Talk:Dogs Playing Poker#In popular culture section revisited

Intriguing how much those 2 paintings just sold for (over half a million US$)! In preauction estimates, they were anticipated to bring $30,000-$50,000 each. Shows how important they are to our (alleged) culture! Elf | Talk 20:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I recently saw what I think was a Gary Larson cartoon showing a series of "prototypes" for the painting, involving snakes, chickens and cows. Can anyone confirm that I am not mistaken, I would like to add this to the popular culture section but I want to check my facts first.

It seems like, most of the time, when one of these paintings is seen in pop culture, it's A Friend In Need that they use. An example of this would be on the TV sitcom Roseanne. Perhaps this information should be included in the article.

Agreed

--Magallanes 01:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a computer game based on the paintings.

Which one?

200.117.37.221 23:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember an episode of Cheers when Sam was at Robin Colcord's house and saw one of the paintings. He laughed until Robin said it was an original. No idea what episode sorry - SimonLyall 05:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Are they all in private hands, or are any on exhibit anywhere? Шизомби (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that we only had one of the series up as a picture in the article and it is listed as PD if the rest are in the same time period and hopefully PD shouldn't we have thumbnails of the set up, obviously it's not necessary but considering that some are more famous than others (which ones are more famous is a judgment we shouldn't be making probably) encyclopedically we should show them all. Cat-five - talk 09:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dogs_Playing_Poker&curid=953263&diff=305148846&oldid=304653574] in case anyone goes looking for it. I have mixed feelings about such sections. The more references there are or the more notable the things making the references, is noteworthy, though such things can start to dwarf the actual content of the article. References that are themselves notable (the references have been reported on) ought not to fall afoul of this, but may be harder to find. Шизомби (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

: Not sure you should be removing or adding anything simply based on mixed feelings. There are probably guidelines on this that should be consulted rather than personal opinion.198.108.84.126 (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

::I re-deleted it. It's trash. There are more professional ways to state that the series is influential without listing every damn video game or Simpson's parody. Secondary sources that discuss the more noteworthy appearances (not that merely list them as primary sources) can add understanding, but amateurish, banal listings of every mention is just stupid. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

:::Some of the items are notable and worth keeping, but many are minor trivial. Maybe a removal of many and then expanding a few to focus on major or more notable mentions. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

::::{{reply|Randy Kryn}} how do you know they're notable and worth keeping? How is an appearance in an episode of That '70s Show any more or less noteworthy than an allusion in the videogame Undertale? How does it help the reader understand the paintings' impact? Are we making encyclopedia articles or indiscriminate waste-bins of factoids to satisfy OCD trivia nerds? Read WP:TRIVIA and WP:POPCULTURE. "In popular culture" sections, by and large, are a blight on Wikipedia (they can be done right, but mostly are not). The only popular culture appearances worth mentioning, per WP:ONUS, WP:PROPORTION, and tenets of good writing, are ones that have been significantly discussed by secondary and tertiary sources. A respectable professional-quality article would simply state something to the effect that the Dogs Playing Poker imagery has deeply permeated American culture, being widely reproduced and parodied, with a few choice examples as discussed in authoritative sources (books, not blogs). --Animalparty! (talk) 04:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

:::::Hello {{u|Animalparty}}. On an important level, Dogs Playing Poker may actually have the most popular culture mentions and impact of any painting series. Monet's Water Lilies and his other series are well known, and van Gogh's series are as honored as Monet's, yet they are not repeatedly used throughout the years and across many forms of communication and entertainment as popular culture and societal reference points. Dogs Playing Poker has gained most of its notoriety from the consistent use of the paintings and the meme in popular culture. I think the only question is how many examples to use, and I'd say that quite a few should in order to give adequate examples of that portion of the overall influence of the paintings. Removing the section, as has been done twice before, or vastly reducing it in numbers or to a couple sentence descriptor, removes this important topic-related impact. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, it was still here when I visited the page and I'm glad it was. In fact I was more disturbed by the suggestion that it should be removed. An encyclopedia is a source of information, and covers (clearly) matters that are of interest to people ... a wide variety of people. Some of these matters are deep, serious stuff and some, like this article, refer to items that are amusing and whimsical. The guidelines for material in one area are surely not the same as those for other areas. Please: a little less of the starch collars in corners of the 'pedia like this. 24.87.154.112 (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

File:BotOp-logo.svg

:Indeed, in my view, it's more than just the starch collars. It's the 4,000 Gucci suits, the tweed jackets with the leather elbow patches, the white shoes, the top hats, the lab coats. In other words, it's egregious bourgeois snobbery, which is shot thru the Wikipedi, and is actually class warfare, and it's time to fight back. it's the Wikipedia, not the Snobopedia. Class prejudice is of a kind with race prejudice and sex prejudice, and my support is frayed of catering only to High Culture of the attitude If an entity is mentioned in a Bejamin Britten opera then we simply must include it, musn't we Hector? Hardly anybody listens to Britten operas, but those who do are important people. RAH-THA, Cordelia! Whereas, if an entity in mentioned in a programme on the television machine that the maid watches -- well, infra dig, Bunny.

