The "removal of content" aspect is the rub. What I'm planning to do
with the section on [[Nuclear weapon]] is to rewrite that section to
be more encyclopedic, mentioning a few *significant* cultural
additions (i.e. that [[Dr. Strangelove]] became the paradigmatic movie
and way of thinking about MAD; the way in which [[Godzilla]] became
the exemplar of "monster made huge by radiation" movies, coming out
just months after the [[Castle Bravo]] fallout incident which so
panicked the Japanese; the way in which [[The Day After]] is an
excellent example of "pathologization" of nuclear war which comes out
of the Reagan years; etc.) in a way which discourages "list making."
With any luck, if done well, nobody will realize or care that I cut
out John Travolta's [[Broken Arrow]] from the mix, and nobody will
think that adding a line about the Rush song is appropriate for the
section (without some justification of its importance, anyway).
I think these sections need to be snipped in the bud, or reformatted
into coherent lines of texts. Because once they are really list-length
(i.e. [[List of mad scientists]]) then there's not much that can be
done which doesn't seem like you are removing tons of content.
I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only one who feels this way, I was
feeling somewhat snobbish.
FF
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:20:31 -0500, Brian M <brian1954(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with you completely, and most of these sections should be
> deleted. It is one thing for Wikipedia to be the online Encyclopedia
> of Popular Culture with articles on every Pokemon character, TV
> episode, forgotten (or never known) song or CD, every obscure corner
> of every fictional universe, etc, etc, ad absurdum, ad nauseum. But
> when all this starts bleeding into other articles, it becomes a major
> problem and makes Wikipedia look like it has no sense of proportion at
> all.
>
> Your example of [[Nuclear weapons]] is perfect. If there were a
> section on public opinion about nuclear weapons, which would be quire
> reasonable to have, and there were some movie, book, or other item of
> popular culture that had a significant impact in influencing this
> public opinion, then the book, etc, should be mentioned, of course.
> But just a list under "in popular culture" listing movies and books
> that nuclear weapons in them, is ridiculous. Next thing you know,
> there will be a section in the article "Nuclear Weapons In Star Wars",
> describing the use of nuclear weapons in Star Wars, and so forth.
> The article is currently missing this important aspect of nuclear
> weapons.
>
> Perhaps the "solution" is just to concede that Wikipedia is really
> just the online encyclopedia of popular culture, throw in the towel,
> and delete the 20% of so of it that is about reality. You know
> off-topic stuff like [[Nuclear weapons]].
>
> Seriously, how does one go about deleting these sections? Someone is
> going to insist that it is "removal of information" and , therefore,
> vandalism to remove them.
>
>
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 20:18:58 -0500, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have a strong bias to admit. I can't stand the "In popular culture"
> > heading that certain articles have, which which become a hodgepodge
> > list for every time a major historical event or theme is mentioned in
> > a TV show, movie, Japanese cartoon, video game, rock song, or science
> > fiction novel.
> >
>