Talk:Make Love, Not Warcraft/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Disputes

I've added some dispute templates to the article and talk page. I feel they should remain until the disputes are resolved. --Pixelface 02:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the category dispute template. The article is an episode of the tenth season of South Park, and heavily parodies World of Warcraft. How is that 'disputed'? I'm sure anyone could agree these categories are appropriate. —♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 13:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, when browsing the dispute templates I saw "The inclusion of one or more of the categories on this page is disputed." and so included that template on the article page. I now realize that I was looking for the word section and not category. Thanks --Pixelface 13:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to hear *precisely* which content is supposedly "original research", and if it is, to remedy the situation rather than delete whole sections. If none can be identified as such within a reasonable time (as I suspect to be the case as all data derives from the episode in question or the now-cited primary source of the computer game World of Warcraft), I would move that the dispute tags be removed. - 66.93.144.171 21:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody else has presented a case as to what may comprise original research in the article. Even those who object to sections in the article do so on a completely different basis. If there really was OR in the article, it could be presented by more than one editor. Given this, I am removing the OR warning template, and the OR category. I feel safe in saying at this point that it was never OR in the first place, but just a vague case of need of sourcing, and by my placement of World of Warcraft itself within the references, I solved that problem. Or, to summarize, nothing within the two disputed sections is OR because it comes from the episode, or the now properly cited game. If there is serious objection, someone can of course revert my edit and we can discuss it further. - 66.93.144.171 15:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Original Research Straw Poll

Just to get some reading from the community here, do you think that the sections in question, Characters' Warcraft Data and Incongruities With Actual Warcraft Play comprise Original Research according to Wikipedia's No Original Research policy at WP:OR? I do ask that those who want the sections gone for other reasons not falsely vote yes if that is not their real opinion. - 66.93.144.171 03:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I obviously vote no on the basis that the sections merely comprise observations and not *anything* that proposes ideas or arguments as required by the "What is excluded?" section under WP:OR - 66.93.144.171 03:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This may now be unnecessary. I have added the game World of Warcraft, complete with ISBN number, to the references section of the article. As nothing in the disputed sections comes from outside either the episode the article is about or the game, it is not original research, it is simply reflecting one or both cited primary sources. - 66.93.144.171 05:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have shortened one of the trivias to *Throughout the episode, references made to locations in World of Warcraft are accurate to their in-game counterparts. This can be explained that a large number of the South Park Studios team plays the game. My point is, the name of the locations are irrelevant details. Why? 1. A person would not know what those locations are if the person has never played the MMORPG or watched the episode, so it does not matter to him. 2. If a person has played the game, it wouldn't matter to him also to know that the locations are mentioned but he'll know that the locations are true. 3. If a person has watched the episode, he'll know that the locations mentioned before in the episode, is therefore true. So my point is, the exact name of the location is irrelevant. Hope this helps to shorten the article.60.53.71.186 13:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That section was part of the "original" content of the page, added about 5 minutes after it first aired on the east coast. I agree that the exact details were irrelevant; I just happened to have the "nerd switch" flipped on when I typed that, and wanted to link to a few of the pretty places seen in the episode. The only part I would still like to see in that little paragraph is the note that Cartman correctly points at the map behind him when describing his strategy, as this is a rare level of exact accuracy for the show. SlvrEagle23 05:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

WoW Details

People people. This episode was about people who play this game too much. Now, making giant tables, explaning what character in WoW Cartman and Stan etc had, isnt really helping. We don't need lavish giant explanations of each character in WoW that was mentioned or appeared in the show. And we don't need corrections, from inaccurcies made in the episode. Koolgiy 01:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The tables are far from giant, and other episodes' pages include inaccuracies. Is there a bias here simply because the episode was about WoW? - 66.93.144.171 03:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
There was more WoW information here than on Leeroy Jenkins. Note that an article specifically about the game doesn't mention irrelevant details such as class name, gender, equipment, and so forth. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository of every little fact only a select few care about. This article doesn't even mention the subtle "poor Kenny" jokes by observing his sub-par framerate and obsolete monitor, which is South Park trivia. Likewise, the article on the SPAM food product doesn't mention how the cans are created and the metal working processes to create said can. Why? It's irrelevant and only metal workers would care. Sabar 20:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, remember that just because you don't care doesn't mean that everybody agrees with you, nor does it mean that even everybody who isn't a fan of the game agrees with you. Do some agree with you? Sure. I'm just asking for a look at the bigger picture. - 66.93.144.171 20:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

None of that is necessary in the least. The episode was not meant to portray WoW with perfect accuracy in the first place, making charts of who is what etc. completely inane. It would only be spamming the article. Gederoth 18:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Shorten This Article

Ok, so I know this has been argued to death. I think the little paragraph explaining that half the stuff in the episode can't be done in WoW, is enough. Especially since it emphasizes that the whole episode is based on someone breaking the rules. The rest is irrelevant, and distracting from the subject matter of the article. If you think it's relevant, then start a new article calles "Inconsistencies between WoW and Make Love, Not Warcraft." After the short paragraph, anyone who actually cares can click on the link and read the new article. I know a lot of work has gone into it, but I can't understand why. It kind of proves the point of the episode. Those are the kind of people I imagine would actually care enough to do such unimportant research. If you care that much, make a new article. I read this article because I love South Park, and I was hoping to find something interesting. Instead, most of the stuff I read was not about South Park at all, but WoW. Professor Chaos 04:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I firmly disagree. And I see no valid reason why the people who are not interested in the information (who have not been shown to be "everyone" or even a majority) cannot simply skip over the information. Content should not be deleted or moved based solely on a few users' opinions that simply because they are uninterested in the content, everyone else would be. Not everything on Wikipedia interests me either, but I don't go trying to get rid of it. Now I did suggest the possibility of a subpage earlier, but based on the responses of some of the people here, it seems obvious that such a page would simply be immediately nominated for deletion.
Think of it this way. If some people like their pizza with sausage and pepperoni, and some people just like it with sausage, then if you order the pizza with just sausage, then the former group loses out. If you order the pizza with sausage and pepperoni and the latter group simply removes the pepperoni (ignores the content they don't like rather than try to get it removed through complaining), then everyone wins. - 66.93.144.171 04:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Can all these anons please sign in? And you don't order a pizza with pepperoni, sausage, bell peppers, pineapples, oranges, fish, and olives and have people pick it apart. Why? You can still taste the trash you don't like. You get the pizza with the sausage and if someone wants pepperoni, they can go buy it themselves or order a second pizza. Likewiese, there is too much irrelevant information here, or information that caters to a very specific group (i.e. WoW players). It shouldn't be on here for the same reason that Wikipedia isn't a place for "Extremely specific details which only a dedicated few care about." Sabar 19:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

