Talk:Imaginationland Episode I

Allusion section is trivia

And is thus discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines. Please tag as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.105.234 (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

NO. For god's sake, no.

I give up, what exactly is wrong with a trival section anyway? 70.88.213.74 20:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

read WP:TRIVIA - not that I agree with it. StuartDD _{contributions} 22:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Question

Just out of curiousity, had Jesus appeared in Imaginationland, would he have counted as a fictional character in the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.33.21 (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if Ra and Anubis appeared there, then so would any other Religious character; Jesus included. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 01:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

But Muhammad and Joseph Smith are both in there as well and they are independently verifiable historical figures. So what's up with that? 68.175.49.98 17:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe.... just maybe.... it's a joke?!??? 69.132.53.190 02:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Jesus, Muhammed and Moses are not in Imaginationland. This is obviously deliberate as the other memebers of the super best friends are there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.135.66.188 (talk) 06:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Jesus is there now... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.187.45 (talk) 02:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Jesus was there in part one of imaginationland, see http://www.southparkstudios.com/downloads/preview/?id=7508 70.17.9.56 06:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Kita

"Muslim terrorists"?

Has there been an official announcement that the terrorists were indeed followers of Islam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.97.55 (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There isn't any statement saying they are Muslim directly. But them screaming "Allah!" is a hint that they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.81.121 (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That just means they're Arabic. Allah is the Arabic word for "god". 124.171.169.132 06:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Allah is assosciated with Islam. 2. This is the imagination of America. In America's imagination all terrorists are Muslim.

~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 09:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The government in this episode says "Al Qeada" many times, suggests they are muslim. Philbuck222 10:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No, they actually call them "Muslim terrorists". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.1.154 (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to help clarify: The US military guys call them "Muslim terrorists" at the start of the pentagon scene, at about 14:45 in the episode. Justanotherperson 23:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Truck Scene at End of Episode

Does anyone know if the truck scene with Cartman heading to DC was parodying something specific?

It definately is a specific parody. I believe it represents one of those situations with a discharged soldier coming back (from vietnam, etc.) to settle an old score. Im thinking Sylvester Stallone but im not sure. - CBhadha 10/17/07 10:52 PM EST

I thought it was parodying Optimus Prime.--70.253.203.15 07:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Jericho came to my mind at first.. I must be wrong? --nlitement ^[talk] 23:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are definitely wrong. It's not a parody of Jericho or Optimus Prime, it's a parody of the movie First Blood...Cartman is dressed and talks like Rambo. -- 71.255.82.50

Its definitely from First Blood. His cloths are the exact same and the line is very similar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kangolcone (talk • contribs) 04:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe its from Hitchhiker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exterminator13 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the song being played while Cartman is talking from anything specific? Tampabay721 22:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's from the TV series 24 (or rather adapted from there). It is called "Bierko entering the gas company". 134.99.178.109 (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Spoiler Alert

When the Boys first enter Imaginationland, the Superbest friends are seen, however, Muhammad and Jesus are not there.

I wonder if it has to do with CC being angry with thinking of them as "imaginary" or if they will be in the episode later. Things just dont happen for no reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.193.238 (talk) 08:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

HA! He just said that things don't happen for no reason on South Park.  :) 151.191.175.232 20:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Jesus, Satan, God, e.t.c. have been featured more on the show then the others. Wouldn't it be kind of strange for them to be "imaginary" all of a sudden? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.71.169 (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Jesus is in Imaginationland, being King Aragorn. Mallerd 20:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Saving Private Ryan and Stan

Basically the beach scene. ýPreceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.227.3 (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there a scene in Black Hawk Down that was similar to this as well? --RckmRobot 02:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• No. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was more of a parody of The Kingdom, as was the pentagon scene 66.27.118.245 06:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• No. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that scene of Ronald McDonald picking up his severed arm is a direct lift from SPR. Inkan1969 14:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

People, it's from the beach assault in Saving Private Ryan. End of story. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely a Saving Private Ryan parody. It's too obvious to disputed because of a lack of a source. Anyone who has seen the movie can recognize it in a second. We must put put it back in the "allusions" section.Simpson, Bart 17:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you think these two links are valid to cite the Saving Private Ryan reference?

http://www.videosift.com/video/South-Park-Imagination-Land http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y1YL9C8Hfw

I dunno? Simpson, Bart (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Imagination Inhabitants

There were just so many and the scenes go by so quickly...looks like it may take the next (two?) episodes to get a complete run-down of the list. I'm not sure even the forums at southparkstudios.com can help with this one - though I imagine the list will increase next week, if this is truly a continuation. Keep in mind T&M have pulled that stunt before. However, I imagine a reference to Lord of the Rings and Mordor will be present if the episode truly continues this storyline. --166.102.104.95 02:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The idea of a barrier keeping back evil is nothing new; Star Trek, Fairly Oddparents, to name a few (and widely different) shows, have used the idea in the past 10 to 15 years. However, it did almost have a LOTR "feel" to the animation of the scene. I think it was less the lightning and more of the color used for the red background. Plus those cool-looking mountains, even if they were in two-dimensional form. --Iwriteu 03:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is Mr. Tumnas from The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Not a satyr in general. 143.195.150.63 02:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw Link from The Legend of Zelda sporting his Four Swords variation with a red tunic. He had brown hair, too which was odd. When I saw Mario, I thought they were going to include Link but I doubted it. Funny. This has to be one of the best episodes, especially with the Saving Private Ryan parody. --TravisBatos 02:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Link wasn't there, it was another guy. I can't remember the name right now, but I know it wasn't Link. Ganondorf was there, though. 24.34.126.122 (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe I saw one of the monsters from Where the Wild Things Are. -- RattleMan 05:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The only one I saw was the giant striped one with horns. But the thing I don't get is why it was counted as good. In the book, the Wild Things are horrible demons. 24.34.126.122 (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I also see the following: The Mad Hatter, Astro Boy, Captain Kirk, Johnny Quest, Mario, Little Red Riding Hood, Jack, The Prince, Mr. Tumnus, the Taco alien, a Care Bear one of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Cheetarah, Ronald McDonald, Charlie Brown (ugh!), Raggedy Ann and Andy, Santa Claus, one of the trees from Lord of the Rings, and that's all I can identify for now. -- RattleMan 05:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't Mr. Tumnus, it was just a faun/satyr. If it were Mr. TUmnus, he would have had the red scarf. 24.34.126.122 (talk)