:Well I could go on, and I will presently, but in broader venues. Herostratus (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that in the summary it says there are sixteen paintings in the series, but then in the titles list there are seventeen paintings listed. If I knew which was right I would edit the other! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.180.192.10 (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Would it be good to have such a section? Please feel free to add a few and then put it in the article.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkMsSIjQXxo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.229.66 (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Above link is now broken. 94.126.214.24 (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Eg. #renmakesmusic #animalflow Animal Flow 94.126.214.24 (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects this page, suggesting that the capitalization of "like" should be removed from the title of these paintings. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 14:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

In the discussion above, there was no policy-based argument presented that justified keeping the "In popular culture" section. There were, however, a guideline MOS:TRIVIA and a well-regarded essay WP:POPCULTURE cited as justification for removal.

While I agree with

{{U|Animalparty}} that popular culture sections are a blight on Wikipedia (having largely replaced trivia sections after a concerted effort by the community to banish them from articles), I don't agree that the section should be removed. Rather, it needs to be culled.

Recently, {{U|QuietCicada}} attempted to do just that,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dogs_Playing_Poker&diff=prev&oldid=1177287803] removing some unsourced trivial entries as well as one cited to a primary source. {{U|Randy Kryn}} restored the material with an edit summary justification that amounts to hand-waving. I agreed with the removal, so I removed it again, because the WP:BURDEN for including these hadn't been met. Then Randy Kryn began edit-warring. For that material to be included, consensus needs to happen here first. The material shouldn't be restored without providing valid reasoning grounded in any policy or guideline. We don't need WP:INDISCRIMINATE lists of facts (and that is a policy). ~Anachronist (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

:If there is an ideal article for an WP:IGNOREALLRULES celebration this is it. Almost the entire notability of the painting rests on their place in popular culture. In other articles the section provides valued societal value. Yet here it honors the continuing growth of the cultural role of these artworks. In order to maintain and not harm Wikipedia, WP:IAR would ignore the need for full citing in this section and treat it like a plot section in a film article - non-cited until proven incorrect. You know why non-cited plot editing works? Because readers and other editors catch the errors. As far as I know the existing examples have not been challenged by anyone as incorrect, and maybe on this topic they should stand until such a claim. Please read the talk discussion above which, for some reason, {{u|Anachronist}} did not join in on. Some editors love the popular culture phenomena aspect of Dogs Playng Poker, that is evident in the above discussion. Hopefully it will be in this one as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

::This isn't in any way similar to a plot section in a film (or book) article; that's a non-sequitur argument. A plot summary is verifiable simply by reviewing the primary source. A plot summary isn't a detailed description of every trivial thing that happens.

::In my 17+ years on Wikipedia, I have never had to invoke IAR. That's a cop-out.

::I didn't join in the prior discussion because I didn't see it until today. It's that simple. And that discussion has no consensus grounded in any policy or guideline.

::We aren't discussing the existence of the popular culture section here. I agree it should exist.

::Arguing about the correctness of the entries is also a non-sequitur. Nobody has said that they aren't correct.

::We are discussing a few trivial unsourced or poorly sourced entries that violate the WP:INDISCRIMINATE policy and the WP:POPCULT guideline, which explicitly says "cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist." I have not seen any valid justification for inclusion of these, or countless other trivial cases. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

:::The Far Side cartoon descriptor, and a couple others now removed, show how deep into the culture the paintings have reached. They are instantly recognizable, as people immediately "get" The Far Side joke without it having to be explained to them. Video and card games aren't my strong suit, but apparently gamers seem to find the examples important for the same reason - recognizing a societal touchstone. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

::::I'm sure you could say the same thing about several other examples that were never added. That isn't a rationale for inclusion. The fact that the paintings have reached deep into the culture isn't in dispute. We don't need to list every example, we don't even have a requirement to list such examples, but we do have actual guidelines that require us to omit such examples. The list could even benefit from further removals, by removing examples equivalent to trivial mentions, in which the painting isn't a central focus or persistent presence in the cultural work.

::::How about establishing some objective inclusion criteria for this list? All high-traffic list articles have such criteria, typically described on the talk page (List of common misconceptions comes to mind as the most visible and has the strictest criteria I know of). A mere depiction of a painting somewhere isn't sufficient. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

{{outdent|4}}

@randy kryn: a mostly unsourced list of the paintings' appearances is not part of a good article. ltbdl (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

:In this case it is. As discussed above, the essence of Dogs Playing Poker is in its popular culture references, they create its traditional and recognized notability. Using known cultural touchpoints is necessary for this page, and an exception should be made for unreferenced but unarguably correct instances, per WP:IAR (using them greatly defines and improves the understanding of this topic and thus improves Wikipedia). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

::except it doesn't greatly define and improve the understanding of the topic? ltbdl (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

:::None of the points against inclusion in this discussion have been refuted, and arguments in favor have not been grounded in any policy or guideline. We can have an "in popular culture" section, but we need inclusion criteria. I propose:

:::# The entry's main topic (the videogame, novel, movie, song, whatever) has its own standalone article on Wikipedia.

