| Revision as of 03:34, 16 March 2009 editBignole (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers67,638 edits →Request for comment← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 09:43, 25 September 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,951,845 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 5 WikiProject templates.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (848 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|algo = old(14d) |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 190K |
|
|
|counter = 1 |
|
|
|archive = Talk:List of South Park episodes/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{SouthParkProject|class=list|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{Comedy|class=list|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|action1=FLC |
|
|action1=FLC |
|
|action1date=July 16, 2005 |
|
|action1date=July 16, 2005 |
| Line 35: |
Line 27: |
|
|currentstatus=FFL |
|
|currentstatus=FFL |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{archivebox|]}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=List|listas=South Park episodes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Animation|south-park=yes|south-park-importance=Top|importance=High|American=yes|American-importance=High|television=yes|television-importance=Mid|computer=y}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Comedy|importance=Mid}} |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Lists|importance=Low}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Television|importance=Mid|episode-coverage=Yes|episode-coverage-importance=high}} |
|
== Merger proposal == |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|USTV=y|USanimation=y|CO=y}} |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
A number of the season one episodes appear to lack notability, I propose merging them into this list of episodes. This was originally discussed ]. ] (]) 15:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
::(''and again'') Per ] '''merging seems to be the appropriate action''': "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it." The series has significant coverage, individual seasons may have significant coverage, ] 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 ] MAY be important in covering a topic enclopedicily (is that even a word???) an article that is solely a repetition of the plot is ]. The chart layout can be modified to easily include Neilson ratings which are frequently the only 3rd party material related to the episodes. -- -- ] 17:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|counter = 3 |
|
:::Most of the articles seemed to be relatively unnotable ,going by the ] and a related discussion on the talk pages for the list of ] and ] episodes (bit of a disclaimer here, I love those two shows but completely support the merges). |
|
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
:::None of the merges were prejudicial to the essential information each individual article contained. As I said, the ] and ] 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. |
|
|
|
|archive = Talk:List of South Park episodes/Archive %(counter)d |
|
:::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. ] (]) 21:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
::::I support a merge of all episodes that fail notability (the assertion of such), but I also (if it doesn't already exist), I would suggest creating individual season lists (like ] as this show has been around for 12 seasons and that's a bit much to have plot summaries for all that on just this page. You can cut all of that out, which would neaten it up and allow it to become a featured list, while at the same time creating an aggregate page that could flesh out the plots a little better than this page could. ] ] 19:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::No. All episodes should have their own page. And I'm not just saying this for South Park, but for all shows. One of the things that make Misplaced Pages so great was all the crazy facts about such a wide variety of subjects, and this whole "notability" thing seems to be ruining this whole site. Bring back the old Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 20:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The changes that have already occured on the site are awful. A long list with short summaries is a pain to the eye and offers little information. The current way, with separate sites for each episode looks fine... --] (]) 11:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Unfortunately, your opinion is not shared by the Wiki community, which has ] set up because not every subject under the Sun is exactly note worthy. That includes ''South Park''. Though many episodes ARE, a lot (probably most) are not that notable because they're just run of the mill episodes for the show. ] is not a viable argument for keeping a page, I implore you to find some ] covering ] about the episodes and add it so that at least some of the meet the notability guideline and are not merged. ] ] 20:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::You aren't the first to suggest they be merged, but trust me. They aren't getting merged. Notability on wiki is second to popularity. Everytime this gets proposed, the merger is opposed 20 to 1. Besides, if you're going to have individual pages for almost every episode, why leave out pages for a few? |
|
|
Because the growing trend is that "popularity without a viable argument is not enough". There must be a valid argument presented to ignore the notability guideline nowadays. As for why merge some and not all, I think that if we were to go through every page we'd probably be merging all but a few (maybe an episode here or there). I doubt it would be that the majority are notable and only a handful are not. ] ] 22:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree that a 12 season list may be reaching (or already be past) the end of easily navigatable length and that seperate lists for each season may be in order- provided that the consesus shown so far for redirects of ] episodes into season lists reaches its logical conclusion. -- ] 23:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::Merge all individual articles, except for ] episode and other episode articles that have good amount of other information, than just the plot. After the merge, create Season pages instead. And perhaps then it could be made like the Simpsons page, who have the episode summary on the season page rather than the main episode list page. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">]<sup>]</sup></font> 16:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::One more thing, is the merge being disscussed here or at the ] because it seems that this disscusion was moved here on the 4th, but it is now being disscussed on this and ]. Shouldn't there be just one place for this disscusion. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">]<sup>]</sup></font> 16:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Added message at Wikiproject South Park to discuss merger here not there. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">]<sup>]</sup></font> 16:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It seems that the season pages were already created they were just merged with the list because they didn't have enough stuff in them. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">]<sup>]</sup></font> 16:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:So take a trimmed plot, as I had started to provide for on the main list of episodes page, and move that to a restored season page instead. I could go for that. ] (]) 12:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::Going by ], the season page would allow for a larger plot (somewhere close to 200-300 words) which would be a pretty generous compromise between this page and the individual pages that are nothing but plot. If any (or the majority) episode pages have the Nielsen ratings listed, then we can add a section to the episode table (like I did at ]) that would allow us to put them on the page in an organized fashion. ] ] 12:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::If we redesign the table as part of this change, we can incorporate the initial viewership ratings as well. (and perhaps the "TV-MA" etc. rating) Although tables in wikiformat are a pain in the butt.