Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation/South Park task force/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Morals

Due to the increasing emphasis on morals at the end of South Park episodes, would it be a good idea to include the 'moral of the story' in the episode description? Just an idea I had.
--Naylor182 19:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

List of One-Off Characters

The page has been created. Please help by adding to it, but keep to the format.
Danke,
--Naylor182 15:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've done some cleanup of the to-do list on the project page; many of the characters there have now been listed on the minor character and one-off character lists. Captain Infinity 20:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Spelling and Grammar

I have seen a plethora of South Park articles that have absolutely dire grammar and/or spelling. Some sentences aren't technically even sentences. This is a major issue. The grammar and spelling of an article is pivotal to the presentation.

Can I ask two things:
1) If you are bad at spelling, don't guess. Look up the word.
2) Can people help me with reforming the standard of spelling and grammar in the SP pages?

Cheers,
--Naylor182 14:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalising for Season 10

I think we need to put a vandal proof on the List of South Park episodes page. Various occurances of vandalism has come to my attention such as a fake post about an episode called "Cartmanacopedia" in which Cartman discovers Wikipedia. It was soon removed though. To keep this article from confusing people we should give it vandal proof. Mr. Garrison 18:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there will be enough people watching this (not to mention the WP:RC patrol) that it's not necessary just yet. If it starts actually happening, then. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to vandal-proof every page and make people (a) register and (b) clear new information with other editors, but that's not the spirit of the 'pedia. -- dakern74 (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Songs

I noticed there are two articles, one called List of South Park songs and another called List of songs featured on South Park. It appears the first one is "original" material (although it seems excessive to me) and the second one is a list of "real" songs that were either played or mentioned in an episode (like, famously, "Come Sail Away"). Seems like these two lists could be merged somehow. -- dakern74 (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I would say to merge the first into the second, but with a heading that sets it off from the rest. They are two totally different things, sure, but I agree that they can fall into the same article as songs of South Park. ~greenodonata

List of Minor Characters

I have just made a page for Minor Characters in South Park and I think we should merge some articles into it such as Crab People, The Harrisons, God, Scott Tenorman, Ms. Claridge etc. If anyone agrees with me please reply here. Mr. Garrison (talk · contribs)

Agree completely. I also don't think some of the characters that were taken from other series, or from real life, need their own section. Bart Simpson, Saddam Hussein, God, Satan, and a few others, are not unique to SP, they were just fictionalized and animated for series purposes. Along that logic, you'd have to add every celebrity that was ever skewered (Tom Cruise, Barbra Streisand, Kathie Lee Gifford, there could be dozens). I think we should stick to just the fictional characters that were created solely for the series. Thoughts? -- dakern74 (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that Satan, Saddam Hussein and God should be merged as they have appeared in more than one episode and have had significant roles (especially Satan and Saddam Hussein). However, characters appearing in just one episode who are not original to South Park (like Bart Simpson) should be merged.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Watch37264 (talk • contribs) .

I think that all minor characters should be merged, even if they've been in more than one episode, per WP:FICT. -- Ned Scott 01:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, all minor characters should be in the article. A few appearances certainly isn't enough for an article. If (or) when the character appears on a regular basis, then make the article for it. RobJ1981 04:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

We should merge characters in if they have had less than 4 appearences, not including cameos like God in A Ladder to Heaven. If they've been in four or more episodes then they deserve their own article. Scott Tenorman by the way DOESN'T need an article. When I first joined Wikipedia himself and the Christine Aguilerra Monster from Timmy 2000 had their own pages. We don't need Scott Tenorman.

Mr. Garrison 22:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Also people are adding many characters all the time, to be a minor character they should have appeared either 2 or 3 times. 1 appearence makes them a ONE-OFF CHARACTER.

• Mr. Garrison 11:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

See my addition on the talk page of Minor Characters in South Park. Let me know what you think. --Naylor182 13:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've done some cleanup of the to-do list on the project page; many of the characters there have now been listed on the minor character and one-off character lists. Captain Infinity 20:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Issue with trivia on many South Park pages

Way too much trivia, makes the articles look bad. Put important information in the article itself (not in notes, trivia, goofs, culture references, etc), and keep unimportant things off. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan's guide to every little note or mistake. Episode articles seem to be the most common place to find too much trivia, but it happens on other South Park articles as well. Trivia sections don't always need to be removed, but try to keep it small: between 1 and 4 items is acceptable, in my opinion. Remember: important things, not non-notable things. RobJ1981 04:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, personally what is the point of adding goofs and notes. If we're South Park fans why do we want to bring up mistakes and ruin the appearence on articles with notes and all that. I think 6-8 trivial facts are enough. If there are very important ones put them on the article's talk page. If agreed with it can be added.

• Mr. Garrison 22:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest rebraning Triva as "Episode Notes" or similar. I understand Wikipedia want to lose trivia sections however in the case of individual SP eps I don't think it's too much of an issue, such as useful titbits like "Cartman doing X parodies the time Butters did Y in episode Z". 84.65.12.135 18:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a rename is the best way to solve the issue though. Jmlk17 23:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that having too many trivia sections is too much. I don't think wikipedia is the right place for goofs, 'did you notice' or other pedantic material. However, I think each episode should have a "References" section. It's a credit to the show that they make several references,. The references aren't "trivial" to South Park, but rather a main characteristic of each show. Furthermore, "fitting in" every reference into the plot description usually bogs down the description and makes it difficult to read. The references are best presented in a list format. Is there any way this can be put to a vote or something? Every single episode's discussion page has this same debate. Blakecarlile (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've railed against this in all the episode discussions and I couldn't agree more that we oughtta put it to a vote. I don't like having multiple sections for this kind of stuff, thats just silly, but a single section for describing cultural references of interest should be the norm for South Park episode entries and we shouldn't have to fight with these glorified librarians who delete everything that doesn't meet their arbitrary criteria for what an encyclopedia 'should' be —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snafu7x7 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the argument I always hear from detractors is that it violates the guidelines of Wikipedia's policy against Trivia sections. Then they invariably reference WP:TRIV as their justification for deleting content. This is hilarious because they've obviously not read this guideline carefully. What the guideline says is to "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts", especially those that are not referenced and verifiable, I fully support that, but where a post is valid, properly referenced and adds to the overall value of the article it should never be deleted. The guideline even says this explicitly, a fact the delete-happy always fail to mention, to quote, it say: "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all." Snafu7x7 (talk) 04:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What's so suitable about original research, just because it's labelled "trivia"? Alastairward (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Improving articles

Congratulations to everyone who contributed towards Trapped in the Closet (South Park), which now has good article status. However, the main article about South Park really does need improving, given that it is one of the 50 most visited articles on Wikipedia, and it has been tagged as an article requiring cleanup since last month. Here are a list of suggestions towards improving it towards good and eventually featured article status:

Cite sources when analysing episodes, as Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

Follow the style of other television show articles that have good and featured article status.

Integrate trivia into the article where possible.

Add any more suggestions if possible.

Watch37264 15:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed quite a lot of links to other non-SP articles with random words like "sex" (linking to the sex article) and "hostage" (linking to the article for hostage) in many episode articles. I do not think these are necessary and I suggest them to be cleaned up.Bittersky 21:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
• User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
• User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
• User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 23:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Character pages

This is getting out of hand. People are freely deleting articles and merging them when they don't need it. Some characters don't even have the character template on their page and all articles need to have the South Park characters template so other articles can be linked. I'm also having a hard time finding out who voices who for:

• The 6th Graders
• Bertha
• Sally
• Heidi

and many more. If you know could you please say.

• Mr. Garrison

If you mean me, I was just merging what was on the to be merged list and some others with the same importance as those. I don't think I merged any that were important. Nemu 03:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, good job tidying it all up Nemu.

• Mr. Garrison

Character page format

I noticed that none of the pages share the same format, so I was thinking there should probably be one. I was thinking it would be something like I did to Ike's page. The personality section would have subsections if they're relevant such as Satan's relationships section could be under it. Then the accomplishments section would replace the mention of every single episode as that seems unencyclopedic. Thoughts? Nemu 19:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• You're very right about that, the character pages have been bothering me for ages, pages like Ms. Cartman need lengthening. Not just mentioning appearences. My idea for page layout is:

--introduction--

(who is character?)

(voiced by?)

--character traits--

(appearence?)

(behaviour?)

(personality?)

--family/friends--

(links to other relatives with brief description of them)

--career/lifestyle--

(any hobbies?)

(job? has job been relevant in episodes?)

--important points of their life--

(major points in episodes, such as Cartman's Mom is Still a Dirty Slut for Ms. Cartman)

(goals in life?)

--appearences--

(what episodes? brief description)

--trivia--

(important facts)

Introduction would be the opening, so that's already taken care of. Character traits could have appearance and personality subsections. If the character has enough info for it, that's where the relationships could also be. The problem with separting their life and their actions is that some lack certain parts, so it would be better to combine them. Appearances really doesn't need to be there because if the appearance wasn't important enough to be mentioned in their actions, it's pointless. Trivia sections are also pointless because if the info isn't important enough to be put anywhere else, it shouldn't be mentioned. Nemu 23:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

i've updated the ms. cartman page but it needs trivia.

--Naylor182 14:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

South Park portal

I have started work on a portal for South Park. Feel free to contribute. Watch37264 14:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the South Park portal if you would like to help. Watch37264 16:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI, someone's nominated this portal for a proposed delete (not me!). Thought you might want to know. –Little Miss Might Be Wrong 04:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have now nominated the portal for deletion. Watch37264 20:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

A ton of articles require cleanup. [List of minor characters on South Park]] has no lead, and is written from an in-universe style. South Park families should be moved to List of families of South Park per WP:MOS-T. Several other articles are written from an informal tone, witch isn't encyclopedic etc. We should address this ASAP. -- Selmo ^(talk) 23:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Assessment and Importance

It is important to assess all articles relating to South Park in terms of their quality. Also, could someone expand the template to include the importance of the article within South Park. I have tried and failed on several occassions. This would be very helpful as we need to identify which articles need improving the most as well as the most important articles. Thanks. Watch37264 16:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've finally added an importance assessment parameter to the banner. -- Selmo ^(talk) 03:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Now that this has been done, I feel that we should get on with assessing the articles based on their quality and their importance within South Park. We need to have a discussion over how 'important' articles before this can be done effectively. At the moment, the 'Top-importance' articles/lists are South Park, List of South Park episodes and South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut. I propose that the main characters should be top-importance, as well as the creator bios. I also propose that articles about episodes should in general be mid-importance. Any additions to this debate would be welcome. Watch37264 19:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Kenny so called lyrics

I've have to remove 3 examples of these and i've very very minor interesting in south park . User of this project should be keeping a very active eye out for this (Gnevin 18:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC))

The source for this is http://spscriptorium.com/SPinfo/OCsecrets.htm, which cites an online chat with Trey Parker. That site appears to be pretty credible. --MutantMonkey (talk | work) 01:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats one fan site Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:Cite require more (Gnevin 12:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC))

The official site has this FAQ entry for seasons 1-5, I'll see if I can find something on the official site for season 7 onwards --MutantMonkey (talk | work) 02:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats more like it readd if you wish(Gnevin 15:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC))

Ah, found season 7+, no official word on the current one, though. I'll go ahead and readd those. --MutantMonkey (talk | work) 03:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Open tasks: List of minor characters

All of the character links proposed for merging with the List of minor characters now redirect to the aforementioned List. Should this task therefore be deleted? Samurai V 13:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Captain Infinity 20:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD

The article Homes in South Park is up for deletion. It's the first time I saw this article, and I probably would have nominated it myself. This whole project seems to be pure fancruft, now that I really think of it. -- Selmo ^(talk) 17:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The project is NOT fancruft, it is an attempt to tidy up South Park's articles. If you don't like the idea of the project then don't be a member.