:::# The entry's main topic article mentions Dogs Playing Poker.

:::# The entry includes a citation to a reliable secondary source, mentioning Dogs Playing Poker in the context of the entry's subject.

:::Any "in popular culture" item meeting those criteria wouldn't have anyone arguing to delete it. At the moment, none of the entries in the section that was recently removed met any of those criteria. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

::::{{u|Anachronist}}, I added back the popular culture section because it was removed by the banned user, who was also commenting above. You are of course free to remove it again. This subject is notable because of its repetitive use in culture. Giving some examples of that frequent use, especially those which are obvious to anyone viewing a film, should not need any other source than its mention in a related article's plot (plots are not subject to sourcing, they are WP:BLUESKY once enough readers who are fans of a film have read it, and should be reflected here without needing an additional source). WP:BLUESKY and WP:IAR could be said to combine here. There is nothing wrong with using WP:IAR, too many editors and admins think there is, as you've implied in this discussion, even though it's bedrock policy. Let's at least keep some of the best examples as representative of the continued notability of these paintings as cultural icons. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::I've removed some, and probably others might be too minor, but most of the film and blue-sky television mentions seem representative of the notability of cultural mentions. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

::::::Well, it's shorter than the version that existed before it was removed. However, I was attempting to establish criteria for inclusion in this discussion, and that proposal never got a response. None of the entries currently in the section, as far as I can tell, meet the criteria proposed above. out of that entire list, only two sources are cited, and that is unacceptable. IAR is one line: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Adding a bunch of unsourced trivia isn't "improving or maintaining" Wikipedia. Invoking IAR as a reason for inclusion is merely a cop-out excuse for WP:ILIKEIT, and I am inclined to remove any non-improvements added on that basis. I have just removed all the unsourced entries.

::::::What criteria for inclusion would you suggest? ~Anachronist (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

:::::::Just getting back to this, Thanksgiving-wind downs and family birthdays and all. Simple. If an entry is obvious from the plot of a film or TV show then fans of that show (both readers and editors) will know if something is false or true. If a plot item from a well-known film or TV episode sticks on Wikipedia for a longtime then we can be assured that it's accurately portrayed. You removed major plot points from several films which use DPP paintings. They, at a minimum, should find inclusion here.

:::::::What about the well-known cultural example from The Thomas Crown Affair? I didn't even look to see if it's in the plot, it's bound to be and if not it is lacking a major plot point. How about "The cover of the 1981 album, Moving Pictures by Rush, features A Friend in Need as one of the three pictures being moved." The Dogs Playing Poker image is right there, all that is needed for confirmation is to click on the link. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::::{{ec}} That's confirmation of veracity, not significance. Do you see the difference? TompaDompa (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::For this page, where the notability of Dogs Playing Poker is built on its examples in popular culture, at least a half dozen or more examples should be given, including the Thomas Crown Affair where the painting is a major plot point. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::That's your opinion on what makes Dogs Playing Poker notable. Is that also the opinion of the sources on the topic, as evidenced by their covering the topic with the same relative weight afforded to different aspects as you think we should here? TompaDompa (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::::{{u|TompaDompa}}, no wonder we're talking at cross currents. Please, maybe, read the lede of this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::::I see [https://web.archive.org/web/20080327040522/http://www.tenbyten.net/luckydog.html one source] that makes a brief comparison with some other famous artworks in the form of {{tq|incessant reproduction on all manner of pop ephemera: calendars, t–shirts, coffee mugs, the occasional advertisement}}. It gives precisely zero examples of Dogs Playing Poker appearing in popular culture. Going by that source, then, The Thomas Crown Affair is not an important aspect of this topic—nor is any other specific cultural reference to Dogs Playing Poker. For that matter, the cultural impact gets such brief coverage in that source compared to other aspects that—assuming that source is a representative one—significantly expanding the "In popular culture" section would be over-emphasizing that aspect compared to its treatment by the sources. TompaDompa (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::::::What I do see is your incorrectly limiting the value of popular culture recognition as the backbone of this topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I'm not limiting it at all, I'm just asking that you back it up with sources germane to the topic rather than your own say-so. TompaDompa (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Trivia_sections&diff=prev&oldid=1260570003 I was asked] to come here by {{u|Randy Kryn}} at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections#WP:BOLD removal. In short, Randy Kryn is wrong and {{u|Anachronist}} is right. Wikipedia'sWP:Core content policy WP:PROPORTION mandates that articles {{tq|treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject}}. Editors do not decide what aspects are important to the topic, sources do. If sources on the topic of this article—Dogs Playing Poker—do not cover particular cultural references, then neither can we. Sources on other topics, including the cultural references themselves, do not establish weight in this context. This is a bare minimum threshold for inclusion as required by non-negotiable policy; consensus at the article level can determine that the inclusion criteria should be even stricter, but it cannot loosen them beyond that point. This is not a question of WP:Verifiability, and any comparisons to plot summaries are complete red herrings. The question is whether the content is due. TompaDompa (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