-- ] 18:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Are you referring to the table on this page? If so, then I was say that unless you can get them for every single episode, it's best not to do that. You'll never pass FLC if you have scattered episode ratings. If you can get them for all the episodes, awesome, because it's a great addition to have. ] ] 18:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I disagree with the approach that we should not add the information that we can verify because we cant verify information for everything. Without ratings information how could this article ever achieve Feature List status anyway? ] (]) 13:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The same way that ] did. Nielsen ratings could only reliably be found for that past two seasons (7 and 8), that left 6 seasons with scattered ratings here and there. If you cannot complete the information, then you need to find another way of presenting it. One could try just listing the average rating for the entire season if you cannot find every individual episode rating. It is not going to look good to have scattered numbers across the page. ] ] 14:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I am all for articles looking pretty, but in a choice between having perfect layout and having sourced content- Sourced on-topic content will always win in my book. -- ] 15:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Yes, but it's about presentation, not ignoring sourced content. If the information can only be half complete, there has to be a way of presenting it in a more satisfactory manner. A season average (which is typically easier to find than 20+ individual numbers for each season) is one of those possibilities. If you find one for 15 out of 22 episodes, then it's going to be hard to pass an FLC because the discussion will be "why can't you find the others?". But, if you have all of the season averages, that's just as good for an article. ] ] 15:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I am willing to agree to disagree since it is essentially a moot point - i dont think we have any data to include anyway. -- ] 15:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Reading the discussions, I repeatedly see "A number of the season one episodes appear to lack notability", which must then imply that some of the episodes do indeed have individual notability, and that the ones that "appear" not to, may just actually be so. So... per ]: |
|
|
::'''Note''': Stubs are allowed on Misplaced Pages and many articles are stubs. It may be inappropriate to merge or redirect an article about a television episode just because it is a stub. Before executing a merge, ask yourself: |
|
|
::*Will the merge reduce the quality or coherence of the target article? |
|
|
::*Are more sources available? (Do some basic looking for additional source material that could be used to improve the article.) |
|
|
::If the answer to either of these questions is "yes", it is probably better to avoid merging or redirecting. Instead, consider improving it, or offer suggestions for its improvement on the talk page |
|
|
:So, my thoughts... |
|
|
::#Has anyone created a list of stubs proposed for merge? |
|
|
::#Have these stubs been tagged for Notability or Sources and allowed to grow? |
|
|
::#How diligent was/were efforts to expand these stubs before proposing a merge? |
|
|
:I respectfully opine '''no merge''' until it is shown that the current guideline for such has been fully addressed. ''']''' '']'' 02:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::There is a difference between being a stub and being an article consisting solely of a plot. Since the onus is not on people to prove something does '''NOT''' exist, but that it '''DOES''', someone should really be showing that they can be improved. What you see in EPISODE is a suggestion, not a mandate. I just randomly picked one of the episode articles, and here is what I found. (there is apparently a block on this link, so just follow the link from ] and use, in quotes, "Tom's Rhinoplasty") and (for providing reliable sources), and you'll see that there is nothing there. "Tom's Rhinoplasty" appears 17 times in the Google News search, but you'll find if you visit each link that in each case they are merely talking about ''South Park'' in general and mentioning various episode titles. (which are typically not used, because they pick up every trashy website under the Sun) just turns up hits on people listing the title of the episode, and maybe giving a brief synopsis of what happens. That was just a random episode. I'm sure most are the same way. There are 180 episodes, the fact that you are suggesting that we do this for all of them says to me that most probably DO fail both EPISODE and NOTE, and this is just a way to prolong the inevitable. If something does exist, then it can be added later. Remember, ] works both ways. Just for the sake of argument, I just grabbed another episode from last season (given the theory that the longer the show runs the more in the public eye it is). I randomly chose "Eek, A Penis!". Here is the (same issue as before, just use "Eek, A Penis!", , and results. The only viable page I found was an , which does not meet the "significant coverage from reliable secondary sources" criteria. Hell, even using , which is the bottom feeder of TV reviews as they generally never say anything insightful about the episode beyond "I like it" (thus making most of what they say unusable) doesn't help, as only 2 sources (with no other real world information) is not enough. A season article would be best for the vast majority. If no real world information can be found, then make it a season list. If a few things can be found, but not enough to warrant a separate page, then make it a season article. ] ] 03:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I searched the newspapers for all of these episodes and zip. Checking wikibooks now (and then on to wikischolar). When those come up empty, then the onus will REALLY be on those wishing to include to supply the material that meets ] / ] "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it." -- ] 03:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC) UPDATE: "Death" has been the subject of 3rd party analysis and therefore meets ] and has been removed from the list. -- ] 04:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Someone readded it. I saw only one source added to the article, which is probably why someone re-added it. ] requires "significant coverage" which is defined as more than a single source. ] ] 05:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::"Significant coverage" is more than ''passing'' mention in a single source, "Death" is the focal subject of the article. It also appears that Tom's Rhinoplasty has been the subject of a number of scholarly analysis and would appear to meet ] -- ] 05:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I see a single sentence in that "Death" article. That is not "significant" coverage. It clearly says at WP:NOTE: ""Significant coverage" means that '''sources''' address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." - NOTE says "sources", not "source(s)". Later on the page it says: "Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and '''provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article'''." - "Sufficient detail for a comprehensive article" can generally never be covered by a single source. What search engine are you using. I just did a quick on "Tom's Rinoplasty" and got only 4 hits, 2 or which just cite the episode title, the other two come from the same source which is a South Park book. search, and out of all of them I could only find one that actually discussed the episode, but since we cannot see the follow up page unless we buy the book (stupid Google books), all we know is that it recounts the plot of the episode. Since only a couple pages later it doesn't mention the episode, I'm not thinking that it covers it too comprehensively. The thing that everyone needs to remember is "is there enough information to warrant a separate article". Meeting the bare minimum requirements of the GNG is not enough, especially when 4/5 of the article is plot. If you have a bunch of episodes that have a couple of sentences about themes they exhibit, it's quite easy to create a section on a season page chronicling the themes present in that given season, and making note of specific episodes that stood out. That's how you have a comprehensive article. ] ] 06:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::It is entirely possible for a single article to provide "Sufficient detail for a comprehensive article" about a single TV episode. |