• Mr. Garrison 20:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. I'm only doing what I feel is the best for South Park and Wikipedia. -- Selmo ^(talk) 20:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

For someone who wishes to be a Wikipedia administrator, you do not show much professionalism. Learn to be less abrasive, please. --Naylor182 00:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

South Park Episode List

I'm giving each season it's own article just like the Simpsons. Please do not create articles for seasons that haven't been made, I'm up to season five. Please do not add an article for season 6, season 7, season 8, season 9, season 10 because I have done them on my own specific format.

• Mr. Garrison 20:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Is an individual page for each season really necessary? The South Park eps page is very good (it's an FL after all) and if your going to make individual pages, I don't think that they should just be copy and paste versions of the big list. So, if we're going to have individual seasons, we should get rid of the summaries, etc on the main episode page and make it similar to the List of episodes of The Simpsons. -- Scorpion 14:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Exactly! This is what I've been trying to say......we seem to copy everything off Simpsons pages you know!
      • Mr. Garrison 22:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This has little to do with this project. --Naylor182 19:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

CFD notice

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 15:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please also note Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 20 for a review of the decision regarding Category:Actors by series. Tim! 08:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Why was this deleted may I ask? It's quite a good idea for a category and I'm sure that the page's creator and many others would agree. Mr. Garrison (talk · contribs)

Season 11

Just a word of warning, keep an eye out for vandalism and misleading information on the episode page about season 11 eps. I found "Return of Darth Chef". Just a reminder, season 11 starts March 7th! *Mr. GaRRiSoN 23:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

Someone has been adding "past South Park character" to some characters who haven't appeared for quite a time. I'd like to know, how is a "past character" defined? I mean, calling them "past" is a little bit over the top, but not calling them so is crystallballing, as it predicts they are sure to return. But, then again, we would then have to include "past" to every secondary or reccuring character after each apisode in which they weren't featured, and that is quite irrational.--Orthologist 17:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Past" shouldn't be used at all - they are either a character or they aren't. Writing about fiction guidelines say that fictional events should be written from a present tense perspective, since they "come alive" whenever the fiction is read or watched. CovenantD 20:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That was me. It's for characters who were killed off or written out. For instance Chef, Choksondik and Crabtree are dead, whereas I feel Mr. Slave was written out. Mr. Garrison (talk · contribs)

Butters

While I took alot of time to cleanup and condense Butters' main article, could some of you help me cite the sources so we can get this article a good rating. Thrawny 17:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

replacing Infobox South Park episode

In the process of attempting to limit the amount of Series-specific episode infoboxes, I have now landed at South Park :D. Replacing all usages of this template by hand is just an enormous task. I'm considering replacing the current contents with the template with User:TheDJ/SandboxTemplate3. On article pages you will then end up with this (see box at the bottom). After this a bot can subst: all the transclusions of the template without breaking the box. You will end up with a less then optimal subst: result See this diff, but it doesn't interfere with the functionality of the infobox, and it saves a whole lot of work. Opinions please ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 12:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• I like it, it's very clean and looks easy to edit if necessary. Captain Infinity 14:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Characters

Should most of the characters be merged with the various lists? After looking at most of the articles, the bulk of them are stubs or would be stubs after the removal of trivial information. Only the main characters and the major secondary characters should need pages. Nemu 19:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but it depends on who you mean. We made an agreement along time ago that if they've been in about 4 or more episodes with an important role they deserve an article. While people waste time deleting we could actually work on fixing an article for once....no offence to anyone but we don't seem to ever fix stubs. Some of us fixed up a few character articles maybe it would be good for everyone to do... Mr. Garrison (talk · contribs)

I really would say most of them. All of the ones under the "Townsfolk" section, most of the ones under the "South Park Elementary" section, and probably like half of the family members are stubs (many have pointless lists). Instead of taking the time to mention every single slight role, it would seem better to have most of them on the lists. The description of their character and a couple of really important roles they have can be talked about (the bulk really shouldn't need mention). Four episodes really isn't a very good method of determining importance. Nemu 19:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

We can't just delete a whole load of articles because they lack quality. Come on people this in an encyclopedia! We're meant to add more things and write, not delete stuff just because it doesn't seem important. These characters have a lot of important history. The only ones I can think of worth merging are Kyle Schwartz and Mr. Adler. People visiting the site won't care about if the pages are meaningless to a few people, they care about finding out the facts - quickly and in good detail. All I see on this project is merge/delete/speedy delete. I founded this project to ensure one thing - all stubs etc. are fixed.....not deleted. If you don't believe I created the page check history and go to the beginning. I should be listed first. I didn't want it to end up as another useless talk page with people just wanting to merge and delete stuff, I made it so we can discuss how to improve, not delete.... Mr. Garrison (talk · contribs)

The problem is that not enough people actively work in this project. The stubs won't be fixed unless plenty of people are willing to work on them. If they are merged, all of the core information will be placed there. That way, all of the junk will be gone, and it can be expanded. After being worked on enough, the character could be brought back. Nemu 17:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm really against that. Would you be able to post some article titles that seem unsufficient, I'd be happy to work on them. Mr. Garrison (talk · contribs)

Well, you really aren't the deciding force or anything. The fact that you're the only one that has replied sort of proves my point. Pretty much all of the articles need major work. That is why most should be merged. Nemu 22:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude calm down I'm just saying my point of view ..... besides, why can't we just improve articles for once, actually merge them all I'm more bothered about the South Park Wikia site. Mr. Garrison (talk · contribs)

I think you're the one that probably needs to calm down if you see that previous comment as anything other than calm. I guess I'll merge some in the next few days. Nemu 15:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that I got a bit mad. Anyway, I'm fixing some of the articles could you tell me some of the pages you wanna merge so we can all voice an opinion here? Mr. Garrison (talk · contribs)

At this point I was thinking of merging pretty much all of the stubs. For example, Jimmy is a pretty notable character, but his article is pretty much a stub (after cutting some of the repetitive and pointless stuff). He should be merged for now. He may warrant a page in the future, but at this point it's rather pointless. Nemu 20:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

True, but is it okay to merge it with South Park Elementary students. These seemingly unusual pages help to prevent those long lists that can add barely anymore info to. They also make the page easier to load up and all. Mr. Garrison (talk · contribs)

but now Jimbo Kern has an article, as does Shelly Marsh, but Jimmy, Token and all the others do not. why remove all the students but keep family members?· Lygophile has spoken 02:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm just lazy. I'll get the rest eventually. TTN 02:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoa-Whoa-Whoa! What are you talking about? Bebe Stevens' article was not a stub! Neither was Clyde Donovan's! Or Wendy Testaburger's! As I said elsewhere, if the character has enough information to fill at least seven paragraphs, (granted, these paragraphs are about ten lines each), give them their own, private article! It's only fair to the character! Geesh! Wilhelmina Will June 24th, 2007.

Character images

Well, a consensus must be reached to use specific images on the 4 main characters articles.

• Image:Stan.svg should be used over Image:StanMarsh.PNG
• Image:Kyle.svg should be used over Image:Kyle normal appearence.jpg
• Image:Eric.svg should be used over Image:Cartman opened mouth.jpg
• Image:Kenny.svg should be used over Image:Kenny normal appearence.jpg

Resons: For the Stan image, check here. About the others, all of those images descriptions (on their description pages) say: "released to the public for any wanted use". NOOO, all of those images are copyrighted. If it really were released to the public for any wanted use, anyone would create a program called North Park and use this images for the main characters.

Another thing is that SVG images should be used over PNG and other formats. Check Wikipedia:Use SVG over PNG. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 02:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• I uploaded them, if comedy central releases something to the public, then they intend it for public use. Frankly, the SVG images are............I cannot stand them since the incorrect details and fact that they are unnofficial designs. By the way, next time don't so be goddamn rude because I cannot stand people who are rude to me on here. Mr. Garrison (talk · contribs)

• I happen to like the SVGs. The ability to fix incorrect details is one of the great things about them; anybody can do it, and pretty easily. I'm more concerned about whether they're legal; the fair use template says that it's for "low-resolution images", and I don't know exactly whether SVGs qualify as low-resolution. Assuming they are legal, I absolutely believe they should be used. Playstationman 19:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• The character images are copyrighted images and only allowed per the wikipedia policy on Fair Use. Your SVG image is a copyright violation, because it's a derivative of an original copyrighted item. In general, derivatives are more frowned upon by the copyright holders then what they release themselves as images. I think the usage of the promotional images here is definetly preferred. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Provided of course proper fair use rationales are provided. The current explenations there are rather ehm, insufficient. {{character-artwork}} should be used for one. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Can we just use screenshots for all of them? Please would someone agree with me for once. Mr. Garrison (talk · contribs)

If you want to use that images, first use a correct source and a correct status. released to the public for any wanted use??? That's totally false. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 02:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've checked the new images that FictionH has uploaded and I think it's ok. Maybe the best thing we can use, except for the Kyle image. Please upload (replace the actual) a better one. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 03:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I just read this. So FictionH CLAIMS that he works at South Park Studios and that he created the pictures. That's nice and all, but 1 we have no proof of his employment and identity, 2 it's not HIS work, all work that he does falls under the copyright of the company he works for (99,5% of the cases), so he cannot decide to license this artwork in the way that he has stated, only the company can do that. This makes BOTH sets of images unsuited for inclusion in wikipedia in my opinion. If South Park Studios really wants to release the work to wikipedia and all GFDL derivatives, then there are wikipedia processes that allow for this. But a claim by a supposed employee will not suffice. Website promo material, or screenshots from the show, with a proper Fair Use rationale is still the preferred way to do this atm. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If I upload screenshots then I'll add that I screenshotted it from my OWN season whatever boxset but I know you lot will still find something wrong with it so actually I probably won't bother. Mr. Garrison (talk · contribs)

I'd just like to point out that there's an undercurrent of dislike between people here, I annoy I put the wrong copyright status up but gimme a break, and please do not reply with CAPITAL LETTERS and bold text since it is found rather rude. We all like South Park so lets all work as a team, I know we will do a good job guys so please lets stop arguing. :) Mr. Garrison (talk · contribs)

(unindent) They are also used to show emphasis to certain points. IF I TYPE LIKE THSI THEN I'M SHOUTING, BUT I WOULD NEVER DO THAT. I just care very much about good quality articles, and making images, that are simply not free and never will be free, be proper content in wikipedia is just a difficult proces that is not fully understood by all people; and with reason, because the law is very annoying in this respect. The law is written for professional book editors, not for casual webeditors, and that causes a lot of confusion within wikipedia. I'm just trying to show what the best way is to include these images, without others having cause to remove them in the future. See also WP:IDP#Fair_use_rationale --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the only solution is:

• If we can't use SVG cuz that's a copyright violation (the high resolution), then we won't.
• If we can't use images created by others who are not the creators of South Park (like the Stan Marsh created by Fiction), then we won't.
• The only thing we can use are screenshoots, but good screenshoots. And a clear fair-use rationable must be added. And the uploader can't claim that the images have been created by him/her (like the Image:StanMarsh.PNG. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 21:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly unfamiliar with the Fair Use policies and Copyright laws, so forgive me if I'm completely off base here... Would it be possible to use pictures and screencaps that are posted on www.southparkstudios.com since that is the official site of the studio? They have a vast collection of images there, I don't think we'd have much problem finding decent pictures over there. Tweeks Coffee 21:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is "promotional" material, then that would be fine. However, if you take stuff that is an "element" of the website, something that for instance was created specifically for the website, then South Park studios might not appreciate that and ask us to remove it (it would still be a proper Fair Use, but note that material used under Fair Use, can be demanded to be take offline/removed by the copyright holder at any time). So that's why I explicitly said "promotional images". The other case is a frame from the actual series and that would always be a proper Fair Use, because it shows the character in the way it was part of it's original fictional work. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they host a large image index on the site. The pictures are mostly screencaps from episodes posted as individual pictures in an index. You can see this index here. It's broken down by season there, but you can also go to individual characters. That area is even called "Downloads", so I'd say they intend for people to use them as images. An image like this onecould be used for Kyle's page. I'm not sure on the rules about altering an image by cropping out other characters or backgrounds. It would be significantly easier to find acceptable pics there if we could remove excess stuff. Tweeks Coffee 20:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, i think this is the best bet. I'm not 100% sure about the cropping either, but i think it should be ok... Just as a related point "so i'd say the intend for people to use". people are private individuals here. Note that wikipedia as a movement does not have the same "personal use" rights as an individual has :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 22:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