We can still taste the pepperoni though lol. I can't see the information being removed at this point but I just dont get how so much information on WoW can be needed. Am I missing something here? I also thought the WoW players could figure out alot of the things highlighted in the article by themselves. Scott Thomas 04:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Define "needed". Is this article even needed in the first place? Probably not. But it's here because some, but not all, of Wikipedia's readership thought it would make Wikipedia better. Now this content has been placed on this page because a lot of Wikipedia's users thought it would make this page better. A relative few disagree, vehemently. That has gotten across. And they have a right to their opinion. But that doesn't make them right, and there's really still no good reason presented why the content, which a number of people still do find relevant and useful, should be removed other than insults directed at the content and indirectly at those who added it, which really should have no place here. - 66.93.144.171 05:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Definition of "needed" from dictionary.com - 

  1. A condition or situation in which something is required or wanted: crops in need of water; a need for affection.
  2. Something required or wanted; a requisite: “Those of us who led the charge for these women's issues... shared a common vision in the needs of women” (Olympia Snowe).
  3. Necessity; obligation: There is no need for you to go.
  4. A condition of poverty or misfortune: The family is in dire need.

The South Park articles are nice to have for information on South Park. I would have thought for this much WoW information you would go to a page for WoW. But thats just me. We have a right to our opinion and we understand that doesnt make us right but I think you should keep that in mind as well. We have talked about the majority here but I dont see how either side can claim it, which is why I can't see this being resolved. Scott Thomas 05:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I still would go so far as to claim that this content contributes a large amount to the complete picture of the episode in question. Most of the content's detractors have likened this episode to "just another South Park", where the team parodies a pop culture phenomenon. This episode broke a lot of ground in the South Park world, though, because they worked directly with the company whose product (and whose players) they were parodying, and because that studio rigged so much footage for them that it became about a third of the episode itself. It's because this is so unprecedented that the making of this content stands to be something unique and "cool" to South Park fans. This episode merged two worlds with vast collections of prior history, something to which no other South Park episode can compare. The vast collections of fans of South Park and World of Warcraft stand to make the disputed data valuable to enough people that the convenience of keeping it far outweighs the inconvenience of ignoring it. Throw policy at it, threaten to hold the content hostage until administrators intervene; whatever the tactic, the will of those who find this content deserving of a place on this page will remain stronger than the will of those who want to outright see it removed.
A few people compared this "edit war" to the episode itself, in that there are editors wishing to see the World of Warcraft content deleted and about three or four keeping it there. That's not a bad comparison. So, in line with it, I feel obliged to say...gentlemen, we are dealing with someone here who has absolutely no life. ;) SlvrEagle23 06:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL They must have absolutely no lives at all! :P Scott Thomas 06:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Presumably the editor was referring to both sides of the debate not just the contributors. Don't think that you are off the hook. I personally believe that the info should stay for the time being. As time goes on, the support for the in-depth sections will go down and will eventually be shaved down until only the vital info remains. Gdo01 06:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Touche, Gdo01... ;) I was referring to all of us, yes. Just as in the episode, it takes having no life to fight that which has no life. Nevertheless, thank you for your support here. In about three days, this page will be all but forgotten as the South Park world moves on. SlvrEagle23 07:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
And I don't think anyone would object to smaller edits, just as I hope those on "the other side" wouldn't object to small additions each with the objective of trying to make it better. I do ask that people not just say "Well, I don't play the game, and this seems stupid and trivial to me, so I'm taking it out!" As long as it's not that process repeated over and over, things'll be "fine, just fine". But I am hoping the days of having to revert flat out unilateral DELETIONS of the section are over. - 66.93.144.171 08:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I was laughing at the quote at the end of SlvrEagle23's post. I didnt assume it was just directed at the contributors :S Anyways, I'll be glad to leave this alone now. 61.9.212.186 08:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This is really getting nowhere. I suggest doing this. Stop adding new information be it trivia or the incongruities unless it is extremely important. This article is already too long. To shorten the article, i suggest we pin-point each and every line of the incongruities and trivial and characters to see if they are important or irrelevant. Important ones stay and vice-versa. I think this is better than arguing that this and that to be taken out without any real solutions.

I'd like to start with the characters. The gender column can be removed because 1.All the characters and people who play WOW are male except Kyle 2. Kyle is already mentioned to be a female in the summary so to have a column for gender is unimportant because it is already stated in the trivia that all players are male. Second, Cartman's character. I fail to see the importance of this sentence. "He is a warrior, but when you see his actionbar, it looks like a Rogues actionbar (It has Eviscrate and Stealth)." This is considered to be far too detailed therefore is insignificant, irrelevant and not worthy of notice. signed, erison 60.53.71.186 14:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Disagreed. I do feel that the idea that Cartman might really not know what type of character he was playing is noteworthy. Also, no matter how many synonyms you use for insignificant, it will not make "I think it is insignificant" absolutely equal "It IS insignificant." This is a distinction that I wish more of the people criticizing the article would see. Minority opinions of what is significant, if left unchecked, could really savage this article. - 66.93.144.171 15:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to note that labeling a single bullet point as insignificant is far less harmful to the overall construction of the page than what has been previously debated. However, when one throws around a chain of labels like "insignificant, irrelevant, and not worthy of notice", not only is that displaying a little too much passion for such a trivial subject, but it's tearing the normal peaceful methods of edit discussion to pieces. It's this kind of extremism that, when taken to greater lengths, devolves into heated warring and even vandalism. My point is...if you have a point to make, there are nicer ways of making it.
As for the content in question: I agree that the gender column is unnecessary as it's duplicating already noted information above it. The discrepancies in Cartman's spell bar seem to hold a more complex meaning than what was noted on the page; when the characters are playing in-game scenes, what kind of monstrous toons are they really playing? Level 300s with the abilities of all classes and passive traits of all races? Besides the potential of that badass revelation, though, the content really isn't all that important relative to the big differences. Besides, we have every indication other than that shot to tell us Cartman is a MT warrior, including his quoted spells and armor. SlvrEagle23 16:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Remember that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and especially Notability ("A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact.") I believe the large table and trivia on inconsistancies with WoW can't meet either criteria. Sabar 20:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Digg Hates This Page

