Talk:List of South Park episodes/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Notability supplied (Season 1)

Perhaps it might be useful to discuss the episodes concerned when notability is supplied, as has been for two already Alastairward (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The RFC is still ongoing. I fear this is premature Alastairward. It also ignores the history of episodes in respect to notability, as is being dissussed above. For these reasons, I am going to ignore this section, and I suggest others do the same. Ikip (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to look at it, be bold and don't! I'm also glad that you toned down your language after a few edits. Alastairward (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Volcano (South Park episode)

Line from the episode gained popularity on t-shirts and in a magazine article.

Information from Commentary:--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• The episode was inspired by dante's Peak and Volcano.
• The texture was improved to "come out more"
• Lines around the eyes are more crisper.
• The idea of kids drinking beer and shooting deer is not funny any more after colombine
• Ned was introduced. He didn't have the voice box when Matt drew him in high school.
• After trying multiple ways to simulate the voice box they just used their own voices.
• Stan's father is drawn similar to Matt's father. In this episode he's just the geologist and they decided on making him stans father later on.
• The producers froze frames multiple times to extend the episodes time.
• The shorts about what to do in case a volcano erupts was inspired by the duck and cover videos from the 50s and 60s.

An Elephant Makes Love to a Pig

No notability yet supplied

Information from commentary:

• Since College, Matt talked about how it would be great having an elphant the size of a pig.
• Tarry's sister used to "kick [his] ass every day". She's also called Shelly and is three years older than tarry. She had braces too.
• The little kid who is covered in dirt is based on the Pig-Pen character.
• It was decided in this episode that Kyle would be the good student and "school smarter than the other kids"
• The hybrid animals in the laboratory were concepts Tarry drew when he was in school.
• The episode includes a scene which was done with construction paper originally meant for the pilot episode but because it wasn't used there it went to this episode.
• Matt and Tarry put on the walls some stains and fingerprints so it looks like actual paper work.

--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded this one significantly with both the commentary and third-party sources. I think this satisfies both the merger tag and the third party source tag now. (Note: I didn't include the info Diaa mentioned about about the Pig Pen-inspired since the character was technically introduced in an earlier episode.) — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 02:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge per excellent work done by Hunter Kahn (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Death (South Park episode)

"Theme" cited, seems to be a review of sorts.

• In Leaving Springfield William Savage Jr. writes an essay about this episode and TV censorship in general (pp. 212-219). --Maitch (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Tom's Rhinoplasty

No notability yet supplied

"I'm going to do what I've always wanted to do: hang out and screw hot chicks! " Ikip (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Expanded. — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 15:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Cartman's Mom Is a Dirty Slut

No notability yet supplied Nothing yet

Mecha-Streisand

This episode needs expansion too, to meet the notability guideline. Great work on the other episodes by the way. How do u find all these sources?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It's already met it (IMHO), it's already got a section on a response by someone notable who has nothing to do with the show itself. Alastairward (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability for Gnomes (South Park), Butt Out, Terrance and Phillip in Not Without My Anus and Spontaneous Combustion (South Park)

Here are some sources we can work from:

Gnomes (South Park)

• relation to capitalism
  • the only question to assert here is the reliability of the author, which I doubt is a major issue, being a professor as a major US university... --MASEM (t) 22:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Critique of the cultural imperialism
  • Gold. Also see the second book you list in Butt-out. There's a mention of the plot there, but I didn't read fully. --MASEM (t) 22:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
  • These four, while not critiquing the episode itself, establish that "underpants gnome" has obtained a metaphorical status for "bad business plan", which is good for a legacy of the episode. --MASEM (t) 22:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• actual underpants theft
• and another
  • Weak connection, but given the above, I don't think you'd need to worry about these. --MASEM (t) 22:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Nice job with these sources, Masem! I've added info based on just the above sources. I haven't done my Lexis Nexus thing for this episode yet but frankly, I think the episode is already proven notable with just these above sources. Anyone agree or disagree? — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 05:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I should point out these I didn't find these sources, someone else did (I'd have to look back); I'm only commenting on how good the source is for establishing notability. --MASEM (t) 13:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Phase 1: Unleash Hunter Kahn (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia's articles on South Park episodes.

Phase 2: ?

Phase 3: Profit!

Cirt (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• LOL! — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 05:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If your still wondering who added all these sources, it was User:Hobit who added the last six references and me who added the first two and the rest of the other episodes sources. (Good in finding sources, not good in formulating them well enough) :) .--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, whoever it was deserves a lot of credit. — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 16:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Butt Out

• little info about anitsmoking activism
  • What pages Google Books has (searching specifically for "Butt Out" in that book) is really just a mention in passing (it can be used to help the plot to assert Rob Reiner was spoofed but doesn't establish notability)... --MASEM (t) 22:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• South Park and company executives.
  • ...but on the other hand, this one seems find since there's a critical statement about the portrayal, as well as Matt and Trey's views on Reiner per that episode (p82). This one is gold. --MASEM (t) 22:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• I've added a bit to this one as well. Several of my Lexis Nexus sources had the same info as Masem's second source, but it did indeed come very much in handy. I think I can find more on this one on Lexis, but even so, I'm pretty sure right now it's expanded enough to address the notability tag. — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 01:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Hunter Kahn (talk · contribs) does great work, yet again. Cirt (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Terrance and Phillip in Not Without My Anus

• some info about the relation to "Not wihout my Anus" and hamlet ...
  • It's more than mere mention but at the same time only a single data point; there should be a few more sources to help out. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• I've expanded this one a bit, including a reference to the above source from Masem. I think this one satisfies the notability and source tags on the page. — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 22:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Great job by Hunter Kahn (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 05:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Spontaneous Combustion (South Park)

• I've done some expansions here. Added "Production", "Theme", "Cultural references" and "Reception" sections. — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 16:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Another excellent job by Hunter Kahn (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting the feeling that 3/4 of the examples are notable (I couldn't find much on the Terrance and Phillip one). My guess is that most of season 1 is notable, about half of the rest of the 1990s eps are notable, and probably just about all from the (post internet explosion) 2000s are notable. Not sure what to do with this information. It would be great if the SP project could start looking at them in groups of four or something, putting found references on the talk pages, and intelligently merging dubious ones, but since they only have one GA, they're probably not equiped to do such a thing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think that most South Park episodes are notable and that excellent editors like User:Cirt and User:Hunter Kahn could probably turns most articles into GA's. The real problem is that the South Park WikiProject is not very active, so I doubt they will even manage to improve enough articles to establish notability to keep up with the current season. If they can't do that the number of bad episode articles will just pile up.--Maitch (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad articles may be piling up, but not non-notable ones. The new ones are the easiest to find sources for. I'll drop the project a note to check out this section. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Where's this merge discussion going?

It looks like most, or maybe all, of the episodes are notable. Are we going to force Hunter Kahn to improve them all, under pain of redirection? Of the four test articles, it was easy to find refs for three of them, and Hunter Kahn found refs for the fourth, using Lexis Nexis or something. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

For myself, the four-episode test passed, so if we follow my original plan, we now assume all other SP episodes are notable, so no merge should happen. Now it is up to the SP WikiProject to continue to work on adding notability to the rest of the articles; while Hunter is doing a great job, he is but one person so I'd really like to see a more coordinated effort, however, that's not required. As per my original suggestion, we now give 3-6 months to see how the notability of the rest of the articles progresses - we're not requiring them all to be shown to be notable in that time, just that there is a good faith dedicated effort to do so (even if it's a slow process). If it looks like there's no attempt for further improvement after that time, then a merge of all the remaining non-notable episodes should proceed unchecked. --MASEM (t) 13:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'd be willing to keep this thing rolling in the form of a a Wikipedia:WikiProject South Park task force or something, but I do think we've done enough to justify ending this merge proposal. — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 14:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I still oppose the merge and I still maintain that issue can be effectively settled. But I've put a bit more thought into the task force issue, along with Masem's suggestion that we see where the South Park episode are in the next 3-6 months before considering merging remaining non-notable episodes. Since, as Diaa abdelmoneim (talk · contribs) pointed out about, most of the Season 2 episodes are currently lacking notability, I'd like to help form a "South Park Season 2 Task Force" through the WikiProject South Park (which would require consensus over at that Wikiproject). I would propose that we set certain goals to be achieved in 5-6 months; a few possible examples are to bring all 18 individual episodes up to notability standards, bring three or four up to GA status, maybe even try one or two (I'd suggest "Chef Aid" and "Gnomes") up to FA status. If by the end of the task force duration we have achieved these goals, then we abandon talk of merging non-notable episodes (after which, hell, we could move on to Season 3). And, in addition to improving the South Park Wikipedia coverage, I think this could help jump-start the seemingly dormant WikiProject South Park. Before I bring this over to that Wikiproject though, I'd really like to hear feedback here, and also ask if any of you guys would be willing to participate if I proposed it. (Incidentally, I've never started a task force before, so if I'm misunderstanding any aspects of it, please let me know.) What do you guys think? — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 16:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree the requirements of the challenge have been ment, so I think we should drop the merge proposal. I would suggest setting up a page like Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Featured topic Drive, which can coordinate and document the efforts of the participants. I'm not suggesting that you go for a featured topic - less can do it. Anyway, I think that you should try and rally up some participants. I seriously doubt one user can do it alone. --Maitch (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think the progress made here has demonstrated that a mass-merge is (a) never going to gain consensus and (b) is quite possibly not appropriate anyway. It's clear that most, if not all, South Park episode articles can be sourced and cleaned up to a completely unobjectionable state. At this point it seems to be that what's needed is ongoing editorial progress rather than any kind of mass article edict. It may be that certain episodes (at a guess probably in series 2-4) really cannot support independent articles, but certainly these will be in a minority and probably should be dealt with individually. ~ mazca ^t|c 17:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think a featured topic drive is a good idea. Maybe the currect season, since I think that's what SP editors are looking at, and maybe some can be drawn in. Also, maybe spam the projects member's talk pages with one short notice. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on putting off merges in light of Hunter Kahn's work. Agreed also on giving the South Park wikiproject a boot up the rear, little to nothing seems to happen on their pages, it seems all too quiet. Alastairward (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

To help I added an article alert subscription on the project page, it should alert any users to merge suggestions etc. Alastairward (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Most fans of any series don't care whether it past the idiotic Nobility guidelines/suggestions. They are against the deletion of their articles in any form. This includes a merge, where you delete the article but preserve the history, and put a redirect where it use to be. If there are enough fans around to defend their article, then you aren't going to delete/merge any of the articles. Dream Focus 11:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow you Dream Focus, is that friendly advice, a warning, a threat? Alastairward (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

An observation on what articles get deleted, while others do not. I see this all the time. No matter what the rules are, it all comes down to consensus. Consensus is formed by whoever is around at the time, that feels like posting their opinions. The more fans you have to speak out, the less likely anyone is going to be able to delete something. That's how it works. Dream Focus 12:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Changing an article to redirect as part of a merge is not a deletion; the information and contributions are still in the history and restoring it once determined to be appropriate requires no admin action. That said, because it's not a deletion, there's no (yet) proper larger venue to take the merge for discussion akin to WP:AFD, and thus the merge discussion will take place on talk pages of fans associated with those articles, who are generally highly resistant to such merges despite whatever policy or guidelines problems may be there. Since they require no admin action, then unless consensus is clearly for a merge, nothing will happen. (That's why there's a present attempt to create a Merges for Discussion venue ala AFD to get wider input into these.) --MASEM (t) 13:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Dream Focus, are you suggesting that the changes that have been made to the articles in question haven't proven notability? I could understand your argument if it was just a matter of people saying, "These articles shouldn't be merged!" and then not doing anything about it, but the articles in question have been expanded with credible sources and improved. It's not just a matter of fanboys sticking up for their favorite show. — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 14:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Even those that episodes that have not been proven to meet the requirements for notability, will be saved, if enough fans are around to defend them. Many were against eliminating articles before some were changed to meet the requirement, by having references added in. Most people don't care about the notability guidelines at all, and want to keep articles regardless of whether it fits the suggested guidelines or not. Dream Focus 17:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have problems understanding that the improved articles do meet the criteria for notability, thanks to the considerable efforts of Hunter Khan and others (not, I notice once again, you). Also, your edit summaries are somewhat discourteous and provocative. pablo_hablo. 18:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand that some of the episode articles now meet the requirements, but not all of them do. And I'm saying you aren't going to be able to erase any of them, even those that don't meet the requirements yet, if enough fans are around to protest. Dream Focus 18:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall ever saying I wanted to delete any of them. Straw man alert.