|
|
:::::::Re Tom's Rhinoplasty: On the first page there are like 4 gay studies books that come up. -- ] 06:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::It's a long shot to think one source will provide enough detail for "comprehensive" coverage. As for the books, I covered that above. I told you that most only have the episode listed (, , , , , , , and ), and the one source that starts to talk about it doesn't have the . Look at those books closely. A good portion of them are talking about Ellen doing a voice-over for ''South Park'''s "Tom's Rineplasty". The LGBT aspect of it is because of Ellen. Then look at the other sources, Google Book let's you know how many pages that term hits on, and several of them only appear on one page and it is part of a list of LGBT media. That's "passing mention". ] ] 06:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
In response to MichaelQSchmidt, "yes a due diligence search for sources was conducted and no evidence was found that 8 of the 10 articles proposed for merger would be able to meet would be able to meet our notability guideline of significant 3 party coverage in a reliable source." The evidence of whether the 2 other articles, namely Tom's Rhinoplasty and Death meet our guidelines for stand alone articles is contested. |
|
|
Given that the overwhelming consensus of policy based reasoning, I would suggest that in a few days if no more evidence appears supporting stand alone articles |
|
|
1) that the 8 be merged into a Season One article, |
|
|
2) that the remainder of this article be broken into stand-alone Season articles, and |
|
|
3) that merger discussions for Tom's Rhinoplasty and Death continue on their individual article pages (unless some type of consensus appears here on whether or not the evidence for stand alone status has been met) |
|
|
Does this sound like a plan? ] (]) (AKA - ] 13:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Just to give a little note, there are thousands of article with no sources in Misplaced Pages that aren't merged. These articles are good ones, and their only external link can serve as reference. They can be greatly improved, however merging is just going the other way round. So '''Strong Oppose'''. --<b><font color="darkgreen">]</font></b><sup><font color="red">]</font></sup> 19:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::]. Also, there a difference between your personal preference of what a good article is, and ]. The fact remains that they fail ], ], and I'd include ] and ], but since they have no sources and no information beyond a plot it's hard to say they fail them in a technical way. Unless you have a viable argument for why these ''South Park'' articles warrant their own articles, then just because ] doesn't mean that it is the correct way to be. ] ] 19:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I recall the "there are other articles that you haven't deleted" on other merge proposals or AfDs. Why should that stand as an argument? Does an editor have to "prove" themselves by submitting every article worth merging simultaneously? It's a lazy argument at best. ] (]) 23:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
For the record, I'm against the merging. '''Strong Oppose'''. ] (]) 16:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Do you actually have a reason, because ]. There are several policies and guidelines in place that say that these articles should not exist (given their current state). In addition, I just noticed your comments on the South Park WikiProject about "film has their own notability guideline, so should TV, and if so all episodes would have their own articles". Um, we DO have our own notability guideline, we just often use the ] in favor of it. But, if you'd like to take a look, ]. You may be surprised to find out that it doesn't allow for episode articles to exist all willy-nilly. No notability guideline, not FILM, not NOVEL, not MUSIC, is allowed to contradict ]. That's just the way that it is. It can expand on what NOTE says, and clarify points, but it isn't allowed to contradict it. ] ] 16:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Actually, guideline supports such lists. His simple opinion is as valid as all those who have expounded at length and so must be respected. ''']''' '']'' 18:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::What guideline? I'm pretty sure that the notability guideline doesn't. ] ] 18:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Keep''' the various articles. '''Oppose''' merger. There is nothing wrong with episode articles. ]''' 19:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Paramount+ specials == |
|
**ALL articles must meet ]. These articles fail that guideline, as well as the policy on ]. There is no inhereted notability. ] ] 19:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*** With respects, the pages meet the requirements of ] and fall within the content guidelines of ]. There is no ] for their improvement, and guideline instructs that they should be allowed to improve. And in quoting ] it must be remembered that if proper inclusion of the information would overburden the parent article, a sub-article is bot encouraged and allowed. The reducing of the sub-articles to one-liners to then merge back into the parent acts to diminish a paperless encyclopdia. ''']''' '']'' 19:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
***I'd like to point out that ] is often ignored in AFD. Otherwise articles for bestselling novels and clearly popular mangas would be deleted far more often, since they can't meet the requirement of getting reviewed in a major news source. The policies are just suggestions, it all coming down to the consensus of people discussing it at the time. See ] and ]. ]''' 00:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
****To Michael, I'm not sure what you're reading at either WP:POLICY or WP:EPISODE, as these articles do not meet any guideline or policy (except the ones on what Misplaced Pages is not). I've said this before, ] swings both ways, read it carefully and it explain that. Yes, there is no deadline for improvement, but that is for articles that have established notability. DEADLINE is referring to when articles just look shitty, but meet all of the basic criteria for existence. DEADLINE does say, "We can afford to take our time, to consider matters, to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established." |
|
|
