404:). The question of that RfC does not identify a specific article. I am not seeking the general removal of popular culture material and, if you would look at the edits, you'd see that I didn't remove all of it, only examples for which the citations didn't establish their significance. Aside fro that, I've observed that PC lists are a product of lazy editing and that prose serves to tie examples together into a coherent cultural observation. In reverting my removal of examples, you've also removed my prose that ties the remaining examples together. Please restore the prose; how you do that while addressing the deleted examples is up to you.
74:
53:
22:
84:
622:
162:
641:"In pop culture" have two goals: to serve as a reference for the most notable examples of whatever it is the article is about, and to provide the reader with a general impression of the cultural importance of the subject. More often than not the compilation of the list is at editors' discretion, rather than reliant on a particular RS.
644:
Ideally, lists would only contain items backed by sources that both a) identify them; and b) explain their importance - as per the RfC - in practice the latter requirement is rarely fulfilled, and I'd argue in this case it's not even important: Saddle shoes are such an unusual fashion item that most
494:
Good for you that you're going through a trivia cleanup list. I'm sorry I have back track yet again - one of those days. Those refs do illustrate those characters wearing saddle shoes. Even though there is an issue of how significant those are, I say that RfC is on a case by case basis and you still
378:
Anyhow, I've had my say. I think this article is better with the section. If the community disagrees with me, then it goes because the community knows best. So, I can accept it being out. You think otherwise. It is up to you now to convince the community that the section should be out. If you cannot
298:
Hoffman drove one. That would have no value. But examples of famous people introducing fashion items or bringing them back into style has relevance, especially with saddle shoes. They have been retro many times. Examples in popular culture show when and by whom they were helped to be popular again.
527:
I'm familiar with the background of the RfC; it grew out of edit conflicts across multiple articles, including one that I had been involved in. Its goal was to determine a sense of the community on pop culture standards in general. Your position that it applies only to particular articles is just
297:
For the record, I think the section helps visitors understand more about the shoes. It is relevant because people in popular culture popularize fashion items. They influence others into wearing them. This is not like adding a popular culture section to the
Mercedes Benz article saying that Dustin
342:
a prior, general consensus about the selection and citing of pop culture references, established through the RFC process. Some of the examples, with the citations that Anna added, met the requirements of that consensus; I kept them and rewrote them to narrative prose. Others, I removed. That's a
313:
To get from "shoes were worn" to "this demonstrates a fashion cycle" or any other cultural observation, you need a source in which that observation appears. Otherwise it's original research. And keeping examples as mere examples, without elaboration of their meaning, is indiscriminate trivia
593:. I think we both prefer the section in there. I do. One one hand, there is the RfC. On the other hand, it is case-by-case, and in this case, I think the article is better off with the section. I've explained why before, but in essence, when a famous character wears them, it shows who they
213:
214:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=GlTgnEv4UXsC&pg=RA1-PA212&lpg=RA1-PA212&dq=%22saddle+shoes%22&source=web&ots=8m5yPfNxzl&sig=rK39a68gYO-qNON8w1WqBGvGx18&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result
478:. I'm not going to go through Peanuts or Gilmore Girls clips etc to see if they are in saddle shoes and if I did that would be OR anyways wouldn't it. Still if someone wants to take a day and do this knock yourself out. I'm outa here.
426:
Sorry, I missed the link. Yes, it does say "significance" too. Although the items have refs, those sources simply mention that so-and-so wore the shoes. I think you are right. Please feel free to modify the article as you see fit.
314:
collection. A list of drive-by "I saw X" examples is not a sourced explanation of cultural meaning, nor will it be made one by increasing its length, nor by adding citations that verify only the example's existence. See
652:
As for identification - please! We're talking shoes. I wish
Wikipedians would only be as serious as the task requires; here we're talking about a unique, easily identifiable style of
220:
659:
Keep the section, but try to keep it short. I'd remove the
Nabokov bit and add some earlier examples, from when these were still stylish. Everything else looks noteworthy enough.
197:
603:
IP: I see that you have been removing these sections in other articles. The removals I have inspected seem pretty good. However, in this article, the section does seem fitting.
495:
need a consensus on this page to remove from this article. I believe those examples are fair and don't diminish the quality of the article. Feel free to start a fresh RfC.