Here's a mad idea. Instead of banging on about half-understood policies and "secret deletion", and "merge=delete", and what the evil "deletists" "want" to do, and what they "will be able" to do, and asserting that "fan's protests" make more sense than good-faith efforts by hard-working unpaid editors to improve Wikipedia, why not, just once, try and source an article yourself? Go on, give it a go. pablo_hablo. 19:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I for one am not willing to let the implied threat of mob rule impede my desire to bring articles into encyclopedic quality and compliance with Wikipedia's policies. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I think we should just cut this off before it turns into a big argument that isn't going to serve anybody. I think Dream Focus's concerns are valid and he's probably right to be concerned that fanboys will blindly defend remaining non-notable South Park episodes without putting out the effort to improve them. However, I think we've proven here that the articles in question are now notable, and we're working on plans to continue improving South Park episode articles in the future, so I think we should just keep moving forward with those. Based on the above, am I hearing that there's more of a consensus for a South Park episode articles notability drive rather than a South Park Season 2 episodes task force? — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 19:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A general notability drive vs. season by season? The former perhaps since it's been proven that users like Hunter Kahn can drum up plenty of information at their own pace. Now that we've tested the waters and seen that South Park seems at the moment to have plenty of notable episode, we might forget about another merging round up until we find ourselves at a plateau of some sort. Alastairward (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hunter Kahn's proposed South Park Episode Notability Task Force

Ok all, I've made a subpage on my user page with what I hope will eventually become the South Park Episode Notability Task Force as part of the South Park WikiProject. Check it out here:

As you can see, I plan to make little subpages for each of the South Park seasons listing all the episode articles currently failing the notability standards. I've set the loose deadline tentatively at October 31, just to give it a little more than six months, but I'm open to changing that. (Please bear in mind that I have never started a task force before, so please let me know if I'm doing anything wrong so far.)

I believe the first step will be to bring this over to the South Park WikiProject and ask on the talk page for a consensus in starting this task force. But first, I wanted to run it by you guys and see if you had any thoughts, suggestions or criticisms. Also does anyone want to serve as a co-coordinator with me on this? Please let me know.

Thanks all! — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 22:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a great idea. Might I suggest aiming higher, and modeling this proposal after WP:DOH/TOPIC, with the ultimate goal of making Featured Topics? If we do not attain our highest goal we could still realistically make a bunch of Good Topics, and if we don't attain that, we could demonstrate notability for each of the individual assigned pages as already mentioned above. Thus, it'd be a three-step process but the ultimate aim would be higher: 1) Demonstrate notability check for the pages, 2) GA drives and Good Topic drives, 3) FA drives and ultimately Featured Topics. Cirt (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not necessarily opposed to it. Part of me thinks we should focus more strongly first on taking care of the notability problems, then maybe once that mission is accomplished we can start a new task force for the features topics. (Given how limited the activity is in WikiProject South Park right now, diving headfirst into a Feature Topics drive might be biting off a bit more than we can chew.) What do others of you think? Also, incidentally, I know little about Featured Topics other than what I just read at WP:DOH/TOPIC, but it seems if we modeled it after this, each season would be a feature topic. Given the fact that currently, only Season 1 has its own stand-out season article, could this be a problem? — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 04:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• In answer to your first part - we would create the pages with the end goal of featured topics (with the WP:DOH/TOPIC model) - but the first step/focus would be assuring notability. As for your second part, I do not think that would be a problem, but we can cross that bridge when we get there. Cirt (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Notability Task Force. FABULOUS IDEA Kahn, you earned a barnstar.

Eventually I think a project like this should be expanded to all fictional characters and episodes, similar to the WP:RESCUE model.

The irony is that Hunter Kahn's Notability Task Force page shouldn't be needed to assure that episode articles exist. Because of community consensus, a clear unwritten notability exception for characters and episodes has existed since the deletion/merge war began in 2004. To acknowledge this exception, I suggest we consider a Character and Episode Task Force page to include such articles as:

Talk:List of Law & Order characters#Wholesale edits of article

The same editors who have contributed little to nothing of any content to any of these South Park episodes they attempted to delete/merge, are now deleting large portions of text in these Law and Order articles. Ikip (talk) 07:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

One step at a time. I suggest this be a task force off of the South Park WikiProject, much like WP:DOH/TOPIC is a task force off of The Simpsons WikiProject. Cirt (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point Cirt. I agree, lets build the South Park page of Hunter's now but consider expanding it to all characters and episodes in the future. They can coexist.

Minor concern This Task Force maybe hijacked by editors who are more concerned with merging articles then adding content. This has been the troubling trend on many wikiprojects. So if this goes into mainspace Hunter Kahn, you inheret an important responsiblity to monitor the Task Force and make sure that the intended spirit of the project is retained.

Major concern I suggest changing the name to South Park Episode Task Force or South Park Episode Inclusion Task Force. Notablity has been unsuccesssfully but relentlessly used by editors to delete and merge thousands of articles. The only reason that many of these episode and character pages exist is because of consensus giving episode and character pages an unwritten exception to the draconian notability guidelines. By using the word "notability" in the title, it will only strengthen editors who merge argument that those articles which do not meet the hundreds of notability guidelines should be deleted or merged. Ikip (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) A good location/name would be Wikipedia:WikiProject South Park/Featured topic Drive, with the first step in the process being notability sweeps for individual episode pages. Cirt (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

What a great idea! Since you are familar with this process, why not create the page right now? Ikip (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Ikip (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, poor show old boy. You might get a bit more help if you weren't so openly hostile to other users. Remember to be civil ok? Alastairward (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think we need to combine the best elements of Wikipedia:WikiProject South Park/Featured topic Drive and User:Hunter_Kahn/SouthPark1. (I'm heading out the door for some real-life stuff at the moment, but can work on it later.) If I'm understanding Cirt's suggestions correctly, we need to identify on the subpage that the priorities are 1) resolving the notability issues for the episodes, 2) doing GAs and 3) featured articles and featured topics. I think the best model would be to break it down season-by-season in little sub-subpages for each season (I have the beginning of a set-up like that User:Hunter_Kahn/SouthPark1 here); then on each individual season subpage we can list which articles need notability expansion, and which ones we recommend can be expanded to GAs and FAs. Does this sound right to you guys? — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 14:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking from the standpoint of the original intent of this, I suggest some organized effort to at least work through the SP episodes and establish their notability; its great that what Hunter's done to date has not only established notability but likely leaves articles one good copyedit away from being a Good Article, but its more important to make sure that there's a grounded effort to establish that all the other SP episodes are notable, given that Hunter's shown 4 randomly selected ones are. It doesn't have to be done tomorrow or in a few months, but there just needs to be obvious effort towards that. If, for example, Hunter was the only one that decided to keep adding notability and he then decides to forget about it and leave the project, and no one else takes over, then there's pretty good grounds to merge the rest of the episodes until someone else offers to do so. However, the more people on board and doing it at a volunteer's pace, the more obvious that there's good effort behind it. We are not expecting GA or FA quality articles, though I do point to the Simpsons project that have made several seasons worth of episodes Featured content (both articles and topics) and from what I've seen, there's a good likelihood a few seasons of SP can be there to, and that can be a secondary purpose. But my recommendation is to focus on notability first, then quality. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Page created

I did some reformatting to the topic drive page, at WP:SOUTHPARK/TOPIC. Please continue discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Park/Featured topic Drive. Prior to any GA drives, the first priority will be notability assessment sweeps of all episode pages. Cirt (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

South Park Featured topic drive

WikiProject South Park participants have started a page at WP:SOUTHPARK/TOPIC to organize featured topic drive collaborations. The primary goal is to improve the quality of articles about South Park episodes, with the ultimate end goal of getting sets of episodes by season to Good Topic or even Featured Topic status. We are starting off by focusing on Season 1, to get it to Good Topic status, see Wikipedia:WikiProject South Park/Featured topic Drive/season 1. Any help is appreciated, and feel free to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Park/Featured topic Drive. Cirt (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

was the RFC disscusion for merge still going on? it's been archived by bot since noone edited the section for 14 days. It still has the RFC templates. see here. --Gman124 ^talk 13:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's been presumed to some hard work by Hunter that for now, all episodes of SP are presumed notable, and a task force has been created to drive the rest of the articles to a quality level. --MASEM (t) 13:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

More at WP:SOUTHPARK/TOPIC. Cirt (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

season 10

season 10 is now out in region 2 so shown be edited in head section 90.210.5.53 (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Eliotrw 13/04/09 19:41 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliotrw (talk • contribs) 18:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Formatting

Um, so what happened to the formatting changes to this page that apparently had consensus and were reverted by some random IP? You know, the actually sourced page? To clarify, if there was contention over the consensus (lack of opposition does equal approval), that's fine. But I'm pretty sure "don't fuck with a good thing" isn't the formation of a new consensus.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Diff? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you asking what the difference is, or for a "diff" link? The latter is in my statement, the former can be seen by comparing the two pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A diff link. If the '"don't fuck with a good thing"' link was supposed to be the diff, it's actually a link to this talk page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I just realized that. That's my bad. Apparently I copied the wrong link. I have amended the link to the correct diff. :D  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This article needs to go to the short summaries with season pages, I think (most) people agree. In all the individual episode brouhaha, I don't think anyone has actually taken this page under their wing. Also, the short version should probably only be used if their actually exists a season page that has all the eps. Glancing at season 11,[5] Ned Scott redirected it, probably because it was way incomplete. I didn't look at the others. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