****To Dream, there are quite a few articles deleted every day that fail notability. NOTE is NOT often ignored. If it was then we would have tagged it as a historical document long ago. Don't misinterpret a few subjects that are guarded by extreme fans in great numbers as being "the community". You might want to read ] a little closer, because it is not a get off free pass for whenever a policy or guideline exists that you don't like. IAR is only when the guideline or policy prevents the betterment of Misplaced Pages. An individual episode article with nothing but a plot does not hurt Misplaced Pages should that plot be moved to a central location. When you have multiple policies and guidelines saying "this isn't correct", you'd be hard pressed to prove that ignoring all of them betters Misplaced Pages. ] ] 00:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel like the ''South Park'' specials on Paramount+ don't count as actual episodes. I know that the "Post COVID" specials are supposed to serve as a continuation of the "South ParQ Vaccination Special" from season 24, but "The Streaming Wars" (parts 1 and 2) and the recent special "Joining the Panderverse" don't serve as a continuation of anything, they're just regular specials that are also known as "exclusive events". ] (]) 14:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
*'''Oppose''' merger, in other words '''keep''' individual articles. In all honesty, it seems to me that ] should end this argument right away; it clearly states that articles about television episodes are acceptable as long as they meet ]. But since we're discussing this further...my feeling is not every episode will necessarily be notable, but may will be. Rather than getting rid of all the articles in one foul swoop, the burden should fall on editors to prove with each individual episode article that it meets notability guidelines. If the editor fails to prove that article is notable, than it should be deleted. If the editor proves it, then it shouldn't. But to simply get rid of them all, frankly, seems a horrible solution to me. — <b>] ] <small><sub>(])</sub></small></b> 19:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
**I don't think that was what this discussion was doing. Currently, we are only talking about the first season of the show (as far as I know/knew). As such, all of those articles in question were individually tagged. If you look above, the only "foul swoop" action was against 8 articles that our editors could not find anything for at all (though all of the various Google options - scholar, news, books, etc.), and that there were two that would warrant further discussion on their individual talk pages. The purpose here is because you need a centralized discussion area. ] ] 20:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
***Hmmm...you may be right in that I think I initially misunderstood the discussion, but I also wouldn't rush to simply merge these into a list just like that. Granted, these eight articles in question are in bad shape now (mostly nothing but episode descriptions, even in the cases where some other info is included it's badly out of balance), but I find it very hard to believe there are no sources for them (or, indeed, ''any'' of the Season 1 eps) that once applied would make these articles satisfy the notable standards. I mean, I obviously can't speak for how much research has been done yet, but take ] for example. Even a regular Google News Search going using "All Dates" produces a number of what (at first glance) appears to be credible sources ( and .) I would bet that with some library visits and Lexis Nexus searches, we could find enough such info for all these articles. (Hell, even a look at the special features and commentaries on the South Park Season 1 DVD would help, if there are any.) I think it would be a real shame to just merge them all and be done with it without giving people the opportunity to improve them. I would propose holding off on the merge for at least a month or two and forming a ] under ] who would be dedicated specifically to improving the Season One episodes. If after a certain amount of time, the articles are still in bad shape, then we can talk about the merge, or about shutting down those individual articles. If they're in good shape, then we're all the better for it. I'd '''''definitely''''' be happy to participate in such a task force, and I doubt I'd be the only one... — <b>] ] <small><sub>(])</sub></small></b> 20:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
****This is the problem that we've always had, and it's what makes it difficult to assess at a glance. Going through the Google stuff, article is about the show in general (Mr. Hanky the character is discussed), mentioned a girl wanting a CD title "Mr. Hanky...", one note mention not related to the actual episode, , and none of the others really even mention the episode either. It's case of false appearance. As for the DVD stuff, I haven't the slightest. There are no commentaries on the DVDs. They apparently made a special CD you could order (have no idea of it's still in print). But, it always comes back down to the question of, "even meeting the bare criteria, does it still warrant a separate page?". Unless the audio commentary covers a substantial amount of real world information (non-trivial), then you still have to address the lack of "secondary sources" in the artical. That was why there was the proposal of re-establishing the season pages. There have been good things done with season pages lately (see ] and ]), which allow for limited resourced information to still be presented in a manner that is befitting to the subject, and still complies with our policies and guidelines. ] ] 21:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*****I hear you, but as of right now, I still fall on the side of opposing the merger. ] is a guideline which specifically states television episode articles are acceptable so long as they meet notability standards, so yes, if there are secondary sources or episode reviews or anything of the like out there, I feel they do warrant separate articles, even with the "bare minimum" criteria. (Even some of the examples you point out, like ''Lost'' and ''Smallville'', have individual episode articles in addition to season pages.) As I said, I'd like to do some further research, do some Lexis Nexus searching (the fact Google News produces few results doesn't mean there's no more news sources out there), look at the DVD (for more than just trivia), check out some of the books written about ''South Park'' (there are several), etc. I think the task force idea is still valid, although I'd be happy to do this research on my own too. Until them I'd lean heavily toward erring on the side of caution and keeping the articles... — <b>] ] <small><sub>(])</sub></small></b> 21:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
******Wouldn't erring on the side of caution actually be merging the articles? Say you leave them, but never find enough to actually warrant separation (remember, EPISODE points to NOTE, which says "significant coverage"). That means that all the while the pages act as an influence, with people saying "well, they were left alone and no one is merging them." How many times do people point to other articles in the same shape as justification (I think someone did that just above actually). I've said this before to others, ] works both ways, and if the information cannot be found reasonably soon, then the best avenue is to salvage what you can into a merge and then create a taskforce to go through each episode one by one and see which ones warrant separating. That was how it was handled on ''Smallville'' (the season page was created first, and then the two episodes there were split off after). Otherwise, you've not made any actual progress in cleaning up the pages, because (and I have seen this before), eventually people just leave them as they were until the next "fight", in which case it's the same old "let's leave them, and see what we can find in the mean time". It's one circular event, as I don't think this was the first time ''South Park'' was put on the "chopping block", so to speak, either. ] ] 21:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
******to Hunter_Kahn: no one is asying that individual episodes that meet ] '''cannot have''' their stand alone articles. What we are saying is that at least 8 of these articles (if not all 10) have no evidence that they actually meet ] "significant coverage by 3rd party sources" and therefore do not meet our standard guidelines for stand alone articles and following policy, should be merged. For those who so adamantly claim notability, please conduct your own reseach and provide the 3rd party sourcing to significant coverage. Remember the ] rests on those who wish to keep or add material.