361:
Please provide a link. As far as I know, popular culture sections are still case-by-case and there is not a RfC that prohibits them across
Knowledge. But I could be wrong.
638:
Generally speaking, examples appearing in an article should be chosen to satisfy some "educational" purpose, eg. to demonstrate a variety of wearers, models, styles etc.
273:. I then spent 8 edits and 1/2 and hour sourcing the section so it would not be original research. You then removed the section again, this time with the edit summary
660:
600:
So, Slightsmile, if you want the section in, please revert our IP friend. I will support that on the grounds that there was no consensus to remove the section.
318:
for an example that I kept because I found a reliable source that not only verified the reference, but discussed what it might mean. Also see the conclusion of
454:
Not while I'm here. It's a good relevant section and fun for the readers to see Elvis, Peanuts, Gilmore Girls. Whatever some page somewhere says I'm applying
597:, and that they wore them because it was the style then, and the fact that they wore them prompts others to wear them. It also shows what they go with.
208:
264:
224:
140:
750:
678:
506:
489:
470:
436:
413:
370:
352:
331:
725:
343:
compromise within the prior consensus. There is no "consensus" that random pop culture facts added to
Knowledge must be kept forever.
573:
537:
745:
130:
693:
668:
688:
612:
388:
307:
292:
740:
276:
pointing out that so-and-so wears saddle shoes in this-or-that work adds zilch to understanding of the work or of the shoes
698:
253:
717:
562:
OK. I don't suppose you could fit
Peanuts in there somewhere? Also wouldn't it look better with a heading like before.
106:
529:
405:
344:
323:
229:
645:
any recent appearance of theirs is meaningful enough to be listed, provided the appearance is in a piece which is
258:
178:
97:
58:
275:
269:
315:
33:
664:
216:
455:
174:
528:
wrong, and if you doubt that I suggest that you check with the opening or closing editors of the RfC.
401:
319:
656:. The burden of proof should be on anyone claiming they're not what they appear to be - a hard sell.
721:
608:
432:
384:
366:
303:
288:
105:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
627:
683:
21:
568:
501:
484:
465:
338:
I removed all of the pop culture examples, and Anna objected, calling for "consensus." There
39:
708:
694:
https://historydaily.org/saddle-shoes-the-two-tone-classic-that-took-40-years-to-get-popular
713:
533:
409:
348:
327:
703:
8:
689:
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/12/style/it-s-black-and-white-and-not-an-ear-of-corn.html
604:
428:
380:
362:
299:
284:
248:
185:
235:
699:
https://vintagedancer.com/1950s/shop-saddle-shoes-black-white-two-toned-oxford-shoes/
590:
563:
496:
479:
460:
238:]. We cannot make statements about the history of the shoe if all we have is an
243:
89:
734:
646:
280:
239:
283:, you need consensus to remove the section. Community, what do you think?
476:
I see it - the refs for these characters wearing saddle shoes are ify
73:
52:
102:
189:
684:
http://offenburger.com/index.php/whats-with-the-saddle-shoes/
709:
http://www.keikari.com/english/a-history-of-saddle-shoes/
379:
do that, then the section stays in. It's a good system.
704:
https://vintagedancer.com/vintage/saddle-shoes-history/
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
79:
732:
267:. You removed the section with the edit summary
19:
234:I reverted content that was sourced from
188:may be able to locate suitable images on
209:Here's a reference for most of the info
733:
751:Knowledge requested images of fashion
156:
95:This article is within the scope of
15:
679:Possible links to improve this page
38:It is of interest to the following
13:
160:
14:
762:
620:
316:White Russian (cocktail)#History
82:
72:
51:
20:
746:Low-importance fashion articles
135:This article has been rated as
458:. Go be a boss somewhere else.
332:06:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
308:06:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
293:06:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
1:
726:04:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
115:Knowledge:WikiProject Fashion
109:and see a list of open tasks.