A couple Blue Meanies from Yellow Submarine (The Beatles movie) appear as well. Imaginationland appears to be heavily based on Pepperland and the Yellow Submarine movie style overall. Generalleoff 11:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There WAS a section for this but someone named Fighting for Justicekeeps deleting it. also, i dont think the "mayor" guy was supposed to be willy wonka. hes a guy from some movie that i cant remember the name of. he had a balloon thing like in the show and i think he owned a little red dragon. i cant remember the name of the damn movie but i thought it was a disneyland ride but cant find anything on it. anyone have any clue to help me from going crazy?Whitey138 —Preceding comment was added at 05:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC) its flip from little nemo. wheres the same polka-dot pants, vest, top hat, bow tie, and jacket I believe the mayor is meant to be DreamFinder from Epcot's original Journey into Imagination -- and he did indeed have a small (purple) dragon named Figment.

thats it! thank you!Whitey138

Was H.R. Pufnstuf in there too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.146.106 (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of this list is a blatant violation of WP:NOT#INFO; as such, it has been removed, and will continue to be removed. Dlong 16:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No need rush to remove content so quickly, at least wait until the second episode is aired and perhaps with more context this episodes summary can be restructed into something more useful than a flat list. There are so many references - many of them obscure - it is discouraging to repeatedly delete the list which helps make the many references in the episode more understandable. Some of the characters can be grouped and explained more easily in a non-list format such as the Super Best Friends, and given time perhaps a sensible way to reformat the list can be found. -- Horkana 23:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I saw Shiva, Mohammed and that leader of the mormons there. I'm serious. Second 08:17 --212.247.27.162 18:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep. The Super Best Friends were there! Which brings up an interesting point: Muhammad and Joseph Smith are both verifiable historical figures, not imaginary characters. Shiva, Buddha and Sea Man (especially Sea Man!) can all be effectively written off as "imaginary," and there HAS been periodic scholarly debate about the existence of Jesus as a historical figure, but there are independent and verifiable historical records of the existence of the other two men. Which also means that the part of the "references" section here which says that Joseph Smith only exists "according to" past episodes is just plain silly. ;) 68.175.49.98 17:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Astro Boy, Pikmin, both visible in the scene with the king of lollipops. Ronald McDonald also. I'll bet the faun is Tumnus from the Lion, the witch, and the wardrobe. Reid 23:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The list shows the inclusion of Aquaman...however that is not him but a South Park Parody of him from "Super Best Friends" a character named Seaman, however I did not see his sidekick, Swallow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.160.91 (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Reusing the existing character of Seaman already parodying Aquaman probably helps it fall under fair use, so perhaps it would be better to refer to the Seaman character? This kind of detail might also help towards reformatting the list into sentences which are less likely to be so quickly edited out. -- Horkana 23:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Also in the scene where stan is in shell shock he looks up to see a tower plainly occupied by Rapunzel explode at the base and collapse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.94.204 (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Whats that girls name in the tower hanging her hair down? I remember her from some story with some guy using it as a rope to climb up but she does not appear to be on the current list. Also the list has reference to "A scarecrow". This is not THE scarecrow from The Wizard of Oz? Generalleoff 21:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That girl is Rapunzel. And yeah, I thought it was the Scarecrow from Oz too. 68.175.49.98 17:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There are some Mr. Men; notably Mr. Strong (the red diamond) and but I don't know who the green one is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.94.124 (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The reference to Pan (Dragon Ball) is incorrect. It should be Pan (mythology). Whoever read that article misinterpreted what was written (or is probably a geek). FIX IT GODDAMNIT IT'S BOTHERING ME. That is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.225.113 (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed Warchef 16:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be Harry of Harry and Hendersons instead of Bigfoot? -William —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonrazer (talk • contribs) 14:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably. Hey, where did you see Ash in the episode? Any hints, fellas?-Nick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.100.214.102 (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Somebody should mention that the woodland creatures are from 'A woodland critter christmas' from season 8 24.166.154.108 22:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added an external link to a page listing the imaginary characters which inhabited Imaginationland. This should appease both sides, as it does NOT violate WP:NOT#INFO but still allows for the information to be accessed by those who would like to view it. --Stewprime —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stewprime (talk • contribs) 04:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The Mermaid in Imagination land looked alot like Ms. Stephenson from Season 10, can anyone conferm that the animaters repeated her apperiance? 6:32 P.M 11 September 2008

Title

The episode calls itself "Kyle Sucks Cartman's balls: The Trilogy" so shouldn't this title be used, or at least acknowledged as the secondary title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.109.203 (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think so. I will add it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.248.193 (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is it called Imaginaitonland? The actual episode calls itself "Kyle Sucks Cartman's balls: The Trilogy" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.159.2.32 (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Stupid Questions

Shouldn't this page be renamed Imaginationland Part 1?--Cartman0052007 03:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure the second one will be called "Part 2"? Part 2 might be named something else [for example: Do the Handicapped Go to Hell? (1) and Probably (2)]. Wait until more info comes out before you post it. The Chronic 06:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a stupid question too. Isn't this whole thing a parody of March of the Wooden Soldiers? I mean they have the fairy tale land and the gate separating the evil half of the world from the good half. It just seems a lot like it except there's no evil imaginary character leading the attack. -Ganondorf (not a member)

If this is only a two part episode, why do the opening titles say its a trilogy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.151.237 (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The second episode will be called Imaginationland Episode II. And frankly I think its stupid that they combined the pages for the two episodes. Why the merger? An explanation would be nice. That's my stupid question anyway. -- 71.255.82.50 23 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.82.50 (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I still say that the first episode parodies March of the Wooden Soldiers, but no one who knows how to do these pages has added that. -Ganondorf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.59.102 (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

the whole thing should be called "Kyle Sucks Cartman's balls: The Trilogy", with parts 2 and 3 added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.244.34 (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Being a dick is discouraged by wikipedia