:With all due respect {{u|TompaDompa}}, this is a round-about way of saying delete almost all entries from all lists. Most good lists do not need sourcing, they just link to the article. In popular culture sections are lists under another name, such as with this page. How about List of museums devoted to one artist, another art article. Almost all if not all entries there are backed by page links and not sources. How about List of Picasso artworks 1901–1910? Would you delete the entries? How about pages of authors, playwrights, etc., who link book and plays without a source? Where do you draw the line if at all? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

::No, it is a straightforward way of saying "follow the sources", as we always must. If sources on topic XYZ do not deem item ABC to be a significant WP:ASPECT of the overarching topic, then we must treat it likewise by not covering it in the article on topic XYZ. If sources on topic XYZ do deem item ABC to be an important aspect that warrants discussion, the we must also follow their lead to be in compliance with our WP:Core content policies and cover item ABC in the article on topic XYZ in proportion to its treatment in the overall body of literature on the overarching subject (topic XYZ). TompaDompa (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

:::{{u|TompaDompa}}, would you then remove unsourced items from such lists, in essence destroying or scalping all major lists on Wikipedia that rely on links? Yes or no? If so, something is rotten in the state of Wikipedia and on most if not all of the WP and MOS trivia and sourcing pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

::::You know that those are apples-to-oranges comparisons you are making. TompaDompa (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::No, I do not know. Are such lists safe from rebuke then? On this page, the major plot point of Dogs Playing Poker in the 1999 film The Thomas Crown Affair seems defining of this topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::If you genuinely do not see how Dogs Playing Poker#In popular culture, List of museums devoted to one artist, and List of Picasso artworks 1901–1910 are three very different types of list, I don't there is much point in continuing discussion about the other lists.{{pb}}{{tq|On this page, the major plot point of Dogs Playing Poker in the 1999 film The Thomas Crown Affair seems defining of this topic.}} – you do understand that this is just your opinion, right? TompaDompa (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::{{u|TompaDompa}}, apparently you haven't seen the film (give yourself a Christmas gift and do so). It, as well as this article, are in the Visual Arts Wikiproject sphere. Enough people have seen it that its mention here was never removed for incorrectness but existed as one of several WP:BLUESKY examples. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::::Correctness isn't the issue (and bringing it up is a red herring), importance is. Topic importance is not commutative—it is entirely possible for Dogs Playing Poker to be an important aspect of The Thomas Crown Affair without The Thomas Crown Affair being an important aspect of Dogs Playing Poker. TompaDompa (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• In the case of a kitsch icon like this, we should be taking the relevant policies to their limits. Just about the only point of having an article on these is their joky popularity as a pop culture reference. Johnbod (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I renamed to section to "In literature and the arts" per (one of the suggestions in) in WP:POPTITLE, and formatted the material as running text rather than a list, as this is probably easier to read and also helps prevent other editors from clutching their pearls. Keep in mind that "literature and the arts" does include stuff that kids like, or the maid; it just does. If we want to have sections "In high culture" or "In elite culture" OK, but ATM we don't.

Works of art are their own references, so no refs are required here, altho they are welcome as a service to the reader if available.

What can I say? People like to write these sections, and people like to read them (tho none are forced to). What're you gonna do: people! No need to erase other editors' work. Anyway it does illustrate that people are generally familiar with the paintings, which is useful info. Herostratus (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

:Works of art can be used as WP:Primary sources about their own content for WP:Verification, but they do not establish WP:Due weight. That people like to write and read these sections is a complete non-argument; people like to write and read WP:Original research and personal essays too, but neither of those things are allowed in mainspace. TompaDompa (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

::Please put back the culture section you removed. The status quo, over many years (decades?) was to have the full cultural section. Consensus to keep the section would include almost all of the editors who've edited the page and allowed the section, editors involved in this discussion (where two editors and a sock oppose it), and the fact that the notability of the topic rests on its cultural reputation and repetitiveness. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

:::I didn't remove the section, I removed unsourced content from it, and it's not like WP:Local consensus can override WP:NPOV anyway. But why don't you just present sources on Dogs Playing Poker that discuss its cultural impact? The way you're talking about it, that shouldn't be too hard, right? TompaDompa (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

::::Took less than 20 seconds [https://www.the-art-world.com/blog/general/the-lasting-legacy-of-coolidge-s-dog-poker-from-cigars-to-cultural-icon/ to find this one], which summarizes its cultural impact and includes The Thomas Crown Affair and several other examples. But will you accept this one (and the many other sources) or find fault in them? Your argument that every instance has to be sourced, and cannot refer back to the linked pages (such as the album and its cover) is one of the main things being debated here. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::OK, you found a blog article about Dogs Playing Poker. It could probably be cited if the person writing the blog is someone notable for their expertise, as opposed to someone self-publishing their views on that platform. Looking at other articles written by "Jonti", the author appears to be a blogger rather than a journalist, although I don't have a strong objection to citing it. We could get a judgment on WP:RSN.

