Talk:References to Oscar Wilde in popular culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is a heterosexual porn star named Wild Oscar. May that be included somehow? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.231.249.141 (talk • contribs) 31 August 2006.

• If its citable, and if "star" doesn't just mean "some near-extra used this credit in a couple of movies", sure. - Jmabel | Talk 05:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 The Picture of Dorian Gray in popular culture 2 Merge With the Oscar Wilde Article? 3 Sub-trivia 4 Propose a name-change to Oscar Wilde in popular culture

[edit] The Picture of Dorian Gray in popular culture

Seriously, that article is completely unnecessary if this one exists, isn't it? I suggest a merge. That article is mostly just a list of adaptations anyway, but the actual references in there could be merged here. --Switch 13:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. The adaptations should probably stay, because most are radical enough adaptations not to constitute slavish imitations but more "works inspired by". - Jmabel | Talk 23:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge With the Oscar Wilde Article?

Every other article has the "in popular culture" section at the bottom of the article about the topic itself. Why not dear Oscar? Demosthenes 1 22:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I would would be inclined to vote against this. The Wilde article is already far beyond the recommended size and that is the reason that this information was moved here in the first place. If you go to the archive section on Wilde's discussion page you will find that some of this has been discussed before, especially the fact that most of the info on this page has very little to do with Wilde's life, even if it was inspired by his art.. A perusal of other wikiarticles will show that pop culture facts are moved to their own pages (how often is up to each individual interprretation). Thanks for the question. MarnetteD | Talk 23:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with Marnette. The article on Oscar Wilde is long enough as it is, so I don't really think it's prudent to merge another large article into it. The question of merging this with The Picture of Dorian Gray in popular culture is less clear; the articles are shorter, and I think a merge is a good idea. But this merge would make the article a little too big. --Switch ^t 02:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This was spun out of the Oscar Wilde article. There is a brief "in popular culture" section in the article, giving something of an overview, rather than anything like an exhaustive list. You are quite wrong to say "Every other article has the 'in popular culture' section at the bottom of the article: see Category:In popular culture for the numerous excpetions. When these get large, we spin them out of the main article to prevent those article from being overwhelmed by this relatively secondary material. - Jmabel | Talk 03:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. No real WP reader is actually interested in a list of pop-culture adaptations of anything. If these cross-references were placed in the articles about the pop culture items themselves, then they would be far more likely to reach an interested audience. But alas, they never are...

I think the pop culture references are here only because certain Wikipedia editors want to put them here, and lack self-restraint. Every article that is burdened with a pop culture section should forthwith be provided with an accompanying "chamber pot" article to hold the pop culture references. Opus33 04:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sub-trivia

Given that Ian Lawson, The Worry Knot, New Remorse, and Romantica apparently do not merit articles, is their mentioning Wilde of encyclopedic notability? I think not. - Jmabel | Talk 18:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Propose a name-change to Oscar Wilde in popular culture

The informal standard for articles about pop-culture references seems to be (Original article name) in popular culture [1] - it seems like following this standard might make it easier for anyone looking for this page. PaladinWhite 23:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"IPC" has attracted a fairly rabid bunch of deletionists who are searching on and AfD'ing dozens of IPC articles, it's like a big red "delete me" target. The one article of this type that has gone featured (that I am aware of) is Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc. Using that as a higher standard it could be called Cultural depictions of Oscar Wilde. -- Stbalbach 01:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

*shrug* Makes sense to me - my only concern is that it seems that the overarching concern should be toward standardization; as evidenced in the Google search, the vast majority of articles follow the former standard, rather than the latter...

If we rename this one to follow the Featured Article, which would seem to be more justified, it only makes sense to rename all the others to follow that standard as well. That option makes more sense on the surface, but it leads to a lot more work and a lot more confusion in the general community, (perhaps a lot more debate as well), which may end up being counter-productive.

If, on the other hand, we follow the more-established standard, it makes the F.A. a loner, which, in all fairness, it already was. It keeps things simple, and eliminates confusion. However, it leaves the possibility open that someone could come along in the future, decide the choice was wrong, and change everything anyway.

Simplicity and minimization of change, or following a "higher standard"? It's a toughie... PaladinWhite 03:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it logically follows that in order to rename this article we also have to rename all the other articles. There is no "established" standard. A lot of people really dislike the term IPC, and are actively out to delete them, so there is no consensus on this - I've personally witnessed over 15 such articles get deleted in the past month. Sticking with a Featured Article precedent gives it a little more justification and protection if/when that day comes. -- Stbalbach 00:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)