-- ] 21:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*******Good point, but it must be noted that ] also advises that such be tagged and allowed a sufficient time for sources to be added... and editors may come forward to do their own due diligence searches to find what others have not. ''']''' '']'' 22:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
********And indeed for most of a month the articles have been tagged for this merger and many have been tagged as being inadequately sourced for much longer. And ineed, once the merger is complete, editors will have all the time they wish to research reliable sources and re-create the new article that actually meets our guideline. -- ] 22:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*********''"For those who so adamantly claim notability, please conduct your own reseach and provide the 3rd party sourcing to significant coverage."'' That's what I plan to do. I'll be able to use my Lexis account tomorrow, so that's where my research will start. It's my hope that if this merger happens, it won't happen for at least a week, which should give me some time. But yes, I think you're absolutely right, for those of us opposed to this merger, the best solution is '''not''' to simply argue about it here, but to get working on improving those articles and proving that they're notable (if, that is, it turns out that they are.) — <b>] ] <small><sub>(])</sub></small></b> 02:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:This has been discussed in the past and the consensus was to treat the specials as episodes. ] (]) 15:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
*Having read the above discussion, it is becoming evident that these episodes do not have the notability that people wished they had. Some editors may find that a bitter pill to swallow at first (I've had the same experience with two of my favorite shows), but the intent is to improve wikipedia, not to hurt anyone's feelings. Keeping around unimprovable articles as stand-alone articles is not improving the 'pedia, quite the opposite. Relax, think about how bad articles reflect on you as fan editors, and agree to '''merge''' the articles to make them shine amidst ], and help build a kick-ass encyclopedia in the process. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 21:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== New Paramount+ special == |
|
===Reformatting pages=== |
|
|
Just to let you all know, ] of reformatting the "List of" page, so that it will already be ready to go. If someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll probably do a quick season structure for all the season pages as well (something to get them started). One thing I'm noticing (which I noticed while I did season 1), is that the episodes are not listed in airdate order, but in what I assume to be continuity order. This is not the correct way to publish this information on an encyclopedia. They should be listed in their airdate order, and if a reliable source can show that they were filmed earlier (not IMDb, or TV.com, and something more than a simple production code, which the average reader does not understand anyway), then it should be noted in each instance it occurs (e.g. an asterick, or footnote). It took me forever (exaggeration) to figure out why my MSN listings were not matching up with the episode pages I was getting the writer/director info from. ] ] 01:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paramount+ just revealed a new ''South Park'' special titled "Not Suitable for Children" (no, really, that's what the title of it is). The trailer for it on Paramount+'s official YouTube channel (which is unlisted) said it was now streaming, but I don't know if that's true. Here's the link to it: ] (]) 17:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
:<s>I respectfully ask that you discontinue and rollback as there is no consensus for your actions, and will result in BRD to either attain such consensus or show lack of. At the very most, I see 4 editors (one by 2 names) agreeing and 4 not agreeing. This is not consensus.</s> ''']''' '']'' 18:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Paramount+ specials and series overview == |
|
::Rollback? First, you have no authority to tell me what I can and cannot do on MY sandbox. Second, I have not touched this page. I am working on a new format on my own time, in my own space, and would only put it here should it be agreed upon. Given that this page is so damn large, and the new format will take up about half as much space, there is no reason to assume that there could not be consensus to at least revamped this page so that it can become a featured list (regardless of whether the episode articles are merged). Why is it that every time our paths cross I always feel like I eventually have to go on the defensive with you because it seems like you become really aggressive during disagreements (P.S. I see 4 individual people who agree that the season pages would be a good idea, and that most of the episode articles should be merged. I see 3 individuals that don't want anything changed, and two of them hold the basic argument of ]). But for all fairness, I think this wasn't a very widespread discussion and will be notifying more projects so that we can have better consensus. ] ] 18:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, I know that the Paramount+ specials should be their own section of the article, but now I honestly think that they should be after the seasons. For example: the Post COVID specials from 2021 should be after season 24 since that season was only 2 episodes, the Streaming Wars specials from 2022 should be after season 25, and the Joining the Panderverse and Not Suitable for Children specials from last year should be after season 26, if you know what I mean. It was also announced back in February of 2022 that Paramount+ would be the official new home for the show starting with season 27 (I don't know if it's actually happening or not since they haven't released a trailer for the season yet), so once that season debuts sometime this year, I need the series overview section in the article fixed. Here's a source for the article in case you don't believe me: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/south-park-beavis-and-butt-head-moving-to-paramount-1235094214/ ] (]) 00:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
I have no more authority here than you. And remain respectful and not at all "agressive". If your works remain in your sandbox, I am mollified. Your statement above made it seem like you were actively reformatting the pages. I apologize for my first miss-impression, since I should have looked before spoken. And I very much appreciate that there is an understanding that this dicsussion needs more input rather than the 4 support and 6 oppose. ''']''' '']'' 19:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::Because this is not a vote, the actual reviewal of the comments on this page reveals much different result than your 6:4. The correct analysis is "Merge" - supported by policy, "No Merge" - not supported by policy. -- ] 22:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You're correct, it is not a vote... nor is it an "I think my interpretation of guideline is better than yours". SInce a handful of editors cannot possibly reflect a consensus that affects the other thousands that edit wikipedi, the correct analysis is "no change" so as tp to reflect lack of concensus in interpretation of p9olicy and guideline, as supported by policy and guideline. Thank you. ''']''' '']'' 23:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:We tried the other method before and it looked sloppy. It looks best the way it is. As for your article, if you actually read it the article states that the DIGITAL LIBRARY of South Park is moving from HBO Max to Paramount but new episodes will continue to air on Comedy Central. So both of these suggestions won’t be done. - ] (]) 02:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Michael, relax, a link was quite clearly given to Bignole's sandbox page (thanks to him for that, I did a little work on the a possible season 1 page ] any advice welcome]]. I'm not sure I understand your remark about "the other thousands that edit wikipedi" though, are you asking us for a consensus amongst