:::::I have no objection to adding content that cites sources discussing the cultural impact on the paintings. A Wikipedia editor's observation that some other work includes an appearance of Dogs Playing Poker isn't sufficient for inclusion here, unless a source can be cited that demonstrates that it's significant and not just a trivial appearance. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::I'm not familiar with the source, but it looks to be a blog? Anyway, let's say for the sake of argument that it is a suitable source to cite for this article. In that case, what we have is an article consisting of eleven paragraphs following the table of contents, of which one covers appearances in popular culture. In its entirety, that paragraph reads {{tq|The series of paintings in question has profoundly impacted popular culture, with its influence extending to numerous TV shows and movies. Notably, the paintings have been referenced in iconic TV series like Cheers and The Simpsons, as well as in acclaimed films like The Thomas Crown Affair. These references underscore the artwork’s timeless appeal and cultural significance, which continues to captivate audiences across generations.}} That would be sufficient for a rather brief mention in the article—roughly on par with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dogs_Playing_Poker&oldid=1262097092#In_literature_and_the_arts what we currently have]—as that would be proportional to the level of coverage that particular WP:ASPECT gets in the relevant sources (assuming this one is representative, that is).{{pb}}Of course every appearance has to be sourced. Appearances need to be covered {{tq|with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject}}. The only way to demonstrate that the weight given by our article to a particular appearance is indeed proportional to the weight given by the sources on the topic is to cite those sources. Or in other words, to show that something is WP:DUE it is necessary to point to the sources that we use to make that assessment.{{pb}}I'm certain you understand this in other contexts, so let me illustrate with an example to serve as a parallel: Some people are, arguably, most noteworthy for what tabloids and similar outlets write about them. Tabloids can be used as WP:Primary sources for their own content—for instance, "The Daily Gossipmonger wrote that Person X is subject to Gossip Y" can be verified by citing The Daily Gossipmonger. However, we don't use those sources to determine whether that content would be WP:DUE for inclusion in the article in the first place. You surely wouldn't argue that we should include Gossip Y in a WP:BLP article about Person X because "The Daily Gossipmonger is WP:RELIABLE as a WP:Primary source for its own content", now would you? However, if the reputable Reliable Reporters magazine wrote about The Daily Gossipmonger printing Gossip Y in an article on the tabloid coverage of Person X, we might include it in our article on Person X.{{pb}}If you can understand that some sources might be usable as WP:Primary sources for their own content while at the same time not contributing any WP:Due weight in a WP:BLP context (and thus not being sufficient on their own to justify including the material in question), you should be able to understand it in this context. TompaDompa (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems that in A Bold Bluff, the hand the St. Bernard holds is a pair of deuces, instead of a two-pair, which is two pairs rather than a pair of "twos". Though we cannot see the full hand in that particular painting, in "A Waterloo", the sequel to it, we can clearly see the St. Bernard holds S2, D2, H4 (or H5), C8, and SJ, which is a pair of deuces without another pair. Dodobird0 (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

:Good observation, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Formerly called "In popular culture", but there's not that much distinction between popular culture and elite culture as there was in olden times. Section title is arguable tho.

So, some people don't like this section, some do. An editor tagged it for references, I rolled this back cos works of art are their own references, then another editor deleted most of it instead, with an edit summary of

{{talkquote|If secondary sources do not exist, the content is not WP:DUE. As WP:PROPORTION says, articles are supposed to "treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject". Per this tacit admission that the material is in violation of a WP:Core content policy, I have removed it. I would also note that the status quo is without the content and the WP:ONUS to find consensus to include the disputed content is on you.}}

which is cogent but wrong in places I think, and I don't agree. I mean core content policies are like RS and N and NPOV and very few others, and its not like the section violates any of these, and so forth. ("Notability" doesn't necessarily apply to sections within articles, otherwise we would be basically a different project.) But whatever, we can throw WP:ALPHABET SOUP at each other. There are many rules and essays here, all subject to cherrypicking and often enough contradicting each other, it is too tempting to shout rules to back up an opinion one already has, and we are not the DMV (see WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY if you like alphabet soup).