My assumption was (I took this page off my watchlist after the reformatting) was that the season pages were going to be reopened (regardless of episode article existence). South Park (season 1) was reopened, but apparently all the rest are still redirected. Even with a couple of sentences per episode here, you're talking a significant increase in size when you have a 13 season show (plus the fact that the show will probably continue on for additional seasons). That was why they were dropped. Even if you don't have the season articles, you still have a page for every episode (and a link on this page to them), which means you have the full plot (...shudder...) on all of those pages already.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Mostly each season's table needs to copied over to the season page (remembering GFDL attribution), if it's better than the one there, and this should be reverted back to the short version. I don't really feel like doing the work myself, but this conversation can at least help guide people. If you or anyone else wants to do it, I'll back them up in any ensuing discussion. I'm feeling too lazy myself. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What I'll do (not this very second, The Masters is on and I want to go watch Tiger kick ass, :D) is unredirect all of the season pages and go ahead and start each's infobox and table (I'll also tag them for expanding). Once I'm finished with that, then I'll revert this page back to the shorter version. This way, the summaries will still be available (I'll just copy the summaries from here and put them on their respective season page tables).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, all of the season pages are up and running. They still need major work, but the basics have been started. Someone could probably go through and expand the plot summaries for each season (I don't watch the show), as most are just single sentences.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've had this page watchlisted for months, and I've been studiously ignoring it through all the acrimony over the last few weeks! Can I just take this opportunity to say I think it looks far better now, the new format with the split season articles is much tidier - nice job to all involved. ~ mazca ^t|c 12:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the consensus? Two people (mostly bignole) in a new discussion thread? After the original format was returned, it remained that way for several weeks, which should say which format was preferred in this discussion. It's not a matter of looking cleaner, it's a matter of usefulness. Making individual season pages makes no sense because individual seasons are not notable by themselves, and just distributes information rather than adding it. Bignole is some sort of lone radical who just stated he doesn't even watch this show! It's truly ridiculous (and unencyclopedic may I add) that he would be drastically editing this or any of the SP pages without any knowledge of the show itself. Disgusting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1234onthedancefloor (talk • contribs) 12:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, even thought Consensus isn't about "numbers", just to point out it would be me, Peregrine, Cirt, Mazca, Masem and Diaa abdelmoneim. So, no, it isn't just "two people". On the other hand, it is just you opposing it. Ok, so let me get this straight, you'd argue that the individual episodes are notable, but the individual seasons are not notable? That's an interesting argument. I think the fact that I don't watch the show makes me an impartial editor to the page, whereas you (who I assume do watch the show) would have a bias when you edit.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Just noting that I do agree with how Bignole's relayed out the articles, and yes, that each SP season is likely notable - either through general reviews of the season or through reviews of the DVD sets that can out (I spotchecked for RS and there's a least a couple for each). The Series/Season/Episode split approach that's done here is pretty standard across TV shows. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• And for the record, toss my name is there with those who support Bignole's new format. — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 14:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• It's SOP for TV series that run to a lot of seasons. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think if you read above on the talk page you'll see that several people besides myself had earlier commented about this page's format being better before it was shortened. Whether or not other television shows use a similar format should not be the point, nor should the aesthetics be supported to the detriment of the content. If you watched the show, you would also know that the individual seasons of the show are not notable on their face because the episodes that comprise them are rarely related to each other. It's a silly way to group them. In a paper encyclopedia, the person writing the articles is familiar with the subject- you do not seem to be. What you're doing now is simply dispersing the same information that existed on one page, increasing the number of clicks someone has to make to access it. If you'd like to make season pages then fine, but I think this list should retain the short summaries; I simply don't see how your format improves anything besides making it prettier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1234onthedancefloor (talk • contribs) 02:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you'll need to point to where you're talking about because I am/was not aware of any dissension over the structure of the page. The page was too large to provide sufficient information about all 186+ episodes of this never ending show. Coupled with the fact that the version you "prefer" is completely unsourced and grossly inadequate, the restructured page is/was better. The fact that someone has 1 extra click is irrelevant. Yes, it's only 1 click because every episode still has an article to itself, and thus anyone can click the title and read the full fledge plot summary there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Schmidt, Buster7, Dream Focus, 122.108.12.220, Pixelface, Sid-Vicious, and myself all made statements opposing your format of this list, thought not necessarily all in the same place. Who cares how long the article is- it's a website not a giant piece of paper. If someone wants to know the basic plot at a glance, rather than have to click on every single article, this page is perfect for that purpose, as the title alone does not always indicate clearly. Again, you're not adding any usability to this page by moving the information in it to season pages. As a style issue, I don't see any reason to put quotation marks on prefer. I do prefer the old format, I don't "prefer" it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1234onthedancefloor (talk • contribs) 05:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, please go read their comments more carefully. You cannot pull people's comments out of context to support your side. They were making comments based on notability, and they DID NOT oppose the restructuring of the page. What they opposed was the creation of the season pages in an effort to merge the individual episode pages. Please read that more carefully, you cannot pull people's opposition against merging into an argument on page restructuring that has no claim on merging. Also, please sign all your comments with 4 tildes (~).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Bignole (talk · contribs) has done some great reformatting work to this page and it looks much better. Cirt (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Please change back to the old formatting. This article used to be a very useful for finding a specific episodes but is useless now. A short, one line plot summary was much more useful than a few pretty colours. The title of each episode is usually vague and not enough to determine which one it is unless you are an extremely diehard fan. With the new format you have to click through and read each individual episode summary and check the individually = VERY ANNOYING!Gumdrop27 (talk) 08:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There are pages for each season. If you don't know the season, it will be hard to find the ep you're looking for, though. It's just standard practice for long running shows. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The short summaries really need to be pt back up. If I don't know the name of an episode, but know a little bit of the key plot, I want to be able to do a page search for it instead of going through every single article. This is ridiculous! As for the size, I believe someone else pointed out that it's not a piece of paper, so who cares how long it is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.188.114 (talk) 04:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC) It's not going to be changed back, is it? I have seen plenty of episode lists on here for long running shows with a short synopsis for each episode. It works so much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.24.44 (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Missing info:

"Are You There God? It's Me, Jesus" --- Director: Eric Stough
"The Tooth Fairy Tats 2000" --- Director: Trey Parker --- Writers: Trey Parker, Matt Stone & Nancy M. Pimental
"Timmy 2000" --- Director: Trey Parker
"Something You Can Do with Your Finger" --- Director: Trey Parker
"Helen Keller! The Musical" --- Director: Trey Parker
"Fat Camp" --- Director: Trey Parker
"The Wacky Molestation Adventure" --- Director: Trey Parker

Sources are the episode credits on southparkstudios.com --141.149.187.139 (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This info would also need to be updated in the separate season articles as well as the episode articles. --151.203.231.27 (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Chronology of episodes?

Season 1, episodes 2 and 3 are said to be aired in this article on dates different to those shown in their individual articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.162.134 (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

True, we're going to have to decide if the table is order in production or air date order. Alastairward (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Airdate makes the most sense. CTJF83Talk 18:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Really? I think production order makes far more sense. Most people don't want to know when the episode originally aired but rather know its location from its actual episode/season number. For example, someone would be looking up an episode which they have on their DVD box set (which contains the episode in their proper order) rather than someone looking it up from the date column. I don't see how anyone (unless it was a very recent episode) would look at the Original air date (OAD) to find the episode that aired then - it would nearly always be the other way around. As far as I see it, the (OAD) column is supplementary and not the focus of the article. And what is it with the episode numbering down the side?-shouldn't they reflect the actually episode numbering because I am pretty sure that by giving episodes false numbers (as apposed to their actual numbers) defeats thee purpose of having the column if they are just going to contradict what it says on the episode page. Regardless of whether the episodes are in order of air date or episode numbers, just because an episode aired out of its "actual" order doesn't mean we have to assign it a different number to reflect that.--Myles Trundle (talk) 08:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The chronology of season six is also inconsistent with southparkstudios.com. For instance, http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/601 says that Freak Strike was the first episode in both broadcast and production order. It seems like the broadcast dates for many episodes listed here and elsewhere on Wikipedia are inconsistent with southparkstudios.com. 75.82.201.0 (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Date

"City on the Edge of Forever" was aired on 1998-06-17 according to this: http://tv.msn.com/tv/episode/south-park/city-on-the-edge-of-forever.1/ Krischn (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done It's been fixed. CTJF83Talk 17:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Episode List Layout.

I think the episode list should look like this. It's clean and organized. Thoughts?

Season #	Series #	Title	U.S. Airdate	Production code
1	1	"Cartman Gets an Anal Probe"	August 13, 1997	101
2	2	"Weight Gain 4000"	August 20, 1997	102
3	3	"Volcano"	August 27, 1997	103
4	4	"Big Gay Al's Big Gay Boat Ride"	September 3, 1997	104
5	5	"An Elephant Makes Love to a Pig"	September 10, 1997	105
6	6	"Death"	September 17, 1997	106
7	7	"Pinkeye"	October 29, 1997	107
8	8	"Starvin' Marvin"	November 19, 1997	109
9	9	"Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo"	December 17, 1997	110
10	10	"Damien"	February 4, 1998	108
11	11	"Tom's Rhinoplasty"	February 11, 1998	111
12	12	"Mecha-Streisand"	February 18, 1998	112
13	13	"Cartman's Mom Is a Dirty Slut"	February 25, 1998	113

Mortetviolachaud (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It takes up more space. The current version saves way more HTML space, and basically produces the same table. This table above also fails to include writers and directors.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a thought. Bring back the brief summaries! Almost every other show's episode list has them. So if you're going to complain about the amount of space, go change all of them too. Otherwise, stop complaining about the page size. It's not paper! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.24.44 (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, brief summaries make the article much more useful! Current format is very unhelpful - it's really hard to tell which episode is which based only on the title, and having to click through to each individual description is annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by El maco27 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not expand them yourself? Besides which, other TV series do not have an article for each episode as South Park does, the episode lists are the only source for the plot of each episode. Alastairward (talk) 09:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Because the brief summaries were already written and part of the article for a long time and someone deleted them. Then someone else brought them back for a while and they were deleted a second time.

Even with a detailed article for each episode, it is still useful to have short plot descriptions in the episode list. The title often reveals little about an episode. If a user wants to look up a specific episode but does not know the title the only way to find it is to click through to every article for each episode one by one until they find it.El maco27 (talk) 23:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Does search do nothing? Brief episode summaries can be as useless as none at all. Why not go for a third opinion, or raise the issue on the project talk page? Alastairward (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Search can be very inefficient when it's hard to describe what you're looking for. Brief episode summaries are rarely useless for comedies like South Park where the plots are relatively simple. People tend to remember episodes as "the one where cartman has his own theme park" etc. and never by the title. Brief episode summaries would make this article a much more useful reference tool. Just scan the list and you can find what you're looking for, no endless searching and/or clicking through each individual articleEl maco27 (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No need to worry, I checked again, the summaries are actually on the season episode list. Check each season, you get a brief episode summary on the list. There's a limit to how much info you can put on a single page before it becomes unwieldy I guess. Alastairward (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello people I am new to Wikipedia and I would like to help with this list I am very good at HTML coding. I noticed some episode order issues with season 4 reference here http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/?season=4, After reading this talk page I can see that this is a problem that you people might already be aware of, if so can somebody just give me the jist of things. Please let me know if I can help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epicnoob (talk • contribs) 21:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

What would you like the gist of? I say go ahead for helping/fixing anything on this page. Also, in the future, please sign your posts by typing ~~~~ Thank you, CTJF83 chat 21:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not explaining myself properly, I am reffering to the air date vs production date order and would just like to know why it is order of air date instead of production date.22:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Epicnoob (talk)

I have all the availible episodes on DVD and they are listed in production order as per Southparkstudios.com.--Epicnoob (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think most TV shows are ordered by air date. The ones I work with the most, List of The Simpsons episodes and List of Family Guy episodes are both by air date. I'd say cause your average Joe Shmoe will know the air dates better than the production dates. CTJF83 chat 22:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

O.K. cool, is their anything I can do to help with this list.--Epicnoob (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If some episodes are in the ring order by air date, you could fix that (but you maybe were referring to production order) Other than that, I don't see really anything else that needs fixing. CTJF83 chat 02:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Fake episode

Much to my disappointment, the episode listed to air July 6, 2009, "Whyatt Beanstalk Has Farty Pants", appears baseless. This is also entirely inconsistent with South Park's airing pattern over the past several seasons.