If anyone removes the trivia section ... now known as pop culture references WTF? ... again, please restore the list. Thank you. --Iwriteu 04:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Try not to refer to the "trivia" section as such. It's the "pop-culture refrences" section now, which complies with Wikipedia's rules. No reason to get angry. --68.111.223.235 04:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Suck my balls. You don't even need a contract. --Iwriteu 04:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to restore the list a few times but another user keeps removing it. I give up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.44.208 (talk) 05:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with the person who keeps removing it. I think that the list is irrevealent, and does nothing to help describe the article. You can maybe state several notable characters on the article, but not the whole list. The Chronic 05:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The list is not needed at all. It fails WP:NOT#INFO. Please do not restore the list. Douglasr007 06:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I vote for keeping the list. A major point of Imaginationland is that it contains all these well known characters, and a major motivation for fans to watch this episode it to spot these characters. So I think the list has value. Inkan1969 14:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Just move the list below trivia. There's no reason the list should not be there, every other South Park episode lists the pop culture references, and while I think the list is too bulky for the main "Trivia" section, putting it below trivia is the appropriate spot for it I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.242.206 (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

A "trivia/cultural references" section may be used, but not a list of all the characters in Imaginationland. The Chronic 15:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I would ask why having such a useful list is so vehemently opposed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.94.204 (talk • contribs)

Calling a list of a bunch of characters who appeared for only a few seconds in a half-hour television show and had absolutely no effect on the plot is FAR from useful. Dlong 19:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it really hurting anyone by being there? I like it and find it interesting.--69.204.3.118 19:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"I like it" is not a valid reason. See WP:ILIKEIT. Dlong 19:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is a reference website, and people are coming to the page for information about references made in the episode, then how exactly is that against Wikipedia policy? Maybe you see it as a list of statistics, but people are actually coming to this page to see if there is complete information about the cultural references. Unfortunately, they're apparently not allowed to have complete information? If you want to spout the "I like it" rule, take note of the "I don't care about it" rule below it. You not caring doesn't mean other people don't want the information. Pop culture references are a major source of humor in this particular television show, which makes it relevant to the article.

I went to this page just to see the list of the characters it should not be deleted.

Perhaps Imaginationland could just have it's own page? Generalleoff 20:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The trivia section is useless, because its nothing but conjecture and unimportant references. The list is completely pointless as it adds nothing of value with regards to information of the episode (there are plenty of fan-sites that will happily list this information as well as discussion to possible references.) The main article also needs re-writing, badly. Its far too verbose in places. You are attempting to write it as succinctly as possible. Not transcribe the entire episode. Aarfy Aardvark 20:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If a list of characters from this character intense episode is so useless, why was wikipedia the first place I looked for it? Part of the point of this episode was the jog people's memory about pop culture references and trivia. Hell, it was most of the fun of watching. Reid 23:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The list is probably the most interesting thing about the episode, and Wikipedia is the correct place for it-just as we have a list of all the people who appear on the cover of the Beatle's Sgt Pepper album. But it needs to be an accurate list - and since there are no independent internet references to a "Nathan Reavy", I'm removing him until/unless someone can justify his inclusion. And the links should point to the right articles (I suspect Remy doesn't.) - Nunh-huh 01:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to throw in my two cents. I came to Wikipedia to look for the list as well. I think the most interesting part of this episode was the number of characters who appeared in Imaginationland. I was specifically pausing the episode every shot in order to look at the characters in the background. A lot of the characters are an intrinsic part of my childhood and I thought it was a wonderful addition to the episode. I came here because I wanted to know who I missed. I feel this list is a valuable part of the article and should not be deleted. Kevinh456 14:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Also came here to read the list... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.187.45 (talk) 02:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I too am a big supporter of allowing extra pieces of information like this character list and the 'cultural references' or 'trivia' sections. Unfortunately there are a handful of dicks who routinely delete this content because they honestly believe they are somehow serving a higher power or some such tripe. I can't comprehend how you can actually like the show and be such a 'Nazi conformist cheerleader' List_of_students_at_South_Park_Elementary#Goth_Kids when it comes to the content. C'mon people lets face it, its the references, the parodies, the characters that are spoofs of real people that make the show as entertaining as it is. To not document them is just plain stupid and completely at odds with the spirit of Wikipedia. If you want to argue forever about 'how' to document these extras then fine, lets discuss it and come to a mutual agreement. And if you want to delete posts that are pure speculation or fluff I think thats great but don't be a dick and just delete valid posts because of your own inflated sense of worth, grow up Snafu7x7 (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It's your fault you fail to understand what Wikipedia is here for. It's just a ego trip for a few assholes and a marketing tool for others. After all the list of characters is irelevant but hard linking IGN and other sites hungry for links is good. Puhlease!

Request for comment regarding inclusion of character list

Content dispute regarding whether the article should contain "Character References in Imaginationland" 19:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

TBH, the whole 'no trivia' thing is a load of balls. It's basically what I come to these pages for. Keep. ~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 20:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It does matter whether or not you like the policy. It's still policy. Dlong 21:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the character list was what brought me to the page in the first place. Please keep it. Heck, if you have to make a separate page for it and link to that to keep the main article short it would be worth it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.44.208 (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't one of length. The problem is that this is blatantly in violation of WP:NOT. It's quite frankly not even close. Dlong 21:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Being that it is the "imagination land" episode, I'm fairly certain that a list of noted "imaginary" characters appearing in the episode is entirely relevant to the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.94.204 (talk • contribs)

As I posted earlier:

"A list of a bunch of characters who appeared for only a few seconds in a half-hour television show and had absolutely no effect on the plot is FAR from useful." I hope that's not over your head. Dlong 21:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

there is no need to stoop to petty rudeness, this is a discussion mate, if you can't handle that stop posting and collect yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.94.204 (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The list fails WP:NOT#INFO. The list needs to be removed. Period. Stop stating that's it's useful. It's not. Douglasr007 22:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Where in that list does it say that lists of cameos (or whatever you want to call them) cannot be listed?--Cartman0052007 00:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Not all lists are trivia sections

   For further information concerning the use of lists in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Lists