118:Template:WikiProject Fashion
7:
741:Stub-Class fashion articles
669:21:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
613:02:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
574:21:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
538:20:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
507:15:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
490:13:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
471:13:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
437:07:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
414:06:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
389:05:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
371:05:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
353:04:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
225:21:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
10:
767:
254:22:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
141:project's importance scale
134:
67:
46:
270:remove original research
230:Blog source not reliable
259:Popular culture section
169:It is requested that a
217:Natalie Anne Lanoville
165:
28:This article is rated
628:third opinion request
240:self-published source
164:
192:and other web sites.
186:WordPress Openverse
179:improve its quality
177:in this article to
98:WikiProject Fashion
184:The external tool
166:
34:content assessment
728:
716:comment added by
676:
675:
649:in its own right.
400:provide a link. (
206:
205:
193:
155:
154:
151:
150:
147:
146:
758:
711:
624:
623:
617:
616:
566:
499:
482:
463:
322:on the subject.
251:
246:
202:
200:
183:
163:
157:
123:
122:
121:fashion articles
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
85:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
47:
31:
25:
24:
16:
766:
765:
761:
760:
759:
757:
756:
755:
731:
730:
681:
661:François Robere
621:
564:
497:
480:
461:
265:User:24.7.14.87
261:
249:
244:
232:
211:
198:
196:
161:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
83:
81:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
764:
754:
753:
748:
743:
680:
677:
674:
673:
672:
671:
657:
650:
642:
639:
633:
632:
605:Anna Frodesiak
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
492:
473:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
429:Anna Frodesiak
419:
418:
417:
416:
381:Anna Frodesiak
376:
375:
374:
373:
363:Anna Frodesiak
356:
355:
335:
334:
300:Anna Frodesiak
285:Anna Frodesiak
260:
257:
231:
228:
210:
207:
204:
203:
194:
182:
167:
153:
152:
149:
148:
145:
144:
137:Low-importance
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
90:Fashion portal
77:
65:
64:
62:Low‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
763:
752:
749:
747:
744:
742:
739:
738:
736:
729:
727:
723:
719:
715:
710:
706:
705:
701:
700:
696:
695:
691:
690:
686:
685:
670:
666:
662:
658:
655:
651:
648:
643:
640:
637:
636:
635:
634:
630:
629:
619:
618:
615:
614:
610:
606:
601:
598:
596:
592:
575:
572:
571:
567:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
539:
535:
531:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
508:
505:
504:
500:
493:
491:
488:
487:
483:
477:
474:
472:
469:
468:
464:
459:
457:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
438:
434:
430:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
386:
382:
372:
368:
364:
360:
359:
358:
357:
354:
350:
346:
341:
337:
336:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
312:
311:
310:
309:
305:
301:
295:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
277:
272:
271:
266:
256:
255:
252:
247:
241:
237:
227:
226:
222:
218:
215:
201:
195:
191:
187:
180:
176:
172:
168:
159:
158:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
49:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
718:18.20.223.69
712:— Preceding
707:
702:
697:
692:
687:
682:
653:
626:Response to
625:
602:
599:
594:
588:
569:
502:
485:
475:
466:
453:
397:
377:
339:
296:
279:. Well, per
274:
268:
262:
233:
212:
170:
136:
96:
40:WikiProjects
591:Slightsmile
735:Categories
530:24.7.14.87
406:24.7.14.87
402:here again
345:24.7.14.87
324:24.7.14.87
171:photograph
30:Stub-class
714:unsigned
320:this RFC
175:included
139:on the
112:Fashion
103:Fashion
59:Fashion
647:WP:DUE
565:Slight
498:Slight
481:Slight
462:Slight
281:WP:BRD
236:a blog
199:Upload
190:Flickr
36:scale.
654:shoes
570:Smile
503:Smile
486:Smile
467:Smile
250:lozzo
722:talk
665:talk
609:talk
589:Hi,
534:talk
433:talk
410:talk
385:talk
367:talk
349:talk
328:talk
304:talk
289:talk
245:Joja
221:talk
595:fit
456:IAR
398:did
263:Hi
181:.
173:be
131:Low
737::
724:)
667:)
631::
611:)
536:)
435:)
412:)
396:I
387:)
369:)
351:)
340:is
330:)
306:)
291:)
242:.
223:)
720:(
663:(
607:(
532:(
431:(
408:(
383:(
365:(
347:(
326:(
302:(
287:(
219:(
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