One-off character page has been nominated for deletion

The List of one-off characters on South Park page has been nominated for deletion. The nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination. If you have an opinion on this issue, please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-off characters on South Park and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Captain Infinity 00:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh it survived, as I assumed it would. Thanks for the heads up, even those this is a month late. Jmlk17 07:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that we should redo the list. I don't see why it was even deleted in the first place.--Cartman005 04:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Kenny's deaths has been nominated for deletion

This article has been nominated for deletion. Come participating and giving your opinion about this article here. DeansFA 13:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Dirka dirka up for deletion

Hey guys. The article Dirka dirka is up for deletion. [1]. Could you guys go over there make a convincing argument to save it? It's a popular enough phrase to be included. --Candy-Panda 09:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is popular, nay, notable enough to be an article. Jmlk17 08:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Russian Music" in Free Willzyx and The Snuke

This seems like the best place to raise this issue, which I feel silly to make a big deal about but I feel like it shouldn't be ignored. In both Free Willzyx and The Snuke, there is a brief music cue when the boys are dealing with Russians. Someone is chanting, presumably in Russian, but it's very short and indistinct. The inspiration is obvious - any number of Cold War thrillers and action films include similar, vague music when showing scenes of Russia, the Soviet Union or Eastern Europe. Just of the top of my head, The Hunt for Red October, The Peacemaker are good examples.

The problem, as I see it, is that one user in particular insists that this music is actually from Darkstalkers, specifically related to the character of Jedah Dohma. When he levitates onto the screen, there is similar, indistinct chanting in the background. But there is no way to definitively identify that music with this music used in South Park. It's far too brief. The fact that the music sounds the same is an opinion, not a fact, so it cannot be confirmed simply by ear.

I have tried to remove these points from the articles and voiced my concerns on their respective talk pages, but this user doesn't want to hear me. His "evidence" is a link to videos containing the Darkstalkers music, which is irrelevant. Just because two pieces of music sound alike (which I would not even agree with in this case) I don't think it's encyclopedic to include it. South Park episode articles are already choked with "trivia" and "cultural references" as it is. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 14:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...I've tried listening, and I can't discern what language it is. Jmlk17 07:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Then again, my knowledge of Russian is exceedingly limited, Da? Jmlk17 05:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Bigger, Longer & Uncut importend scale

the "top-importence" catagory contains bigger longer and uncut, yet the talkpage of bigger longer & uncut says it is midimportence. isnt htat automated in some way?· Lygophile has spoken 22:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Episode coverage

The WikiProject Television episode coverage taskforce have recently been working on a review process for episode articles. There are a rash of articles about individual episodes which fail notability, and are unlikely to ever reach such requirements. Many contributors are unaware of the specific guidelines to assess notability in episode pages: Wikipedia:Television episodes. We have expanded these guidelines to make them more helpful and explanatory, and we invite you to read the guidelines, and make any comments on its talk page. After much discussion, we have created a proposed review process for dealing with problem articles. See: Wikipedia:Television article review process. We invite discussion of this process on its talk page. General comments about this whole process are welcome at the episode coverage taskforce talkpage. Thanks! Gwinva 10:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Giant Monsters Attack Japan!

I've created an article for Matt and Trey's upcoming film, Giant Monsters Attack Japan!. It is in need of expert editing. If you want to help improve the article, you can discuss it on the talk page. Thank you.--Swellman 18:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Title for Spooky Fish

Hello. I have moved the article for the episode from its previous title "Spookyfish" under the "Spooky Fish". The latest is the title that TV.com refers to. I have also corrected the references in the text and in the episode list for Season 2, as used in the infobox. I understand that this maybe is a change that will affect a lot of things, so I thought that it would be appropriate to notify you. --Dead3y3 ^{Talk page} 08:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. Don't trust tv.com. It's one word acccording to both the official website and the dvd set.--Swellman 15:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconvenience. I will correct all back to the one-worded title. --Dead3y3 ^{Talk page} 18:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Generally, the rule of thumb is to go by what the official website says. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 07:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Inactive

This project DOES seem to be a little inactive. We should start doing some stuff to avoid a mfd. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 07:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably because there hasn't been anything recent going on. Once the second half of season 11 comes back on, we should be expiriencing more traffic. MITB LS 07:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Goofs"

As some of you may or may not have noticed, I have been through each episode of South Park, trying to eliminate a lot of useless Trivia which could be considered Original Research, speculation, or just plain irrelevant. However, one thing that has annoyed the crap out of me is the "goofs" bit. Unlike the Trivia bit, where some of it could be relevant, or be integrated into other things, I move to state that the goofs part is entirely irrelevant, and in no way worthy of an encyclopedia. Can mistakes of and episode be considered encyclopedic in any way? I highly doubt this, and put forward the idea of removing all "goofs" bits - if these is agreed, I will personally do it myself.

Whether or not this will include the inconsistencies with other episodes, I hope to discuss here, what I want to definitely be removed is the nonsense like "Cartman was seeing getting in the left side of the car, but he is later seen on the right", etc. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, there isn't any need for goofs. I think we should come up with a new guideline for episode pages that eliminates goofs and merges pop culture into trivia. Mr. GaRRiSoN 08:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Garrison (talk • contribs)

Featured Article candidate

• Trapped in the Closet (South Park), please voice your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trapped in the Closet (South Park). Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 02:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC).
  • Thank you to all who commented at the FAC. Trapped in the Closet (South Park), was successfully promoted to a Wikipedia:Featured Article. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 05:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC).

Imaginationland

Imaginationland is going to require quite a bit of watching. Anonymous users keep added a list of every inhabitant that was in Imaginationland, blatantly ignoring WP:NOT#INFO Dlong 16:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK: South Park and Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today

On 21 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article South Park and Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai 03:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 04:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC).

"Did you know?" statistics on this WikiProject?

I was just checking to see if you all keep tracking of the "Did you know?" statistics on this WikiProject, or not, or if not, if you want to start doing that? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 05:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC).

Tsst is up for deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsst. 96T 21:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Merging of all 3 Imaginationland articles

This is a large ongoing debate: should the three episodes be merged together into one single article, or not? The discussion is located HERE. Just thought the WikiProject should know. The Chronic 02:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As I've already said, they should be merged. For my reasoning see the talk page. Go God Go and Cartoon Wars have both been merged and look at how much better they look now. I also propose merging for Do the Handicapped Go to Hell?/Probably (South Park).--Swellman 13:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we do something about the inhabitants of Imaginationland list? Perhaps a separate article as I have already tried to do?--Cartman005 21:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think that's necessary. Even the current list is rather unnecessary and littered with repeats. I think we need to focus on cleaning up the main article and making it more relevant before we worry about the list too much. Tweeks Coffee 22:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Episode Numbering in lead section

I'm proposing a new way of numbering all episodes. Instead of using the chronological number or the prod code (which are shown in the infobox anyway), we should list the season number and which season it came from. For examples of articles in which this system is being used, see episode articles of the simpsons or futurama.

The problem with using chronological numbering or prod codes is that they can confuse casual readers, and can also cause arguments as to which one should be used. For examples of south park articles where his is already being used, see Trapped in the Closet (South Park).

“ "Trapped in the Closet", is the 137th episode of the Comedy Central series South Park, which originally aired on November 16, 2005. ” — How lead sections shouldn't start.

“ "Trapped in the Closet", is episode 912 of the Comedy Central series South Park, which originally aired on November 16, 2005. ” — How lead sections shouldn't start.

“ "Trapped in the Closet", the twelfth episode of the ninth season of the Comedy Central series South Park, originally aired on November 16, 2005. ” — How all lead sections should start.

So, what do you all think? For or against?--Swellman 22:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Parentage to Comedy WikiProject?

I was wondering if the Comedy WikiProject is a parent to this WikiProject? Is it so and it should be noted on the WikiProject? ISD 12:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

List of places in South Park is up for deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places in South Park 96T 19:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

South Park opening sequence is up for deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Park credits 96T 21:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Kenny's Deaths is up for deletion (again)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kenny's deaths (2nd nomination) 96T (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Imaginationland and Multiple Part Episodes

The South Park Project has to decide on how we want to handle multiple part episodes like Imaginationland. They should either all be seperate or merged. This is a huge debate that has been going on on the Imaginationland page. We also need to decide what to do with the list of imaginary characters in Imaginationland. There is a lot of support to keep the list though it is mostly useless trivia. I made a separate page for the list which was deleted in favor of having separate lists on each of the episodes' pages. They now go back and forth on deleting and reverting these lists.--Cartman005 15:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

my vote is to have the episodes stand on their own. they each have enough substance to fill a whole page, and we can link them together as a 1,2,3 link. imagine taking the whole series page, and just breaking it apart, and having it read as such.Coffeepusher 18:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about multiple episodes on WT:EPISODE

Hi. A discussion on the episodes MoS is here. As an article under the project's scope is used as an example, you are encouraged to contribute. Will ^(talk) 15:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Eric Cartman, Re-assessing

Can Eric_Cartman be re-assessed please as a lot of changes have been made, and I need to see if my changes are in the scope of the project. Philbuck222 (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Indicating seperate runs within a season

Hi,

I'd like to make a new proposal. I know that South Park episodes (as episodes of any TV show) are seperated into seasons, and that's perfectly logical and nice. However, I think that there should be some indication of seperate runs within a season.

The system in which seasons of South Park are structured is basically the same since season 4, that is, there's a run of around 7-9 episodes in the interval of around March-June, and another run around October-December. The episodes within one run are created from week to week, however there is a big gap between two runs. If you notice, Matt and Trey always think about the runs differently (listen to the DVD commentaries for example); the clips shown in the background during the theme are updated with clips from the last run, etc.

I'm not saying that we should break episodes into other subsections. However, I do suggest that there should be a slight indication of the "run-break":

• In the List of South Park episodes article, possible with a simple physical gap within the table of a season.
• And in the season infoboxes shown at every episode. For example, on the Le Petit Tourette article, I advise that in the infobox instead of

South Park - Season 11

March 7, 2007 – November 14, 2007

it should say

South Park - Season 11

March 7, 2007 – April 18, 2007

October 3, 2007 – November 14, 2007

...because, frankly, the frequency of the episodes is really not even in an interval that big, when there is actually a six month gap between two episodes.

Please post your comments/opinions.

--Szajd (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I join to?

I've loved South Park for years, so is it alright if I become a member? Goldfishsoldier (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [2]. --Maniwar (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines

WP:FICT has been revised

WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live [3] Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. Ned Scott 22:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (serial works)

There is a proposal to split WP:EPISODE into a more general notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (serial works), and make the rest of WP:EPISODE just a MOS guideline. Please join in at WT:EPISODE#Proposed split of EPISODE and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (serial works). -- Ned Scott 22:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Writers Block!