In this guideline, when we refer to a trivia section, we are referring to its content, not its section name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and unselective list. These disorganized items are in need of cleanup, either by incorporating them into the prose of another section, or by filtering the list to be more selective. A selectively populated list with a narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cartman0052007 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

On the list of episodes, whats with the 2 parts of imaginationland? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.108.39 (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If the list is to be removed, then a proper and well wrtting section should be included to replace it, noting the more prominent imagined characters. And Also a sub section to state the copyrighted characters used (Ronald McDonald, Care Bear etc). This would be more than adequate to quell this stupi argument. I would do it but its late here. Philbuck222 22:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with incorporating a small sentence or two summarizing this information into the plot section. However, there is absolutely no reason to list all character who appeared. Dlong 01:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I would personally advise some patience and allow this section to develop into something, if it can. I would invoke Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, since the people who are creating, supporting and maintaining these South Park articles clearly are in favor of this section and I'm sure will be able to adapt it somewhat. Lists are used in many other situations where no one seems to mind (e.g. lists of famous university alumni). Deletionism isn't really a good idea here. I can understand the temporary protection. --Bobak 00:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify myself, I'm trying to say there must be some middle ground here. I am not in favor of seeing some black or white solution. --Bobak 00:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The people adding this section are not established users, at least not for the most part. They are IP users and newly registered accounts, not the long-time editors who work on the South Park articles. Dlong 01:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a great section to have. It is interesting and again, this is what draws people to the site. You can't find this information anywhere else. I think that the more in depth these articles go, the better. But, I can also agree with making it a separate page. Just don't delete it!--Cartman0052007 00:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"It is interesting" is not a valid argument. No one has yet to explain a good reason for listing every single cameo appearance that occurred in the episode. The fact is, most of these characters had little to do with the plot. Dlong 01:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a perfectly valid argument. Why not add information that people find interesting? Wait, you're right, lets just put a bunch of crap that no one cares about and are not going to read. Thats what I call a great article.--Csrtman005 01:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no it's not. See: WP:INTERESTING Dlong 02:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"Likewise," -", so just because you are not interested by a topic, that does not mean everyone else is similarly disinterested." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.94.204 (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be a valid point if my argument for removal had anything to do with me being disinterested. However, that's not what it was. Dlong 02:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a perfectly valid argument for why the list of fictional characters should be kept. There were numerous characters present in Imaginationland that I remember from my childhood but could not remember their names (H.R. Pufnstuf for example). The inclusion of the list allowed me to click on each name until I came to the Wikipedia article of the character I was looking for. This is one of the purposes of Wikipedia--to allow people to find information that they would otherwise have a difficult time locating. I doubt I would have ever remembered the names of half the characters that I wanted to reminisce about from my childhood. Thanks to this list, I was able to find the Wikipedia article for every single character that I wanted to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aqausten (talk • contribs)

So the list has been permanently removed? Who decided to do that 24.154.94.204 23:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been permanently removed until someone puts it back. Captain Infinity 23:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll

• Keep and see what it turns into. It's only been one day since the show aired; seems a bit early to start imposing exclusionist restrictions. Captain Infinity 02:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, because I'm an inclusionist. Xaxafrad 02:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

What can it possibly turn into but a bigger list (when part 2 airs)? Dlong 02:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, because there's absolutely no reason not to. Are we really going to debate the importance on an entry for a South Park episode on this joke of a website? Wikipedia is serious business, guys! 168.122.213.166 06:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Forgot to sign in. I wrote that. FreakmanJ 06:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Not necessary, but they are notable characters in part of the story being told, the cast of character cameos are imaginary and therefore have relevance to the article of the episode ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 09:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Anyone who takes a moment to step back and look at this objectively will see that both sides are right to a degree (as well as being wrong) 1)of course this list is extremely interesting to anyone who watches the show and wants to learn more about it, and the nature of the episode and "imaginationland" itself makes an argument for special circumstances as regards relevance and how informative the inclusion such information is. however 2) of course it's against wikipedia policy, which is pretty clear on not including lists, and it's not exactly necessary, and extremely hard to verify and reference. however, i'd argue that there are much bigger fish to fry around these south park pages. i'd be more than happy to let it stay - either here or on its own page - if it would mean people would stop writing things like "this could may be possibly might be a reference to xyz"; those things are the real problem-this list, while unneccesary and slightly against policy, is also relatively harmlessWarchef 10:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Please see my comment in the "Don't be a d***" section. Kevinh456 14:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The cultural references are an integral part of the episode; by the logic being employed here, we should probably also delete the "physical properties" section in most of the Element articles, as well as the "summary" portions of the Torah-related articles. Sorry, folks, but lists are sometimes necessary to an article. 68.175.49.98 17:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You all can stop commenting. It has become quite clear at this point that I am the only one here interested in following Wikipedia procedure. With that in mind, you guys can be in charge of the article, and when it devolves into a shitstew, as it will, you guys can be the ones who clean it up. I refuse to deal with people who cannot use logic, and this will be no exception. Dlong 14:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

hehe, i think you need to chill out a little there dude. this is a talk page for discussion, and all that the above people have done is give their opinion on the matter, which is exactly what was asked of them. i don't think anyone considers the issue resolved, and the article is still developing and trying to find a common consensus-I personally think there's plenty of room for compromise. your side of the argument is of course a valid one, however the "everyone's entitled to an opinion as long as they agree with me"/"i'm taking my ball with me" approach doesn't do the cause much good. we'll try to struggle on without you; however due to your elegant parting words i'm sure you'll always be remembered round here as a martyr for justiceWarchef 15:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he can just use Rockety Rocket to blow up Wikipedia, since people aren't using it the way he wants them to? 68.175.49.98 17:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep keep it, it is useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.55.193.82 (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This section is not actually a trivia section since it has a clear definition of that it entails. A cultural reference section is deserved and should be kept. -- UKPhoenix79 22:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The section fails reason number 1 of WP:NOT#DIR. It's not useful at all. Douglasr007 01:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails the guidelines, and is not relevant to the storyline. The majority appeared on the screen for less than a second and are yet suddenly deemed incendiary devices that propelled the narrative towards its crucial conclusion? Makes no sense to me. The article should conform itself to the guidelines of wikipedia and NOT the other way around. Aarfy Aardvark 16:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Please quit saying fails, think of another word. And yes it is useful and should be kept. Why is Wikipedia loaded with so many deletionists?--Cartman005 01:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that the list should stay FOR NOW, and that we slowly start to turn it into prose. Such as:

"Imaginationland's inhabitants come from a wide spectrum of cultural areas, from high art and mythology to television and pop culture. It contains mythical creatures (, a [[griffin], a centaur, etc...), greek mythological figures (Pan (mythology)etc...). The world of pop culture is also represented through computer-game characters (Mario, blah, blah blah), famous and obscure TV characters (Snarf, etc. etc.)" and so on and so on....