Confirm that this is false? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsikouras (talk • contribs) 02:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge request

Episode article Wrestling Is Awesome has almost no content, and is unreferenced. I suggest any salvageable content be merged into List of South Park episodes, and that Wrestling Is Awesome become a redirect to List of South Park episodes.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad idea right now, but by the time we've done it the episode will have aired already and there will be plenty of coverage and content. It probably shouldn't have been created quite yet, but merging for a 2-3 day period seems a little unnecessary. ~ mazca ^talk 17:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Mazca, it will air in a few days, and will have more info after then. CTJF83 chat 17:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as well. Although the article was created without the proper title (I went ahead and moved it) it should be left alone for a few days for maintenance reasons (some wiki users will undoubtedly run a search for "Wrestling Is Awesome" when searching for this episode because of the misnamed created article). And, as mentioned, there will be plenty of content by this time next week. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The episode will air in 2 days and there will be plenty of information at that time. Perhaps if it had been weeks away a merge would have been in order but not in this case. --Wean0r (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Official episode wallpapers

How about using the "official wallpapers" from Southparkstudios.com in the "Infobox Television episode" template? Kakun (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably a copyright violation CTJF83 chat 18:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ep s14e14 Creme Fraiche ?

What was the joke about pronouncing Creme Fraiche as "cream freesh" (pronounced normally as "Kremm Fresh"). Is there some dork chef on American TV that actually pronounces it as cream freesh? Same goes for when instead of saying either "Parmesan" or "Parmiggiano Reggiano", they said something that I can only spell as Parmerszjhann (which doesn't sound like either the Italian name or the international name of that cheese). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.155.183.222 (talk) 11:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Asterisks?

Now what are the asterisks someone has been putting next to the episode numbers? --uKER (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's explained between seasons 6 and 7: "Episodes in which Kenny dies" But I had to look hard myself to figure it out!!! --85.176.95.58 (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"Special Episodes"

Does "On The Simpsons" deserve to be a "special episode"? It is neither in the canon of, nor in some way a part of, spinoff of, product etc of the series in question, and was a thirty-ish second parody which appeared on a different TV programme. If we add this, shouldn't we add all parodies of South Park featured on other TV programmes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.11.133.70 (talk) 04:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

re: special episodes, sequences, etc

I went ahead and deleted the "On the Simpsons" segment from Special Episodes, as I cannot see how it is a "special sequence" (not being a sequence actually involved with the program in reference, but a parody of it in someone else's program, and deserving to belong in a "South Park: references in pop culture" segment, perhaps?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.11.133.70 (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Since I've never seen it, I can't fully comment, but you said in the above post it is only 30 seconds long....so the deletion looks fine to me. CTJF83 GoUSA 18:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Templates?

For some reason I can't find my way to editing the templates with the episode lists. How am I supposed to access them? Thanks in advance. --uKER (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Shorts and unaired episodes?

Where did all of this stuff come from? I know the Jesus vs Santa episode, but all the other stuff looks largely made up to me. --uKER (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Matt Stone writing credits

Why is Matt Stone credited for co-writing episodes he never got credit for? Who gets this info? I'm going to go through every end credits of every single episode and double check everything... SimpsonsMan1234 (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Go for it! I want Wikipedia to be as accurate as possible. Thanks, CTJF83 17:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Keeps getting reverted 173.186.28.129 (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Writing credits

This is getting ridiculous. No one is credited for writing a South Park episode after Season 4 Episode 1 except for Trey Parker and the credits on this list should reflect that. 69.40.6.145 (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Completely and utterly ridonkilus!77.166.12.176 (talk) 06:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Colors

Don't you think these different colors look disturbing and distracting, they make no sense, because nothing special thing of a season is sighned by them. And I really tell the truth when I say that my eyes hurt while seeing some of those penetrative colors and some other once are just too dark. We could take some simple shade of gray instead. (I will wait for an answer first ;)--SamWinchester000 (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The colours were chosen because they reflect the colours on the artwork of the DVD/Blu-ray releases, e.g. the season one table is gray because the season one DVD box is grey. It is a very common custom on Wikipedia. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ok, that makes sense, I'm usually on german Wikipedia, which is of course a bit different ;)--SamWinchester000 (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

There's clearly some vandalism among the episode titles, can someone clean this up please? MrEvers (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The air dates for Season 13 are all fucked up. 10thdayoftheweek (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Missing DVD release dates

What happened to the part of the chart/box thing at the top of the page that has DVD and Blu-Ray release dates listed? Beastlcharizard13'sdefinitions (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

A new, very dumb rule was instituted that home media releases aren't important and shouldn't be included in the series overview. You can read more at WP:TVOVERVIEW. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Episodes/links

How to handle episodes that have been migrated en masse to Hulu/iTunes/Amazon and are no longer available on South Park Studios? In fact, the episode I looked up most recently South Park Studios maintains is on Hulu, and Hulu says it's no longer in their archives. Links to IMDb are still valid in this sence, because those records haven't been deleted, but implying online episode availability where none (unpaid) exists seems counterintuitive. Absurdist1968 (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Tables

The lack of uniformity for each of the season list tables should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1200:40CD:C5DF:42A8:1C27:4417 (talk) 05:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Season 19 release dates

I have a hard time finding the release dates of the upcoming episodes. I think you've got that policy that only aired episodes to be added. This is very annoying since Wikipedia is nearly always the first result on Google. It's very inconvenient since there are scheduled breaks between the releases this year. --Explosivo (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Cite errors

There were a number of cite errors in the references section due to repeated ref names in transcluded articles. I updated the ref names on the respective pages to be unique. The nasty bold red errors are now gone, however, the same references now show up multiple times in the references of this article. Any idea how best to resolve this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandevampire (talk • contribs) 14:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The errors were actually because there were multiple identically named refs with different content in each. Simply reformatting all the refs so that they contained the same content fixed the original issue. Leaving the name the same stops the ref appearing multiple times. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for fixing my fixes! --Grandevampire (talk) 12:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Page format

Hello. I believe my format on how this page is right and so far two editors have agreed that it is appropriate for this page and I assume I'm supposed to wait for consensus or something right? Cartoon Fanboy (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I've gotten no response back so does that mean I can revert or what. Cartoon Fanboy (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

No editors have agreed to your edits. You seem to be confused over this so I have addressed it on your talk page. Reverting at this time would be unwise as you're just one edit off violating WP:3RR. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

He's been blocked, as a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Don't be surprised if another "new" editor comes along later trying to make the same change: he does that. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Jason. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of film in the series overview table

Since the IPs haven't started this, I guess I will. The film should not be in the series overview table for an article that is a list of episodes. The film is not and episode, and as such, does not directly fall under the scope of this article. It is properly mentioned and included further down the article in the "Shorts, sketches, and other appearances" section. Additionally, an IP quoted in this revision the following: "Following the standards for other TV shows that have feature-length films, it should have a redirection to the movie's article on the episode's section. It must be featured between the seasons on which it was originally released." Where did this come from, because this isn't a "standard" for other series. Yes, they may do that per WP:OSE, but that does not mean it is correct. Additionally, @Coffee:, as the protecting admin, I kindly ask you to restore the WP:STATUSQUO of the article at this point, which is this revision (noting that the status quo changed with an IP making the adjustment here for the first time). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I can sort of see where the IPs are coming from, as this is common in articles. An example is List of The Simpsons episodes, which is a featured list. By comparison, List of Hannah Montana episodes, which is not FL, uses the same layout that this list did. Personally, I think there are arguments for both methods. If a film forms part of the storyline, then there may be value in including it chronologically (see Rugrats "All Growed Up"), but if it is a completely separate storyline, listing it at the end is more appropriate. How we should list the film here is something that needs consensus. As for reverting to the status quo, the wording of that essay has been softened recently by two editors who aren't listening so, while it may have appeared that this was appropriate in the past, it's now just an ambiguous suggestion. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes I can too see where the IPs are coming from, but as I've pointed out, this is a list of episodes article, and the film is not. If it were to be included, then it is not entirely appropriate within this article scope. I'm not saying to outright remove the film, because I do see the value of having it. But it shouldn't be inserted between the relevant seasons. As for the status quo, from that essay, the end says During a dispute, until a consensus is established, the status quo should remain. That is what I was advocating, that as this is being discussed, the relevant status quo be reinstated until a consensus regarding its position be reached. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

No episode on October 5?

What happened there? (I'm not in the US) --uKER (talk) 09:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

See South Park (season 20). The season had several scheduled "dark weeks" with no planned episodes, as was done with the prior season. Hoof Hearted (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Unlock the page

Can someone unlock the page South Park (season 21) because it's continued? 31.223.133.218 (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

If you want specific changes, please feel free to request them here and they can be made. Or you can create your own user account and you will be able to do so yourself. Cheers! --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 13:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

No, page is currently protected so that only administrators can edit it. Djole 555 (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Isn't there a mistake ?

Hello, I'm a contributor of Wikipedia France and I did work on some french articles related to South Park. I guess that the TVguide.com source that assure Volcano is the second and Muscle Plus 4000 the third episode of the tv show is wrong. According to the South Park official website, and other sources, this list page contains a mistake. --Fawkesfr (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe the episodes are listed in the order they were first aired (in the United States). Although "Weight Gain 4000" (production code 102) was produced before "Volcano" (production code 103), it was aired a week later. This is consistent with the rest of the episodes on the list (note how "Damien" was also aired out of production order). Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2018

I found when season 22 will end TGUisSavage (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Please present a reliable source to support your proposed change. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2019

Please change the link for the season 1 episode Starvin' Marvin from "Starvin' Marvin (South Park)" to just "Starvin' Marvin", as it is the only episode in the article with a redirect link. 190.2.152.107 (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done See here: [6] - FlightTime (open channel) 16:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Update number of seasons

At the end of the introduction, it says "As of November 6, 2019, 303 episodes of South Park have aired, concluding the twenty-second season." That should be twenty-third... Jmh363905 (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

It's fixed now. ChannelSpider (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Why not give the film any passing mention?