thousands? Also, when quoting policy, please link to the relevant one. ] (]) 23:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::Okay, thank you, I understand that, but I only have a few things to say. First, I don't think we need the number of specials "overall", just the "number" of specials. Second, in the series overview, the specials are split into two-episode groupings. I know that there are two specials per year, but I don't think we need that since we were promised 14 specials, that's why I think the specials should be after the seasons. Third, the specials should also have short summaries, but I don't know if we need any sources for them though. ] (]) 00:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Is there a reason as to why the series overview should be shorted chronologically, but the episode tables not? I have yet to see a reason be provided outside of constant reverts. -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 20:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::@] "Change format without consensus and discussion on talk page" is ironic, given my above post and your recent revert without any further discussion, as well as your format without consensus or discussion. Do you intend to only edit-war? -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 08:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Your edit summary claims {{tq|"This matches ] standards across tens of thousands of articles."}} |
|
|
::::Surely this can't be the case? The MOS states "Episodes should generally be arranged in order of airdate However, there may be situations where ordering by airdate would not be beneficial to readers". |
|
|
::::I can't see why listing the episodes in this article non-chronologically would be beneficial. Quite the opposite, in fact. ] (]) 09:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I too don't see any reason why the episode tables shouldn't also be listed chronologically. At one point this was how it was presented and I'm not sure why the specials have since been consolidated into a single section. ] (]) 09:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The standard is that the series overview is laid out in the same manner as the episode tables. An example of non-chronological episodes would be ] or ], where they are listed in the correct production order. |
|
|
::::Apparently the specials within the episode tables is , according to SanAnMan, who then proceeded to make the table too busy without consensus or discussion on the talk page. -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 10:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I'd support reverting to the specials being presented chronologically throughout. ] (]) 10:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::If that ends up being the case, I support removing the network parameter from the series overview, as it's becoming too crowded swapping networks every single row between specials and regular seasons. -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 10:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::It's useful information, but perhaps a note at the head of the overview section describing on which network the "regular" episodes and specials aired would suffice. ] (]) 11:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:I disagree with removing the network parameter. While the top section does discuss the network changes between regular season episodes versus specials, there are still readers who will skim past that and be confused by the table if the network is removed. We also tried before having the specials combined at the end of the episode listings, but that resulted in a confusing perennial "TBA" for the end date, which looked sloppy. As for the other suggestion of reverting back to having the Episodes section go back to "season....specials (2021)....season....specials (2022)....etc" that just looks to be adding more length to an already extremely lengthy section. The format as is now with the Series Overview alternating between regular seasons and special episodes, and the Episodes section having all of the specials combined into one section takes up less space and is less clunky from my perspective, and above all else, is accurate and thorough. - ] (]) 15:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Then we can include it in prose above the series overview table. (Thank you for actually replying to the discussion this time, instead of reverting and not discussing with an accusation of not discussing.) Swapping networks fifteen times between every season and specials row is more detrimental than beneficia to readers. As I said: The standard is that the series overview is laid out in the same manner as the episode tables. So will the specials be grouped together in the overview ''and'' episode tables, or will they be added in between the the overview ''and'' episode tables? |
|
|
::However, that being asked, I'd say there's already an agreement above to include the specials as tables between each season episode table. Can you show us where you received an agreement to split then in the overview? -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 20:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::@] The layout in place currently is a compromise based on an edit made by ] on . In Andrew's edit, he had the Series Overview section with the Specials after each appropriate season (as is in the current version) but also splitting the Episodes section into separate sections after each season. From my perspective, having both the Series Overview and Episodes sections split so much is very wordy and takes up more space than is really needed. I agree that the Specials should be kept chronological in the Series Overview section, but I just don't see a need for separate Episodes sections for each year's specials. Especially when the article prose already states that the contract is for two specials per year. |
|
|
:::As for the network information, I can compromise with a note at the top of the table stating something to the effect that all regular season episodes aired on Comedy Central while all Specials aired on Paramount+ if that will help clean the table up a bit. But I still stand by my view that the seasons in the Series Overview section should remain split as is with Specials sections following each regular season, and that the Episodes sections can stay with one section for each regular season and one section for all the specials. I realize this is an opinion, but it makes the most logical sense to me, and prohibits excessive table space. - ] (]) 21:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::As far as I can tell, three editors support splitting the specials, and there is no further editorial support for keeping it in the current manner. Again, the standard is that the series overview is laid out in the same manner as the episode tables, and there are no extraneous circumstances that this article need not apply to this; the edit by Andrew is how the article ''should'' be laid out (with changes to the network parameter). "Space" is a minimal issue and does not affect readability; if the specials do indeed count towards the total episode count, I don't see why they should not be listed chronologically. -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 09:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I'd support SanAnMan on retention of the network parameter in the overview section. ] (]) 11:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Interesting change. So, you'd believe (mock-up example) would be the ultimate series overview layout once all 14 specials are released? -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 12:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Yup. ] (]) 13:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::So {{tq|perhaps a note at the head of the overview section describing on which network the "regular" episodes and specials aired would suffice}} no longer applies? Could you explain why? -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 19:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Change of mind. of an episode table which features specials and changing networks. Don't see why we shouldn't do the same here. ] (]) 10:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::''Very'' interesting. Can you show me a live, existing example where the network changes between every row 15 times? -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 23:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Just pointing to a precedent, no need to be so spiky. |