I'm trying to characterize cartmans relationship with Stan Kyle and Kenny, but, as I said, I have writers block. Can someone help me out? Goldfishsoldier (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

space or no space?

is it South Park or Southpark?♠♦Д narchistPig♥♣ (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It is "South Park" - with the space. The Chronic 04:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The giant taco that craps ice cream & Lemmiwinks

Both of these characters satisfy the requirements for the minor character list, as stated on the South Park characters page: they have appeared in at least one episode. However, they are not on there, nor are they on the List of One-off characters, which seems to have disappeared. I notice that Lemmiwinks once had his own article, but it got redirected to The Death Camp of Tolerance. Similarly, the giant taco that craps ice cream is a redirect to Cancelled (South Park). I feel that these characters should either appear in a list or in their own articles. Either of them is easily more popular than, say, Bradley, and yet he appears in a list while they do not. Is there a good reason for this? I could add them in, if the reason is simple laziness. Thanks! Cerebellum (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

South Park articles for deletion

Two SP articles are currently nominated for deletion:

• AFD: South park animals
• AFD: Helen Keller! The Musical

96T (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Kenny Dies

Looks like the ongoing WP:AfD for this article has been withdrawn by nominator - I added some sources and a Reception section, could use a bit more expansion from coverage in other secondary sources, and also some copyediting to the plot section, but wouldn't take much for this to be a WP:GAC-worthy article. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright

Are there any copyright restrictions necessary for South Park episodes and pictures. I mean, the producers said they have nothing against people copying their work. diego_pmc (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Note, however, that at their official site the following copyright notice is displayed: SOUTH PARK ©2008 Comedy Partners. All Rights Reserved. Comedy Central, South Park and all related titles, logos and characters are trademarks of Comedy Partners. So I think this stuff is fair use. L'Aquatique[talk] 04:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

RFC on WP:FICT

A request for comment has been made to determine if the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) proposal has consensus. Since this project deals with many fictional topics, I am commenting here. Input on the proposal is welcome here. --Pixelface (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Eric Cartman = Good Article?

My pet project for the last couple of days has been overhauling the Eric Cartman article. It now has a photo montage, 25 references, perfect (or at least close) spelling/grammar etc, and has been reorganized and largely rewritten. I'm considering nominating it for GA status, why don't you guys take a look and see if you think this would be a good idea? L'Aquatique[review] 04:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes of dubious merit

Could one of you South Park experts have a look at Eric Cartman? There have been many recent edits that may be vandalism, incorrect edits of good faith, or correct edits, but I can't tell the difference. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Southparkstudios.com

If www.southparkstudios.com the actual official site from the creators of the show, is it ok (from a copyright point of view) to link to the full episodes through it? Alastairward (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd believe so, yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.214.171 (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

I understand that trivia is discouraged in the wikipedia standards but trivia is a big part of this show. Not everyone gets all the references and trivia helps. Is there a way to get trivia about south park back in, in a way that complies with the wiki standards.

I agree, however this issue is adressed above...and I believe that the discussion came to the right conclusion, which is that there is so much trivia that it can fill up the entire site. You understand that we would be opening up the door to trivia on over 150 episodes, the personal lives of Matt and Tray, every suptle joke, "spoting the alien", etc.

That beeing said, I believe that the realy relevent "trivia" can easily be incorperated into the page as relivent information on the show, and we can leave it to the audiance to discover the rest... you can also provide a link to a trivia site as a for more information link. you may also see if you can create pages for the realy hard hitting shows, and incorperate the facts...however I am not shure how successfull that will be.Coffeepusher 07:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to reopen this issue to discussion because I've recently been embroiled in a dispute over how to categorize the cultural references that make South Park great, see: Talk:Super Fun Time for the discussion. I can see both sides of the argument but what really aggravates me is the extremists at each end of the spectrum. On one end you've got the content Nazis who delete anything that doesn't jive with their pristine librarian mentality. On the other end you have those who bring a new meaning to the word 'trivial' with their posts to this section. I feel that the solution lies somewhere in between. I understand why Trivia sections are discouraged and South Park should be no exception, true 'trivia' should not be part of the articles. But to say that the numerous cultural references made in the show are not important to document is ridiculous. How often have you watched an episode and recognized a reference but couldn't put your finger on where it was from. Like take the epic fight scene in the Cripple Fight episode, I knew it was from a film I'd seen but couldn't place it, thankfully the wiki article had the answer because it would have driven me crazy. Are these not important details to document?

I propose defining a sub section for these kind of references that is agreeable to all. I personally prefer 'Cultural References' much more than 'Trivia' but I'm open to other suggestions. Also, some have suggested incorporating these references into the main Plot section. I disagree with this for two reasons: 1)the reference really has nothing to do with the plot...whether you get the reference or not is seldom critical to understanding the plot, and 2)if I know I'm searching for a reference I'd much rather skim a bulleted list in its own section than read a whole article. Obviously the content should be reviewed with the same scrutiny as any other piece of the article, and invalid entries, speculation and fluff should be removed. Snafu7x7 (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So called "cultural references" can and should be verified, by DVD commentary, magazine review etc. They're no different from any other bit of information we put on Wikipedia. Just because a fan has thought "OMG, I've seen that in another film!" doesn't mean we should put up with a long list of fluff from unregistered users. Alastairward (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a nice example of how even trivia needs to be verified, "Also, Cartman parodies Edward James Olmos' character from "Stand and Deliver" not Take the Lead", it can't be decided where a writer's inspiration has been taken from. Alastairward (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Alastairward, I would argue that the appropriateness of your above-cited example depends entirely on how direct the Stand and Deliver parody was. If the oft-repeated line "How can I reach these kids" is taken word-for-word from Stand and Deliver, then we absolutely do not need a source informing us of that; at the most (and I do think it would be appropriate), we'd need a source showing users that line in the original film. If it's word-for-word, then to claim that the writers didn't parody Stand and Deliver is the same thing as accusing them of plagiarism.

Main point of this post #1: Information such as this Olmos/Escalante reference is not trivia. This is probably going to sound condescending and pedantic, since obviously you all know the show very well, so I'm sorry about that, but I'm going to say it anyway: a huge portion of the humor in South Park comes from its parodies of cultural phenomena. Not understanding what the show is doing in a given episode takes will frequently take away most or all of a person's ability to appreciate it. There is great value, then, in having this reference information available on Wikipedia, and there is nothing trivial about it. Of course I agree that things like "Cartman didn't wear a hat" are stupid and pointless, exactly what does belong solely on a fan site; there's a distinct difference, however, between that type of statement and the references that we're discussing.

Main point of this post #2: The talk page for Super Fun Time has a much longer post with my thoughts on the subject of citations, so I won't go into so much detail here, but to summarize: cultural references can be broken down into two categories, empirical and analytical. Empirical references are the word-for-word thing I was talking about in the first paragraph, and require no expertise or inside knowledge in order to get it. They should require either no citations or citation of the original material. Analytical references are subjective, such as the villains in Super Fun Time resembling those from Die Hard, and require authoritative sources, as people can interpret them in different ways. Both are valid, however, and both need to find a place on episodes' wikipedia pages. Whether it's in the form of a bulleted list (which would be my preference) or integrated into the plot summary, they deserve to be there, are not trivial, and are of great value to the majority of wikipedia users. Choiniej (talk) 07:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject South Park participants...WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises' scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on multimedia franchises. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help the project get back on solid footing. Also, if you know of similar projects which have not received this, let Lady Aleena (talk · contribs) know. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. You can sign up here if you wish. Thank you. LA @ 05:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 296 articles are assigned to this project, of which 139, or 47.0%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:

{{User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription|banner=SouthParkProject}}

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As usual, this is a really awesome feature. Cirt (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Franchise naming convention discussion at WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject South Park participants...WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA (T) @ 22:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Cultural References a.k.a. Trivia

Worth remembering that "cultural references" are just another form of trivia. Trivia lists themselves are an expansion of small parts of the plot and so should be merged into the main article (if citeable) or removed to keep the articles nice and easy on the eye.Alastairward (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've scrubbed back as far as season 5 of cultural references/trivia if anyone would care to go back and cite any of it.Alastairward (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Now back as far as season 1.Alastairward (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hooked on Monkey Fonics not Phonics

The Article Hooked on Monkey Phonics is titled wrong. The spelling the show uses is Fonics not Phonics which is how the word is spelled for the actual program Hooked on Phonics. Yami (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

right & done. Nergaal (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Voices of Characters

Below are all the character pages. Please help me by filling them in because I really am stuck on some.

• Stan- Trey Parker
• Kyle- Matt Stone
• Cartman- Trey Parker
• Kenny- Matt Stone
• Butters- Matt Stone
• Tweek- Matt Stone
• Mrs. Garrison- Trey Parker
• Mr. Mackey- Trey Parker
• Craig- Trey Parker
• Clyde- Trey Parker
• Wendy- April Stewart
• Bebe- Jennifer Howell
• Jesus- Matt Stone
• City Wok Guy- Trey Parker
• Officer Barbrady- Trey Parker
• Sergeant Yates- Trey Parker
• Principal Victoria- April Stewart
• The 6th Graders- ?
• Heidi- ?
• Kevin- ?
• Kindergarteners- ?
• Saddam Hussein- Matt Stone
• Satan- Trey Parker
• Mr. Slave- John "Nancy" Hansen
• Token- Adrien Beard
• Mr. Tweek- ?
• Mrs. Tweek- ?
• Randy Marsh- Trey Parker
• Sharon Marsh- ?
• Liane Cartman- April Stewart
• Dr. Mephisto- ?
• Dr. Doctor- ? and George Clooney
• Goth Kids- ?
• Mayor McDaniels- ?
• Chef- Isaac Hayes
• Jimbo Kern- Matt Stone
• Ned Gerblansky- Trey Parker
• Mr. McCormick- ?
• Mrs. McCormick- ?
• Stephen Stotch- Trey Parker
• Lynda Stotch- ?
• Nurse Gollum- ?
• Sally/Powder- ?
• Bertha/Red- ?

• Mr. Garrison
• C. Pineda (クリス) (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

unreliable but still: [4] Nergaal (talk) 07:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Created Images of Characters

Hey there, would it be a wise idea to use created characters from the "Create your own South Park Character" game at southparkstudios.com to put up some clearer images of characters for their pages? For example, here's Stan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:StanSP.png

Not 100% sure about the copyright requirements and stuff, but if it's okay to do I guess anyone can do the rest. So yeah, thoughts? :) Goroliath

Unfortunately, whether you make the character yourself or use an image or them, they are still copyrighted. It's like plagarism, because you made an image, 100% similar to another work, but pass it off as "self made". However, using Wikipedia's Non-Free Image rational, we CAN use good images of them, because there's not free alternative C. Pineda (クリス) (talk) 06:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for South Park

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

some work

here's some work for you guys.. get the South Park article up to GA standards. - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 21:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

your input requested on "List of songs in South Park" discussion

I started a discussion at the SP talkpage and would like to get your input. All the info is there. Thanks. --Armchair info guy (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Episode articles advice

I've been looking at articles on South Park episodes. Many of them just consist of the episodes' plot. They would be much improved if they contained information outside of that which you can gain from watching the episodes. For example, ratings figures and any notable controversies. Discussions of the popular culture references used in the episodes would also be useful, as understanding of the satirical/parody aspects of an episode requires a knowledge of the topics in question. Notable in-universe character development, landmarks etc. could also be discussed. Plot sections in general should be shortened, which would be made easier by discussing the above in separate sections, rather than in the plot prose. –OrangeDog (talk • edits) 01:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that lots of material identifying cultural references has been removed for not having citations. As most can be verified by looking at the relevant episode, and what it's a copy of, I think it can legitimately be re-inserted. –OrangeDog (talk • edits) 01:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you might look at The China Probrem and it's associated talk page. This has been beaten out before by other users over far too long a time. Please check out the WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR policies first. Alastairward (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Relevant discussion occurred here Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 60#Verifiability taken too far?. A consensus seemed to emerge that limited synthesis for obvious (if you've seen both sources) connections is fine, in the spirit of WP:IAR.–OrangeDog (talk • edits) 21:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's just your interpretation, I saw a lot of counterargument to that. The spirit of WP:IAR is worthless if it's the first thing an editor reaches out for. Alastairward (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And from the linked article above, came this pearl of wisdom. Alastairward (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

I just wanted to say thanks for doing this. I've been trying to correct Stan's article(When it came to heritage and veganism, I posted in the discusdsion.)