So I added the film, since the Pandemic Special has its own section now, and I was wondering why in the past there was extreme opposition to having it even get a passing mention. List of The Simpsons episodes includes the movie, List of Steven Universe episodes includes the movie, and even List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes, which doesn’t list the movies on the main table, gives them their own sections near the bottom of the page. If the film shouldn’t be on the table (which makes sense due to it airing in the middle of season 3), at the very least it should have a section somewhere on this page, as it is an official and significant piece of South Park media that didn’t even get a passing mention and has been warred in and out. Unnamed anon (talk) 06:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Probably because the title of the page is South Park episodes, and all of their related releases can be found at South Park (franchise). Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 08:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

That still doesn't change the fact that most episode lists have any films listed in a separate section on the page. Unnamed anon (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:OSE. Doesn't make them correct, and they probably shouldn't have the films listed because, as Aquatic pointed out, these articles are about episodes. A feature film is not an episode of television. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest looking at the consensus on Talk:List of The Simpsons episodes/Archive 2#RfC: Inclusion of Simpsons Movie, specifically the last argument. Because the Simpsons is almost exclusively a television show, a reader may reasonably expect to see all of the Simpsons material here, so mentioning the movie in this article makes sense. I am not in any way advocating for the movie to be added to the table, but I absolutely believe that it deserves just some passing mention on this page, even if just one sentence i. prose like the current page has. It doesn't treat the movie as an equal to the episodes, but it does at least acknowledge its existence. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

You've been reverted by multiple editors who disagree with your changes, and everyone here has voiced their disagreement; the burden is on you to gain consensus prior to implementing them. QuestFour (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The only other user who has reverted me on this page is SanAnMan, and that was because they disagreed about The Pandemic Special being the season 24 premiere, not because of the movie. Additionally, I'm trying to reach a compromise of not treating the movie like an episode, but still mentioning it in prose, and yet you revert my edits a third time, completely ignoring all attempts to reach a compromise. A 2-1 vote on this talk page is not a consensus to exclude it in prose, and in fact there has been no vocal disagreement about including the movie in prose, just dissent about treating it like an episode of the series. Unnamed anon (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Season 24

The pandemic special is listed as Season 24, Episode 1

Source: southpark.cc.com › episodes › south... Season 24, Ep. 1 - 2401 - Full Episode | South Park ... - South Park Letitrock 92 (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

special

despite what was stated they actually do list it as the first episode of season 24 https://www.southparkstudios.co.uk/episodes/yy0vjs/south-park-the-pandemic-special-season-24-ep-1 Muur (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Can someone change that, please? Letitrock 92 (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2020

Add Some Info South Park Season 24 Full Details are Updated Now. Jagjitsingh632 (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Featured list

Is this good enough to go back on the featured list? Seems good enough to me. Govvy (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Director/Writer thing

Is the "Director" and "Writers" part really necessary? Most episodes, and for the past few seasons ALL episodes, are written and directed by Trey Parker. A handful from seasons 2 to 6 were directed by Eric Stough and occasionally from other staff members (co-creator Matt Stone directed two, "Spontaneous Combustion" and "Jakovasaurs"). In the early years there were "written by" credits given to other writers, but otherwise it's mostly just Trey.

It just seems redundant to me.

I would not have a problem with either (a) removing the Director and Writer columns for seasons where Parker is the only name listed, and placing text before the table explaining he fulfilled those duties (see List of Reading Rainbow episodes), or (b) merging the rows in those columns, so Parker's name appears in one big box as Director and Writer. By and large though, most WP episode lists don't seem to care about redundancies: List of How I Met Your Mother episodes and List of Will & Grace episodes are other similarly long, repetitive sets of tables (for Director). Hoof Hearted (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Shorts and sketches

Hey user:QuestFour, let’s have a discussion about my recent edits the other day. My argument would be, that the section of shorts, sketches, and other appearances is redundant here. The list makes much more sense to be on the South Park franchise page since that article pretty much lists everything about the franchise. Like other episode articles, they list movies and exclusive web episodes. Considering that the list mostly contains from awards shows and TV specials, is non-canonically and redundant here. Kinsley Bottom (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I don't see any reason for Shorts, sketches and other appearances to be handled any differently than Home media or Specials. QuestFour (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Kinsley Bottom. This article is a list of regular television episodes and the special episodes that have been running. The shorts, sketches, and other appearances section is almost identical to a similar section in the main “South Park” article, and in my view, best belongs there. This list should only be for the episodes and specials. - SanAnMan (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The specials are of the series canonically. The situation there is whether it’s season 24 or it’s own thing. Honestly, i don’t know about the home media. There’s too many sources on there and didn’t want to remove it because I thought that would be vandalizing. Even though, it has its own page with the same info, so that can go away too since there’s already a page. The film is in more in line with the series canonically than these short award show/tv special appearances. A lot of tv shows that have a movie include it in their pages. Kinsley Bottom (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

A 20-row table of South Park "Shorts, sketches and other appearances" seems ill-fitting in either the main or franchise articles and would be best left here IMO. I'd suggest waiting for more editor input until moving on with consensus though, whichever it may be. Regards, QuestFour (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

With 2 yeses and no further comments from editors, is it safe to revert? Kinsley Bottom (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kinsley Bottom: As much as I'm supporting your proposal, I don't see consensus being reached yet with such a small number of responses. Let's be patient for more feedback, there's no rush. - SanAnMan (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

It’s been 3 weeks already and no one else has responded, if only 2 out of 1, I’m going to surmise my version was correct. --Kinsley Bottom (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Film

The film should be listed here as it is common with TV shows with a film to list it in their episodes pages. For example: The Simpsons, SpongeBob SquarePants, The Fairly OddParents, Jimmy Neutron, Phineas and Ferb, Beavis and Butt-Head, Sex and the City, The X-Files, Rugrats, The Wild Thornberrys, etc. With some of these episode pages even been listed as a featured article with the film in their page. Just trying to be consistent with the others. Kinsley Bottom (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit Warring over the runtime of the two specials

Hard to believe I'm actually having to raise this an an issue, but it seems that there's a belief that the two recent special episodes have a runtime of one hour, despite it being easily demonstrable that they are actually 45 minutes. Or 47 minutes each, to be precise.

It makes no sense to include the advertisement breaks in the runtime. What about countries outside the USA with fewer than 13 minutes of advertisement breaks, or none at all? Or the runtime on streaming? Or the runtime on the eventual home media releases?

The latest reversion edit summary claims that "this discussion has been discussed in length in the actual episode articles", which is untrue. The Vaccination Special talk page has no mention of the runtime and the Pandemic Special talk page contains a discussion which did not reach a consensus.

The edit summary also claims that "this is not an infobox". Clearly it isn't, but what rationale is there for a mention of the runtime in an article contradicting the guidelines for runtime in an infobox? Barry Wom (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Nearly every single cited source, including from Comedy Central (which I think we can all agree is pretty definitive), references the two specials as a "one hour special" or such. How do you plan to disagree with all of these cited sources? I think it's understood that, if you remove commercials, a 30-minute episode doesn't run exactly 30 minutes, nor does a one-hour episode run exactly one hour. But since multiple cited sources refer to the episodes as a one-hour episode, we should be consistent. Your infobox addition with the actual run-time is fine, but this is a description of the episodes. - SanAnMan (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

"One hour special" is advertising speak to indicate to the American audience that it's a longer-than-usual episode (and I'll hazard a guess that all the "multiple cited sources" are from the USA). Wikipedia requires we take a global approach in articles. Barry Wom (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I do agree with Barry Wom. I'd also like to note that sources from CC rounding up the runtime to an hour are clearly just doing so becasue it's better for marketing purposes and shouldn't be used literally in this encyclopedic context. We actually had this debate before and came to reasonable compromise of adding a note that spelled all of this out, but it was evidently removed somewhere along the line and never restored. Grapesoda22 (talk) 02:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd support a compromise whereby we state the correct running time, with a footnote to explain why it was advertised as a one-hour special in the States. Barry Wom (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I've added a footnote in an attempt at the proposed compromise. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

That's not the compromise suggested. Refrain from further edits until a consensus is reached. Barry Wom (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

1) The edit you made has a false statement, the episodes are not 45 minutes in length. 2) You are in no position to tell me not to make edits, I was attempting to make an edit that would be a compromise. - SanAnMan (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Since we can't seem to compromise on how the time should read properly, just remove it altogether. Thus no conflict. - SanAnMan (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

As User:SanAnMan has unilaterally decided to make changes without waiting for further input, I guess we need to bring this to a close. 2-1 support for using the actual runtime. Barry Wom (talk) 07:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

2-1 is not a consensus. It is a bullying tactic. Reverting back to no run time mention. If you want to debate this further I suggest a third party. - SanAnMan (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Let's discuss what we do agree on so far. I agree with you now that the use of the term "one hour" to describe the specials is not encyclopedically accurate, and that is why I removed that phrase from this article and the corresponding episode articles. I also agree with you that having the accurate time added to the articles' infobox is accurate and should definitely be there. So we agree on those points. I disagree with your edits on rounding off the runtime of the episodes to 45 minutes and then using a footnote to describe the accurate runtime. In reviewing other articles about television episodes (including other South Park articles) and specials, the run time of the episode/special is hardly ever mentioned in the lead of the article/section whatsoever since the infobox provides the accurate runtime. User:Grapesoda22 agreed with you that it is not acceptable to use the "one hour" phrase, but he has never said anything about your edits with the inaccurate run times. Your comment to me about not making edits until a consensus was finally reached is disputed by WP:BRD which states "when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. You can try this even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion". Now, as per the WP:BRD process, I really think the best compromise at this point is to just eliminate all references of the run time anywhere in the articles other than in the infobox, which is the edit that I've made. - SanAnMan (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

"I disagree with your edits on rounding off the runtime of the episodes to 45 minutes and then using a footnote to describe the accurate runtime."

I don't think the article body needs a precise runtime, but whatever. If you insist on having it specified as 47 minutes, fine.

"In reviewing other articles about television episodes (including other South Park articles) and specials, the run time of the episode/special is hardly ever mentioned in the lead of the article/section whatsoever"

No it isn't, because in general the runtime isn't an important piece of information. In this case, however, the fact that the specials' runtimes are different to a standard episode needs to be pointed out. After all, it's one of the reasons they are referred to as "special episodes".

"Your comment to me about not making edits until a consensus was finally reached is disputed by WP:BRD which states "when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. You can try this even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion"

Clearly that's not what you did. I suggested a compromise. You made changes which ignored that suggestion. I then implemented the suggested compromise. You reverted it.

Notably, you've truncated the excerpt from WP:BRD, which concludes with "but be sure you don't engage in any kind of edit warring." Which is what you're now doing. Don't forget that consensus can change. You're welcome to canvas for further opinions and change the articles if you find enough support for your position. At the moment, all we have is a 2-1 majority opinion. Which may not be ideal, but it's sufficient to support the changes to the articles. Barry Wom (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

"Clearly that's not what you did. I suggested a compromise. You made changes which ignored that suggestion."

Clearly not WP:AGF. I was honestly making an edit which I thought would be a good compromise. You then commented that no further edits should be made (by me) until a consensus was reached, then made your own edit. Do you not see how that's bullying?

