Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:14, 8 November 2012

Animation: South Park Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the South Park task force.

Animation: American Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Television: Episode coverage Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Please do not add mention of pop cultural references, continuity notes, trivia, or who the targets of a given episode's parody are, without accompanying such material with an inline citation of a reliable, published, secondary source. Adding such material without such sources violates Misplaced Pages's policies pertaining to Verifiability, No Original Research, and Synthesis.

While a primary source (such as the episode itself, or a screencap or clip from it at South Park Studios) is acceptable for material that is merely descriptive, such as the synopsis, it is not enough to cite a primary source for material that constitutes analytic, evaluative or interpretative claims, such as cultural references in works of satire or parody, because in such cases, such claims are being made by the editor. This is called synthesis, which is a form of original research, and is not permitted on Misplaced Pages, regardless of whether one thinks the meaning of the reference is "obvious". Sources for such claims must be secondary sources in which reliable persons, such as TV critics or reviewers, explicitly mention the reference.

In addition, trivial information that is not salient or relevant enough to be incorporated into the major sections of an article should not be included, per WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE and WP:TRIVIA, and this includes the plot summary. As indicated by WP:TVPLOT, the plot summary is an overview of a work's main events, so avoid any minutiae that is not needed for a reader's understanding of the story's three fundamental elements: plot, characterization and theme. This includes such minutiae as scene-by-scene breakdowns, technical information or detailed explanations of individual gags or lines of dialogue.

If you're new to Misplaced Pages, please click on the wikilinked policy pages above to familiarize yourself with this site's policies and guidelines.

Who is Chris Martin

Who is the Chris Martin that appears in this episode as a Charlie Rose guest/ can someone add a link, please. Medeis (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I think he's a fictional character that was created for the episode. He's not mentioned in the plot synopsis, so I don't think it matters. Nightscream (talk) 06:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

They don't normally bother to give the names of made-up characters, that they identified him by full name implies he's a real person. Not the Cold Play singer, though. μηδείς (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Even if he is (and he doesn't appear to be, since I can't find him on WP or Google), again, he isn't mentioned in the article, so I think it's a moot point. Nightscream (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Nike

The current article claims Stan appears in a Nike commercial, while South Park is clearly parodying the Livestrong Nike campaign they do not use the actual Nike Logo. South Park uses a "double V" type logo wherein each "V" even differs from the actual Nike logo (it curves down on the right end). Source: The actual episode, and this IGN article has a nice screenshot that includes the Logo: IGN Scause for Applause review 13:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LOTG (talk • contribs)

So? Nightscream (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You may be right, but the secondary source actually uses the brand name "Nike." If you can produce another reliable source which says "Nike-like" or some other qualifier, we can discuss removing it. Until then... BusterD (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The episode itself uses the word "Nike". That's what the endorsement representative tells Stan when he meets him in the 7 Eleven. That's why that name appears in the synopsis. Had it not appeared in the episode, I wouldn't have put in the plot synopsis. Nightscream (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Cultural references

Do not remove sourced information please. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The information was not "sourced". The cited source makes no mention of specific Dr. Seuss characters (a mention of Seuss is already properly incorporated into the plot), nor does it mention Pussy Riot. The accusation of hooliganism in which PR was embroiled is completely irrelevant to the article and the scene in question. You cannot just stick a citation of any old webpage at the end of a passage that claim that it constitutes a proper reference if it doesn't make any mention of the material.

I also notice that you replaced the clear AV Club ref name with a more obscure one, and that you remove the wikilink from the term "The A.V. Club" from the citation template, as well as the word "The" and the two periods that are part of its proper name. Why did you do this? This and the previous blanking of content from the Butterballs article last month strongly carry the appearance of blindly undoing my edits without reading them carefully. Is this what you're doing?

Lastly, regarding your originally naming this section "the boy who cried trivia", I suggest you cease violating WP:Civility and WP:No Personal Attacks, and right now. The next time you attack another editor in this manner, you will be blocked from editing. Nightscream (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that instead of copying and pasting this entire thread to my talk page, you could have simply left a {{talkback}} notice there, right? Anyway, here's my response:

• I reverted because another editor blanked the section, which contained a reference to all three claims, and their edit summary was WP:TRIVIA. Please, by all means, tell me how "the boy who cried trivia" constitutes a personal attack, here or anywhere else. I was referring to editors who are trigger happy to remove other editors' hard work under the guise of "It's trivia and WP:IDONTLIKEIT". Please quit accusing me of personal attacks when I did not, in fact, carry out any. It's actually insulting. Also, per WP:TPO, don't ever alter my edits just because they don't look right to you. That is, unless it's too extreme (like the editor who told me to suck his dick the other day, which made me go straight to ANI.)
• The AV Club reference was duplicated so I removed the clone. That's all. I was a bit in a hurry so I didn't notice all the details.
• You're right, I didn't properly investigate the reference, and for that I apologize. I was a bit too busy getting angry at the removal of sourced content, as I already explained above. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I reverted because another editor blanked the section, which contained a reference to all three claims...