Rather, since there's an argument, let's consider the matter just on the merits. My points would be

• Since we are here to serve the reader, explain how deleting this material helps the reader. I mean it's segregated at the bottom and nobody has to read it.
• In fact, demonstrating that there are various references in various places help show how famous the entity is and if references to it will be understood by a typical English speaker. This is a useful thing to know, if you are interested in knowing facts about this subject, I would say.
• If the issue is bourgeois snobbery (and let's be honest here, that's often in the mix), it is some dogs playing cards for goodness sake. The whole article is popular culture. It's not we're dragging something by Rembrandt thru flyover country where the mouth-breathers live.
• A good thing about these sections generally is, hey people like to write them, people like to read them, and what're you gonna do? People! You can't stop the river so why try. I mean adding a sentence to one of these sections is an easy and kind of inviting way to make one's first edit, and some people who make their first edit go on to make their ten thousandth, and that's a good thing.

But, it really comes down to personal opinion here, like a lot of things. The points above are why my personal opinion is to keep the thing. If there a good refuting arguments I would reconsider tho.

As to which is the "stable version" (to which articles usually revert if there's no agreement, and fine), let's see... without knowing the result ahead of time, I'll look at the situation on January 1 and June 1 of each year, or the next date after. Statistically that will probably be good enough. The article was converted into a redirect in 2004, so that's as far back as we can go.

• FEB 16 2005: No (but the article is just one short paragraph)
• JUL 22 2005: No
• MAR 2 2006: No
• JUN 7 2006: Yes, in that there is a section titled "Popularity" with four entries
• JAN 5 2007: Yes, the section is now titled "In popular culture" and has over ten bullets
• JUN 14 2007: Yes, same
• JAN 21 2008: Yes, same, except now named "Modern references in popular culture". 16 bullets at this point
• JUN 4 2008: Yes, no change
• JAN 3 2009: Yes, same, except title changed back to "In popular culture".
• JUN 1 2009: Yes, now tagged with {{tl|Trivia}}
• JAN 12 2010: Yes, same, but tag removed
• JUN 9 2010: No, entire section has been removed
• FEB 11 2011: No
• AUG 7 2011: No, editing of the article seems to have slowed down, there were only five edits in 2011
• JAN 11 2012: No'
• JUN 7 2012: No
• FEB 28 2013: No
• JUN 4 2013: No
• MAR 2014: No
• OCT 3 2014: No, editing quite slow, this is only the second edit since the previous one
• JAN 13 2015: No. this is the edit immediately after the previous one, editing has almost stopped so I am going to switch to looking at just the first edit of each year
• 2016: No
• 2017: Yes, "In popular culture" section remade with over 20 bullets, editing has picked up but I'll stay with just doing years
• 2018: Yes, same
• 2019: Yes, same
• 2020: Yes, same
• 2021: Yes, now tagged with {{tl|More citations needed section}} and {{tl|In popular culture}}
• 2022: Yes, now tagged with just {{tl|More citations needed section}}
• 2023: Yes, same, section has over 40 bullets at this point
• 2024: Yes, similar but with now only 23 bullets, and {{tl|In popular culture}} has been re-added

Editing to and fro on this particular section started around 2019. There were a number of delete/restore edits in recent years, so "stable version" might be hard to know for sure. The JUN 9 2010 state shows the section removed, this could have been contested per WP:BRD but wasn't, so not having the section became the stable version. The section was put back in by 2017 and that also could have been reverted per BRD but wasn't, so having the section then became the stable version after awhile and looks like it still is. You could look at the history in more detail, and all this is reading tea leaves anyway, but we have to have something to work with and it says here that the stable version at this time is to have the section in based on the data I have, so I'm restoring it and we can work forward from there.

BTW, editors should note that insulting edit summaries are not allowed, and invalidate the edit.

Anyway, should we have an RfC and bring some more eyes to bear on the subject? Probably get something like 50-50 so no change, so I'm not gonna do it, anybody else can if they want to, make sure it's stated neutrally ofc. Herostratus (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

:The WP:Core content policies are specifically WP:Neutral point of view, WP:Verifiability, and WP:No original research. WP:PROPORTION is part of the first of those. If the article does not {{tq|treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject}} but in excess thereof, then it is, as a matter of fact, in violation of the non-negotiable WP:Core content policy WP:NPOV. WP:Local consensus cannot override this. TompaDompa (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

:On the issue of what the stable version is, the section was absent from the article between [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dogs_Playing_Poker&diff=prev&oldid=1208477047 17 February 2024] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dogs_Playing_Poker&diff=prev&oldid=1260149771 29 November 2024]. Methinks that is plenty of time for the version of the article without the section to be counted as the stable version. But really, that's unimportant; the question of adherence to WP:NPOV takes priority, as it always does. TompaDompa (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)s

::Can't agree on core policies. WP:NPOV, WP:R, WP:N, and WP:CONSENSUS (enforced by WP:BRD) are core policies which basically everyone agrees with and without which the project would be very different or defunct. W:ORIGINALRESEARCH... not at the same existential level, no. There is a whole lot of original research here and it's mostly fine, and anyway I mean even picking and summarizing notable reliable sources is original thought, and if we didn't summarize we would only be plagiarizing. Everybody basically agrees on what NPOV, R, and N are (although arguing over how and when they apply happens a lot). Original research is basically OK if 1) you're not trying to make a debatable point, 2) you're not offering a one-sided group of refs (whether on purpose or cos that's all you have), and 3) what you're saying is prima facie true beyond a reasonable doubt. So it's not core by any means.

