Talk:Genies in popular culture

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Genie which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RFC bot 04:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Genie in popular culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080517011051/http://www.seapabkk.org:80/newdesign/alertsdetail.php?No=569 to http://www.seapabkk.org/newdesign/alertsdetail.php?No=569

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Poorly written

The article merely lists all films and books featuring 'genies' without any comment what constitutes a 'genie' in popular culture and what do they look like. (Even the list has strange gaps - why the 'Wishmaster' franchise is not included, being apparently about a character explicitly called 'genie'?) There is no comment on why there are so many female genies in Western cinema (those from original folklore are apparently male). And as for male ones, is the sikha haircut an essential part of their iconography? There must have been a bit more research on this. 176.15.77.168 (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Limits to list

I'm in the process of cleaning this up. This should be limited to pop culture media where it features a genie in some context. Comparisons do not count. Using Neil Gaiman as an example, the genie character in American Gods would belong on this list, whereas the Sandman short story where Dream is compared to a genie would not qualify. At most there would be a mention in the listing that Gaiman has mentioned or features the entities in his works.

There are other limits that should be in place, but I'll add those suggestions as I see things in the list. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Also, a requirement would be that there must be either an article for the media or its creator. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The Witcher (TV series) depiction

@TompaDompa Hi, could you please expound on why you reverted my edit which detailed the depiction of a Djinn in the The Witcher (TV series)? It is consistent with the flow and content of the article and was sourced properly. Your edit summary "Examples should come from sources on the overarching topic, not sources on the works used as examples" is in my view ambiguously worded and insufficient in explaining the removal of sourced on-topic/relevant information from the article. Thanks – 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 03:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The source you cited is not a source on genies in popular culture (the topic of this article), but a source on The Witcher. Examples in these kinds of articles should come from sources on the overarching topic (in this case, genies in popular culture) rather than from sources on the works the examples come from (in this case, The Witcher (TV series)). TompaDompa (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. The only detail I don't understand is why the source "should" be related to the overarching topic and why it can't just attest to the mention of the djinn in a particular TV show, are you referring to a consensus which affirms this? – 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 04:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

For popular culture specifically, refer to MOS:POPCULT. But this also applies more generally: what aspects of a topic we cover on Wikipedia is dictated by what aspects the sources on that topic cover, see WP:PROPORTION. TompaDompa (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I've read MOS:POPCULT and don't see how it applies here. The source I provided, in accordance with the aforementioned guideline, specifically mentions the appearance of the djinn and its role in the plot of the episode. Quoting from the guideline you referenced:

Take for example the subject of bone broth. You may wish to include mention of how Baby Yoda in The Mandalorian drank bone broth. An appropriate source might be Bon Appetit magazine, which is a reliable source for articles about soup. If Bon Appetit mentions how Baby Yoda drank bone broth, it may be suitable for inclusion in the bone broth article. By contrast, an article in Polygon reviewing the latest episode of The Mandalorian which does not go into any detail about bone broth but simply mentions that Baby Yoda drank some in that episode is not sufficient to include in the article because it does not provide any in-depth coverage of the subject of the article.

Therefore, in accordance with MOS, I see no reason why the sourced information I added is unsuitable for the article. Thanks – 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 13:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Per policy, the appearance of the djinn in The Witcher is to be given weight in this article WP:PROPORTIONAL to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. If sources on the topic of this article—genies in popular culture—do not mention it, the proportional weight is none. The source you cited—an IGN article on The Witcher—is not a source on the topic of this article and consequently cannot be used for this purpose. TompaDompa (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

"If sources on the topic of this article—genies in popular culture—do not mention it, the proportional weight is none"

I don't see how you inferred that from WP:PROPORTIONAL as the policy doesn't specifically state that, nor does it state that sources not necessarily focusing on the topic cannot be used for this purpose. The fact is that the IGN article source reliably attests to the mention of a djinn in the TV show, and is therefore a sufficient source in accordance with the policies you cited. Alternatively, there are other sources besides IGN that support the djinn depiction such as IMDB, Express.co.uk, Screenrant, and Fiction Horizon. Let me know if any of these are acceptable to you. Thanks – 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 22:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

What the policy says is 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. The key part here is "on the subject". Sources on other topics may of course be used for WP:Verifiability, but they do not demonstrate that the aspect in question is a significant aspect—as opposed to a WP:MINORASPECT—of the article topic. It may very well be that the appearance of the djinn is a significant aspect of The Witcher, but the only way to demonstrate that The Witcher is a significant aspect of the topic genies in popular culture is to show that it gets coverage in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. None of the sources you suggest do that, and IMDb is not a WP:Reliable source at all since its content is user-generated. TompaDompa (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. As we couldn't come to a consensus, I have requested a third opinion. – 𝑵𝒖𝒏𝒖𝒙𝒙𝒙 ✪ 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑘 02:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Genies in popular culture and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

I agree with TompaDompa. It's not as cut-and-dried a policy/guideline call as TD made it seem, and Nunuxxx's points are entirely reasonable. I took the time to re-read this discussion on whether MOS:POPCULT applies to stand-alone "in popular culture" articles. My assessment of the debate is that many feel it does not, and there's at the very least no consensus that it does apply. Without that explicit guidance, this comes down to straightforward debate about the scope and limits of the article, and I think it's reasonable to focus on sources that give in-depth treatment to "genies in popular culture" as a topic. A focusing question for me was: "if our bar for inclusion is a source saying a genie appeared in one episode, would the ensuing giant article be as useful to readers as this one?" In my view, the answer is no. Nunuxxx has multiple options if they'd like to further pursue including this content. They are welcome, of course, to disregard this non-binding third opinion. They can also seek other forms of dispute resolution. Both participants might consider restarting the wider discussion on this type of article, either at WT:TRIVIA or one of the Village Pump pages. Thank you for seeking out a third opinion! I have this page on my watchlist and am available to answer clarifying or follow-up questions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)