Character Pages

Just thought I'd explain to everyone that I've split the character lists up to families, townsfolk, school staff, school students, occasional characters and I've kept the minors.

• Mr. Garrison

Notability of season 1 episodes

Moved to Talk:List of South Park episodes § Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Save the premiere, Mechastreisland and the season finale, very little seems to be of note. Anything that can bump up the notability of season 1 eps before merging them? Alastairward (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you using as your measuring stick for notability? --Captain Infinity (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I was using the notability test. Alastairward (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. How does one "bump up" notability? --Captain Infinity (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Some sort of evidence that it has gained attention to the outside world really. The episode Mecha-Streisand has a quote from Barbara Streisand herself in response, showing it has notability outside the fact that it is a TV show in itself. Other notable episodes would be those that involve controversy like The China Probrem, which has many cites from reliable third party sources.

Other episodes, like Weight Gain 4000 are simply plot and credits, which could be squeezed into the list of episodes. Alastairward (talk) 09:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, User: Greg D. Barnes left me these messages on my Talk Page informing me that there was a disagreement over a merge suggestion that had been made on a few episode articles. Specifically, Greg named "An Elephant Makes Love to a Pig", "Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo", "Pinkeye", as the episodes on which User:Alastairward placed merge suggestion tags, and stated that Alastair and User:The Video Game Master were arguing over issues pertaining to WP:OWN regarding this disagreement. Looking over the info in question, here are some preliminary thoughts that immediately come to mind.

• If you're going to have merge discussion regarding more than one episode, especially if the arguments are going to tend to be the same ones, then it would make sense to have one discussion on one Talk Page, not two or three, so having it here makes sense.
• I cannot stress this next point enough: Keep. It. Civil. As in that core policy we're all supposed to follow. Comments like "Any relevant wiki policies you would like to quote? Any reason not to merge?" are perfectly valid. Comments like the all-caps "WHY DO YOU WANT TO?" or "WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO MERGE IT?" are not very constructive. To a lesser degree, stuff like "Not a very good reason not to!" could be construed as combative. Discussion should center on the relevant policies, and the validity of the reasoning that each person offers for or against how their position meets that policy. Putting merge suggestion tags on articles, even if you disagree with the suggestion, is a valid part of Wikipedia policy. Saying "[This user] keeps FUCKING UP the articles by putting merge proposals" on them is not. So keep it civil, and constructive. No personal comments. No insults. No attacks. Profane remarks about another editor's activities are not a good idea. If you disagree with that editor's actions or arguments, just explain why they're wrong.

Regarding the merges themselves:

• Alastair has not merge the articles, so he has not presume "the right to merge" them. What he did was place merge suggestion banners on the articles that he felt did not achieve notability. Doing this does not violate WP:OWN. A violation of WP:OWN would be something along the lines of edit warring while refusing to discuss the matter, or any of the other behaviors or comments described on the WP:OWN page.
• As to my personal feelings about the merges, maybe I'm biased, but I don't see why individual episodes of a show as big as South Park need to meet the General guidelines on an individual level. My feeling is that like Film, TV should have its own notability guidelines, and if it did, all episodes would be fair game if the show itself achieved notability. But I've inquired on the Notability guideline Talk Page and on Jimmy Wales Talk Page about this, because I personally think that episodes of South Park are noteworthy simply because South Park itself is.
• Lastly, it is not appropriate, IMO, to place a merge tag on an article, and then turn that article into a redirect six days later, when there was zero discussion on the matter. Me, when I want to start a consensus discussion, I do so by alerting many people who may be interested in doing so. For this reason, I restored the "Weight Gain 4000" and "An Elephant Makes Love to a Pig" articles, but left the merge tag there, pending consensus. I don't think there's anything wrong with plot and credits. Nightscream (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:V merging seems to be appropriate: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The series has significant coverage, individual seasons may have significant coverage, important episodes have significant coverage, but many/most individual episodes dont. Without significant third party coverage, the episode article merely become restatements of the plot. And while retelling of plot MAY be important in covering a topic enclopedicily (is that even a word???) an article that is solely a repetition of the plot is not encyclopedic.-- The Red Pen of Doom 19:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nightscream, I left a little bit of information on your own talk page, but I'll repeat some of it here. "Most of the articles seemed to be relatively unnotable (going by the notability test and a related discussion on the talk pages for the list of Farscape and Lexx episodes (bit of a disclaimer here, I love those two shows but completely support the merges)."

With regards the time for tagging to merging, I had thought that it was ok since I had raised the issue on the project page (see above) thinking that it would garner some attention there, obviously not (I edit for another project that is a lot busier, it seems to change from article to article).

None of the merges were prejudicial to the essential information each individual article contained. As I said, the pilot and Mecha-Streisand are notable. One as the pilot episode of the entire series, the other since it drew attention from a third party source (if the cite I provided in the article is verifiable), showing it had attention outside of the simple fact that it was an episode of the show.

A lot of what I could say is actually repeated in the links I provided above to the Farscape and Lexx discussions, please have a little look at those too. Alastairward (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say keep the articles. I'd rather have just a plot summary than no article at all.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

question and what policies do you have to back your position? -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Greg, the episode summaries were beefed up on the list of episodes before each merge. They should still be there if you'd like to check. Alastairward (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not the proper place to discuss a merge. The following talk pages are also not the proper place to discuss a merge:

• Talk:Weight Gain 4000#Merge proposal
• Talk:Volcano (South Park episode)#Merge to the main list?
• Talk:An Elephant Makes Love to a Pig#Merge proposal
• Talk:Death (South Park episode)#Merge proposal
• Talk:Pinkeye (South Park)#Merge proposal
• Talk:Starvin' Marvin (South Park)#Merge proposal
• Talk:Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo (South Park episode)#Merge proposal
• Talk:Damien (South Park episode)#Merge proposal
• Talk:Tom's Rhinoplasty#Merge proposal

The proper place to discuss a merge is the article that the episode articles were proposed to merge to, Talk:List of South Park episodes. Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, in fairness the merge templates do allow for discussion to take place on the talk pages for the individual articles. When I get a chance I'll tag them more appropriately. Alastairward (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Tagged and listed for discussion at the list of episodes here. Should we copy and paste, or cut, copy and paste the text above to that location? Alastairward (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Now hold on a second, I read throughout this section, and Alastairward's logic is to delete the non-notable episodes of South Park, and THEN take that info in the plot and beef up the episode guides. That doesn't sound like a bad idea at all! Any input?--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That's it in a nutshell, I had beefed up the plot summary in the list of episodes before making the first few merges. Alastairward (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

South Park merge discussion

Please see Talk:List_of_South_Park_episodes#Merger_proposal. Cirt (talk) 05:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

We've been looking at the notability of the episode pages here. It would be great if you could join the discussion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Canada on Strike!

Anyone's assistance regarding retaining some wikilinks on Canada on Strike! would be appreciated. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Featured topic drive

Please see WP:SOUTHPARK/TOPIC and if you are interested in helping out, feel free engage in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Park/Featured topic Drive. Cirt (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD

The article Professor Chaos (character) was created recently, but it's merely a verbatim C&P of a few sentences already included in the main Butters Stotch article. So, I have nominated it for deletion, and suggested a search on the specific character (not the eponymous episode) be redirected to the Butters article, where Prof. Chaos is fairly well explained (short of fancruft). Anyway, please post thoughts here or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professor Chaos (character). Thanks. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Got accosted for suggesting it be redirected without properly sending it through administrator deletion channels...then got accosted for proposing the deletion without simply redirecting it myself. Sigh. Anyways...it got redirected - SoSaysChappy (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Opinions requested for potential infobox modification

I've placed a modified version of the character infobox on my sandbox here.

I would definitely like to use this as the template instead, but before changing the old one, I thought it'd be best to discuss it first. I modeled it after the infobox for Simpsons characters ("Simpsons did it! Simpsons did it!"), only because I thought it's a better way to display where a character made their first appearance. If a character appeared in the shorts, you can put which short they appeared in first (Jesus vs. Frosty or Jesus vs. Santa), in addition to which episode in which they first appeared.

Some other I'd like to address as well:

1. Age - All of the main child characters are 8-9, and in their articles it is explained that throughout the series they have been in the third and fourth grade. The ages of most of the adult characters have never been established. Each one has an age listed in their infobox without a source backing it up. Off the top of my head, I only know of a couple of adult characters who've had their exact ages revealed on the show (Mr. Garrison and Grandpa). Combined with the whole "floating timeline" thing, I don't think it's necessary to include ages in the infobox. One can read a certain character's article and determine through common sense that the person is in the late 30s-early 40s region.
2. Religion - Religion has indeed been the major topic of many episodes, with many characters changing their religion to suit the purposes of the plot. However, most of the characters who have had their primary religion established are Roman Catholic. Only Kyle and his family have been established as something else (Jewish), and this distinguishing characteristic is already well-explained in their articles. All of the other main characters have not really had their religion established on the show. In short, I think the Religion info shouldn't be included in the infobox either, as everyone is either Roman Catholic, or hasn't had their religion verified (with the aforementioned exception). Each infobox would essentially be repeating the same info over and over with each different character.

Anyway, let me know if this proposal is okay. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No particular opinion on removing or keeping age and religion, but I suggest adding a column for AKAs, since several characters are known by multiple names (Jimmy Vulmer aka Jimmy Swanson, Red aka Rebecca aka Bertha, Chef aka Jerome McElroy, Mr. Garrison aka Mrs. Garrison, etc). 96T (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say get rid of age and religion. Leave it to the article to explain. Putting it in the infobox encourages people to speculate so as to fill in the field. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion on the AKA thing, especially considering the frequent name changes (Token, Butters's dad, Clyde also come to mind). Maybe have a nickname entry as well (Chef, Butters)? I forgot to mention this in the OP, but I also think that having a "Past character" infobox isn't necessary. Of all the recurring characters, Ms. Choksondik, Ms. Crabtree, and one of the mayor's aides are the only ones (excluding Chef, and of course, Kenny) who have died and thus had a "final" appearance. Chef is the only one who has his own article (in which his death has its own subsection), and the others really don't need infoboxes clogging up the articles of lists of other recurring characters. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

All righty...done. Of course, please discuss further if needed. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 07:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Just adding this to ask for any opinions on the infoboxes for female characters who've been voiced by four separate actresses. Listing all four in one box kind of makes it look awkward, especially if you have a screen or browser that displays the dates underneath the names. Maybe leave it to say just April Stewart and include a note informing the reader to see the article for more info on who else has voiced a the character in the past? Not a critical issue, it's just a matter of aesthetics. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 10:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Here I go, changing my mind again (this is why I won't get a tattoo)...
Should we get rid of the Hair (hair color) field as well? At first I thought it would be useful in helping a reader readily identify what's underneath a character's nearly-ever-present hat. This really isn't important at all, even within the context of providing basic background information about a character. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Get rid of it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Infobox images

This discussion originated on the discussion page for Kyle Broflovski, but seeing as how it concerns four articles all related to South Park I thought it would be best to run it by this page. And, seeing as how all four articles are currently GA nominees, I was hoping a resolution would be reached more quickly if the discussion was here as well.

Recently, on the infoboxes for Stan Marsh, Kyle, Kenny McCormick, and Eric Cartman I replaced:

• File:StanMarsh.svg with File:Stan2.png
• File:Kyle.svg with File:KyleSouthPark.png
• File:Kenny.svg with File:SouthParkKenny.png
• File:Eric.svg with File:SouthParkCartman.png

In making a case for why the replaced images were more suitable, another editor had this to say (again, original discussion can be viewed here

• File:KyleSouthPark.png In this image, Kyle's face colour is much too light (nearly yellow), his clothes look faded and his mouth is crooked and not symmetrical, it looks like somebody drew it then scanned it.

