geni wrote:
On 11/15/05, Snowspinner Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
If the problem with the content is that it's making the article too long, it seems like a spin-off would necessarily not be a permastub.
-Phil
I supose we could argue that if we wait long enough some more popular culture will turn up.
So _then_ would be the time to split it off of the main article. There's no need to do it earlier if all you've got is a stub's worth so far.
Early on in an artical's evolution triva/popula culture is a simple way to add a fair bit of stuff. As the article matures it becomes time to remove the stuff that hasn't managed to intergrate into the main article.
I don't see how having a section "X in popular culture" near the bottom of the article on X is not "integrated" properly. At least one article I've worked on comes immediately to mind ([[alternative biochemistry]]) where the references to works of fiction were initially scattered throughout the article and were later separated out into their own "in fiction" section that IMO made for a much better-integrated article. And if it became large enough to warrant, an [[alternative biochemistries in fiction]] child article would seem just fine to me.
And in any event, I still don't see any reason why information that was good to include in Wikipedia at one point in history later becomes unacceptable without any related policy changes or changes to the information itself. Rearranging and refactoring it, sure, but not deleting it.