Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
Should Wikipedia continue to have sections titled "In popular culture? 20:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Executive summary: It's not 1887 anymore. "Popular culture" is just "culture". This is why we don't have commensurate "High culture" sections. It all runs together now, and "In popular culture" sections should be called something else -- "In other media" or "In general culture" or "Other uses and references" or whatever. I'm going to start doing that. You should too.
Extended exposition: The distinction between "high culture" and "popular culture" is so permeable to be no longer useful. In older times some people went only to the symphony and read Livy in the original Latin. And disdained or know nothing about folk songs and banjo music and boxing and Sherlock Holmes etc.
Nowadays, even rich people -- even old money rich -- and PhD's listen to, I don't know, Trent Reznor and Vivaldi's The Four Seasons and Leonard Cohen and read, I don't know, John Cheever or Bernard Cornwell as well as Livy and Schubert and Proust and so on. They just do.
Where does Horse Lords fit? Where does Aaron Copland fit? How about the Beatles, or John Updike? How about Picasso? Paul Robeson and Nobel laurate Bob Dylan? Yo Yo Ma and Eric Clapton? Ocean Vuong, Van Morrison, Walter Scott? Is Old Man River low culture, and Pachabel's Canon high?
Set me off was Do not go gentle into that good night. The "In popular culture" section references Doctor Who and Stravinsky and Rodney Dangerfield and Elliot del Borgo and John Cale and Matthew McConaughey and Ceri Richards and Iggy Pop and so on... if all that is "popular culture", what isn't?
I mean I could have maybe sorted all that into two sections, "In popular culture" and "In high culture" (or maybe "In obscure culture"), but that would be nonsensical. Instead I renamed the section. We don't have any guidance on that so I made up "Use and references in other works". Could have been something else.
(Also, FWIW, the term "In popular culture" makes some editors claw the draperies and call the maid for smelling salts. There's no point in triggering our bourgeois colleagues, so something less suggestive of the tenements is in order.)
"In popular culture" might belong in Snobopedia, but not here. I fully realize that making a rule changing stuff like is near impossible in this hidebound environment, so I'm not even suggesting a !vote, but I'll tell you what. I'm done with "In popular culture" and I'm not going to write that title for sections, and I aim to change them when I see them. That's my proposal: if you buy the argument, vote with your feet and do it too. If you don't, don't. Herostratus (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
There are probably essays and maybe even guidelines about it. I label those sections "Influences", it's a form of notability. Something is "influential" when it has "influenced" significant works or people, making it notable, not a list of random trivia. -- GreenC 00:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Usually the term / section name just serves as an entre / coatrack for fandom or promotional items that don't belong in the article. I don't want yet another rule but it would be good to put a Scarlet Letter painted on that phase as being such, or discouraging it's use.North8000 (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
What I was thinking was using "Cultural influence" or "Cultural allusions" or maybe "Cultural influence and allusions". in WP:VG, we don't have "in pop culture" sections but just "Legacy" sections instead.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
So, for the first question, there are a lot of decent arguments either way, but as a practical matter, come on. We're always going to have these sections. It's entirely legit to express your opinion for/against them, but it's not going to change anything. So moving on.
For the third, well the current procedure is for editors -- driveby anon readers often enough -- to keep adding stuff (some good, some marginal, a whole lot silly; some well ref'd, some poorly ref'd, some unref'd) and for other editors to come across them, mutter "oh my God" under their breath and trim them (or even delete them), and for people to occasionally argue about it, since ultimately it's a matter of opinion how to curate. That's kind of kludging along (like a lot of the Wikipedia!), but it's OK, and I honesty don't think there's a better way. It's alright. It works OK. The project is not going to collapse over this. I can't imagine any rules that could be put in place ("No more than ten items" or "No refs to non-bluelinked sources" or whatever).