Just wanted to give a fair warning to the fine folks who contributed to this page that we've all been judged by Digg.com's sterling userbase as lifeless nerds who don't grasp or understand humor. I would suggest a series of edits reinforcing the fact that we did in fact find the episode funny, and were putting the info up here as sort of a "making of" database, rather than claiming the episode was inferior because of these differences, which it wasn't. I don't know about you guys, but the thought of Digg users staring down their noses at me just makes it hard to sleep at night. SlvrEagle23 17:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

who cares...we are giving people information on a southpark episode. not trying to impress the league of super nerds!

Not to make your day any worse but I see that the Digg article is spreading... http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/games/archives/2006/10/11/wow_fans_not_amused_by_south_park_inconsistencies.html Johan Aruba

You know, Digg truly and utterly missed the point. I don't think a single WoW fan was posting here angry that South Park "got it wrong". I think they were simply trying to create an interesting article illustrating compariosn and contrast between the game as depicted in the episode, and the real game. - 66.93.144.171 21:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

My edits

This article should be about the episode. Not about how it relates to world of warcraft.

The reason I say this is simple. If it is allowed to be an analysis as it was, it would be full of original research which is simply not acceptable. All claims must be coupled with verifiable, reliable sources.

Also, regarding the trivia section. How is stating that a poster that appeared in episode x and also appeared in this article notable enough to be included. It is beyond trivia, it is just a useless observation that bares no importance on the episode itself.-Localzuk(talk) 18:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

83.30.7.77 21:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC) You can see that Kenny has the slowest computer, or a very serious lag in the scene where we can see him playing in his house. He is also the only one to have a CRT screen.

Removed: "During the training montage, the water bottle Ike squirts in Kyle's mouth is labeled "Water Sports," possibly a reference to the sexual fetish." WP:OR. possibly a reference is a dead givaway that its just the writers own theory.Cliveklg 20:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Kenny's screen

You can clearly see that Kenny has the slowest computer, or a serious lag. In the scene where you can see him play in his house it is clearly shown that he's character teleports from place to place. As I said. Either low FPS count or lag. Both connect with Kenny being poor. He is also the only one to have a CRT screen.

Not to be annoying or anything, but how is that specifically relevant to the article? It doesn't seem to have any importance within the episode.-Localzuk(talk) 21:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I really think the place for this kind of thing is in World of Warcraft/South Park blogs or forums. It just doesn't sit well in this article. Johan Aruba 21:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. I think people are forgetting that Wikipedia is not an arbitrary collection of information, it is an encyclopedia and as such has to maintain a level of 'notability' of the information included.-Localzuk(talk) 22:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Why? It's trivia i suppose thing like that should go there. Considering your opinion most stuf shouldn't be there. Dnak 05:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is my opinion. As backed up by our policies and guidelines about the relevance of content. I will ask again, how is it relevant to this article?-Localzuk(talk) 08:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I still say it fits in the Trivia perfectly. Becouse that's exactly trivia, a thing one may not see at the first time, but that hard to notice thing is a small bonus from the creators. Perhaps I'm the only one that thinks this way, in that case sorry, but i won't change my mind that Kenny lagging is a pretty nice detail...Dnak 12:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
But you are missing one minor detail. Trivia sections should always be worked on in order to remove them and include the details within the main prose of the article. How could this detail be included within the article as a whole?-Localzuk(talk) 21:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

How home his family can aford a computer, but they cant aford a TV?

Butters

Someone noted on the page that Butters is not seen after Cartman tells him to choose something that isn't a dwarf. He actually does come back and can briefly be seen as a gnome in the video.

How do you know? Is he identified as butters? If not then that is speculation and original research.-Localzuk(talk) 22:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop Slashing Content