That's my suggestion to keep the info (cultural references ARE allowed and encouraged, once verifiable) and start to slowly move away from the list. Should make things a bit more encyclopedic all round and help diffuse some of the differences here maybe? I don't have time to do it now but I think it's a pretty decent suggestion... comments/thoughts? Warchef 09:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Keep it. Sinmple as. Philbuck222 23:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - This is interesting information, not readily obtained elsewhere. 130.154.0.250 23:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - I came on this article just to read the list as I'm sure many people do, and it's not there. It's alot easier to have the list in the article and find it at a glance rather than having to read through this whole discussion section to find what I'm looking for. Daveldhu (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - I can't believe valuable content like this is being lost because people have a chip on the shoulder about including any sort of list on WP. I agree this shouldn't be part of the main article but why not put it in its own article and link to it? Honestly, what does that hurt? How is more knowledge ever a bad thing? If you want to argue that the information is not presented properly, or non-verifiable or improperly referenced I think that's valid, but don't indulge in what amounts to book burning because of your own personal opinions on the subject. Clearly most of the people commenting are in support of this kind of content. You haters all quote WP:NOT to support your argument yet you selectively ignore the first rule 'Wikipedia is NOT a paper encyclopedia, there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content..." So how is linking to a sub article in this case a bad thing? Snafu7x7 (talk) 04:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Butters being left Behind

It's actually based off of the part from red dawn where the group is driving away and a group of soviet paratroopers jump the guy with the glasses. It's very similar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.42.115 (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall the Soviet paratroops beating the crap out of the kid with the glasses and forcing him to read a statement on television, but I'll let your comments stand - if only because Red Dawn is one of the finer versions of campy 1980s films trying to teach us how to hate the Russians. --166.102.104.78 04:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Same could be said about the scene from Platoon douchebag, the scene that Wikipedia is citing as refences, which is actually isn't the scene of LT Wolfe being blinded by a Frag Garnade, but the scene of Sgt Elias being left behind as Barnes anounced his death. Now I don't usually use the term douchebag, but since your smugness offends me, I think it is accurate; almost as accurate as saying the scene of Butters being left behind is a refeneces to Red Dawn, than Platoon. 74.77.105.6 07:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not at all like Platoon. I have a copy of the film and just reviewed the key scenes - THERE ARE NO RELEVANT SIMILARITIES. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 14:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

SP has made previous Red Dawn analogies. For instance "Avenge me!" from inside a prison camp. The movie is both campy and has a Colorado reference. And allows SP to be both mocking and pro redneck in the cool way that they are. You fucking commies, you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 23:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The scene is OBVIOUSLY referencing Platoon. Whoever removed this has apparentely never seen the movie (or reviewed the "key scenes" well!). The following link is a Youtube clip of the actual scene from Platoon that South Park referenced (specifically the part of the clip beggining at the 2:00 mark) [1] The allusion has been placed back in the article.--Holtskee 02:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see any similarities at all.--Swellman 02:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Group on truck leave behind guy with glasses and beat the crap out of the kid with glasses as hte group is driving away. In platoon hte guy is running away he is gunned down not beaten up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.42.115 (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Allusions

• The scene where the Defense Department gets help from movie directors alludes to the ongoing gripes of Hollywood's running out of ideas.

This is not true. It's actually an allusion to the Pentagon employing Hollywood writers to "think up" possible actions of terrorists and how to counter them. See: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117854200.html?categoryid=1&cs=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.169.214 (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right. The West Wing is a famous example in which one of the scenes was ACTUALLY implemented in reality later on.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be included somewhere as it is a direct reference to what SineBot is discussing. Here is another article, one from the BBC, where they did a special program on Hollywood individuals working with the Defense Department after 9/11 to come up with ways terrorist my try and strike at targets. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/1891196.stm Being as this is a joke I would venture to guess most people would overlook because it is based upon a now overlooked incident it might be worthy to mention it in the article. Vaginsh 23:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The scene where Cartman is in a sultan outfit at a party waiting to collect on his bet is an allusion to the scene in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen where the Sultan is planning to collect the Baron's head as part of their bet. Ja V C 06:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the terrorist explosion and the Defense strategy room are both allusion from the film The Kingdom. I assume that most people have not seen it as it is fairly new and the reference wasn't noticed. (OttOO (talk) 05:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC))

The ship they travel on to Imaginationland and the wall that keeps the evil things out appear to be an allusion to the film Stardust: http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0486655/Ss/0486655/11091018.jpg?path=gallery&path_key=0486655 http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0486655/Ss/0486655/11092404.jpg?path=gallery&path_key=0486655 http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0486655/Ss/0486655/150_SD05097.jpg?path=gallery&path_key=0486655

And the bit where the guy says to Kurt Russel that he's there because it's much the same as the film he was in is a reference to Stargate (film)

Castle Sunshine and the following counsel meeting is a parody of Lord Of The Rings: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/_Breaker_/CastleSunshine.jpg http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0120737/Ss/0120737/lotr_30.jpg?path=gallery&path_key=0120737

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.205.171 (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Who are you?"

The scene when the FBI-Guy watches the Screenshot with Butters and asks "Who are you?", is that a reference to a film? I think to have seen it already but i am not shure.
I've been trying to figure that out too. I know I've seen it before--I just can't think what movie it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aqausten (talk • contribs) 20:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think they have used this in several films. Off the top of my head, I think in Rambo I when the sheriff is talking to his men and the General appears from nowhere and starts talking, the sheriff turns to him and says something like "Who the hell are you?" or something in that vein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.166.36.24 (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The show is Deja Vu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.14.10 (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"They are coming..."