::The fact that these entries exist basically in the form stated is true beyond a reasonable doubt. Stating bare facts is not necessarily synthesis or or original research. The existence of this number of usages in literature does demonstrate that "The paintings remained fairly well-known into the 21st century..." unless one is willfully contrarian. If one wants argue that the "The paintings remained fairly well-known into the 21st century" isn't true, make that argument and good luck.

::But yes, The opening sentence "The paintings remained fairly well-known into the 21st century, with various passing references in a number of works" is debatable and does lead the reader. It's the kind of original research that could be argued to be bad, if you squint enough. A reader might think "Well a mere 25 references only shows relative obscurity, and I would call 25 'a few' not 'various'". I mean not really, unless the reader is kind of weird, but in theory anyway. So that sentence is synthesis and could legally be removed, and you may do so with no objection from me. And there's a compromise.

::In listing the bare facts, we're not trying to make a point cos there's no reason to. Editors don't much care if the entity is or is not commonly known. It's not like who owns the West Bank. We're not cherry-picking any facts, leaving some out. If you remove the first sentence the reader is free to think "Wow that's a lot" or "Jeez that's only a few". If we delete these facts the reader can't think either, not having the facts at hand, and is kept in the dark regarding how well-known or obscure the entity has been and is. "We want you to know about this entity, but we don't want you to know too much, so we'll delete facts which will be useful to some non-zero number of readers, even tho we have those facts at hand" doesn't fit our general remit I don't think.

::If the issue is that you don't like in popular culture/in culture/in literature and the arts sections generally, that's a different issue altogether and you can try (as many have before) to get that agreed to globally and good luck with that. Cherry-picking a few here and there doesn't really jibe with the fact that we've never gotten consensus that these sections aren't allowed. Herostratus (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

:::What the WP:Core content policies are is not a matter of opinion. Just click that link and read—it says {{tq|Wikipedia's content is governed by three principal core content policies: neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research.}} The rest of your argument is predicated on this being a matter of applying our policy on original research (and your rather novel position that {{tq|it's mostly fine}}), but that's not what this is about—it's about WP:NPOV, and specifically WP:PROPORTION. TompaDompa (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:::WP:PROPORTION is entirely where your arguments fall down, Tompa. The only significant thing about these paintings is their grip on popular culture, so it is entirely right to cover this at length. Johnbod (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Then you can presumably demonstrate this by pointing to relevant sources on the topic. As WP:PROPORTION says, {{tq|An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.}} So, what does the body of reliable, published material on the subject have to say about this aspect—do those sources cover it at length? If they don't, doing so here is treating that aspect out of proportion to the weight given to it by the sources. TompaDompa (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

::::As a show of good faith, here are some sources I located (though I'm not sure about the reliability of all of them):

::::*https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-painting-dogs-playing-poker-endured-100-years

::::*https://artplugged.co.uk/the-fascinating-story-behind-the-dogs-playing-poker-painting/

::::*https://www.widewalls.ch/magazine/dogs-playing-poker-painting

::::*https://archive.org/details/artofgamblingthr0000flow/page/228/mode/2up

::::*https://archive.org/details/myshaolinpoemofs0000lewi/page/56/mode/2up

::::Going by the coverage found in these sources, appearances in popular culture such as Cheers make up a comparatively minor aspect of the overarching topic. By all means feel free to point to other sources I have missed that show that my assessment of the overall coverage {{tq|in the body of reliable, published material on the subject}} of Dogs Playing Poker underestimates the weight given to that particular aspect. TompaDompa (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}Almost two weeks later, and nobody has put forth any sources that would corroborate this being more than a comparatively minor aspect. If that doesn't change, I suggest the section be pared down to its relative significance to the overall topic as judged by the coverage in the sources located thus far in another week or two. TompaDompa (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:Sources? We're not going to get an outside source saying "references to painting are important". You're meaning that each entry needs something written about it. But I mean... we have a whole lot of statements that aren't individually notable? If we have "Rommel turned south, past an old Italian fort, and engaged the British...", we don't have to show that the old Italian fort is itself notable -- find another source with a couple-few sentences at least, about the old fort. A extremely large number of sentences and sentence clauses are like that, it would be a huge change the project to require that they be independently notable. One could go in and recast delete the clause about the fort, but one shouldn't.

:And all of us are using the rules as a bludgeon. Nobody is like "Geez, this is an important and useful section, I think it belongs here, but gosh darn it our rules require it to be deleted". Or "I hate this section, it objectively degrades the article, but gosh darn our rules say I can't delete it". So it's kind of boring to play rules lawyer.

:But I mean, above you're talking about core rules that are central to our mission here, that we need to have for the project to function, and so can't be discussed (interpretations yes, but not the existence of the rule).

:* We must be civil to each other.