|
|
:::::::::::Can you provide a reason why we ''shouldn't'' list the network in the overview section, other than {{tq|"it's becoming too crowded"}}? ] (]) 09:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::Per ], {{tq|sometimes the information in a table may be better presented as prose paragraphs}}; expanding further, {{tq|n an article, significant items should normally be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely tabulated.}} 15 alternating rows can simplified to a singular line of prose; "Regular seasons aired on Comedy Central, while the specials were released on Paramount+". We follow the Manual of Style for the rest of the article; why should this be the only exception? -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 10:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::Neither of those quotes from the MOS proscribe the use of the network field in this case. The latter in particular is referrring to the overall use of a table instead of text, not the contents of a table. ] (]) 17:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::That's being pedantic; of course a general MoS won't directly mention a specific parameter from a specific template from a specific WikiProject. Both quotes support the usage of prose over formatting data as tabular. Do you have any other guidelines or MoS's that state otherwise? -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 22:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::Missing the point. |
|
|
:::::::::::::::{{tq|"We follow the Manual of Style for the rest of the article; why should this be the only exception?"}} |
|
|
:::::::::::::::You're claiming that by including the network field we are going against the MOS guidelines and this clearly isn't the case. ] (]) 16:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::I never claimed as such. I stated that prose is preferred over data being tabulated. Do you have any guideline or, at least, reason, as to why we should tabulate this data as 15 alternating rows instead of a singular line of prose? -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 20:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::If you didn't claim as such, to which exception to the Manual of Style were you referring? ] (]) 00:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::I have already stated this in past replies. I will not become part of a circular discussion, cheers. -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 10:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::::::::Fair enough. Conclusion: the inclusion of the network field is not an exception to the Manual of Style guidelines as you claimed. ] (]) 10:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::::::If that is your opinion on my quote, you are entitled to it. -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 10:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:In fairness, when it comes to the network info, I'm good either way. Either keep it in the table, or put the note at the top. Quick glances at other articles with this type of table and that have been on multiple networks seem to flow both ways (examples: ], ], ]). - ] (]) 21:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::One way or the other, the episodes should be in chronological order, and the series overview should match the layout of the episodes, as already supported by other editors in the relevant WikiProject. -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 23:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::If there are no further arguments, there appears to be a consensus that episodes should be in chronological order. -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 20:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Per consensus discussed, the episodes sections have been adjusted as discussed. There still does not seem to be a consensus on the network detail so that has been left alone. - ] (]) 16:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Works for me. -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 20:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Horizontal TOC template with the season numbers and specials == |
|
::To point out, ] is formed by the strongest argument, the not side with the most number of supports (hence why the page actually says that even when a discussion has more people for something, they may not actually get what they want...i.e. the ]), or the side the refuses to "stand down" (pardon the term). To quote the CONSENSUS page: "'''Consensus decisions in specific cases do not automatically override consensus on a wider scale - for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. The WikiProject cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that doing so is right.'''" Failure to agree, though in a lot of cases this can be true, is not necessarily "lack of consensus". Notability is not truly subjective, and not truly objective. The objectivity comes in the fact that it is clearly defined criteria for what is notable. The subjectivity comes in what meets the criteria. Does a single review meet it, if that review is from USA Today...what about BuddyTV? As it sits, 90% of the South Park articles (in any given season) don't even have the argument of "is this enough to warrant a page?", they have nothing but a plot ]. Season pages were one of the biggest compromises between the hardcore deletionists, and the hardcore inclusionists. Most articles are nothing but plot, and season pages allow for a better expansion of the plot summary than a "List of" page would allow (given a show with 12, going on 13 season). It also allows one to bypass the idea of WP:PLOT more easily because shows are more often covered from a seasonal standpoint than an individual (e.g., you'll find Nielsen Ratings for the end of a season more easily than each individual episode in most cases, and reviews of DVDs often cover the season as a whole). The season page is not a death sentence, but more like a halfway house. Some people make it out, others get sent back. ] ] 23:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, I didn't feel like doing this without asking first, but do you think we could get rid of the horizontal TOC template in the article with all the season numbers and specials? Because it's a bit of a mess. I know some of these articles already have it, like ] for example, but for this article, I don't think we need it anymore. ] (]) 00:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
===Request for comment=== |
|
|
{{RFCmedia|section=Merger proposal !! reason=Requesting additional opinion on the possible merger of potential non-notable articles (as defined by ]) !! time=19:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2024 == |
|
*My impression is that most or all of these episodes are notable, and also that that will be ignored and the merge will still take place. I saw above something about two episodes from the first two seasons being the only notable episodes: pilot and streisand. I did some searching for the second episode, and it looks pretty notable. It's too much work (fait accompli?) to say "establish notability on every article now". What I recommend is that the results of google news, books, and scholar searches be check for each episode, and ones that appear notable have the links added to their talk pages (I'll do that for ] now). Then merge the ones that don't have sources, and keep the ones that do. {{unsigned|Peregrine Fisher}} |
|
|