I just don't think there's any way to make a rule. There is the general practice of naming them "In popular culture", and rules are to codify common practice, so there could be a formal guideline made to that effect, such that someone could come along and rename your "In art and literature" to "In popular culture" and have the high ground. But I mean that's not going to happen. You're not going to get even 60% of a large group to agree to that. So just forget it. Trying to make a rule to have the sections be named some other thing is forget it squared.
It would be preferable to have a (generally common) name. As we do for "Early life" and "Personal life" "Discography" and "See also" etc. That's a good point. And they only possible generally common name is "In popular culture", barring a long-term sea change. So it's fine for individual editors to keep doing that.
For my part, personally, in my personal opinion it just sticks in my craw. In my article, I don't want to put "Chaucer says this..." and "Juan Ruiz de Alarcón says that..." under popular culture. Yes they're in the vulgar tongue, and yes in their time they were for the common people, but I mean not anymore. Mostly people only read them in college classes. Few people say "Pick me up a guilty-pleasure novel, Jackie Collins or Cervantes or Melville or something like that; I'm just not in the mood for Boethius today". They just don't. Chaucer and Richard III (1699 play) are closer to Terance and Quintilian than to Nicholas Sparks or Tom Clancy, n'est-ce pas? It's just incorrect. It's misleading the reader. I don't want to do that, so for my part I'm not going to.
In Hiawatha Longfellow depicts his hero killing a "roebuck" on the shores of Lake Superior, quite a feat since the roebuck only lives in Eurasia.
Our biggest practical problem is that we don't have a consolidated set of guidelines on cultural material that can be easily linked to. The rules are spread across various guideline pages, with the most important substantive rule actually being on an MOS page, where many editors will never find it. MOS:CULTURALREFS notes that the 2015 RfC was closed with"The consensus is very clear that a secondary source is required in almost all cases. A tertiary source is even better, if available. In the rare case that a primary source is judged to be sufficient, it should be properly cited. The source(s) cited should not only establish the verifiability of the pop culture reference, but also its significance."
This is a proposal to bring the rules together into a single new guideline. It's based on CaptainEek's proposal and editor feedback, but with a few modifications. Specifically I've added more explanatory material, have made use of the existing concept of noteworthiness rather than inventing a new meaning for notability, and have based it on what the secondary source establishes not what it 'focuses on'. I doubt in practice that this would represent a radical change, but it should make it easier for editors to curate Cultural reference sections and to explain to new editors how they work.
Those guidelines do not, in themselves, apply directly to article content, which means that (with the exception of certain lists that explicitly restrict inclusion to notable entries) an individual item of content such as a cultural reference is not normally required to demonstrate standalone notability.
Those guidelines mean that (with the exception of certain lists that explicitly restrict inclusion to notable entries) an individual item of content such as a cultural reference is not normally required to demonstrate standalone notability."capable of being supported by at least one secondary source that establishes not only the verifiability of the cultural reference, but also its significance to a discussion of the article's subject"
Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.
(i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.
Based on the work above, but I feel a little clearer, and including the suggestions I listed above. If unhelpful, let me know, and I won't put up much of a fuss about collapsing it. :) It's much in line with the original proposal b CaptainEek above, so I also don't mind if we just swap it in up there (if participants feel like it's an improvement, of course). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Articles often include material about cultural references to the subject of the article. Sometimes this content is in its own section ("in popular culture" is the most common, but also "in the media", "cultural references", etc.), and sometimes it is included with other prose. When not effectively curated, such material can expand in ways not compatible with Wikipedia policies like what Wikipedia is not and neutral point of view.
Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist. Before including a reference in an article, that reference should be discussed in reliable secondary sources which specifically link the cultural item to the subject. These sources should cover the subject of the article in some depth, and not simply mention it in a source about the movie, song, television show, etc. which referenced it.
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.
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.
