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. Does this make me a bad person? Do others feel this? I feel as if these sections should be hunted down and exterminated. They could, of course, be broken off into separate lists (as I did for [[Mad scientist]] => [[List of mad scientists]]), but is that list then encyclopedic? It is feasible that it will ever be comprehensive? Would there be a point to a list of instances in popular culture of the [[philosopher's stone]] -- a common and reoccuring theme since at least medieval times? [[Nuclear weapon]] is another entry which has such a section. I've tried to make it, over time, less of a list and more of a descriptive paragraph. But it still is quite unpleasant and not very useful. I feel somewhat bad cutting a whole list out of an entry, though. With something like "nuclear weapon" (a major cultural motif of the late 20th century), it feels ridiculous to try and add every instance of its being invoked. But where to draw the line? I edited out a line somebody added about the fact that the prog-rock band Rush wrote a song about nuclear weapons on the basis that this was hardly notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article. But is "Sum of All Fears"? "Godzilla"? I don't know. Do these sections help you understand the article in question? I don't think they do. I'm happy with the article for the movie "Sum of All Fears" saying that it involved a nuclear weapon, but the other way around seems quite silly. My general feeling is that this is an issue of "importance" (very subjective) and "specificity" (less subjective); "Sum of All Fears" (the movie) is far less important than "nuclear weapons" (writ largely), and while the "Sum of All Fears" invokes the larger trope of the "nuclear weapon", the opposite does not, in my opinion, occur (most people do not see the word "nuclear weapon" and think, "Oh yes, that movie!"). I think that if the subject of an article really warrants a section on its impact in "popular culture," it should be something more along the lines of describing the way it is invoked (i.e. "Nuclear weapons have commonly stood as metaphors for the harnessing of the powers of nature by science, and are often invoked as apocalyptic symbols, etc.") rather than a list of occurences. Is anybody else with me on this? Have I lost my mind? Should I be more respectful to aspects of "popular culture" that I obviously disdain? Am I a cruel and unfair editor? I'm interested in your thoughts. This is clearly a matter of taste (and perhaps a little reasoning), though, and I'm not proposing any hard policies. I do understand the *reason* such sections exist: a lot of users don't have a whole lot to contribute to an article on "nuclear weapons", for instance, besides their associations in popular culture. Everybody wants to pitch in, as best they can. However, "all contributions are equally valid and must be kept" is clearly not the Wiki philosophy (egalitarianism here is reserved to the ability to contribute, not the information contributed itself), though I feel bad saying, "Look buddy, I'm sorry you don't know anything about this except that it was featured in an HBO weekly show. I understand you want to help. But you're just not up to snuff, if this is the only information you can offer." I'd feel like such a snobby academic historian saying that sort of thing, a very un-wiki sentiment. Alas! Does anybody have any thoughts? FF