:* We must not show any bias.

:* We must have reliable sources for our statements.

:* We must get consensus for adding/deleting material if it's objected to.

:* We must not have articles about stuff that is entirely unnotable.

:* We must not have an "In literature and the arts" section in the article Dogs Playing Poker.

:One of these things is not like the other. Or more probably you are saying

:* "We must not have 'In literature and the arts' sections (or similar but with different titles, such as 'In popular culture') in any of our articles."

:But we do and the project hasn't collapsed. People have tried to push that thru, but it never works, and for good or ill that is the world we live in. You could try again. Since that is so, going around taking random potshots at "In popular culture" sections here and there is not functional, it is untidy to have these sections removed from a few articles, a lot energy spent rather that just realizing that the rule is "These sections are here to stay", so move along. I don't think that's written down anywhere, but so what, it's common good practice, editors have voted with their feet, and anyway one could point to the various failed RfC on the matter.

:(One thing, it's often better to have these things in text as we have here, but IMO a list would work better here. That's a different discussion tho.)

:At the end of the day it's personal preference against personal preference, and there's no stable version so that's a problem. I'm willing to flip a coin, I think there're websites where you can do that with other people watching.

:So anyway, yes we are going to have to have an RfC it looks like, and fine. Herostratus (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

::Most of what you just wrote was rather nonsensical and/or completely irrelevant to the question at hand. It's not that we cannot have a section like that, it's that if we do it must reflect the coverage in the sources. Really, all you have to do is read and understand WP:PROPORTION: articles are supposed to {{tq|treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject}}. I have presented sources that I think demonstrate that the proportional weight of this aspect is comparatively minor. By all means present your case to the contrary.{{pb}}So no, this is not "personal preference against personal preference". You are basing your case on personal preference. I am basing my case on policy and sources.{{pb}}I don't think you appreciate quite how silly your statement {{tq|more probably you are saying "We must not have 'In literature and the arts' sections (or similar but with different titles, such as 'In popular culture') in any of our articles."}} seems—were that my position, I would presumably be even more opposed to entire such articles, but quite on the contrary I have as a matter of fact written several. You can for instance see Mars in fiction, which I rewrote a few years ago and brought to WP:Featured article status, or Sun in fiction which I created and also brought to FA status. It's entirely possible to write high-quality content of this kind, but to do so we have to follow the sources. TompaDompa (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:::The section on this page is well written and short enough so readers can find something easily. But take 'Sun in fiction' for example. A feature, but at the same time a reader can't go to it to easily find something which, in a list, they'd come upon quickly. Please also realize that {{u|TompaDompa}} won't allow, for example, Ring (Baxter novel) to be added to the Sun in fiction page. Please read the lead and plot of the Ring article and realize that readers are not being offered a link to it in the "feature", which says a lot between the difference between an easily navigateable list and the long academic page which replaced it. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

::::You know full well that if Ring (Baxter novel) had the same kind of sourcing as the works that are mentioned at Sun in fiction, it could be added. You know this because we talked about it. There too, it is a question of abiding by WP:PROPORTION. I think it's pretty telling that I'm referring to sources and policy while you are referring to personal preference. TompaDompa (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

::::I would also note that Sun in fiction is not a "long academic page which replaced" "an easily navigateable list". I created the article and wrote it in prose form from the start. TompaDompa (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, that's why I knew about Ring, that you wouldn't allow such an obvious example of 'Sun in fiction' in the Sun in fiction article. I didn't realize you'd written the page from scratch because many of your other articles of this sort replaced perfectly navigatible lists. As I've said before, your academic articles are first-rate and deserve feature status, but the lists some of them replaced should also be presented to readers who would prefer a list. In any case, the Dogs in Poker section under discussion is fine, well written, and short enough to present all of the data in an understandable format. More importantly, it backs-up the premise of the lede that the painting's enduring and ever-present place in culture give them their notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::But {{tq|the premise of the lede that the painting's enduring and ever-present place in culture give them their notability}} is not supposed to be backed up by examples hand-picked by editors. It's supposed to be backed up by sources. TompaDompa (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Again, back to Ring, which is an obvious addition to Sun in fiction just as the examples used here are obvious to those who read the linked articles. Not every item in a list has to be sourced on the page, they refer back to the articles involved. No sense going back and forth with the same arguments, the items in the well-written section here define the notability of this topic within the visual arts. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::It's not about whether it's "obvious", it's about whether it is WP:PROPORTIONAL. Demonstrating that this is the case requires sources on the topic, contrary to your assertions about sources not being needed. This is a plain reading of WP:NPOV, a non-negotiable WP:Core content policy—what do you think {{tq|treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject}} means? All you have to do is provide appropriate sources to back up your position, but you seem unable or unwilling to do so. TompaDompa (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}Actually, let's cut to the chase: how do you reconcile your position with WP:PROPORTION ({{tq|treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject}}), {{u|Randy Kryn}}? TompaDompa (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)