I was under the impression last night that we were on our way to some kind of peaceful accord on the article, and now we're back to people slashing out content unilaterally rather than discussing. - 66.93.144.171 22:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether people say it is acceptable to include original research on this page or not. Our policy on the matter is quite clear. Original research, ie. information that is an analysis of a subject matter without third party review, is not acceptable.
Also, your edit has re-introduced several links to copyright infringing websites which are not acceptable under WP:EL.-Localzuk(talk) 22:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Fine, delete those links. Leave the content, which does NOT violate WP:OR be. Though bear in mind that was your own fault for making such far reaching slashing which needed to be fixed before it got buried. - 66.93.144.171 22:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I should also point out that once World of Warcraft is cited, as it was, the rest of the section becomes simple observation on the order of grass is green. Now, in the article on grass, there is no reference given on the idea that it is green. Is that article committing a WP:OR violation by simply stating that it is green? Whoever said that went out on his lawn and looked at it HIMSELF and posted the results. By our apparent definition here, that's just as much OR. - 66.93.144.171 23:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The content needs to be "slashed". It's not appropriate in an encyclopedia of general knowledge, but more importantly, it's not verifiable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a general fansite. You may want to go look at the South Park and World of WarCraft Wikias, which would welcome your contributions. --Cyde Weys 22:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As you can see on the talk pages here, as well as the edit logs, several people disagree with you. In the entry for Romeo and Juliet, there is a cast list that takes up more page real estate than the "Character's Warcraft Data" section. And is it really all that farfetched for an encyclopedia to contain a list of comparison and contrast to a similar phenomenon or event, such as the Incongruities section was? No. And the information was indeed verifiable. It all came out of the episode or the game, which was cited, complete with ISBN number. What is happening here is we have a relatively small group of people assuming that because THEY find no value to the information that no one else would, and therefore taking it upon themselves to unilaterally slash the information, typically using WP:OR as some kind of magic word to validate everything, when no one can point to exactly what original research was supposedly done. If this was an episode about a book, there would be absolutely no problem, even in the highly likely event that not every editor would have access to the book for sake of verifiability. World of Warcraft has long been established as an entirely valid source on Wikipedia (there's a number of articles based on Warcraft characters). If there was a problem, then it should have been discussed here and content removed later, rather than force tactics used to remove the content and by the time any agreement might come, the content would be long buried in the edit logs. - 66.93.144.171 22:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
You have not answered my question. How does your analysis of an event in an episode not constitute OR? Also, stating that 'its acceptable on other articles' is a weak argument as those articles are also at fault.
So again, I will ask, how is someone saying 'he looks like a blah blah dwarf' not original research? It requires people to go out and analyse the episode and the game rather than looking at a third party site which states that.-Localzuk(talk) 23:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I will ask how IS it "original research"? How is it even research at all? Does it create any kind of new primary source anyone would cite? Looking at the page, it does seem like there may be a fuzzy argument that SOME of the data in that section was in technical violation, but it's so far outside the obvious intent of the rule as to be laughable. And to delete the entire sections under that justification is wrong. There was a lot in there which was plainly and simply recitation of facts.
Now, as to the fact in question, I will submit to you that there was a way to restate that idea as to clear up any hint of OR. Cartman's character was stated to be a Warrior in the episode. However, in closeups of his screen, the graphics on his action bar coincided with those of a Rogue. That could even be linked to. There's a class page on Rogues. That is, if you even felt like TALKING to us before going in and gutting the article. - 66.93.144.171 23:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I should now point out that, as feared, the article has been gutted for no good reason. Even though everything in the two sections in question was from either the episode in question, or the game, which was cited as a source. Certain people have simply assumed that since THEY didn't see, at a glance, need or relativity that no one would. I have been threatened with blocking for reverting these not only unconstructive, but DESTRUCTIVE edits, as the people in question see no problem with making these major changes and then hypocritically demanding that only they may make such changes without discussion in the Talk page prior to this. I ask that someone, preferably an established editor (as the ad hominem attack was made that only short time anonymous editors were defending the content of the article as it was) restore the original content, and then request protection and arbitration. This senseless gutting due to a ridiculously extreme interpretation of WP:OR, especially when it led to the deletion of whole sections on the allegation that a few sentences within that section were in violation, is ludicrous. A lot of people put a lot of work into these sections. Out of hand deletion of them is contrary to the whole idea of what Wikipedia is all about, and really smacks less of good faith improvement of Wikipedia and more of promoting oneself above the community for the sake of ego gratification.

The page was fine as it was. If there were problems, they should have been worked on and it could always be deleted later by consensus or by an admin if necessary. The alternative the deleters have presented of let them delete the content and then talk about it and restore it later is unacceptable because by then it will have been buried in the edit logs... which becomes harder to believe is not an objective of the deleters here.

I know I leave myself open here to accusations of violations of WP:AGF, but it seems to me that was already violated by the other side when they found it appropriate to come in with the tactics of just start slashing and keep slashing until the other side gives up. - 66.93.144.171 03:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's original research. You're watching the episode and trying to piece together on your own exactly which armor items each character is wearing. It's absurd and it certainly doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Repeated insertion of content that goes against Wikipedia policies may result in further measures being taken. --Cyde Weys 04:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, you've just proven ignorance of the content you're slashing. Armor in World of Warcraft has a distinctive appearance as opposed to other types of armor and can readily be identified, as easily as one can tell different makes of cars apart in the real world. THEREFORE, yet again, no original research has taken place. PERHAPS, we should try to get some experienced editors with WoW experience in here to determine precisely what is OR. In the meantime, I counter-warn YOU that repeated deletion of content without good reason, even under the MISTAKEN belieft that it is OR, may result in further measures being taken against YOU. - 66.93.144.171 04:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't find it harmful to put the WOW stuff. There is nothing to loose. It's better than having nothing. as a non WOW player, I seriously believe that the WOW info doesn't really affect the content at all. Indeed, I just ignored it because it was hard to understand. That is all I can say. In these kind of conlifts, just listening to the Admins would be the best choice.--SangP 04:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