My response: I've now looked at this on three separate computers in both IE and Firefox and I simply do not see his skin as being yellow. Either I'm colorblind or all three computers have faulty monitor settings which just so happen to make his skin look caucasian. I can also assure you that I didn't draw the image myself. The image comes from an official Comedy Central press release site (read the fair use rationale in the file's summary). Aside from converting it from a jpeg to a png, I have not tampered with it.

• File:SouthParkKenny.png This one is just as bad as Kyle. His hood and gloves are textured, which does not accurately mirror what Kenny looks like in South Park episodes (i.e. they use solid colours). Also note the bad colour fade.

My response: With all due respect, his hood and gloves are textured on the show as they are in the image. Watch the first few minutes of "The Ring" from season 13 (for free) on southparkstudios.com to see some good HD close-ups (or look at the images available on the same site).

• File:Stan2.png This is South Park, not The Simpsons... The svg has a much more realistic skin colour, and like Kenny, this image is textured.

My response: I'm not quite sure what the Simpsons sentence is supposed to mean, and also, textured colors are indeed used on the show. Also look at Jimmy or Clyde's hair for another good example.

• File:SouthParkCartman.png This one is probably the worst. There is much difficulty differenciating between his skin colour and eyes, his clothes are much too faded (i.e. he wears a red jacket, not a pink one.) and although it is saved as a png, it still has compression artefacts.

My response: Again, I looked at this with two browsers on three different computers; I can easily see where his eyes end and face begins, and his jacket does not look pink at all, especially with my brightness and contrast levels at their default settings.

Overall, I DO AGREE with the fact that the png images are more faded than the svg ones. But, I feel this is a minor sacrifice; the svg images just have too much of a "fan re-drawing" look about them, and each one seems to have proportion issues (Stan's eyes look too large, Kyle's head looks too small under his hat, etc). I really do believe the png images are a more accurate depiction of what the characters really do look like. After all, they are official release images of the characters, available for use (and I can't stress this enough: they all have proper rationale). I also agree with the compression issue, but again, I feel this is a minor sacrifice when considering which set of images is a better representation of the actual characters.

I'm simply looking for some feedback on this issue. I clearly think the png images would be of more suitable use, but the svg ones are acceptable as well. It's just best that this gets resolved either way since the articles are currently GA nominees. Thanks. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The SVG versions are much better quality, those should be retained. Color and features are much sharper with the SVGs. Cirt (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I'm sorry to go against you SoSaysChappy, especially since you deserve a great deal of credit for improving these articles, but I have to agree with Cirt. I think the SVG versions should be retained for the same reasons. I also think the SVGs look better when scaled down. — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 20:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I still think, relative to the png images, that the svg ones are bad representations of what the characters actually look like. But ...if it is sharper colors and SVG Uber Alles, so be it. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm throwing this out here as a last hurrah; I traced the previous png Cartman image and converted it to an svg.

Here's a comparison: old png and new svg

It got rid of the "textured" sections everyone seems to dislike, and while it doesn't have the same smoothness around the edges as the svg images discussed about above (I suck at using Inkscape), I still think it's a much, much, much, much more accurate depiction of the character. If anyone agrees, please let me know, and I'll upload new svg images for Stan, Kyle, and Kenny. If not, I promise to shut up. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC) P.S., I'm curious as to whether or not anyone responding is using an HD monitor.

How about these?

File:StanMarsh1.svg
File:KyleBroflovski1.svg

They are SVGs and they look more like the characters than do the current SVGs. Colors on these can be darkened if the "fade" is still an issue. Feedback por favor! - SoSaysChappy (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

...and these.

File:EricCartman1.svg
File:KennyMcCormick1.svg

If I may be so bold... I think the Stan, Kyle, and Cartman images would be better than what's in place now. I'll admit, the Kenny image is a better representation of the character but the quality is less than what is currently in use (I had a near-stroke-inducing time trying to trace the outline of his hood properly, and ultimately failed; as I said, I'm not Inkscape-savvy). So I myself vote against using it, but I'm still tossing it out there as a possibility. For a comparison, check out the infobox for Wendy Testaburger, to which I've uploaded an svg of her character. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm ...silence. I'll go ahead and replace the images for Stan, Kyle, and Cartman, seeing as how the ones I uploaded as a preview were in danger of being deleted as orphaned files. If this generates more discussion I'll use the "hang-on" tag for the images I replaced. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Multiple merger of character lists articles

I came across this AfD discussion and it got me thinking...

Would it be best to merge List of students at South Park Elementary, List of South Park families, List of staff at South Park Elementary, List of other South Park residents, and List of minor characters on South Park into List of characters in South Park? In essence, "eliminate the middleman" by making the "middleman" the primary article for all of these characters?

Here's what I would suggest:

• Merge all secondary list articles into "List of Characters in South Park". Make it a selective paste merger; delete all entries of background characters and non-notable one-offs to keep the destination article from becoming overly crowded.
• Get rid of the wikitable format (And maybe change article name to simply "South Park characters"? Would it still be a list-class article?)

Disadvantage - this would be losing the nice organized way of indentifying each character with their voice performer and first episode appearance.

Advantage - "Role column" would look terrible if it were crammed with a character's full description (read on...)

• Leave the sections that are already in place in "List of Characters in South Park" as is.
  • Main characters: List Stan, Kyle, Kenny, Cartman, and Butters; accompany each of them with main article templates and describe each of them with a sentence or two.
  • Families: List a subsection for each family. Like the main boys, briefly describe major family members (Marshs, Liane Cartman, and include links to their respective articles. For the rest, give a description in about a paragraph or two (depending on notability).
  • Students: List only students who appear or have appeared on a regular basis. Describe the most notable based on the amount of verifiable material available (I personally have some good info on Timmy, Token, Tweek, Pip) etc. Describe the rest concisely, weeding out cruft such as "In this episode he did this. In this episode he did that. In this episode he says he likes tacos. He is a Pisces, and was ranked 8th on 'The List'."
  • Residents: List each notable resident and describe accordingly.
• Create a "non-residents" section and consolidate those from "List of minor characters" into other sections, and describe them in about two sentences.
  • Move Uncle Jimbo from "Families" to "Residents" (?)
• Nominate List of celebrities on South Park for deletion. It doesn't have a single source, and is not productive at all. In one episode, Cartman mentioned Helen Hunt in passing. How is this encyclopedic? There are literally hundreds of examples like this in the article. Trivia and fancruft galore.
• Open discussion(s) over which characters are or are not notable enough to warrant inclusion.

It's just sloppy with the way it is now. Many characters fall under more than one category, so they have varying descriptions of about the same length on separate pages. Then again, I can see how many might feel that the way it is now is sufficiently practical. Heck, maybe all that is needed is a proper expansion of Category:South Park characters. All of what's above is less of a proposal and more of a suggestion of how to handle a mass merger if anyone might think that a merging of the lists would be reasonable. If so, I'd be more than happy to start all the work; tagging each article for a merger and opening a merger discussion on each article's respective talk page. Either way, I plan on cleaning up all of the articles mentioned above fairly soon. Thoughts? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Merging everything would probably make the characters article too long. But then again, probably it wouldn't. I say the best way to find out is to clean up all the current minor characters lists first, removing all the one-off characters and all the "in this episode he does this" stuff you mention and adding real world information and secondary sources and all that, and then after that see if such cleanups have made the lists short enough to merge all/some of them. 96T (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up the "students" article a lot ...even after more clean up is done to it, it would still be rather long. It stands well on its own with lots of real world info, so I imagine the rest of the "lists" article are capable of the same. So, leaving the initial "lists of characters" article alone as it is would be the best course of action - retaining the wikitables for a much easier read. Rest of the articles could still use some work; I'll try to get to accomplishing some of the things listed above. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Reward...

...for any editor that can bring The Jeffersons (South Park) to Good Article status. See here. Pyrrhus16 19:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Episode order

According to the South Park Studios FAQ here, there's a difference in production and airdate order for episodes 102 and 103; "While "Volcano" was episode #103 and "Weight Gain 4000" was #102, "Volcano" aired before "Weight Gain." Any thoughts on arranging that in the episode guides? Alastairward (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Do any secondary sources mention this? Cirt (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The episode orders for some seasons on the main Wikipedia South Park page differ from those in the individual episode pages. These sometimes also differ with the episode listing at http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/ . Which episode order is correct? Ouizardus (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

What would be the significance of a secondary source? Alastairward (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOURCES... OrangeDog (talk • edits) 02:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Access to materials

Does anyone have any of these books[5], so articles can actually contain something other than plot? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 02:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I've got South Park and Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today and South Park and Philosophy: Bigger, Longer, and More Penetrating (the one edited by Richard Hanley; the full title isn't listed on the Amazon link above). They've come in handy for edits to the main character articles. I've used them as sources several times, and plan on using them again as sources on other character pages. Don't let the title of either book fool you; it's not all someone's philosophical opinion...there is plenty of good, neutral info in both books.

I checked out Blame Canada! from the library but never got around much to reading it thoroughly, though what I did read had some good info regarding comedy styles from past pop culture that seems to have serve as inspiration for the show. Most of the info in the South Park Conservatives book is already all over the internet in the form of web articles by that book's contributors. I haven't worked much on episode articles myself ...but a featured topic drive is underway and some great progress has been made, with several episode articles becoming Good and Featured Articles. You're right though, several episode articles are still merely plot summaries. If you plan on assisting in the Drive, I'd certainly recommend using the first two books I mentioned and using them for info and reference. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Mergers, mergers, mergers...

The ArticleAlertbot is currently down, so some may be unaware of a lot of the merger proposals for some SP characters pages. See the merge banners on List of South Park families and List of minor characters on South Park for more information. Also, some more feedback on one particular merger discussion on one talk page (here and here) would be appreciated. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That's it, I'm out. --Captain Infinity (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

AFD for Trapper Keeper (South Park)

Wanted to bring this AFD to everyone's attention... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 20:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

SVG character images

I know this was discussed recently, but I'd like to raise the issue again. Converting images to SVG creates noticeable (non-trivial) differences, so they should be considered independent images, not just different file formats. There are two problems with this:

• I don't think we should be using derivatives of copyrighted images – under fair use, we should use the actual images that belong to the copyright holder, not unofficial versions they didn't create and don't control
• "No original research" applies to images too. It's one thing to use original images if they're descriptive (e.g. maps, diagrams, chemical structures), but for actual art (cartoon characters) I don't think we should use images that aren't official. There are other works that could be converted to SVG and would look "higher quality", but something would clearly be lost in the translation – e.g. abstract art (Mondrian, Malevich). I think South Park characters fall in the same category. We should show how the characters actually appear, not how we think they should appear.