Anyhow, if you absolutely insist on having the runtime included, as long as it's accurate, I'm willing to compromise on that. But your statement about the one hour runtime being advertised "in the USA" is false, as the one-hour term was used in other countries as well including the UK, as seen in the image graphic in the first special. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@SanAnMan, Barry Wom, and Grapesoda22: Question from someone who has stayed out of this discussion until now:

Does the 47 minute run time that's been in The Pandemic Special and South ParQ Vaccination Special and articles meet WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CS, etc? Yes or no? Nightscream (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nightscream:Originally I would have agreed with you, but since your edit, Barry Wom has added a reliable cited source (Amazon.com) that provides the accurate runtime of the episodes, and he has adjusted the infobox of both articles to match. Originally I was the one defending the "one hour" description, but in the sake of accuracy, I think what is in the articles now is accurate. I have made an edit to this article since the cited sources of the individual specials shows that their runtimes were not identical. - SanAnMan (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "agree with" me, since I didn't state a position. I merely asked a question. Nightscream (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Apologies on the confusion of my statement. I mistakenly assumed that since you had reverted the edit due to WP:V/NOR/CS that your position was that the article didn't meet those standards. To better answer your question, when the article did not have the citation from Amazon, I agree believe that at that time it did not meet WP:V/NOR/CS, but now that the cite from Amazon has been added, I believe that it does meet those qualifications. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry for returning late to this discussion. I really don't want to comment or get involved with tensions between other users. I just want to give my input on the main issues being debated here. I will say that I am satisfied with the notes added to the special pages and the episode list as they are now. I feel it does a sufficient job at addressing the main concerns that have been raised here. It properly gives the true runtime, as it should, while also explaining the fact that key sources have opted to round it up to an hour. That's my two cents. Grapesoda22 (talk) 05:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how you justify removing not only mention of the episodes as one-hour long from the text of the Lead, and the removal of citations that support that, especially in light of the fact that Amazon is not generally considered the best source to use, and there's the question of whether the text in the Lead refers to the aired run time as opposed to the home media without commercials. To simplify/organize this, let's start with the Infobox first. I've inquired as to what is the customary practice/policy/guideline on that here. I'll focus on the article text after the Infobox question is resolved. Nightscream (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Following as well, I'd like to have a definitive answer on the infobox and how the associated article text should read. Template:Infobox television episode isn't much help, as the parameter for "length" seems to imply that either is acceptable: "The original length of the episode, including credits, in minutes. It should indicate runtime (without commercials), or with commercials." I'm also following the discussion on the WikiProject that Nighscream started on this. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted the removal of the running times from the ledes. The discussion at WikiProject Television mentioned in the edit summary has been archived and can't be added to, but there is nothing at that discussion to suggest that we should not supply the runtime in the lede if it is pretty much the only reason for calling these "special" episodes. Barry Wom (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Volcano/Weight Gain 4000 mix-up

There has been a massive misinformation problem with the airdates of Volcano (prod. #103; aired August 20th, 1997) and Weight Gain 4000 (prod. #102; aired August 27th, 1997). Currently on this page the dates are swapped, and this is a problem ALL OVER THE WEB. South Park's official site even has the incorrect airdates, as does IMDB and others (though I am trying to fix them there, too). Long story short: The first DVD set listed the wrong airdates on the package and when the show was made available for streaming those incorrect dates carried over. In fact, the SOURCE for the airdates that is currently cited on the page lists them correctly (with Volcano on the 20th and Weight Gain 4000 on the 27th), but they are still shown incorrectly on this wiki page. I have written about this extensively in a twitter thread: https://twitter.com/jixbyphillips/status/1423524075889065989

Please fix the dates and please don't let anyone change them back. Thank you.

Unless you can provide reliable cited sources to back this up, your opinion is just that, opinion. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Post Covid

I added the episode as "next" on the South ParQ page but I'm unsure how to add it to the table here proowlely. CanningIO (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The movies are not tv episodes. They are therefore listed at South Park (franchise) not here. - SanAnMan (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Is this a decision based on a discussion somewhere?

When Paramount+ described these as "films" I was happily onboard with their placement in the Franchise article (and have been reverting changes which disagreed with this). But having now seen the first "film", it's quite clear that at least the first and second films are nothing more than extended length episodes, not individual stories à la the theatrical movie. The plot in the first is a direct continuation of the two specials and the plot in the second film will continue the plot from the first.

With a running time of less than an hour, it's even stretching it to call them "films" in the first place. They even admitted to this in the Hollywood Reporter interview - "Parker and Stone clarify that the Paramount+ projects are not feature films".

So I reckon there's a strong argument for placing these films in the episode list - and linking them as episodes in the individual articles. Barry Wom (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Barry Wom: I'm almost there with you. I could also support adding a section for the films to the List of South Park episodes article, mostly because there are other TV series that list their films in their episode lists (see above section #Film for this). But I'm not quite on board yet with linking them as actual episodes. Yes, I will give you the fact that it seems the first two made-for-TV movies (I don't think they should be called "films" IMO) are going to be a continuation of events from South ParQ Vaccination Special, but we don't know (yet) what direction future movies are going to take. This is just a totally different direction than what's been done in the past with South Park and it's getting harder and harder to classify them.

Here's a suggestion -- when I asked for comment on this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television, someone referred me to the Doctor Who article The Parting of the Ways, which had a mini-movie in the midst of the series. They used both the mini-movie and the next regular episode in the infobox. I vote that, at least for the time being, we go ahead and list South Park: Post Covid as the next "episode" from Vaccination Special, but with a note that it is a made-for-TV movie, and that way if/when SP ever goes back to regular episodic programming, we can list that as the next regular episode in the same infobox. What say you to that? - SanAnMan (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@SanAnMan: "It's getting harder and harder to classify them". Problem is, I don't think the average Joe cares a jot about how they are classified. They're clearly being seen as extended-length episodes (as evidenced by the fact that yet another editor has now added Post Covid to the episode list).

"we don't know (yet) what direction future movies are going to take". Yes, absolutely. It's possible that in the future we'll have to reconsider how the films are handled. In the meantime though, let's just treat them as episodes. Barry Wom (talk) 10:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Latest Dec 4 edit removed the South Path Post COVID episode from the page. This was an actual episode and should be added back to the table. Reverting the Dec 4 change should fix the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AstrumArchos (talk • contribs) 04:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

If I may say, it is interesting that they’re being called "events" more than films, as recent promos have.--CreecregofLife (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I freely admit, at first I fought for these movies to be called "movies", and not episodes. But for the time, I have to agree that these "films" are nothing more than extended-length episodes. And they should be classified as such until proven otherwise. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I've been reverted for replacing the EPISODE infobox with one that is meant to be used for TELEVISION FILMS, while the entire article, lead and category included, calls these films and while the articles use italics for the titles. @Barry Wom this is either an episode or a film, this cannot be both. So decide which is which and then make the article consistent instead of reverting without understanding what your revert means. Gonnym (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

As per the discussion, at the moment there appears to be agreement to treat these as episodes. But they've been described as "films" by Paramount, hence the mentions of this in the articles. Barry Wom (talk) 07:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

FYI, I found a source which I have added as a cite that states that Parker and Stone do not consider the Paramount+ projects as films at all, and that it was ViacomCBS who decided to market them as such. And to me, if the creators don't consider them as true movies/films, then neither should we. - SanAnMan (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Parker & Stone say that they do consider them as "made-for-TV movies" though, it even say so at the beginning of South Park: Post Covid. If they are television movies, I’m not sure we should count them as episodes. --Thibaut (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

They're kind of all over the shop in that article though. Parker makes it clear that it was Viacom who "went and called them movies" and implies that they shouldn't be considered movies at all. Stone then contradicts Parker by saying they're "made-for-TV movies". Stone then goes on to contradict himself by saying "they are not quite movie scale".

Reading between the lines, I suspect that Parker and Stone were taken by surprise when Paramount issued the press release that announced 14 "films" and they've had to temper expectations by calling them "sort of movies but not really movies" in a convoluted manner.

Running time aside, I personally don't think there is anything about these "films" that distinguishes them from the two specials. And how many modern movies (made for TV or otherwise) are only around sixty minutes in length? (I'm sure there are several examples, but percentage-wise it must be quite low). Barry Wom (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Seems that further complications have arisen now that the two "special" episodes are confirmed as being Season 24. I disagree with the move of the Paramount+ films to follow Season 25. If the consensus is that the films are to be treated as episodes, I'd suggest we list each block of "films" with their year(s) of transmission. This would give the following structure for the episode table:
Season 24 Episodes 2 First Aired September 30, 2020 Last Aired March 10, 2021
2021 Films Episodes 2 First Aired November 25, 2021 Last Aired December 16, 2021
Season 25 First Aired February 2, 2022
2022 Films
Season 26
etc.
Barry Wom (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

With no comments forthcoming either way, I'll go ahead and make the changes. Barry Wom (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I also agree that the 2021 films should precede the 25th season as of right now there are only two of them, but should we also consider listing each paramount film as there on. - Season 24 - Post Covid - The Return of Covid - Season 25 There is no confirmation whether the paramount films will share continuity with the show or even themselves with future installments. The only examples we have right now were related to each other, but there are still 12 more paramount+ movies planned to be released and with the COVID story supposedly wrapping up with The Return of Covid, it is possible they could all be standalone and therefore not related. Zvig47 (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

As I suggested above, I think the best approach is to list each batch of films separately whether they are related to the rest of the seasons or not - i.e. Season 24 Paramount+ films (2021) Season 25 Paramount+ films (2022) Season 26 and so on. Barry Wom (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I feel as though the paramount films should be treated as both episodes and semi films until further come out. While they do share more similarities to slightly extended specials as opposed to the first feature film, they are films nonetheless. There is reason to list them in the way you have suggested above while also creating a page dedicated to the South Park films. For instance if they are indeed treated as episodes and the paramount films are treated as a “season”, it should have a page much like every other season. Season 24 was comprised of only two specials and that deserved a page, I believe the paramount films should be treated in the same regard. Zvig47 (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

they do share more similarities to slightly extended specials

Exactly. You're not providing any argument as to why they should be treated as feature films. Barry Wom (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

they are films nonetheless

I thought the fact that they were films in it of it self would be a good reason to treat them as film. No matter what kind of South Park movie you make, it will always share major similarities to the show, same people, same voices, same animation. If they are referred to TV movies, and will have future TV movies in the future, they should be grouped together, and not be counted as episodes. If they are to be counted as episodes, there is still no reason to delete the South Park (film series) page, because you think the movies should be treated as tv shows, so then by your own logic they deserve to be grouped together in a sort of “season”. Zvig47 (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the films should have their own page and not be listed among the episodes. Trey and Matt have confirmed they're TV Movies, but they're not connected to any of the seasons and they're also not airing on Comedy Central, also have their own sort of ongoing storyline, and there's going to be 12 more over the next 6 years. It's going to make this guide more messy if we continue listing them among the actual series, as well as messing the episode count up since they were never intended to be added to the regular series episode count. OL.Wise.Editor (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

they're not connected to any of the seasons

Of course they are. They conclude the story arc begun in Season 24. Barry Wom (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

With proper additions and constructive edits, I feel South Park (film series) would be a noteworthy addition and make future Paramount+ films easier to note and make the episode count less messy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvig47 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Your creation of the article South Park (film series) is unwarranted. The information about the various films is already discussed in multiple other articles. It seems your main purpose for creating the article is your view on the Paramount films being considered episodes. As such I have submitted the article to be WP:PROD and I’m hoping other regular contributors review the submission. - SanAnMan (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I’m also suggesting a new column for the television films. Much like there is a section listing “Episodes”, there should be one listing “television films” or “Paramount+ films”. Zvig47 (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

While the first two films are connected, both Parker and Stone have said they would mostly be disconnected from the show. If the consensus agrees with the termination of the article, I will accept the decision, but if these movies are more like extended special, then much like the specials have a page for season 24, the movies should have a page for themselves too. Zvig47 (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Plus, they're NOT even episodes themselves, they are their own thing, they're TV movies/films, they should NOT be counted as episodes, it will give a messy episode count that i'm sure they're not even going by. OL.Wise.Editor (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The article South Park (film series) can be subject to change, but not deletion. It can be more dedicated to the paramount+ films, but not deleted. I mean I understand what you mean when you say that the movies are like episodes, but of course they would feel that way. Made by the same people the same way as the show. It’s going to have a similar feel. The main reason why the two movies were about COVID was done so they could start fresh for season 25. They know no one wanted anymore pandemic stuff from South Park so they used their two, hour long made for tv MOVIES, and then were able to continue making season 25. It’s going to get messy if we count these movies as episodes. When they eventually reach Episode 400 and mention it, this page is going to be like 10 behind. If we have the movies be their own page and flesh out that page the redundancy you think is happening with that article will become less than every edit. Zvig47 (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Can someone summarize for me this discussion so far? Do we consider them films or episodes? There is still inconsistent usage across articles, including MoS violations. Gonnym (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Consensus #1 -- The two episodes previously thought to be just specials are actually Season 24. This is no longer just consensus, this is confirmed from Comedy Central with the announcement of Season 25. Consensus #2 (to date) -- the two Paramount+ movies are made-for-TV movies that are also being considered episodes, as the plot of both movies were direct continuations of the episode South ParQ Vaccination Special which immediately preceded them both. Even though they are advertised as movies, their runtime and plot aspects puts them more in line with extended-length episodes than a separate film such at South Park: Bigger, Longer, & Uncut. Other editors are welcome to comment/correct. - SanAnMan (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks SanAnMan for the recap! I'll wait to see if someone says the opposite, but if this is the case then some changes need to be made, including the italics should be changed to quotes per MOS:MINORWORK, short description and categories. Gonnym (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Per MOS:MAJORWORK, all films including short films are to be italics. Just because we are considering the Paramount films to also be episodes for things like episode counts doesn’t discount that they are still films. - SanAnMan (talk)