To the anon user. You have a severe lack of knowledge of our Original Research policy and our verifiability policy. No-one should be required to have knowledge of a subject in order to be able to verify that claims made are true or not. This is a quick snippet of our verifiability policy Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
Above you state 'Cartman's character was stated to be a Warrior in the episode. However, in closeups of his screen, the graphics on his action bar coincided with those of a Rogue.' which is plain and simple an analysis of it by you and to come across that conclusion you have made various assumptions - that the person who will in future read it has some knowledge of the game with which to compare your analysis and also that you are in a position to make that judgement. Our policy specifically dictates that you aren't in such a position and any such assumptions and that they must be backed up with third party sources.
To the user above who says that the wow content was hard to understand. That is my exact point. We cannot accept it as content as people will not understand it without expert knowledge.-Localzuk(talk) 08:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
OUR policies? Are you a Wikipedia admin? I have seen no evidence of this. Therefore, you are hardly in a position to be handing out dictums from on high of what the policy is. You seem unable to decide the basis for your continual gutting of this article, whether it's supposed Original Research policy violation, or whether it's supposed Verifiability policy violation. The two are not the same thing.
There doesn't have to be an ASSUMPTION that people are familiar with the game. The game is listed as a reference. There is not an assumption on other articles that people are completely familiar with all the references there either. Really, if you knew what you were talking about here, you wouldn't be able to call it an analysis at all. The graphics used are quite distinctive. If someone consulted the cited reference, that is the game, they would realize the statement is true almost immediately. The only problem here is whether any third party site carries the copyrighted images. They probably do not. That shouldn't mean that a legitimate fact that no one is disputing is left out thanks to an overly legalistic interpretation well beyond what the admins ever intended.
However, the admins will be here soon. You have proven to my satisfaction that you have no intention of being reasonable. All you can see is it's "just a stupid game" and since you don't care about, no one else does either. WP:OR was never intended for this. It was intended to make sure I don't make a web page about how South Park is made by hyper-intelligent space frogs and then use Wikipedia to promote my ridiculous theory as if I were mainstream.
And people shouldn't have to know what they're talking about to know whether or not something is true? ... - 66.93.144.171 08:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
And I actually stand corrected... if another Wiki is accepted as a reliable third party source... I believe the two icons in question were Eviscerate and Stealth... you'll have to pardon as I'm not entirely sure how to integrate links into a Wiki:
Eviscerate:
http://www.wowwiki.com/Eviscerate
Stealth:
http://www.wowwiki.com/Stealth
Though I repeat that this is something that could have been worked on if people came to the table and wanted to make constructive edits rather than destructive ones meant to sate their own ego. - 66.93.144.171 08:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not have a heirarchy. Admin's do not carry more weight than normal users. All policies are decided upon by all users - not just admins. Original research is a violation of our verifiability policy. Therefore the use of OR is a violation of both.
Second, wiki's are not really acceptable as sources I'm afraid as they are not peer reveiwed and are not stable enough to be used (see WP:RS).
Wikipedia is about verifiability and what you are in favour of writing is not verifiable without 'expert knowledge' (although I use that term lightly as it is not particularly expert but some knowledge of the game is required) when we should be using third party sources to make these claims.
Please be civil and assume good faith. Stating that people were 'making destructive edits to sate their own ego' is unacceptable. I am trying to improve this article by removing what I see as unverifiable, original research. It is against policy and should not be there. Simple.-Localzuk(talk) 08:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Wikipedia has a policy against Original Research. That is not in question. I, and others, vehemently disagree that this article contained Original Research before it was gutted. I, and others, feel it was entirely inappropriate to begin a campaign of wholesale deletion of sections and repeatedly reverting the edits rather than discussing the edits first. I, and others, feel that THAT was the original violation of assuming good faith and civil behavior that has set us on this course. If you would like to return us to a course of civility and good faith, please join us in urging the ops return the page content to the way it was prior to your editing pending the results of the arbitration that seems certain now.
This writing is just as verifiable as any other on Wikipedia. No special case should be made simply because the source is a computer game. You obviously will not know what's inside a book without reading it, even if you have to spend money to buy the book to do so. There is no real difference here.
It is obvious you strongly feel you are in the right here. That, however, does not MAKE you right. And I implore you to remember that there is always a chance that you are wrong. Therefore, do not be so heavy handed. The proper way to handle this was to discuss this as equals, not trying to force your way out of a sureness that you were indisputedly correct. - 66.93.144.171 08:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe that maybe we should take this to an RFC, to see what some external parties think. As you say, I do believe I am right about this and have a strong feeling, from my editing in the last year and a half that others will also believe this.-Localzuk(talk) 09:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I certainly have no objections, though I maintain that 1. Significant changes should have been discussed before being made, no matter how sure you were that you were right, and 2. Now that ir's protected, the page should be changed back to the way it was prior to your edits. Even a cursory look through the edit log and this talk page will show that many editors have handled to this page (largely named editors, though making an issue of certain editors' anonymous status smacks of ad hominem) and that only three felt the page was in need of such gutting. - 66.93.144.171 10:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The article was linked to from digg.com - thus making an assumption that many anonymous editors are inexperienced editors with little knowledge of policy would be normal I would expect. Also, the article suffered from a lot of vandalism during the same period by anonymous editors.
I will draft the RFC when I finish work - I will focus it on the content dispute rather than any perceived incivilities by either side of this argument (as I am not the only editor who thinks how I do).-Localzuk(talk) 12:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, slashing this content has seriously degraded the article you dumb fucks. Wikipedia is about information. Before there was plenty of interesting facts listed, now there's next to nothing. All because some dipshit wants to play semantics with the phrase "original research", that's fucking stupid. --Anarchy_Balsac —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.197.249.26 (talk • contribs) October 26 08:08.

Minus the profanity he is correct that this article has been degraded by people who wish to interpret the policy original research to get rid of anything they don't think is relevent. Timb0h 13:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
NO, the policy is very explicit. unless statement X has been published by an independent 3rd party that can pass muster with WP:RS, then we CAN NOT include statement X. There should be no confusion here. Earlier an editor pointed to the grass article saying we don't have a source citing that grass is green, maybe that's because the grass article makes no claim whatsoever about the color of grass. If we want to put the claim that water is wet into an article we have to have a verifiable 3rd party source saying that water is wet, otherwise it is original research and not allowable in the encyclopedia, please see WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:CN, and WP:Style. This is especialy important when dealing with all these pop-culture topics otherwise we get inundated with crufty nonsense like trivia sections and quotes sections. Editors have to spend lots of wasted man hours cleaning out garbage like "In this episode, Cartman eats Cheesy-Poofs." from articles. Please try to remember that this is, after all, an encyclopedia not a fansite. If one wants to do analysis on an episode then one is welcome to start one's own webpage, or post on any number of forums and fansites. The encyclopedia is just not the place for this kind of writing. Also you might want to take a look at WP:EL, to see why all the external links to forums and fansites keep getting deleted and WP:SIG, and WP:CIVIL for good measure. L0b0t 13:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
You've quoted a whole lot of irrelevent policies there, probably hoping others will go off and spend weeks reading them all before they realise how irrelevent most of them are to this question. Of course you forgot WP:IAR. Timb0h 15:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
If "others" had gone off and read them in first place, then we would not be having this discussion. All of those policies are germane to the matter at hand. If you feel otherwise, let's hear why. L0b0t 15:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into some Trolling competition about the many hundreds of thousands of wikipedia policy documents. How about you quote everything you want to use as an argument, instead of just saying "go read this". Timb0h 16:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Stop being obtuse.