But not a source for them. The cited source, as aforementioned, only mentioned the Armstrong matter, but not the rest. You are correct that Koavf was partially wrong in that he should not have removed all of it, just as you should not have restored all of it. Both of you should've read the material and the source more carefully.

Please, by all means, tell me how "the boy who cried trivia" constitutes a personal attack

Characterizing other editors as boys who are crying is clearly pejorative. You have a history of being warned for addressing or speaking of other editors in this manner. If you don't believe me, ask others if being characterized as such for attempting to fulfil policy is not uncivil. Nightscream (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

When you quote me, please don't remove Wikilinks, as this one holds the key to your confusion: I was referencing "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". As described in the linked article, "rom is derived the English idiom to cry wolf, meaning to give a false alarm" (referring to at least partially falsely calling the material "trivia"). Therefore, your personal attack accusation stands no grounds whatsoever. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Who cares what you were referencing? Are you arguing that when you characterize another editor as a "boy" who "cried", it cannot be perceived as insulting simply because it references an Aesop fable? This is a non-sequitur. Characterizing someone in this manner, esp in the heading of a discussion thread, is indeed pejorative, regardless of where the phrase comes from. Again, if you doubt this, select some other editors to poll, and ask them if they think this would not be considered insulting, simply because of its literary pedigree. Nightscream (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Since you're obviously incapable of even considering this, I've requested Third Opinion. Nightscream (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry. You are obviously incapable of perceiving the concept of idioms. Not a single person with a reasonable command of the English language (at least enough to be a competent editor) can mistake "the boy who cried wolf" for "he called me a crying boy"... unless that person's goal is to flex their muscles. Needless to say, the word "boy", as an inseparable part of that idiom, was not in reference to Koavf, whose gender I do not even know. Had I told someone that they're flogging a dead horse, would you think I'm accusing that person of animal cruelty? As someone who just recently suffered from excessive personal attacks, I find this accusation preposterous and offensive... but I already stated that, didn't I? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, I am responding here to a request at WP:3O. Both 3O and this talk page are intended for discussion of article content, not editor behavior. Frankly, the exchange above reflects poorly on both of you and I suggest you stand down and focus future discussion on article content instead of each other. Since Pussy Riot and Seuss are mentioned in the plot section, additional mention in the trivia section could be considered overcoverage, and in any case their inclusion in the trivia section is an editorial decision that is a reasonable topic for discussion here on the talk page. VQuakr (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Since Pussy Riot and Seuss are mentioned in the plot section, additional mention in the trivia section could be considered overcoverage... Thanks for completing missing the point of dispute in this discussion, which has no longer has anything to do with the Pussy Riot reference. The issue was Hearfourmewesique's characterization of another editor, as my notification at 3O made explicitly clear (though apparently not explicitly enough for you). It is perfectly reasonable to discus that here, since this is where that behavior took place. If you wanted to move the discussion to another talk page, you could have. Or could've created a subheading. Instead, you decided to discuss a completely different topic, one that, while initially the topic of this section, has already been resolved. Bravo.

You are obviously incapable of perceiving the concept of idioms. I am indeed aware of that idiom. I'm simply saying that it's irrelevant, as is Koavf's gender. Characterizing someone as "the boy who cried trivia" could be seen as pejorative. Period. Your refusal to even consider this as a possibility is simply another example in your documented history of violating WP:CIV. One more time: Polls other editors and ask them if they would perceive that behavior insulting. Ask them. Nightscream (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Unassessed Animation articles
• Unknown-importance Animation articles
• Unassessed Animation articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed South Park articles
• Unknown-importance South Park articles
• South Park task force articles
• WikiProject Animation articles
• Start-Class Animation articles
• Low-importance Animation articles
• Start-Class Animation articles of Low-importance
• Start-Class American animation articles
• Low-importance American animation articles
• American animation work group articles
• Start-Class television articles
• Low-importance television articles
• Start-Class Episode coverage articles
• Unknown-importance Episode coverage articles
• Episode coverage task force articles
• WikiProject Television articles