Just an aside and probably out of sequence, but we need to tread carefully around the word noteworthy. In general, notability talks about a subject having been noted rather than a subject somehow being worthy. (Just wander through the archives of Wikipedia talk:Notability to see plenty of previous discussions.) So, inclusion in WP is about a subject already having been included in other sources, not whether we have a view about how worthy a subject might be for inclusion. The distinction is probably core to much of the IPC discussion – we should not add items to IPC just because we think they should be there (however interesting or entertaining they can be), but because other sources have already noted the connection. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 08:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
So, inclusion in WP is about a [subject's article] already having been included in other sources, not whether we have a view about how worthy a subject might be for [article] inclusion.
I actually worked on banging together some guidelines for this a while back.
If you visit while logged in, you'll see the "Article Talk" tab bar. ("minerva__tab-container" element) But if you're logged out, this tab bar goes missing and there's no way to access the talk page unless you manually alter the URL. This turns out to be by design and now consensus is required for a configuration change to ensure that anyone who can edit can also reach talk pages. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Hi y'all – I work as the product manager for the Editing Team. We're , and within the next few months, we'll be shifting our focus to improving talk pages on mobile.
With this in mind,can you please review – what I currently understand to be – the issues you all have raised here and let us know what issues you think are missing from this list and/or what about this list needs to be edited?
For added context: I'm asking the above because it's important to me that our team accurately and exhaustively understand the issues y'all are raising here, so that we can make sure the issues we prioritize working on in the next few months are the issues that will be the most impactful to address.
Considering there are three teams within the Foundation working on improvements to talk pages, I thought it would be worth making sure you all were aware of the work that is being planned and done to improve volunteers' ability to communicate with one another.
*You can experiment with the Reply and New Discussion Tools right on desktop, by enabling the DiscussionTools beta feature in Special:Preferences.
there needs to be a way of alerting users of mobile devices that is different from the normal semi-spam that occurs with nearly all apps competing for user attention.
By convention, we bottom-post, but on a phone that might require a bunch of scrolling."How might bottom-posting impact the likelihood that people accessing talk pages, particularly on mobile, will see the new messages others have left for them?""Anonymous editors do not respond to the messages others leave for them on their talk pages.""People editing anonymously on mobile devices do not realize when other volunteers are trying to communicate with them. If by chance these anonymous volunteers do realize that others are trying to communicate with them, they have a hard time responding."
Editors using mobile devices may not realize that important messages have been left for them. If they do see the messages, they may not know how they can respond.
if you see a protected page and want to edit it, the workflow on enwiki is via a talk page edit request. It's a pretty poor UI esp on mobile...
...the usefulness of the banners on many talk pages. They're a mess, like look at this. It wouldn't be reasonable to show it all to mobile users, and very often there is nothing useful in them IMO...Conversely, see here for a useful non-generic banner and toggle "read as wiki page" on and off to see it.
Hey all, I’m Olga, the product manager for the Web team at the WMF who will be taking on the implementation of the decision to give anonymous mobile users access to the talk page. We are tracking the technical details and implementation in this task in Phabricator, but we also wanted to post here again to make sure everyone who was part of the initial conversation can continue to follow along and help us come to the best outcome together for the readers and editors. Although the change is simple from a technical point of view, we’ve been thinking about some of the impacts it could have, and wanted to take a little time to plan things out together. Here’s what we’re thinking could be the right next steps.
How does the above sound? Which kinds of impact do you think we should be keeping an eye on as we make a change? Which design change do you think we should start with? We will also continue discussing these and more technical aspects of the change in Phabricator, but @MMiller (WMF):, @PPelberg (WMF):, and I will be monitoring and engaging on this page as well. Feel free to post wherever you feel comfortable. OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Our current PDF icon is File:Icons-mini-file acrobat.gif . To put it simply, it isn't particularly good. It's a .gif made over 16 years ago. Berrely mentioned this in WP:Discord, so I set about coming up with a modern SVG version of the file. The result was
File:Icons-mini-file pdf old.svg File:Icons-mini-file pdf.svg .