From WP:RS

=== Popular culture and fiction === Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included.

From WP:CITE

== Why sources should be cited ==

  • To credit a source for providing useful information and to avoid claims of plagiarism.
  • To show that your edit isn't original research.
  • To ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor.
  • To help users find additional reliable information on the topic.
  • To improve the overall credibility and authoritative character of Wikipedia.
  • To reduce the likelihood of editorial disputes, or to resolve any that arise.
  • To ensure that material about living persons is reliably sourced and complies with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

From WP:V

==Burden of evidence==

For how to write citations, see Wikipedia:Citing sources

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Note: Wikipedia articles may not be cited as sources.

From WP:CN

A frequent justification in casual conversation is that a certain fact is "common knowledge". It often turns out that most people don't actually share this knowledge. Even claims that are widely believed often turn out to be anywhere from only mostly true to the complete opposite of what is actually the case.

Wikipedia editors are strongly encouraged to find reliable sources to support their edits, and to cite them. Citing sources when your edit is challenged by another editor is Wikipedia policy, and any unsourced edits may be removed. For more information, see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

There are some claims that many Wikipedians find acceptable to report as fact, without citing any outside sources. This guideline seeks to define when it's a bad idea to do that.

From WP:OR

An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

  • It introduces a theory or method of solution;
  • It introduces original ideas;
  • It defines new terms;
  • It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
  • It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
  • It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
  • It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

L0b0t 16:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI when it was up, the list of incongruities did in fact have citations. --Anarchy_Balsac

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.197.249.26 (talk) 05:55, 27 October 2006

Product Placement

Was this payed for by Blizzard? It seemed like a 30 min advertisement disguised as comedy/satire.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.8.3.61 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see that Blizzard like to laugh at WoW players too!

One of the energy drinks is "Red Balls" and not "Red Bull".--65.167.98.2 16:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Renegade, Ganker or Griefer

On another topic, something that's been bothering me a bit. We'd probably want to standardize what the villain of this episode is called. I've seen all three of the above terms used. I would vote for Renegade as it's the only one used in the episode. - 66.93.144.171 04:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Page Protection

Now that the page is finally protected, I have two requests.

1. Re-add the deleted sections. It is only 3 editors who keep removing them under a flawed understanding of WP:OR. If nothing else, we need to see what we are talking about.

2. Someone removed the game's ISBN number from the References section under the mistaken idea that games don't have them. I was looking straight at the game box when I copied it down. That needs to be reinstated. - 66.93.144.171 06:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The boys nicknames

Hi! I guess it wouldn't be bad to put the boys nicknames in trivia. Whereas i can understand cutting 'lagging kenny' i think that this might fit it. Stan's nick is 'Loves to Spooge' which i find rather strange as he never shown any signs of sexist stances. Kenny would rather be the one to pick a name like that (though i'm not sure if we learn his in-game name). Cheers! Dnak 12:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There WAS a whole well researched section on the boys' aliases in the game. It was cut by a few editors overriding the will of the community for reasons they felt were good. We're trying to get that section re-established, along with all the other wrongfully deleted content. - 66.93.144.171 14:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I'm very sorry then for flooding. Either my Opera search button sucks, or there is no word 'spooge' in the whole discussion... You got my vote trying to re-establish that section ;)

Cheers! Dnak 18:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

RFC

This is a disagreement about the scope of this article and the level of detail to be included. Whether or not various items within the article are original research or not and whether they meet verifiability requirements are also in dispute.16:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors involved in dispute

I came to this article after seeing it linked on the Digg.com frontpage. I discovered it in a state of high vandalism and a high level of original research. My main gripes with it are:

  • Information not relevant to the episode is being included by some editors as it was in the episode (such as posters being spotted that were in prior episodes). This level of trivial detail is not helpful to an encyclopedic article and leads to the article being full of fancruft.
  • A lot of information is included which contains individual editors analyses of the WoW characters and their appearance. In order to verify this information, one would have to have knowledge of the game itself. This constitutes original research as it is not verifiable without expert knowledge. I am quite happy for such information to be included if it is accompanied by a third party, reliable source.
  • The level of detail in the synopsis is far too high. A synopsis is supposed to be a general from beginning to end overview of the episode. Not an analysis of as many of the jokes and minor details as possible. My comments on the matter can all be found above under the section Stop Slashing Content.

Various users seem to misunderstand our policy on original research and our policy on verifiability and this is where, I believe, the source of the problem lies.-Localzuk(talk) 16:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I came to the article one or two days after the episode aired. I added some content myself, but I was far from the only one. There was a small group of people who objected to the article essentially on the basis that they didn't care about World of Warcraft and therefore assumed no one else did either. A few of them resorted to vandalism of the article. Though a few at least tried productive dialogue on the topic, and at least up until the digg.com listing, we had thought we had come to a peaceful resolution on the page. This included multiple editors, including many named editors, including editors who apparently have some ops power, who were absolutely fine with leaving the content in.

One user was an exception as she had an entirely different problem with the page. She kept claiming the page contained Original Research and blanking two sections, rather than make any kind of attempt to discuss the alleged problem and when the changes were reverted, she simply re-deleted the sections and with 2-3 comments on the talk page, she stated plainly that the only way she would stop is if a higher power (later clarified to be arbitration, which is supposed to be the last step, not the first) stopped her.

As stated, prior to the digg.com listing, it had seem peace had been made with those who took issue with the content for reasons other than allged OR and verfiability violations. However, after that, two more editors came in who also immediately began unilaterally gutting the page, and undoing reverts of this, and even threatening those who reverted. Somewhat hypocritically, they even tried demanding that those doing the reverts discuss the matter on the talk page first, as if they were the only ones allowed to unilaterally make sweeping changes.

WP:Etiquette reads, in part, "Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle. When you amend and edit, it is remarkable how you might see something useful in what was said. Most people have something useful to say. That includes you. Deletion upsets people and makes them feel they have wasted their time" and indeed, deletion has upset people here. The entire attitude from the deleters is to repeatedly accuse their detractors of ignorance and deny any real possibility that they could be wrong, and because of that, it smacks of colossal arrogance.