My understanding is the SVG images were created because the PNGs were either a) too undersaturated or dull-looking (which makes it original research, if they look undersaturated on TV then that's how we should portray them) or b) too low-resolution (which is moot because they're fair-use images). Is there any other reason to use the SVGs rather than screenshots? Noisalt (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion at the bottom of the archives is probably what you're talking about. Despite everything you said (which I agree with 100%) image quality seems to be of utmost importance. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

We should use non-handmade images. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Proper conversion to SVG should not introduce any differences. The people performing such conversions should be capable of correct colour and edge matching. SVG should probably be used in preference to PNG for simple geometry such as South Park characters. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 15:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? —Noisalt (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

So they scale nicely. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 00:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It does introduce a difference in this case; When converting to SVG, all you get are smooth, solid colors. The South Park characters have a "construction paper texture" look to them, and you lose this when converting. If I'm wrong, and a proper SVG conversion can retain this look, then that would solve all this (not being an expert in Inkscape and the like, I have no clue as to how to achieve this, if possible). - SoSaysChappy (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

They're fair-use images. They're not supposed to "scale nicely". They're only to be used in one article and at one, low resolution (WP:NFCC). Taking a copyrighted image and making it higher resolution is backwards with respect to our fair-use policy. —Noisalt (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(out)Good points. Should probably be PNGs then. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 18:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced the SVGs with PNGs for now, as it seems to me that more detailed defense has been given in support of retaining the the artists' intended look of the characters against not doing so simply for the sake of having scalable graphic quality. I noticed that this has been brought to the attention of the respective articles' talk pages, so if this generates more discussion and creates an opposing consensus, images can be reverted back to the SVGs. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't get the "it's fair use so is can't be SVG argument". We have lots of fair use SVG's around. --Ysangkok (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

One of our criteria (WP:NFCC) is using low-resolution versions whenever possible. If other fair-use images are violating that, then they need to be addressed as well. Noisalt (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Google finds 6,360 SVG fair use images. You could also use WhatLinksHere on Template:SVG-Logo. This shows at least 5,000 uses. So all these need to go, or what? --Ysangkok (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Noisalt (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

South Park GA

South Park was promoted to GA-status, but some further input regarding the reliability of marinij.com and c21media.net would be appreciated. You can read all about it on the review page (see the comments towards the bottom half, under "References"). - SoSaysChappy (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

MarinIJ.com seems to be the website of a newspaper, so it is reliable. C21Media seems to have a pretty extensive paid staff,[6] with editors and reporters, so it appears to be reliable as well. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work on that article, SoSaysChappy! Theleftorium 20:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm convinced. Just wanted to double check. Oh, and thanks. :) - SoSaysChappy (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I am as well. Glad I did not make a mistake by passing an article with unreliable sources. I'm convinced all is well.--WillC 13:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Characters

Okay, so I've noticed these days every character is being merged into lists due to "lack of nobility" and such. Why do we even have individual character articles? I think they should all be merged with the basic South Park article now. I mean, South Park has a vast array of characters and we already have 3 lists and arguably any non-core character is "fancruft" and non-notable - Stan, Kyle, Cartman and Butters are the only core characters, and Kenny's still notable if only due to his catchphrase. --24.12.214.185 (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It all comes down to the general policy – Notability: if there are sources that discuss it in detail, enough sources to write a decent cited article about it, it's notable. "Fancruft" is meaningless, the notability of an article has nothing to do with whether people think it's interesting or not. There are plenty of sources in Stan Marsh, etc, so it's worth keeping. —Noisalt (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well what's notable and what isn't is an opinion and by Wikipedia's opinion basically any character outside of the main five would basically be non-notable. Few sources outside of the show talk about Chef or Herbert Garrison. I mean, I love the show and if I had my way, I'd give all the important characters articles, but unfortunately Wikipedia's definition of 'important/notable' is different from mine and besides, it looks to me all the articles will be combined eventually. --24.12.214.185 (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC) (My account is User:JohnVMaster, it keeps logging me out.)

Template:South Park Hits 1

Does anybody else think this template should be nominated for deletion? indopug (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's being used in articles which already link to everything in the template anyway. To me, it's all a question of whether or not it makes for easier navigation (and whether or not such navigation is necessary anyway). If you're leaning towards deletion, might as well list it on WP:TfD and see what kind of comments you get there. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be better to use a general SP template and get rid of that one. The episodes aren't really that tied together. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so instead of the trouble of an AfD , I just redirected it to Template:South Park. indopug (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Is the South Park movie a notable reference for the Lollipop King?

Some have stated they don't believe the Lollipop King article warrants its existence. It is so common a misheard lyric for a classic and extremely popular long seen movie, the Wizard of Oz, that even in the South Park movie they made the mistake of thinking it a real character, and added in it, as the king of the imaginary people, all notable imaginary characters throughout history there. Does that indicate notability? The massive number of Google hits for it I would think would prove it notable also. Please give your opinions there. Is it just trivia or is this a notable thing to have an article on? The lyrics to the munchkin greeting song are "we represent the Lollipop Guild", not the "Lollipop King". The article originally redirected to a list of South Park characters from the movie. Is it better suited doing that, elsewhere, or not existing at all, or should they leave it alone, it fine where it is? Dream Focus 16:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

One mention in completely unrelated media with no proof of connection a notable subject does not make. Neither does a Google search. You need to find significant discourse of the "lollipop king" in 3rd party sources (books, newspapers, journals, etc.). Besides, isn't the lollipop king from Imaginationland, not the movie? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 16:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

One problem: You're assuming the writers of the show added the character as a representation of lyrics they misheard. You would need a source for that before you used the episode itself as a source. So I would say no. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Wanted to bring Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Park action figures to everyone's attention in the hopes of generating more discussion, as it has failed to reach a consensus after several weeks and has been re-listed twice. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Weight Gain 4000

Just so you all know, I've listed Weight Gain 4000 for an FAC nomination. Any comments, criticism or otherwise feedback is welcome! — Hunter Kahn _(c) 06:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The Spirit of Christmas; italics vs. quotation marks

I've always remembered being taught that the title of a work is italicized, and that shorter pieces of work are not italicized, but placed within quotation marks when they are part of a larger body of work. (ex: The episode "Fat Camp" is part of a larger work: the series South Park). A while back, I went through several South Park-related articles (not all) and changed The Spirit of Christmas to "The Spirit of Christmas", as if it were part of the South Park body of work. Now I'm starting to have my doubts, and wish to establish some sort of consensus here. Keep in mind that, to simplify things, The Spirit of Christmas is usually used in articles to refer to both shorts, while "Jesus vs. Frosty/Santa" is used to refer to each one individually. So are these two shorts collectively part of the greater South Park body of work? Or, when paired as a series of two shorts, does it stand on its own? Thoughts, por favor. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• My personal opinion is it should be italicized. The Spirit of Christmas isn't part of the South Park body of work, it's a precursor to the South Park body of work. It's an animated short film predates South Park. I also think Jesus vs. Frosty and Jesus vs. Santa should be italicized because, if my understanding is correct, they are different names used to distinguish two cartoons which are called The Spirit of Christmas. They are alternate titles to animated short films, not shorter pieces of work under one single Spirit of Christmas body of work. So I say, italicize all three. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 23:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • They're kinda like Pilots, too. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Are pilots considered separate from the "greater body of work" and italicized? If so, we have the same problem with "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe"/Cartman Gets an Anal Probe. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 13:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Pilots go in quotes normally. I don't think there's a wrong way. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Something cool

Hey all. Just in case you ever think your South Park-related work goes unnoticed, I was looking through the page view stats for some of my DYKs, and I realized not only are the SP articles by far the most seen, but that five of the articles (Fishsticks, The Ring, The Coon, Pinewood Derby and Margaritaville) are among the most viewed non-lead DYKs (meaning DYKs without a picture, as pictured DYKs tend to get the most hits). Not only that, but at around 23,500 page hits, Fishsticks is the single most viewed non-lead DYK, and it actually made the list of the most viewed overall DYKS! People are really reading our South Park stuff, folks! — Hunter Kahn _(c) 03:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice. Lots of excellent work done on the topic drive for the first half of season 13. Hope it continues. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Originally aired...

I've been looking at the episode articles lately and noticed that some (including a few GAs) include the original airdates in both the US and the UK in the leads. This seems problematic to me; why is the airdate in the UK more worthy of an inclusion in the lead than the original airdates in Canada, Australia, etc.? To me, the only way to be fair would be to include the original airdates of every English-speaking country in which the episode original airs (which would make the lead far too long) or simply include the original US/North America airdates in the lead and create a separate section for airdates and reception in other countries (which to me, seems more practical). And this would be necessary only if it would be relevantly applicable (ex: info on UK reaction about Queen Elizabeth episode, Australian reaction to Steve Irwin episode, etc.) Thoughts? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously...each episode debuts in the United States. It is largely an American production. Nothing against my fellow editors and readers across the pond, but why include the UK airdate in the lead? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

South Park Elementary

Anybody else thinking List of students at South Park Elementary and List of staff at South Park Elementary should be merged into South Park Elementary? Nergaal (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't feel strongly one way or the other, although my first reaction is that there are enough characters within both lists to warrant two separate pages. Assuming one day these individual character sections are expanded with notable sources, it might get too large if it were one single entry... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 07:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• I'unno. One minor nitpick is that "South Park Elementary" would be a misleading title; the articles are about the characters and have little to do with the school itself, unless one feels that descriptions of its staff and students is a proper description of the school. The "staff" article is a mess, and can be whittled down. The "students" section is in better shape, but both contain enough material to warrant their own articles. For the sake of navigation, organizing two groups of characters which both play substantial parts (adults and children) into separate articles might keep things a bit easier. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• The articles are all fine the way they are. Two relevant character list, separate because together it'd be too long, which would encourage article hacking to reduce size. I'm against any arbitrary killing of children, just because they are seen as less important than others. Dream Focus 23:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia simply isn't the proper place for a detailed guide on every character for animated shows. If you take a look at Simpsons or any other popular/long running cartoon, I don't think those lists are as long as South Park cruft is becoming. Also note, your opinion of them "being fine" doesn't make it a fact. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Cartman's Silly Hate Crime 2000

A now (seemingly) lost entry in the Southparkstudios FAQ gave the name of the episode above as 2000 because; "As explained in the FAQ section on the official website: "When the year 2000 was coming up, everyone and their brother had '2000' in the titles of their products and TV shows. America was obsessed with 2000, so Trey Parker put '2000' in the titles to make fun of the ubiquity of the phrase."".

I can't find this FAQ reference now and the entry for the episode on the site is given without the 2000. A google search brings up plenty of entries for both, which should be kept? Alastairward (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I would assume the good faith of the original contributor and keep the sourced information, even though the source is inaccessible, following the spirit of WP:Offline sources. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, at the time I backed up the original contributor looking at the talk page, so I can't complain too much. I wanted a second opinion though, thanks. Alastairward (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm confused. I clicked on the FAQ link and it went to it just fine for me... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 22:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Working from my end, too. Every now and then, SPS changes the addresses to character pages, news archives, etc., so I'm assuming the site frequently undergoes some temporary maintenance. That may have had something to do with it. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've experienced the maintenance problem before on the site. Now though I'm wondering if it's anything to do with the new .co.uk site that automatically redirects for fans in the UK and Ireland, as it's still not working for me. Alastairward (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

External links to streaming episodes

I'm linking this discussion here because whatever decision comes out of it would affect the episode articles and not just apply to the show's page. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Season list in infobox

I've noticed that most of the episode GAs don't contain season lists in their infobox, while most other episode articles do. Assuming this is the preferred method, do all other episode articles need to have the season list removed from the infobox? Or...do the GAs need to have season lists added to theirs? Either way, each episode article needs to be consistent with the others. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has been going away from season lists on individual episode pages (from what I've seen over the years). If you remove them, you'll probably never have to worry about it again. If you add it to all of them, the issue may come up again. I'd say remove them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not keep the list but make it automatically hidden? Nergaal (talk) 07:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is the discussion in which it was decided not to add season list infoboxes? I find them very helpful when navigating episodes. Now Season 13 is inconsistent with other seasons. I can't find this discussion on any talk pages. laurap414 (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• It had been discussed over the course of several of the FAs that have gone through the WikiProject, if I'm not mistaken. But we can certainly have the discussion here again; after all, consensus can change. I was initially a fan of the season lists, but I've since come to the conclusion that they clutter up the infobox and don't really add anything much of value. With the "Previous/Next" option, the link to the List of South Park episodes is more prominent, which can allow the user not only easy access to the other episodes of the season if the user wants them, but easy access to all of the series episodes. And, as Peregrine said, the trend across Wikipedia in general has been heading against them... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 02:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Content ratings in lead

