Talk:Xena: Warrior Princess in popular culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Popular Culture This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular Culture,
a WikiProject which aims to improve all articles related to popular culture.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high-importance within popular culture articles.

This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 28 February 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] Self-referentiality

Surely "Xena Warrior Princess in popular culture" is just a longer synonym for "Xena Warrior Princess"? What next - "comics in popular culture"? "pop music in popular culture"? --Paularblaster (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I see the problem: it should be called Xena: Warrior Princess in Cultural Studies (something rather different from "popular culture"). --Paularblaster (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
In popular culture is the standard name. The thing should be deleted, IMHO, as the only few paragraphs of relevance could easily fit into the main series article, but it passed AfD, so it stays as is. Collectonian (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
"(subject) in popular culture" can be thought of as shorthand for "(subject)'s influence on popular culture".--Father Goose (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Micro-references

I read through the extremely long list of references to individual passing moments in shows and movies. Not a single one of them sounds important enough to mention, and there are really a lot of them; this is basically a list of every time the word "Xena" was mentioned. Having some in a list may make sense but we need some selectivity here... unfortunately, my normal standard (i.e. toss out passing references or one-liners, keep mentions that are at least important to the plot of the work) seems to exclude every mention we have here. So unless we can find another standard, I think not a single one of these needs to be mentioned and the entire list should be removed. Mangojuicetalk 14:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

When it really comes down to it, I agree. In this case the prose sections really is extremely high quality, and the rest of the minor references do not really improve the coverage of the article subject. --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)