And no matter how sure they were right on this, the entire approach of deleting whole sections was wrongheaded. IF there was in fact a problem with certain material in the sections, it could have been identified and worked with. If it couldn't be salvaged, only certain lines could have been thrown out. Or, in fact, the deleters could have been... wrong, and the line should have stayed. As well, and this applies to the gutting of the trivia section as well, just because one user finds no value to an entry, doesn't mean the community won't, and calling it "cruft" won't change that.

As it stands now, we have a protected page, and we're probably heading for arbitration because rather than work with the community, a relative few users took it upon themselves to assume they were totally in the right. - 66.93.144.171 23:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

In response to LocalZuk's comment: The charge that certain entries are unallowable because they require familiarity with the game is silly IMO. Any cited source will require that you CONSULT the cited source in order to verify it. Not wanting to consult the cited source doesn't make the source unverifiable nor does it make the conclusions drawn from that source original research. - 66.93.144.171 23:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the Characters' Warcraft data and Incongruities with actual World of Warcraft play sections are just fine being in the article. {{fact}} or {{check}} tags can be added after unsourced claims. The sections would be even better if fair use screenshots from the videogame and episode were provided as sources. Each unsourced item should be evaluated on a case by case basis, not as a whole section. --Pixelface 01:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I maintain that the disputed content on this page is, without a doubt, worthy of its place in the archives of Wikipedia. As I have said before, the purpose of the aforementioned two sections was not to promote a subjective theory (to which WP:OR would apply), but instead was objective data regarding the construction of the episode, perhaps one of the most unique in South Park's history. The observations made regard a popular culture reference to a game for which hundreds of thousands could be considered "expert" enough to attest to the findings. This level of familiarity could be compared to the level required to catch onto trivia references; people who recognize quotes from other movies, the verbatim words of the Leeroy Jenkins video, and any other references are just as fluent in those respective areas as one would need to be to have caught onto the World of Warcraft references. Thus, these sections deserve existence just as much as any other trivia section. In fact, if Trivia is the only section in which they can exist, I would still stand strongly behind their presence there.

Digg.com was the worst thing that could've happened to what was once a peaceful, settled article. When a select few self-righteous folks diverted their efforts from criticizing the Wii, slamming Windows Vista, and giggling at viral videos, they chose instead to tear this article to pieces, sweepingly removing entire sections under a simple justification: the show, being a comedy, existed only for the purpose of being funny, and any content that didn't serve the explicit purpose of proving the episode's comedic value was irrelevant, useless, and quickly gone.

The truth, though, is that what they removed was the entire second layer of comedy to the episode: the fact that South Park Studios created an entire alternate world for the characters that was chock full of comedy aimed specifically at their growing audience of WoW (and MMORPG in general) nerds. I like to think of it this way: if Blizzard personally had a strong hand in the creation of this episode, couldn't they have produced a structurally "perfect" mirror to the WoW world itself, with the only exceptions being the premise of the show itself? Of course they could...so why didn't they? Well, the simplest answer is that they wanted to throw in all of these "easter eggs" for a few giggles from the massive demographic who claim to love both WoW and South Park. And, in those efforts, they succeeded. The mistake made by the outside editors who rushed in, laid waste to the article under the auspices of "Original Research" and scattered is assuming the only people who cared were the "unbearable" kind of nerds who would claim the episode was worse because of its differences to the WoW world. To the contrary, this content was valued not because it made the episode worse, but because it added an entire second level of comedy for those of us who caught onto it. All we wanted to do in publishing this content to Wikipedia was share these bits of humor with the curious public at large and illustrate the construction of the unprecedented 40% of the episode never seen before.

Does this content deserve to be wiped off the face of Wikipedia? Not at all. Instead, I would much rather see it cleaned up and cited or, at worst, moved to become a subsection of the Trivia header. Deleting the entire content section repeatedly under the mistaken belief that it's all the same is a misguided and extreme measure for which there are much more rational alternatives. I would highly suggest pursuing one of them. SlvrEagle23 03:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Fully agreed. In addition, it should be said it really isn't right to delete entire sections on the basis that some lines in them were *allegedly* either unverfiable and/or contained original research. Of the deleted sections, the Character's Warcraft Data was essentially a cast list for this world within a world in the episode, and many, many Wikipedia articles contain cast lists. Its deletion was utterly inappropriate. And the Incongruities section was, essentially, trivia. They found the trivia unworthy of deletion. That doesn't make them right, nor entitle them to simply delete it and keep deleting it. - 66.93.144.171 13:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
In the policy regarding original research it states the following:

It also excludes editors' personal views, political opinions, their personal analysis or interpretation of published material, as well as any unpublished synthesis of published material, where such a synthesis appears to advance a position or opinion an editor may hold, or to support an argument or definition s/he may be trying to propose.

My argument is to do with the end bit regarding where such a synthesis appears to advance a position or opinion an editor may hold, or to support an argument or definition s/he may be trying to propose.
Later on in the policy there is a section that states

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article..