When the wall begins to collapse, the mayor says "they are coming"----What's this in reference to? It seems like it's gotta be from something... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannysk89 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

the lord of the rings... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.140.19.113 (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

New Production Details

See for yourselves:

• http://m.flickr.com/photo.gne?id=1602443008
• http://youtube.com/watch?v=Pa2F4VB-f4M

-from one of the animators of the show, Keef Bartkus, as he's known as on the internet.

This definitely deserves mention in the article.--Swellman 22:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, excellent! If you don't mind I think I'll "be bold" and add it, and ye can fix it up as ye see fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warchef (talk • contribs) 10:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Warchef 12:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Where did the production details go? did someone give a proper reason for removing it? I thought they were relevant and properly referencedWarchef (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I am also wondering this. I am going to try to find where they were removed and restore them.--Cartman005 (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

More Characters to ad

http://www.spscriptorium.com/Season11/E1110guests.htm

• Dreamfinder From the "imagination" ride at Epcot Center.
• Brer Rabbit
• Moon Bellied Sneetch
• Eliot the Dragon
• The Dreadful Flying Glove
• The Brave Little Toaster
• Aubrey (Little Gems)
• Casper the Friendly Ghost
• Boober Fraggle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.172.131 (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Dutch Interwikilink

Could somebody please make a link to the Dutch version of this article? Thanks... Afhaalchinees, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... Afhaalchinees, 16:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Reception

Is it really necessary to document an episodes reception in the media? If so, I don't things like IGN would be creditable sources. Wikipedia is a lot of things, but I hope it's not the next IMDB. --Serious Mr. Karate 03:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's in the Wikipedia guidelines for writing articles on TV shows to include reception/critical reaction; I agree that IGN et al aren't exactly the best sources, but as times goes on the show will get more relevant reviews (when the DVD comes out for example), and there's no reason not to show some representation of the reaction in the meantime. I guess?Warchef 05:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Imaginary characters list

We can't keep putting in characters unless there is proof of existence in the episode. find more proof of characters before placing more names on the list.(Emigdioofmiami 21:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

In scene, when Brown Hornet runs from right side to left, you can see Pac-Man run on the backdgound. (08:35-08:36). Next: look to the picture number 11 there ([2]), Yoda stands just behind Comedy Central logo, but we can see him. Next: look to the picture 13 on the same page; the ghost here marked on "SPScriptorium" as Casper, but he isn't looks like Casper - that's Bloo. Fleutist 21:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

VINCENT can be seen in pic 16 between the scarecrow and Snarf at the same link([3]). Vader47000 12:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The lists of imaginary characters from each article have to to merged into one separate article. It is stupid to list them separately for each episode. Can we do a poll or something please?--Cartman005 16:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

So its been removed again, I thought it was resolved over 2 months ago that the list would remain.24.154.94.204 (talk)

image

Image:South Park 1110 imaginationland terrorist al qaeda.jpg this is from http://www.southparkstudios.com/downloads/preview/?id=7522 and is released by southparkstudios for download this should be covered in fair use? can we use this in the article? Philbuck222 18:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

can someone please help me with this fair use rationale? or this image will be removed on the 12th. It was released from SPS, with an actual download link. This should qualify for fair use. please help me, because im getting confused. Philbuck222 17:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I put a fiar use tag on it, its standard on most FU rationales for simpsons so it might hold. --123.51.103.64 06:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

adventure in slumberland

i think this episode is almost like nemo: adventure in slumberland. it's an old disney movie it's basically the same.

kids come from the real world into slumberland by a hot air balloon. there was a barrier between the "good dreams and the nightmare" butters thinking he woke up from a bad dream but then realize that "reality was the dream". just my thoughts J1j2j3 06:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That movie was actually based on a comic strip from the late 1800's and early 1900's. Just a little bit of side info there. I agree though, there are similarities.--Zahveed 14:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Inhabitants of Imaginationland

I don't think that separate article for Imaginationland inhabitants is a good idea. Fleutist 12:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's better off just having the lists in the episode articles...--Swellman 16:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

WHY? Then we have basically the same list in two articles... soon to be three. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cartman0052007 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That's why a merge is being discussed for the three articles.--Swellman 17:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What's bad in three lists in three articles? For example, we have plot description in all articles about episodes, trivia sections in all articles about episodes... Let's make article "Plots of all South Park episodes" of merge it all! Fleutist 17:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ya but the plots for the three episodes aren't the same, as the inhabitants are.--Cartman005 18:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Inhabitants aren't the same, they just are cross. This part of trivia don't make any sense, if we can't see list for each episode separately. Fleutist 19:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats why I included a key for which episode(s) the character was in!--Cartman005 01:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think a seperate article for the inhabitants is a good idea as long as they are divided into what episodes they first appear in and which ones cross into the other eps. The Guitar Hero pages have seperate articles for the list of songs because of the amount listed. There are a lot of characters being featured and making cameos, so it will clean up the main article quite a bit if they are moved. Either that, or keep it where it is and make a cleaner looking list.--Zahveed 14:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Teabagging?

To suck someones balls could hardly be called teabagging. But fellatio isnt right either. Any suggestions?--81.236.228.72 16:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Errrrr....sucking his balls? No link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.61.0 (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think we need a link of "teabagging" in the plot storyline description :/ bladez (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Critical and commercial success?

I haven't seen this episode and its sequels but this three-part story does look like an audacious and well received plot arc.