: (I used parantheses so that Google didn't catch a hit on each individual word), there are only 7 books that mention the title, and only 1 out of those seven that actually discuss it beyond what the plot is. What they talk about is based on a single line of dialogue from the episode, and they only mention it for two sentences. As an aside, here is the search. Only two sources look like potential material. One of them appears to just be the author mentioning the episode's plot bearing resemblence to a story he knows (maybe he talks about the episode, maybe that's it), and the other...well unless you have access to the site we cannot tell exactly what is being said. ] ] 21:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::Curious thing is, I only suggested merging them into a season list, rather than delete them permanently, which is the impression that others are giving. It seems better to present the information in a manner that is more beneficial to the reader of wikipedia, than to benefit a perception of an editor that somewhere out there exists notability for an episode. A merge to a list of episodes gives every opportunity for an editor to come back later and expand on what exist while providing superior presentation of information for readers (of whom there must be more than editors). ] (]) 23:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I fully support merging the episode articles into season articles. The majority of ''South Park'' articles I've seen consist of plot summaries and trivia sections, and we don't need individual articles for that. A season article can cover each episodes' plot quite sufficianty, while also including whatever production/reception information can be found. The in-depth plot summaries could be transwikied to the South Park Wikia, if they're not already there in some form. I'm sure, given the often controversial nature of ''South Park'', that a select few episodes will warrant their own Misplaced Pages pages, but not all of them. ] ] 01:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*I also full support the merging of the episodes articles into season articles, with the plot summaries trimmed down to the actual allowed lengths (150-350 characters) per the ]. The bulk of the episodes are simply not notable per actual ] guidelines. While there may be some minor production information on some episodes, and Nielsen ratings on all, there isn't enough to call it "significant" and it can be covered in a season article as noted by Paul730. Also second his recommendation of transwiking the longer ep pages to ''South Park'''s wikia, where they are more likely to be appropriate. Only the very few actually notable episodes, such as pilot and others that were controversial enough to receive extensive coverage, criticism, etc should have their own articles. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 01:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*:'''Merge''' all episode except the one episode article that is a featured article. --<font face="Comic Sans MS">]<sup>]</sup></font> 02:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
**Gman, normally the RfC is reserved for people who have not yet commented. Not saying that you cannot discuss someone else's points, just that it doesn't need yours, mine, Alastairward's, Hunter's, Mike's, etc. because we've already given our stance in the above section. Cheers. ] ] 03:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|List of South Park episodes|answered=yes}} |
|
==Use of multiple accounts== |
|
|
|
The whole list of Episodes requires a good revision. |
|
<small>comment duplicated from above section for context</small> <br> |
|
|
|
to start with Season 1, Episode 2 and 3 are misnumbered. |
|
''Does this sound like a plan? ] (]) (AKA - ] 13:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)'' |
|
|
|
Many more Episodes across the entire list, are misnumbered. ] (]) 18:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:This off topic, but I don't think one user can have two user accounts. Though I may be wrong. <font face="Comic Sans MS">]<sup>]</sup></font> 14:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::There is no problem with someone having two user accounts as long as there is a legitimate reason, as is the case here. As long as the alternate account isn't being used to mislead, stack votes, or evade scrutiny, it's not a problem - see ]. ~ <font color="#228b22">]</font> <sup>]|]</sup> 14:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::In disagreement, there IS a MAJOR problem here, as the two accounts are editing the same pages and giving a perception of false consensus for actions which IS a violation, whether intentional to mislead or not, as they have both edited |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::] |
|
|
:::If RedPen is editing a page, there is no valid reason for NotnotKenny to edit the exact same page. Let RedPen OR Nontnotkenny edit a page.... not both. Else it will then encourage ALL editors to declare and open multiple accounts to edit the same pages all over wiki, as you will have allowed the acceptable precedent. ''']''' '']'' 18:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> Episodes are numbered in broadcast order. ] (]) 11:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Didn't RedPen identify themselves as also being NotnotKenny? And I don't think I saw Kenny make an opinion (beyond the one made directly to me about included Nielsen ratings), just summarize what was already being said on the page. So, I think it should be noted that, as far as this page goes (I haven't looked any other and don't care about the others), they have '''not''' actually tried to decieve consensus in any way that I can see. ] ] 19:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== An interview was done with Trey Parker and Matt Stone where it was confirmed that South Park would be delayed until 2025 == |
|
::Yes. he certainly did, and I appreciate the transparency. However, in reading ] the use of multiple accounts to edit the same article is not among the condoned uses. If one were strictly maintanenece and one strictly editing, then sure... go for it. However, in looking at the other pages, this does not seem the case. I have sought clarification. Thank you. ''']''' '']'' 19:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
It's even available to read online. Parker claimed they're “waiting for Paramount to figure all their shit out.”] (]) 12:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC) |
Hey, I know that the Paramount+ specials should be their own section of the article, but now I honestly think that they should be after the seasons. For example: the Post COVID specials from 2021 should be after season 24 since that season was only 2 episodes, the Streaming Wars specials from 2022 should be after season 25, and the Joining the Panderverse and Not Suitable for Children specials from last year should be after season 26, if you know what I mean. It was also announced back in February of 2022 that Paramount+ would be the official new home for the show starting with season 27 (I don't know if it's actually happening or not since they haven't released a trailer for the season yet), so once that season debuts sometime this year, I need the series overview section in the article fixed. Here's a source for the article in case you don't believe me: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/south-park-beavis-and-butt-head-moving-to-paramount-1235094214/ AndrewTheWikiEditor (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I didn't feel like doing this without asking first, but do you think we could get rid of the horizontal TOC template in the article with all the season numbers and specials? Because it's a bit of a mess. I know some of these articles already have it, like List of The Simpsons episodes for example, but for this article, I don't think we need it anymore. AndrewTheWikiEditor (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
The whole list of Episodes requires a good revision.
to start with Season 1, Episode 2 and 3 are misnumbered.
Many more Episodes across the entire list, are misnumbered. OriginAlpha43 (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Not done: Episodes are numbered in broadcast order. Barry Wom (talk) 11:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)