones (which is most of them) is to first just straight up remove anything without a reference, then go through what's left looking for more minor references, throwaway lines from TV shows, etc and remove those as well. The example I cited in the village pump discussion is my unending struggle to keep Commander Riker out of the article on Valdez, Alaska (T-H-L). It's a perfect example of a throwaway line, he never goes back there, even when they visit Earth, and never really talks about it, it's just a bit of backstory to fill in his personality. Talk:Valdez, Alaska/Archive 1 (T-H-L) shows this goes back at least twelve years, right up to June of this year.

[Moral Hazard]

my unending struggle to keep Commander Riker out of the article on Valdez, Alaska (T-H-L). It's a perfect example of a throwaway line, he never goes back there, even when they visit Earth, and never really talks about it, it's just a bit of backstory to fill in his personality. Talk:Valdez, Alaska/Archive 1 (T-H-L) shows this goes back at least twelve years, right up to June of this year.

Not all heroes wear capes.

[The Garbage Scow]

I thought these sections were mostly discouraged as irrelevant trivia? I know a lot of it was deleted over a period of several years.

[Poetlister]

I thought these sections were mostly discouraged as irrelevant trivia? I know a lot of it was deleted over a period of several years.

Plenty of editors still like them. There's no shortage of such sections.

[Bezdomni]

my unending struggle to keep Commander Riker out of the article on Valdez, Alaska (T-H-L). It's a perfect example of a throwaway line, he never goes back there, even when they visit Earth, and never really talks about it, it's just a bit of backstory to fill in his personality. Talk:Valdez, Alaska/Archive 1 (T-H-L) shows this goes back at least twelve years, right up to June of this year.

Not all heroes wear capes.

Beebs' turtle would have to suit up too when he went on these dangerous missions. It's just not efficient.

The port looks magnificent.

[ArmasRebane]

I thought these sections were mostly discouraged as irrelevant trivia? I know a lot of it was deleted over a period of several years.

They mostly exist in the "bad form" on your run-of-the-mill, start- or B-class articles. Beyond that they're usually pruned of the most excessive trivia.

In a lot of cases I feel like the main thing those sections need and lack is a decent author actually talking about the subject. In a lot of cases (NOTNEWS articles, current media etc.) a lot of Wikipedia's problem is that there's no useful sources that give structure to the thing and enable writing something better than just a laundry list of references.

(TV articles often have similar 'trivia' sections with either "cultural references" or "continuity", but like with pop culture I think readers find those useful, and at least they're less formless.)

[Poetlister]

Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (T-H-L) is an example where it's done rather better. They have a section "Adaptations and influence" and a separate article Works based on Alice in Wonderland (T-H-L). Of course, there are so many entries they could put into "In Popular Culture" that it would be overwhelming.

[Johnny Au]

Wikipedia and TV Tropes serve different purposes despite me enjoying both.

Wikipedia should not strive to compete with TV Tropes on the pop culture reference front.

[Hannah]

I thought these sections were mostly discouraged as irrelevant trivia? I know a lot of it was deleted over a period of several years.

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections: "trivia sections should be avoided" but "should not simply be removed from articles in all cases". That page is a guideline.

[Anroth]

There is a decent argument for some types of literature/historical figures etc to have either a section (or possibly a whole article) around 'Influences on/in modern culture'.

A lot of people dont understand that even basic things around them they take for granted have been heavily influenced by (sometimes quite ancient) history. That the film they watch is steeped in monomyth. Star Wars justifiably has a mention in the the 'in popular culture' section of Hero's Journey (monomyth) but whoever is curating that page has done a good job of keeping it limited to 3 short paragrahs - an introductory on how it applies in the modern world, a concrete example, a summary of other works/related authors.

[Poetlister]

I thought these sections were mostly discouraged as irrelevant trivia? I know a lot of it was deleted over a period of several years.

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections: "trivia sections should be avoided" but "should not simply be removed from articles in all cases". That page is a guideline.

Hannah. Guidelines generally fall into two groups: those that are ignored, and those that are treated as if they were rules.