Consensus for Option 2 should be followed up in a separate discussion. [Updated 15:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)]
What should the English Wikipedia community do to communicate about the current election for the Movement Charter Drafting Committee? 03:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone, the election for the Movement Charter Drafting Committee (which is charged with drafting a "Movement Charter", or essentially a constitution for the global Wikimedia community) is now open and will be open for about two weeks, until 24 October 2021. (Info: announcement email, local info page.) There are three things that we should decide, hopefully while the election still has some time to run:
I would like to propose creating a multiauthor space for creative writing: WikiFiction (or WikiNovelist).
Wikinovelists should contribute with donations to be able to participate in multiauthor books and everyone should previously register in order to contribute. This process will hopefully keep bored haters/destroyers away from busy creators -or modern serial witch burners from potential intelligent life out there.
WikiFiction could be a way to get funds for this or other wikimedia projects.
This new platform could recycle the current Wikipedia platform, with the added registration requirement, perhaps with a valid cellphone. A maximum of authors per book should be set for a given time, to avoid some books getting too crowded and the content confusing and neverending changing.
There should be authors and editors, who could review the final book for coherence. All versions should be stored until the final version is agreed. Authors and editors could go by name or nick, but all should be registered with a way to prove identity.
Any profits from any WikiFiction book should ideally be offered to non-profit charity organisations, chosen by votation of main authors, with a percentage dedicated to maintain WikiFiction.
Part of the donations for wikinovelists could be saved in a fund, which will offer free passes for those who could not contribute otherwise. So a young Leonardo da Vinci from a remote village somewhere in this planet, could still contribute to a book with perhaps unique ideas, even if her income is zero.
Creative writing or imagination in general is urgently needed to find solutions for the future we are facing. Encyclopedias and history are giving us great (or terrible) ideas from the past. Some novels (a bit as science) can be a valuable means to predict or create the future.
I will contribute with a first novel first chapter idea as a test. It is aimed to be a multiauthor book that would focus on a paradigm change related to Climate, from looking at plastic or recycling as the big problem here, to admitting we human overpopulation are the real issue on this planet. The book will revolve around that.
This creative piece of work requires the input of scientists, modern philosophers, social anthropologists... And needs to start rolling asap... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
When I was navigating through articles of Pioneer & Communist Youth Leagues, I've found that all the templates (i.e. navboxs) related to youth wings of political parties are uncategorised, or categorised for geographic logic, indifferent of the ideology, the location or the level in the geopolitical hierarchy of the subjet. So, I've tried to found if there is an already created template category where to add these templates, but all I've found is Category:Political party templates, Category:Political ideology templates or Category:Organization templates.
PS: If not in the best place to ask, please older people in the community indicate me where to repost the asking.
Hi, I recently write a bot to create article lists in other languages. The bot is running in jawiki and zhwiki now, you may see the result, the bot will create a list for every language like this. How about enhancing Wikipedia:Featured articles in other languages like this? Kanashimi (talk) 03:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure how and what to do for mobile; this is a desktop–only proposal.
The icons are already there, so we might as well push them in the limelight. However, there are varied objections to increasing the prominence and that it's misleading, so I have an easy, and hopefully working, proposal on how to counteract any concerns: when hovered over, the text should say "Underwent and passed featured article review by multiple editors X years ago" or "Underwent and passed good article review by an editor X years ago" . I think this solves every concern(except aesthetic etc) from the last discussion. This tells readers multiple things quickly: not all articles undergo the process; they are reviewed by actual humans; they are not relative grades, but subject to evaluation; it tells them how long it has been since the review happened, so they know it's not checked 24/7 + that it may be outdated; it makes note that GA-class is not as strict as FA-class. A larger focus says that quality assessment, does, in fact, exist on Wikipedia. It also says that it's not unimportant. It's more honest in multiple ways, as well: it's upfront about how this works, and will make it clear how it works. Anecdotally: as someone who used to be an average reader, this would've solved any quick questions I had about what it means, and I am not saying it just because. Change the alt text of it too. It also gets rid of the "click here" which isn't recommended as an inclusion for tooltips. I think this addresses all the concerns in the previous discussion raised by voters who opposed the change.