I'm a little concerned about the statement that the program was a "commercial success." As I understand it, the audience was only 3.4 million in the United States. In the UK, a country with about one-fifth of the population of the US, a highly successful TV program on a cable/satellite channel, BBC Three, gets around 2.4 million (Torchwood episode one, Everything Changes), and even then this was estimated to be only a 12.7% audience share. There seems to be a discrepancy, here. If 2.4 million cable viewers is only a tiny proportion of the audience in a much, much smaller country, how does 3.4 million US viewers equate to great success? Moreover if I understand it correctly, our article says that the episode was "ranked #1 in cable among Persons 18-49". If that's so, then presumably cable is a very tiny proprtion of the market in the US, compared to Britain. At least, amongst most adults. --Tony Sidaway 01:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The message of this one

... What's the message of this one? It seems to be something about terrorists making our imagination run wild, but I didn't really get it. Was it about copyright BS? (they showed tons of copyrighted characters, including strawberry shortcake, whose owners have been rabid lawsuiters before) I didn't see much emphasis on that.. I guess not all South Park episodes have a 'moral' but lately most of them do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

DVD Release

Just thought someone would like to add the news that the trilogy is being released on DVD. - Mysteryham 23:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

I have requested comment from neutral editors to hopefully have this merge dispute resolved.--Swellman 02:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Um....where do I start? --293.xx.xxx.xx 13:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I'll probably end up having to go to request for arbitration. But according to policy, we have to try other stuff first.--Swellman 20:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't need to go to RfAr. Will ^(talk) 01:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge debate continued

From what I can tell, it's you two — Swellman & Will — that don't want to "lose". I say you two specifically just based on a quick skim that you two are the most vocal (read: most replies) for merging. Swellman has — a number of times — claimed the oppose side has no argument (specifically "arguments aren't valid"). Will wants "sources".

One thing that seems to be agreement is that it's silly duplicating the inhabitants list three times. Yet, Swellman AFD'd Inhabitants of Imaginationland despite admitting "It's practically the same list on every page. What's the point of that?" because of what I see as his willingness to fight until death that the merge must take place (ergo there WILL be one page for one list).

The argument for each side boils down to this:

• support — other articles are merged
• oppose — three episodes = three articles

What I find very peculiar is that Swellman points out and relies upon Cartoon Wars and Go God Go for his primary reason to merge, but gets pissed off at people referencing Star Wars & LotR: "do I even have to tell you how silly it is [?]". Counter all you like Swellman, but I find this an inconsistent argument. Then there is Will's absolutely blatant incivility:

In actual fact, it should go the other way as the oppose votes are full of shit.

Will: grow up and add WP:CIVIL to your user page. Seriously. You want to reach a consensus by calling your "opponents" full of shit?

As far as I'm concerned, neither side has compelling enough argument to do anything. If things were switched — one merged article, and people fighting tooth-and-tail to split it up — I'd say no split. Just so happens that this means the status quo is retained and we have three articles.

I would so bet 1000:1 against that Swellman agreeing with me. He quickly reverted my removal of merge tags over a week ago despite the consensus then being the same as now: don't merge. I have to agree very strongly with Warchef that there are better things time could be spent on than arguing about a merge. But neither of you will listen to me and likely will contend I'm not neutral, right? Just don't call me full of shit. Cburnett 03:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a million reasons why using Go God Go or Cartoon Wars is a better argument better than using Star Wars. Will ^(talk) 11:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

True but the same cannot be said about Who Shot Mr. Burns? (Part One) and Who Shot Mr. Burns? (Part Two). -- UKPhoenix79 17:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This section is not for continuing the debate, please take it to the appropriate section. Cburnett 17:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I am so sorry you are right -- UKPhoenix79 05:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Will, out of all that, your only reply is to restate your argument? Pfftt. Cburnett 17:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I find Swellman's argument stronger as he's taking an example from the same topic. It's like, but not as extreme as, voting for say, Johnny Bravo, to have episode articles because The Simpsons does, which is generally accepted as a weak argument. However, were he to vote for/against an article for episode 2 of Johnny Bravo because of what happened to the article on episode 7, where both articles have little difference (e.g. both plot summaries and trivia), it'd be at least better because there would be some sort of precedent that could easily be applied. On the subject of the "three episodes!" argument, the reason I want sources is because several sources point to Imaginationland being one extended episode split because of Comedy Central's scheduling (southparkstudios.com advertised part 3 just as "Imaginationland", Trey and Matt's comments about it being conceived as one, etc), while I haven't seen any (apart from scheduling) pointing towards them being three episodes. And while I may be a tad uncivil, I'm a saint compared to other people. Will ^(talk) 18:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you find your argument as more convincing than your opponents' argument! I'm...I'm shocked. What you don't *get* is that people just. don't. agree. with. you. WP:WAX is about AFD. If you want to apply it here, then you can't disregard "what about star wars?" but hinge your argument on "what about another SP episode?" If you want to disregard other articles then you have to do them all. To do otherwise is inconsistent. It's much akin to doublethink. But you glazed over that point of my previous post.

On a side note: reducing your civility to that of others still — believe it or not — speaks about your character. If you're fine with that then don't pawn off responsibility for your statement on others' words. Cburnett 19:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

And in comes the obligatory Nineteen Eighty-Four reference. You're missing my point too - if two articles are the same structurally and fundamentally, then WAX can be seen as a strong argument. There's nothing fundamentally or structurally different between Imaginationland and Cartoon Wars apart from the fact that Imaginationland was three episodes. There is a mile of both structural and fundamental difference, however between Imaginationland I, II, III (plot and trivia) and Star Wars episode I, II, III (production, plot, analogues). Will ^(talk) 20:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Erm... the reception section, perchance? ~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 21:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to listen to Warchef and stop wasting my time on this. "OMG 1984 reference!!1one" "OMG, like you missed my point!!!" It's like I'm conversing with a teenager. *sigh* This page is going off my watchlist so bash me all you want (and I'm sure you'll get in some good, strong jabs). Cburnett 22:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You are conversing with a teenager. He's 16. Captain Infinity 22:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that if you read the first entry's in the oppose section of the merge debate they were point out that the reason Imaginationland should be kept separate is because Go God Go and Cartoon Wars are separate

Against, Go God Go and Cartoon Wars are separated, so should Imaginationland. A separate article for each episode, a disambig page and an article for inhabitants.--Cartman005 18:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

but somewhere during the debates someone merged one of them [4] to prove their point and to give evidence that the argument was based on past decisions... humh... Interesting... -- UKPhoenix79 05:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I merged one of them. Not to prove my point, but because one of them was already merged and looked a lot better. Will ^(talk) 07:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that a bit disingenuous? To make your point you fabricate the evidence? I know it sounds harsh but your actions don't help :-( -- UKPhoenix79 09:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've created a new section for the past 10-15 comments, since none of them have anything to do with the RFC (all of the comments have been from people who have made edits to the article, and are not neutral).--Swellman 21:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Good call but doesn't Cburnett count as a RFC reply since he was not a part of the poll? -- UKPhoenix79 05:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hobbes?