You can't consider them both. Either sources say they are films and we treat them as films, or sources say they are episodes and we treat them as episodes. I'm really surprised that I have to explain this as this is literally the only place on Wikipedia where this is an issue. --Gonnym (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Who says we can't? We're considering them as episodes solely for things like episode counts and episode tables because the plots and such are direct continuations of the previous actual episode. There's no denying that Paramount and Viacom consider them to be movies, but even Parker and Stone have stated that they don't consider them as movies. They are made-for-TV movies in the style of extended-length episodes. They can be both. - SanAnMan (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The only reason this is "literally the only place on Wikipedia where this is an issue" is that the situation here is unique. There's plenty of sources claiming they're films but they're only parroting releases from the Paramount PR department. The running times, plot continuation from Season 24 and the fact that the creators have stated that they shouldn't be considered as films should be sufficient to also consider them as episodes. Barry Wom (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I think they should be listed due to them directly affecting the events in the series, so if someone where to refer to the episode list to see what to watch next, they could get confused say, when Season 24 begins and the boys are now friends, cause the two movies that dealt with that plotline aren't listed Ryan Jay (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Should the 2021 Paramount+ Films Be In Season 24?

Barry Wom recently added a cite from Futon Critic that shows that the two Paramount+ films from 2021 have production codes that are in alignment with the two special episodes now confirmed to be Season 24. Also, the consensus to this point has been that the Paramount films are, for all intents and purposes, extended-length episodes that just happen to have aired on a different network. Since the Paramount films also have matching production codes (something that has, to my knowledge, not been done in other kinds of TV movies) to the other episodes of Season 24, I propose that the two 2021 Paramount films be included in the article South Park (season 24). Feedback welcomed. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd fully support this move. I think the production codes for the "films" should be considered as proof that they are in fact just extended length Season 24 episodes. They may have been on a different network, but at the end of the day it's all ViacomCBS.

I presume if this proposal goes ahead, you would also support removing the films as a distinct entry in the List of Episodes article? Barry Wom (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Barry Wom:Yes, I've already gone ahead and made the appropriate changes both to this article (removing the distinct entry) and re-organizing and re-formatting the South Park (season 24) article with the 2021 Paramout films per WP:BOLD. If anyone catches any small errors I've missed such as tables and such please feel free to clean up anything I missed. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Why is getting an 26th season?

This will be on Paramount+ and Comedy Central.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Retcon all mentions of "Token Black" to "Tolkien Black"?

I know that there was once a discussion about this somewhere. Some editors have taken it upon themselves, without discussion, to go back to all old SP articles and rename any reference of Token Black to Tolkien Black, due to the character's retcon name change in "The Big Fix". I do not see a reason to do this. There are existing DVDs, interviews, and multiple other web and media sources that all confirm that prior to the episode, the character's name was Token Black. Just because the producers decided to change his name on pretty much any media they can get their hands on (games, closed captioning of old episodes, etc.) does not mean that the character was not previously named Token. His name was Token until Parker/Stone decided to change it, and all articles up to "The Big Fix" should maintain the old name. I'd appreciate any feedback on this. - SanAnMan (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Strongly oppose these changes. His name was clearly Token Black until The Big Fix. Barry Wom (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree with SanAnMan and Barry, all mentions of the character prior to The Big Fix should use his pre-retcon name. The only problem I see is that we need a source that talks about the producers changing the name in captions for previous episodes and games, so as to alleviate any confusion for any new readers who see the captions and mistake it for being his name the entire time, which is an issue since I couldn't find any reliable source mentioning that action even though it's clearly notable. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

How to list "South Park: The Streaming Wars"

So we've got another Paramount+ special coming soon, but this time, the episode doesn't seem to have a production code (see [7]), plus the fact that multiple sources stated Credigree Weed St. Patrick's Day Special was definitely considered the finale of S25. It's definitely too early to call Streaming Wars part of S26. Also to note that the sources state another Paramount+ special will be airing some time this summer. So the question is how to list these in the episodes table? I don't think it's accurate this time to call Streaming Wars part of S25. Maybe we should just list a separate "mid-season" section after S25 and maybe call it S25 Films or such? I'm open to ideas on this one. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I've tried to make somewhat of an acceptable edit on this. I'm listing the 2022 Paramount specials in S25, but clearly stating in multiple places that they are not considered part of the regular season. It's the best solution I can think of at this point. Again, suggestions to improve are welcome. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The Streaming Wars

Now that we’ve seen The Streaming Wars and see that it’s basically a continuation of Season 25, is it safe to say we should list it as such. Post Covid and The Return of Covid are both listed as a part of Season 24, and this is due to it containing elements of the previous specials and being a continuation of the story presented in them. The Streaming Wars is essentially a longer episode in Season 25, so I feel it should be listed as such instead of separated from that season. Zvig47 (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Zvig47: As per discussion above, the S24 specials were included as part of S24 primarily because they had production codes that were the same as the other episodes of the season, not just because of their continuity. On top of that, there was never an official "end of season" announcement for S24 (or at least no documented source of such). In S25, the specials are different. First off, there are no production codes for "The Streaming Wars" at all. And secondly, the S25 episode "Credigree Weed St. Patrick's Day Special" was very clearly advertised as the end of the regular season including a graphic on screen during the episode, and there are cited sources to confirm that it was the end of the regular season. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@SanAnMan: If that’s the case and these tv films should be treated differently than episodes, isn’t it a better idea to group them in their own page. Much like the fact that there are seasons, there could be a page dedicated to Paramount+ films for South Park. It would be listing them more organized. Zvig47 (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Zvig47: Again, this is something that has already been discussed and agreed upon for consensus. The Paramount "movies" are nothing more than extended-length episodes that follow both canon and plot of the regular-season episodes. They also do already have their own separate section in South Park (franchise)#Paramount+ films so there's definitely not a need for another article about them. I understand it's a bit confusing, but that's the decision we are going with at this time. - SanAnMan (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@SanAnMan: I can agree there may be no need for a separate article for only 3 tv films at this time, but we should also acknowledge the fact that there will be more of this episodes, and things will get messier on the series overview section on the if these episodes are not better organized. Also I don’t even think Post Covid and Return of Covid should be listed as a part of Season 24, as the newly produced home media for that season only includes the pandemic and vaccination specials. If we are truly going off production code instead of the home media, then I won’t say much further, but you mentioned how the consensus supports listing it this is listed, but the last conversation on this page was before the Streaming Wars came out. No one knew if it was going to be a continuation of the season or a new story. I think it’s safe to assume that all of the tv films will follow their previous seasons, considering how seasons are becoming much shorter in length, so I feel they should either be listed with the seasons, or on their own all together. I apologize if this is a little too long I just had a lot to say. Zvig47 (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

"South Park: The 25th Anniversary Concert"

The concert was aired, so wasn't just a concert but also a sort of episode. It should be listed here as some sort of special -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 04:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@64.229.88.43 A concert is definitely not an episode. The concert is given its due mention at both South Park (franchise) and South Park (season 25). - SanAnMan (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I did state a "special", like other specials, like making of specials, and anniversary clippshows, or live readings. The concert was aired, and is part of South Park, so superficially it s a special broadcast -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@64.229.88.43 But again, it is not an EPISODE of South Park. This article is about episodes. As stated earlier, the concert is discussed in two other articles that have more relevance. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, just to note, the other two articles also discuss the tv special of the concert, so there's that. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

"Films"

@SanAnMan:

1. Per MOS:TV, MOS:FILM and MOS:ITALICS, television episodes are formatted with quotes, films are formatted with italics.
2. The lead to this article states On August 5, 2021, Comedy Central announced that Parker and Stone signed a $900 million deal for extending the series to 30 seasons through 2027 and 14 feature films [...] Two films were confirmed to be released at the end of 2021, which Parker and Stone later indicated would be made-for-TV movies. All four film articles begin by detailing each entry as an American adult animated comedy television film.
3. South Park (franchise)#Paramount+ films, as well (and rather self-explanatorily), lists its header as "Paramount+ films", and details how ViacomCBS [...] decided to advertise them as movies. South Park also states in its lead the series was renewed through 2027, and a series of films was announced for the streaming service Paramount+. {{South Park}} lists the four entries under a Films category.

Either they are films and are to be listed as such, or they are not films and the prose and formatting detailing them need to be adjusted. These articles do not get a pass to violate the WikiProject Television and WikiProject Film's Manuals of Style. If you cannot find it in yourself to understand this situation, I am happy to take it to an expanded venue, such as an RFC. Cheers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the violations of the MOS, this is a fairly unique situation. You may want to review the previous discussion before taking further action. Barry Wom (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I've noted the summary of that discussion, and I agree with Gonnym; they cannot be both a minor and major work at the same time. The consensus formed is only a local consensus between a few editors; in the case of MoS violations, a wider and more firm consensus should be established. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

As I say, it's a unique situation. The arguments for treating the "films" as extended-length episodes are more plentiful, as detailed at the previous discussion (creators' comments, runtime, production codes, plot continuation). But if you feel strongly about it, go ahead and raise an RFC. Barry Wom (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Your unique situation is WP:OR and not backed by sources or supported by Wikipedia's MoS. Gonnym (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Each of the reasons I just mentioned for treating the films as episodes are not OR. Barry Wom (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

1. Runtime is irrelevant. I've known series where all episodes are feature length, as well as serious with entries that range between 40 and 150 minutes.
2. Production codes are irrelevant; that is simply a unique numbering for the production of entries within the series. Simply because it does or does not a production code, it may or may not make it part of that broadcast season, that is not a defining factor.
3. Plot continuation is irrelevant; that is entirely an in-universe perspective.
4. Creator's comments are ultimate irrelevant to us, they are a primary source on an encyclopedia that is secondary-source based, and do not overrule Wikipedia's guidelines and polocies.

That's each of your reasons you just mentioned covered. Thus, the point still stands: they are either films (i.e. major works), or episodes of the series (i.e. minor works). -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Runtime is relevant because very few feature films run under an hour.

Production codes are relevant because they indicate that the studio considered the "films" to be part of the season.

Creators' comments - the Paramount PR department announced "feature films" and the creators declared that they were not "feature films". Why are their comments not relevant?