Someone looking at the episode and then looking at the game and saying 'ah, yes character X looks like a Y' is drawing a conclusion based on their opinion. This would be equivelent to the above result of C.
This sort of analysis is only acceptable if a third party source has published it. If not then it isn't acceptable.
Regarding trivia, please see Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. In particular Keep in mind, however, that "Trivia" content is not exempt from our rules and style guidelines. It is not a dumping ground for speculation, rumor, hearsay, invented "facts". Also, take a look at WP:NOT, in particular the section 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information', which states Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
Finally, take a look at WP:NOT again, and the section 'Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought' which states Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not heretofore published.
I am all for keeping any information that is referenced to an external, reputable third party source. I also think that some trivia is acceptable, so long as it is possible to eventually work it into the rest of the article. My gripe is simply that we have personal analyses of things that constitute original research, which according to our policy should be deleted on sight.-Localzuk(talk) 14:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
There really isn't any "synthesis an author was trying to propose" involved in the deleted sections, for one. For two, it isn't just that character X *looks* like a Y, it's that if one bothers to actually consult the cited source, it becomes readily apparent that character X is a Y with no OR involved. This has already been explained. Certainly those appointing themselves with the duty of eliminating OR should be absolutely sure it's OR before deleting it. A good way would have been to consult the sources, or to ask first.
Beyond that, we just get into the idea that since *you* felt the trivia (and I include the deleted sections here) was unnecessary of inclusion, *you* felt totally justified in unilaterally deciding it had to go.
Ask yourself this... if it truly is an OR problem, why are only three editors out of all the named editors who have worked on this so gung ho to get rid of it? Simply because you think it to be OR doesn't make you in the right. That's our grief. - 66.93.144.171 19:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
You have just confirmed exactly what I mean. A user has to go away and compare 2 things themselves in order to reach the conclusion that 'character X is Y'. This means that they could also come to a different conclusion, such as 'character X is very similar to Y, but this little bit here is different'. This is exactly what I have pointed out above from the WP:OR policy regarding assumptions that A+B=C.
I would say that the reason there are 'only 3 editors' 'gung ho' to delete the information is because most of the other editors lack a knowledge of WP:OR through either misunderstanding of it or lack of experience in editing WP. Or the other option is that the other editors are so obsessed with including information about WoW which they believe is right that they cannot bring themselves to admit that the content is WP:OR.-Localzuk(talk) 20:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
A user doesn't "go away". A user *consults the source*, which for some reason you seem to want verifiability without having to do so. Yes, I suppose Stan's tabard could have had an infinitesimal difference from a Frostwolf Battle Tabard. But that's the kind of thinking I was talking about where saying it's the same bass guitar in Token's basement as in "Christian Hard Rock" is OR as well, and so is saying that the title is a reference to "Make Love, Not War". And eventually all trivia is deleted, all that's left is a plot summary, and the article is deleted due to WP:NOT.
So no matter how many editors disagree with you, it's solely because they all must be wrong and they don't really understand the OR policy? That's really circular logic. - 66.93.144.171 20:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, as a viewer I was disappointed to find the info deleted. I thought a lot of it was fascinating -- trivia certainly, but interesting and worth noting. After reading back through it in the page's History, and reading over the WP:OR, I really don't think the info was actually Original Research per se, but I think a lot of it could be re-worded to make it more .. observational ("the show depicted this" and "in WoW, what you see is this") without making any conclusions (in particular, anything using the word "probably"). I think that would remove a lot of the concern surrounding OR. At the very least, I find the information valuable and interesting, and think it should be documented somewhere. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to simply add it to the WoWWiki and just link to the article from here? That almost seems like the more appropriate place, since the info really is primarily WoW-centric. WillD 19:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this (as in, removing all unreferenced conclusions) would be acceptable for much of the information. So long as no conlusions are drawn from this without a reference - although this would likely make the article seem a little odd and disjointed. Also, some of the information is simply not relevant - such as whether a poster from a prior episode can be seen or whether the guitar in Token's room is the same as in a prior episode - both of these would also constitute OR as per my comment above (A+B does not necessarily equal C unless you can provide a source).
I would also support transwiki'ing of the data to WoWwiki in order to reduce the wow-centric nature of the article. Someone else mentions that 50 something percent of the show is in WoW but this is irrelevant. The show is an episode that appears to be parodying the way people play MMORPG's and to draw a conclusion from the amount of footage shot in a particular location is a red herring (for example, if a show about Sainsburys' supermarket was created and half of the show was filmed in the London Stock Exchange, we wouldn't include 50% of the information about the LSE in the article).-Localzuk(talk) 19:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
A significant problem that you're ignoring here is just that for a relatively new episode of a TV show, there simply aren't the third party references out there that there would be for the other topics that these policies were written for, such as 9/11 or AIDS. As such, even the most obvious trivia is likely to be considered OR under such a ridiculously extreme interpretation. And as I posted below, such a conclusion would logically lead to the deletion of the article as it would leave only a plot summary, leaving the article in violation of WP:NOT. Of course, this also begs the question of why this episode in particular is facing such a de facto higher (and ridiculous IMO) standard that other episodes are not, and the only appreciable difference seems to be that this one is about a video game that certain editors find pointless and simply assume everyone else should too.
I also completely disagree that WoW-related content is out of place in an episode like this, especially the two deleted sections. It was a cast list for the "world within a world" in the episode, and a specialized trivia list comparing and contrasting the game as depicted in the show, and the real game. Both ideas are encyclopedic at their core. - 66.93.144.171 20:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not against 'stating the obvious' but doing analyses between the episode and the game is not 'stating the obvious'. Also, you mention that it is just editors who think the game is pointless - I certainly don't think that. True, I don't play it but I do play Warcraft III and another MMORPG, Matrix Online.
I am not saying that all WoW related content is out of place, just that weighing the article down in overly specific details is out of place here. An article on Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of the subject. Providing information about what type of top a character was wearing is going a lot further than a summary. That sort of detail is more suited to a wiki dedicated to WoW, such as wowwiki.-Localzuk(talk) 20:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
And many editors feel that pointing out the idea, which was obvious when the source material is consulted, wasn't an analysis at all. That's the thing. By saying it was, and then deleting it, and then reverting, you place yourself in the role of Wikipedia judge, jury and executioner.
And actually, there was a point to pointing out Stan's tabard. Stan was playing a Human character. Humans are a member of the Alliance faction in the game. The tabard he was wearing is only available to Horde characters. Thus, it's a (potentially deliberate) goof I, and others, feel was noteworthy to include, rather than just a random note on Stan's shirt it seems to have been assumed to be. The thing is, though, if that ONE line is so odious, it could have been deleted or changed through consensus with much less fuss. It doesn't justify deletion of the entire section.
And taking you at your word that you do not find the game worthless, I apologize and withdraw that comment as far as you are concerned. It's just that it's seemed in this talk page, the typical argument for deletion of the content (outside of the alleged OR and verifiability concerns) has been essentially "I don't care about this, therefore no one cares about this, therefore it should be deleted." - 66.93.144.171 21:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Make_Love,_Not_Warcraft/Archive_2&oldid=1084074356"