Several episode articles contain "the episode was rated TV-MA in the United States" in the lead section. MOS:TV doesn't seem to have a guideline on how to present the content ratings of television shows, but a similar guideline (MOS:FILM) states "Ratings given to individual films by motion picture rating systems will vary by territories in accordance to their cultures and their types of governance. In film articles, avoid indiscriminate identification of ratings and instead focus on ratings for which there is substantial coverage from reliable sources." (see MOS:FILM#Ratings)

Stating the MA rating in the US seems rather redundant to me, and also a little undue weight-ish. Every SP episode in the US is rated TV-MA, and the main article already covers this as well as briefly going into how other countries broadcast the show. Just a minor nitpick that I wanted to bring up. Any thoughts? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Personally, I think the best option would be modifying Template:Infobox television episode to include the episode rating. Then we could add the TV-MA to the infobox and drop it from the lead of the article. This would be helpful to all television episode articles, not just the South Park ones. The infobox could specify that TV-MA is the U.S. rating, and then any other ratings in any other countries could be added in a separate line under that same field. I guess we could ask the Wikiproject Television folks what they think, or we could just be bold and add it ourselves. Thoughts? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 17:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Best Friends Forever

The episode Best Friends Forever has been moved to Best Friends Forever (South Park Episode) after an article for the internet slang term BFF was created. It's late and I don't have the energy to check all this out right now, but I wondered if BFF was really a more important search term than the South Park episode. Alastairward (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• I moved it to from Best Friends Forever (South Park Episode) to Best Friends Forever (South Park), which is in keeping with naming conditions. I believe this is probably appropriate. BFF/Best Friends Forever is a pretty common internet slang term, and I'm pretty sure that's where the South Park episode got its title, so I think the articles are probably OK where they are now... — Hunter Kahn 01:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Image question

Hey all. I wanted to bring your attention to a discussion over at the Cartman Gets an Anal Probe page. There is a question over whether the infobox image should be used, and I wanted to get some other opinions. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 05:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Season 3 infobox

I was browsing and I discovered that there's an error in the ordering of the Season 3 infobox.

If you look at South Park (season 3), you'll see that 304 is 'Jackovasaurus' and 305 is 'Tweek vs. Craig'.

Now if you look at any of the episodes from season 3 and look at the infobox, you'll see that 304 and 305 have been mixed up, which is contradictory to their release dates, 16 and 23 of June respectively. Jackovasaurus couldn't possibely have come after Tweek vs. Craig.

I thought I'd bring it to your attention since I don't know how to edit infobox templates. Thank you. --138.217.152.62 (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The episode article infobox has them listed in production order and not airdate. That is, one was made before the other but aired afterward (this was during the time that they were making the film and episodes at the same time, and the production had yet to settle in the now-customary "one week at a time" production method).

See the discussion above. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

A challenge

I was looking at Wikipedia:Reward board and saw something South Park related. So I'm just poionting out this to see if anyone wants to take the offer. GamerPro64 (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah...I might have to take this on. lol — Hunter Kahn 06:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I've been planning on working on that article ever since he died but I never got around to do it. I might help Hunter out if I have time. :P Theleftorium 11:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Go for it, I don't mind. — Hunter Kahn 14:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Nah, you can do it. I've got other projects to work on (like the Simpsons GTs). :) Theleftorium 16:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Lower navigation boxes

I've asked the user responsible, but wondered if anyone else had a view on the removal of the lower navigation box from the episode articles? Alastairward (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought they weren't needed because of the change in the above. Afro (Not a Talk Page) ^{- Afkatk} 01:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, the infobox pretty much renders the bottom navigation box redundant and unnecessary... — Hunter Kahn 15:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is the bottom of the infobox in Dances with Smurfs better than the one in Are You There God? It's Me, Jesus? Nergaal (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, I should clarify; my comment above is regarding the type of infobox on Are You There God? It's Me, Jesus (which only addresses the previous and next episodes), not the one at Dances with Smurfs (which has a lot more information that I think is useful to readers and is less redundant)... — Hunter Kahn 00:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

South Park Mega Millionaire

There's nothing here about the iPhone game South Park Mega Millionaire. Can we have an article created about it please? --VitasV (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Southparkstudio FAQs

Have these been scrubbed recently? The FAQs on the Southparkstudios site now only seem to go back to 2009 now, this could affect quite a few cites in articles. Alastairward (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It may be another change due to their new UK site, any US links I click on redirect me. Alastairward (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is the "Reception" section present in the articles? IGN is not a real TV review site. They review video games (poorly).

Has anyone actually read that section? Honestly, IGN is not a TV review site in the first place. This section always sounds so incredibly tacky when one reads a South Park article, and frankly its irrelevant and not real information that pertains to the episode. I might understand if every season had reception in place, but who's idea was it to put those horrible reviews as a standard for every South Park episode? I'd say if there was a 1-10 scale for well-written criticism that IGN's reviews wouldn't even break into the 1 level, because they are just that amateur and irrelevant. Let's just pretend they were the most amazing reviewers in the history of the world, is it really required that every single episode have that section? Look at other shows from the past of other series -- is there a reception section? Of course not, because that is so pointless and irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.206.190.113 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Feedback on the given show is notable information as long as it comes from notable sources, theres no reason why it can't be added. Afro (Not a Talk Page) ^{- Afkatk} 21:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This was also raised by the Anon IP above on the Hell on Earth 2006 article talk page. I replied with the following;

If you beleive that IGN is not a reliable third party source, please contest it at the reliable source noticeboard. If you simply disagree with their quality of article, that's just something subjective.

Reception sections prove notability by providing us with coverage of the article subject from sources not directly involved with the subject themselves.Alastairward (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I responded with Okay man, I agree with your logic there, except I really think you need to take a step back from black and white thinking and just really use common sense here. Firstly, its IGN. I personally do not care THAT much about this to try and figure out how to disprove the notability of a website on wikipedia, I just always use Wikipedia so much but the fact is, it irked me everytime I read this South Park page. I know enough to know poorly structured criticism when I see it, but for the reviews that are being included on this page? Come ON man. They aren't even content-driven. They are vaguely subjective to a point where they might've just said "I thought it was good." "I thought it was bad." Most of the times they repeat the line "But the episode was still funny." Really? That's like a music review saying "Yeah, but the music is still good." WHAT is that telling us? Far more relevant reception that goes along with your logic would be reception from the PUBLIC in terms of controversies and the such (see "With Apologies To Jesse Jackson"'s reception section). Frankly, leaving the reception in there as it is makes Wikipedia look like a joke site -- I know I'm not alone on this thought because I had a professor use a South Park episode to discuss social commentary and the impact on the public it had, but specifically told us not to use Wikipedia's entries for "Reception" due to how irrelevant they were. I'm not going to change it, but I felt I was at least doing my part by making the problem known. If no one wants to take this further, its not doing anything apart from making the site look bad.

Also: "as long as it comes from notable sources" <-- Once again, calling IGN a notable source for TV criticism is like calling your local newspaper's music review section the most relevant music criticism in the business -- though to be honest even that is being a bit generous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.206.190.113 (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I worked in a university, there was never a professor or doctor who would have suggested using Wikipedia at all in class or as something to use for research.

Also, reception in terms of the quality of the episode as a television show alone and in terms of its cultural impact are two entirely different things. To have both in an article is relevant and appropriate. Alastairward (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine I give up. I tried at least. I know real fans of the show who actually get what these episodes are about find this section to be absolutely ridiculous. Read up on genuine criticism and maybe then you'll see how ridiculous this is. Also, there aren't many but there a good handful of college professors for Freshman level classes that are younger and past the biases held against Wikipedia. Just because you've never had a professor doesn't mean they don't exist. But anyways, read up on real criticism. I've done my part, I just feel so embarrassed for MS & TP if they ever read any of these South Park articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.206.190.113 (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Help!

I am trying to make List of characters in South Park a featured list but a reviewer commented that it lacks a reception section a-la this or this. Anybody has some suggestions where could I find a review on the characters of the show in general? Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 05:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Anybody? Nergaal (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly from individual reviews of episodes from the first season. And books. Cirt (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Grab stuff from the episode articles that are GA or FA. They've got a lot of stuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget to provide attribution though, if you copy from another article. Theleftorium 14:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by South Park

• List of awards and nominations received by South Park

Page to create. Note to self / reminder.

Model it after List of awards and nominations received by The Simpsons.

Cirt (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Idea: It might make sense, instead of by award-type as in The Simpsons page, to instead organize by year, chronologically. Cirt (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not sure, either way is probably fine. Cirt (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/South Park task force/Archive 1/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/South Park task force/Archive 1/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 23:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Note to all

There were five people in this list when I looked at it, and I've fully sourced all of them except Jonathan Kimmel. For some reason, that was the one I had the most trouble finding sources for, even though he was probably the one I had heard the most about going in. If anybody can help me find additional sources for him, that'd be great... — Hunter Kahn 00:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

South Park (season 13)

Just so you all know, I've nominated South Park (season 13) for GT. — Hunter Kahn 04:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• It passed. :D — Hunter Kahn 18:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Congrats! :) Theleftorium 18:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Seeking consensus at Sexual Healing (South Park)

Hey guys. Would you mind weighing in on the discussion at Talk:Sexual Healing (South Park) regarding the quote box (which has been removed). I've made my points that it should stay in, so has the objector that it should not, and frankly, I've already wasted too much energy on what is ultimately a trivial matter. I'd much rather get a WP:CONSENSUS developed than keep going back and forth with him, so your thoughts would be much appreciated. — Hunter Kahn 14:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books

Hadronic Matter An overview

An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class South Park articles should have covers.

If you need help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 22:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ^{(owner • talk)} 22:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

South Park episodes by season

Fourteen subcategories of Category:South Park episodes have been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Birthdates

With the recent "You Have 0 Friends" episode, you can see Stan and Kyle's birthdates listed on their Facebook pages. Seeing as how using a primary source to establish a birthday is perfectly legitimate, and how the dates have real-world interest for perhaps character development (Stan shares Trey's birthday, Kyle shares Matt's), there really isn't any guideline that discourages the inclusion of this material.

But the character articles are being edited to reflect the birth years as 2001. Considering the nature of the show (the characters don't age), does it make sense to include the year as the "official", since, technically, a primary source validates it? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't think it would be appropriate. As you say, their birthday implicitly changes at least once a season (excepting the 3rd->4th grade change of course). OrangeDog (τ • ε) 11:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are some handy articles: Floating timeline, Retroactive continuity. Perhaps they can be worked somehow into the main South Park article. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

South Park (season 13)

Just so you all know, South Park (season 13) has been nominated for FA. Cheers! — Hunter Kahn 16:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Redirect discussion

I don't know if the ArticleAlertBot would have caught this or not. If anyone is interested: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Who_Cartman.27s_Father_is - SoSaysChappy (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC on "201" plotsum

I opened a detailed discussion and appended it with a proposed plot summary which I later inserted into the article. It was quickly reverted back to the expanded summary under the rationale that the lack of a revert up until the day after I replaced it constituted a consensus in favor of the expanded version. I'm inviting others to discuss it there in an attempt to generate a more thorough consensus. Thanks. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

1. The long version can't have been there for more than a week. 2. You disagree so clearly "consensus" isn't great. 3. Guidelines encourage shorter plot summaries. That is all. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 23:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"Sp 1406 Sorry.jpg" to Commons?

Just to let you guys know, there is debate on whether or not File:Sp 1406 Sorry.jpg should be considered for commons inclusion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_April_23#File:Sp_1406_Sorry.jpg. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

See also commons:Commons:Village_pump#Threshold_of_originality_question. -- Cirt (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion proposed for Everybody Draw Mohammed Day article

Editors interested in South Park may be interested in the proposed deletion of a related article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everybody Draw Mohammad Day. The deletion discussion will have run the required seven days by 20:31, May 3. The article, by the way, could use a looking over by anyone with some expertise in South Park, particularly the "Background" section and perhaps the categories. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)