Plot continuation. This is where I believe that by insisting on strictly following Wiki policy we will be introducing unnecessary confusion. The vast majority of readers don't care whether Wiki calls these "films" or "episodes". The plots for each of the episodes in season 24 are inextricably linked. Your suggested change of moving the films to their own section, with the season number being repeated from the episode table, at first glance doesn't seem to make any sense. I don't believe the binary insistence that they must be either "films" or "episodes" in this particular case is necessary or desirable. Barry Wom (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

When this discussion started way back in Season 24, I was in the same POV as Alex 21 was. I was standing fast that films were films, episodes were episodes, and that they should be separated. But the more I looked at it, and the more I discussed this in talk pages with other editors, I changed my mind on the subject. Paramount is pretty much the only source calling these things "feature films". They may be considered films by them, but common sense, logic, production codes, plotlines, and many other factors indicate that they are nothing more than extended-length episodes, with no "film" having even had a runtime longer than 60 minutes (to date). Heck I've seen Doctor Who episodes, both regular and special, that have run longer than that, just for an example. When the two main people (Parker and Stone) who created the show, direct and produce the show, voice nearly every major character in the show, and are pretty much considered the backbone of the show flat-out say that these things aren't films, I'm not going to argue with them. As Barry Wom has stated, the average reader doesn't care if they're called films or episodes, but the fact remains that they are linked, and I have no issue whatsoever with saying that they are BOTH episodes and films at the same time. I don't beleive they should be "major works" but since Paramount wants to insist that they be called films for whatever marketing reason they have and they choose to market them with an italicized title, then we at least have to honor that title styling. THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS OPINION ONLY IMO, If these specials had been originally aired on Comedy Central rather than Paramount, this whole thing about "films" would be a moot point because CC would just call them special episodes, somewhat in the vein of long-term specials like Imaginationland, which was also classified as a "film" even though it was a compilation film. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

If they are not films, then they are not to be formatted and detailed as films, and need to be adjusted appropriately. The average reader doesn't contribute to our MoS's, which we have for a reason. However, your perspective on how we format titles is completely wrong; how they format titles is irrelevant to Wikipedia, we have our own formatting standards that are not based on other entities. There was an argument over how to capitalize a Doctor Who episode title; the consensus determined that how the episode or production titled it is irrelevant, we have our own policies for that.

So either, 1) they are extended-length episodes and not films, and their formatting needs to be changed, or 2) they are referred to by secondary sources as films, and we list them as such appropriately. Which is it? -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: We should go by what the sources call it and that is a made-for-TV movie. Deadline, Vareity, The Verge, ComingSoon.net, /Film, Gamespot. IMO, they should be treated as such and the pages look fine. I'm not really sure, but is the main issue here about if the titles should be in quotes or italicized? The sources provided use italics, not quotes. Mike Allen 15:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that at the moment we're treating them as films in one respect (italicized titles) and episodes in another respect (included in overall episode numbering, use of infobox television episode on the article pages). Both myself and SanAnMan are arguing that this hybrid approach is the best solution, per the reasons given above. Barry Wom (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source that explicitly calls them episodes, and that they contribute towards the episode count? If so, they need to be formatted as episodes. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, your hybrid approch is not backed by Wikipedia's Manual of Style and again, is two editors' complete WP:OR (and a bit of lovely WP:OWN for good messure). Also, if you care or not, but with your stance these is no chance these will get promoted to WP:GA. Gonnym (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@MikeAllen The main issue is this: an entry cannot be a major work and a minor work at the same time, this conflicting situation is not supported by any MoS, guideline or policy. Therefore, this article needs to be updated in one of two ways: either 1) they are films, movies, whatever term editors would like to use, and need to be made separate from the regular episodes of this series, or 2) they are not films, and are "extended length episodes", and their formatting and separate articles need to be updated to remove references to them being films. However, option 2 is not valid, as this is what secondary sources explicitly call them. The styling the sources use, however, is irrelevant; we have our own MoS to abide by. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

What's also worth noting is that neither of the home media releases for Seasons 24 and 25 include the films. Season 24 was released with two actual "extended-length episodes" (that's what it says on the cover), and neither of the films; Season 25 is set to be released with the six episodes of the season, and neither of the films. This only goes to show that the series' distributor does not consider these films to be episodes, or part of those respective seasons. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

They are separated because of different contracts, the films are exclusive to Paramount, the regular episodes to Comedy Central, and thus separate distributors. Both want their own DVD contracts. I think at this point we have reached an impasse in this discussion since no one is changing their minds. - SanAnMan (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, so they are not episodes, they are separate entities and thus independent films related to the series. It's not a matter of changing anyone's mind; any further edits I or anyone else makes to separate the films are based on reliable sources and Wikipedia's Manuals of Styles, whereas yours as based on original research and no supporting guidelines or policies, meaning you would have no reason to revert. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue that if the current approach is unacceptable, we treat them as episodes rather than films and I think I've found precedence for this.

The Sherlock episode The Abominable Bride is treated as an episode of a series, using infobox television episode. The Black Mirror episodes USS Callister and San Junipero are the same.

But all of these won the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Television Movie. So there's clear primary sources indicating they're television movies, but they are treated as episodes of a series on Wiki.

Also note that none of these South Park "films" are even eligible to be nominated for the television movie Emmy because they are less than 75 minutes in length. Barry Wom (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

And are the awards won by an episode, regardless of their importance, any part of Wikipedia's Manuals of Style? I don't believe so. For the examples you've given, they are all reliably sourced, by primary and secondary sources, that they are episodes of their respective series. For the "films" of South Park, they are all reliably sourced, by primary and secondary sources, that they are indeed films. Summary: the awards won by an episode are irrelevant to the point of this discussion. -- Alex_21 _TALK 12:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

A quick search later; I'm sure further examples can be found:

"Film" listed as an episode of season 24

Reference to the "Post COVID episodes"

What is South Park's post-Covid episode?

Post Covid - "The 2021 episode"

Reference to Post Covid as an episode

Post Covid a "special event episode"

"The specials are technically being counted as the first three episodes of season 24" Barry Wom (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

ETA: Also worth noting is that Paramount themselves appear to have backtracked from their initial press release announcing "feature films". Nowhere on the press release announcing the Post Covid episodes are they referred to as films or movies. The cover of the home video release similarly doesn't mention films or movies. In both cases they're described as "events". Barry Wom (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Alex 21: IMO your comments "any further edits I or anyone else makes to separate the films...meaning you would have no reason to revert" border on WP:OWN and are definitely not following WP:BRD protocols. Proper protocol is to continue to work towards an agreement here, or if you refuse to continue the BRD process, seek mediation. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Barry Wom: If a compromise on this is needed, then based on your last comment, I would work with you on reclassifying the "films" as "special episodes", "specials", and/or "events" including re-wording the articles to note in each that while Paramount originally marketed them as "films", the ongoing marketing is indicating otherwise. This would also include re-formatting the titles and such from film-style to TV episode-style to be more in alignment with MOS. Thoughts? - SanAnMan (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that solution. "Specials" works better I think; "event" sounds a bit publicity-speak. I'd presume at the same time we'd be removing them from the season articles. With their lack of production codes it was always a bit of a stretch calling the latest two specials part of Season 25 anyway.

For further evidence that Paramount are now (generally) calling these events rather than films, there's the four press releases for the specials [8], [9], [10], [11] and the trailers for two of the episodes [12], [13]. Only one of these mentions "movie" but that one also refers to "the first three “South Park” events". Barry Wom (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Replying to the above in one reply. (It's amusing to be accused of OWN simply in retaliation, when the reverts to this article don't just border on OWN but violate it, given that no MoS, guideline or policy supported your reverts.For perspective, OWN is a policy; BRD is an essay.)

Out of the seven initial references listed, one is an episode guide, four are unreliable per the scope of Wikipedia, only the last two are usable. If they are referred to as episodes, then their formatting and listings need to be changed as such. These specials/events/episodes/whathaveyou are still not, however, part of the respective seasons in which they are listed, which is why I then agreed with the first paragraph of Barry's latest reply. If they are to be updated as episodes, then this article, the respective season and episode articles, South Park (franchise)#Paramount+ films, South Park, {{South Park}} all need to be fixed/updated. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess we should wait a few days for any further input before applying any changes.

And I'm presuming that the move from "films" to "specials" will allow retention of these in the overall episode count. Barry Wom (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of ratings

@Xery1234: I see you added this source to the rating numbers of episodes from seasons 1 to 10. This website, Ratings Ryan, doesn't seem reliable, as it is a self-published blog. I've tried to check, but I wasn't able to find evidence that the person behind it is a subject-matter expert either. According to Wikipedia policy, it is preferable for some episodes to be with no rating score from the absence of a reliable source that states it than including it while citing a blog. ObserveOwl (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh. I realised just now that Ratings Ryan is being cited in other episode lists like List of Futurama episodes, List of Breaking Bad episodes and others. I might start a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard discussion soon. ObserveOwl (talk) 13:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Including the specials in the Series overview table

The specials need to be included in the table, not just mentioned in a footnote. I just spent some time trying and failing to do this myself so I'm hoping someone more familiar with table syntax and formatting could help out.

I'd suggest having "Specials" in the Season column with "2" in the Episodes column with links to the Franchise article. Barry Wom (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts on my implemetation? This separates the specials from the regular seasons, same as they are in the tables, prevents the constant swapping between Comedy Central and Paramount+ in the network column, and a new row can be added for each further release (this reminds me a lot of the specials at List of Mrs. Brown's Boys episodes). FWIW, the new layout and terminology makes a lot more sense. -- Alex_21 _TALK 06:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I still think they should be included chronologically in the table, which would indeed require constant swapping in the network column - similar to what it was like before the changes were made. Would that somehow be a problem?

There's the example of Two Doors Down which has broadcast on three different networks (albeit all BBC channels) and has a special in the middle of the table.

And to take your example of Mrs. Brown's Boys, if a fourth season were to be announced, I'd expect it to be placed in chronological order in the table, i.e. after the specials. Barry Wom (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I have nothing against having the specials in a table alongside the regular episodes here, but merging them results in the specials appearing in the main South Park article, which is IMO unnecessary. QuestFour (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Unnecessary? The specials are now being treated as television episodes across the board. I'd argue it is actually necessary to have them listed under "Episodes" on the main South Park article. Barry Wom (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I've tried playing with the table to have it go S24, Specials, S25, Specials, S26 so that they could be listed chronologically; but I can't seem to get the formatting and such to work out right. If anyone is better with table formatting and linking, I'm willing to see how it looks. For now it seems we're stuck with having all the specials in the one section at the end. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Ha! Glad to hear I'm not the only one baffled by the arcane nature of Wiki tables. Barry Wom (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Barry Wom Never challenge an IT geek that something can't be done. I found the right code and reformatter the table accordingly. :) - SanAnMan (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The template documentation exists at Template:Series overview (as is the standard for every template on Wikipedia), which shows you the usage of parameters for specials. If the specials need to be "included chronologically in the table", then why is this not the case for the episodes themselves? Why are there not separate specials tables between the seasons? -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I've split and moved the specials tables to their correct location and moved the associated text to the lede. Barry Wom (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Episode title update

The latest episode of South Park had a last minute title change, from "DiKimble's Hot Dogs" to "DikinBaus Hot Dogs". Source here. 2A00:23C6:B280:A701:18EF:B37B:4A29:C2B3 (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2023

Change "TBA" for both directed by and written by for the episode "Japanese toilets" in the season 23 table to "Trey Parker" The end of the episode credits him as both Ike8omb (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand why this edit wasn't made and respect it. To avoid this in the future, how can I cite the source to support the change when the source was watching the episode firsthand? that way I can provide credibility you are still allowing for a timely update. Thank you. Ike8omb (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

My apologies. I was using dictation. In the second to last sentence I mean to say providing credibility while still allowing for a timely update. Ike8omb (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)