Talk:Beverly Hills, California/Archive 3

Beverly Hills Chihuahua movies in IPC section

Regarding this diff. The question is whether the Beverly Hills Chihuahua movies belong in the IPC section. I think not, unless some kind of reliable source can be found to say that these movies have some special significance that increases understanding of the city. It seems incredibly unlikely to me that (a) they do have such significance and (b) that there is such a source. There are hundreds of movies that can go in if this one does, all of them trivial with respect to understanding the city of Beverly Hills. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The movies in that series all revolve around the people, attitudes, stereotypes, and start and conclude in, Beverly Hills. The IPC section is about just that "In Popular Culture" - not just an understanding of the city - but: "For example, a city's article may mention films, books or television series in which the city is itself a prominent setting" (From Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content#Content); and this movie brings the city and it's impact in popular culture to light in a comedic way. There is nothing objectionable about adding it to the list. I agree that perhaps just the first in the series might possibly be considered "trivial with respect to understanding the city of Beverly Hills", but the series as a whole is fine. That is why I "fixed with a refinement" from the original editors contribution. The movie series does in a "modern" way the same as the Beverly Hillbillies TV series did.--Notwillywanka (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep, and right below that it says If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment. Quoting a respected expert attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged. Absence of these secondary sources should be seen as a sign of limited significance, not an invitation to draw inference from primary sources. That's all I'm asking for here. Otherwise we have only your opinion that this series of movies is relevant in any way whatsoever to Beverly Hills.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Um..You are reading much further in, and applying the quote to a different paragraph and situation. The city of "Beverly Hills, California" is featured prominently in the series of movies in question. The references to "Beverly Hills, California" are "plainly verified by primary sources". There is no question as to "the significance of the reference", the series of movies take place in, and are about characters from the city. There is no inference drawn it's clearly stated in the movie, including the title, that the fictional characters are modeled after people from Beverly Hills - the guideline clearly states: "When fictional characters are modeled after other people or characters, they should be included when the connection is identified in the primary source or attributed by a secondary source". On a side note the movie it self is now referenced in popular culture, an example of "Art imitating Life imitating Art". So when the City (and it's "reputations"), has been featured in popular culture - in the movies in question, and then the movies them selves are featured in popular culture - in print comparing real life to the movie (using it's title for example)... If I was advocating for examples of Beverly Hills Chihuahua in popular culture, then I would gladly bring some references, as they are "just passing mentions": here, and here. However none are needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talk • contribs) 03:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean exactly. The point is that there are hundreds of movies filmed in Beverly Hills. If we're going to put them in this section, there ought to be some criteria for doing so. The IPC essay gives reasonable guidelines for doing this: If secondary sources say that the work in question has something significant to teach people about the subject of the article it should go in. Obviously there's no question as to whether these chihuahua movies are about Beverly Hills. The question is why anyone should care. For instance, people write whole doctoral dissertations on what Blade Runner says about cultural conceptions of Los Angeles. That is a significant work regarding Los Angeles and popular culture. The same thing happens with the work of Raymond Chandler and Los Angeles. On the other hand, we can't list every movie that's shot in Los Angeles, because that's just most of them, including about 98% of the pornography produced in this country. It's insignificant with regard to the subject of the cities involved. If these chihuahua movies have something to teach our readers about Beverly Hills, it shouldn't be so hard to find a source that says they do, which is what the IPC essay suggests, rightly I think, that we do.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Things only belong the "in popular culture" sections if there are secondary sources that describe them as being relevant to the understanding of the topic as represented in popular culture. Various guidelines that attempt to contradict that violate WP:OR, a policy.—Kww(talk) 04:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Image caption clarified

For obvious reasons, I tried to clarify the image caption under The Beverly Hills Hotel where only a newer part of the building shows clearly. This was reverted w/o explanation. I am reverting again and asking for an explanation here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)