Where does Hobbes appear in this episode? I have looked throughout and have not seen him, and yet he is on the list. Does anyone know what part he shows up in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.96.151 (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the merger is closed

Can we lose the merge tags from the pages now that the merge deate has been closed? StuartDD _{contributions} 15:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes please. And the edit block too.--Cartman005 23:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree it does seam like the discussion is over and the consensus (aside from a couple of nice but vocal editors) is that the pages should remain as is. I have put the edit tag up for an admin to edit these 3 pages and remove the tags. -- UKPhoenix79 02:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Kenny death?

I have only seen the third Imaginationland and would not be asking this otherwise. My friend is certain that Kenny was killed in the terrorist attack, but I thought his only death this season was in The List. Did Kenny get killed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.38.108 (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

He escaped with Stan and Kyle. He did die in the third part, of course, only to be resurrected. --  L. T. Dangerous  (Talk to me!)  21:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

References to Popular Culture : EPCOT Imagination

Consider adding:

the similarity of the "Imagination song" to the "intro to EPCOT Imagination center"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.158.132 (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 

LOL HEY EVERYBODY, CHECK IT OUT!!!!!!!!

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080521/LETTERS/55164451

(RE: IMAGINATIONLAND) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.236.111 (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Pop culture references

Again, cite it, and it can remain;

Mr. Imagination is directly based on the character of Dreamfinder from Walt Disney World's Epcot Theme Park Ride, "Journey Into Imagination". Dreamfinder wears a similar outlandish outfit featuring a top hat and turn-of-the-century styles, and perhaps more distinctly, pilots a large dream-fueled airship. Dreamfinder always sings his signature song, "One Little Spark", while flying this ship, which has a chorus featuring the word "Imagination" in repeated succession.

Blue Meanies can be seen as the boys enter Imaginationland.

Also, the scene where the terrorists first attack Imaginationland is a parody of the scene at the beginning of "Saving Private Ryan".

Alastairward (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Imigination song sounds like

A doom metal song called "New Dead Sensation" that sounds a lot like the guy when he's saying "I-Mag-I-NATION" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiggl3sLimited (talk • contribs) 20:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Imaginationland The Movie On DVD In United States And England?

Where did you guys find that source from? I don't see it anywhere? I looked on Amazon.com but all i saw are the DVD of The Episodes not the movie only this: http://www.amazon.com/South-Park-Imaginationland-Trey-Parker/dp/B00105308I/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1251149917&sr=8-2, Where is The Imaginationland The Movie DVD? And Where id you guys here about it I want to know?24.7.204.215 (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S And What Is Doom Metal And New Dead Sensation?24.7.204.215 (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are one or two dissenters allowed to put the "general notability" tag on this article?

So, one or two people apparently have decided that this article "does not meet the general notability guideline", and have placed that tag on this article. Despite the fact that I have argued that 1). the three-part Imaginationland is a very popular story arc in the Sotuh Park series 2). It has been released on DVD, and perhaps most importantly, 3). IT WON AN EMMY AWARD, and thusly I have tried twice to remove this notability tag, because it doesn't belong. But, my efforts are reverted and I am accused of edit warring. Can we get some consensus, please, that this article IS notable, and remove the notability tag? I would also like to see the notability tag that ONE editor has put on a lot of other South Park episodes removed. He has apparently made it his life's mission to deem South Park episodes unworthy of Wikipedia articles, and one or two other editors have decided his cause is worth taking up. Personally, I'd like to see this nonsense stopped. 98.220.135.184 (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion for this topic taking place: here. – Richard BB 13:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge

All of the three parts should be merged into one article because of lack of notability of each part on its own. JDDJS (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Set your time machine for 2007, when this was last discussed...and voted down. --Captain Infinity (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am in for a merge. In the past 4 years the articles have not benefitted much from being split. The Who Shot Mr. Burns? episodes on Simpsons are well covered in one article, even though they were aired over two seasons. Nergaal (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

How does one evaluate if an article has "benefited"? Benefit how? It's the *reader* who benefits by having separate articles for each episode. --Captain Infinity (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The reader doesn't benefit, though, from having this split. Do you feel that the plot could not be adequately summed up if it were presented in a single article? After all, the other two articles are entirely plot summary. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 09:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are some more characters of the good side that he hasn't listed them yet

• Humpty Dumpty
• Blue Meanies (Yellow Submarine film)
• A centaur (Greek Mythology)
• Cinderella
• Uncle Remus
• Anubis
• Snarf (Thundercats)
• Dick Tracy
• Count Chocula
• Gizmo
• Cheetara (Thundercats'')
• V.I.N.CENT (Black Hole)
• Punchy (Hawaiian Punch mascot)
• E.T. (from the movie)
• Copper Kid (Silverhawks)
• The Flash
• The Scarecrow
• The Three Musketeers
• Dick Tracy
• Jem
• Popeye
• Jesus Christ
• Dorothy and Toto (The Wizard of Oz)
• The Little Mermaid
• Mr. Men
• Puss in Boots
• The Malboro Man
• John Henry
• Acorn
• Dangermouse
• Pat the Hammer
• Pac-Man

And tell me why... who is that green rabbit behind Bullwinkle?

what are those cameos?

Subject: Behind Mr. Tumnus:

• A light yellow-white thicker stick chicken like stick with red hair

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.158.117 (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC) 

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.224.227 (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC) 

Merge into one article.

I'm mostly doing this as a courtesy; the other two articles are clearly not notable. This article needs to be moved to Imaginationland and cover the entire story. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

List of Imaginationland Characters

A list of characters that appeared in the Imaginationland episodes of South Park needs to be made. There are many characters that appeared in the three part special, so because of that, I,ll put the names of all the characters below my comment overtime. This may take awhile. --24.147.1.197 (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Jacob Chesley

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Imaginationland Episode I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081201055829/http://www.spscriptorium.com:80/Season11/ImaginationlandGuests.html to http://www.spscriptorium.com/Season11/ImaginationlandGuests.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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} 04:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)