Talk:Over Logging

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

trivia[edit]

i just KNOW someone is going to come in and say "YOU CANT HAVE A TRIVIA SECTION" and delete it.....anyone else think these people should stay out of here? the whole show is based on trivia.Whitey138 (talk) 02:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be merged into the episode synopsis. -- goatasaur (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would add {{Trivia}} right away, but Whitey is right. SP really is based on a lot of trivia. I actually think we should find a "special" type of trivia section that would be used in all SP articles, but not just a list. More prose. diego_pmc (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
how about a 'behind the scenes' section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.180.79.209 (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want a trivia section. That's what I find most interesting about the whole article. I don't care if Wikipedia guidelines discourages it, I -- and many others -- want one!--Eikern (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Who the hell wants to read a whole block of text just to find the one reference they were wondering about? The plot should be just be a vague outline anyway. Adding trivia to it just makes for a large block of text containing badly formed sentences as people try to jam the trivia in. Really this whole thing is just the resule of the ongoing battle between WP inclusionists and exclusionists. See this slashdot article: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/10/0057210 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.74.194.6 (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too appreciate finding the trivia here. Yes, it's not "sourced" properly - but so what?--74.14.165.66 (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are all free to post trivia on IMDB! They will not censor your ability to note that the "Internet Refugee Camp" looks eerily similar to a Japanese American internment camp from World War II or that one of the news anchors "was probably" modeled after some local news man from your area or that Randy breaking the TV store's windows was a reference to the LA Riots! Fight on for your right and complain on a talk page that has nothing to do with Wikipedia Policy! Strongsauce (talk) 11:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia sucks so much with their guidelines! sentences being deleted, sections being deleted, pages being deleted! JUST cuz is doesnt meet guide lines! Wow! What is this? The NHL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.96.85.49 (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's a credit to the show that it references so many things. I think a References section is very helpful. They're separate from the plot, and it's not useful to anyone to have references integrated into the plot description. Blakecarlile (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just add a "Cultural References" section, like they have for many, many other shows? The different name should appease people who complain about having a "Trivia" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elfer (talk • contribs) 16:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It makes no difference at all what it's called. It's the content that makes it a trivia section. Professor Chaos (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any other reason to visit a south park episode article than checking the cultural references? Stijndon (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well all this here outlines pretty well why Wikipedia sucks - The real interesting background information doesn't meet some absolutely not fitting and pretty stupid "guidelines" and only the plot (which we probably just saw ourselves and which brought up the questions whe hoped to find an answer for here) may stay. This is ridiculous.213.39.210.154 (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely right Stijndon (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, to double check on the plot, seek external references, cast, cites to other news sources that discuss the episode. Not everyone reading one of these articles has just seen the show remember. Alastairward (talk) 11:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Chaos - stop deleting well-written information from South Park pages[edit]

You just deleted a LOT of good information and cultural references. It was relevant and does not fall under the wikipedia specifications of random and irrelevant lists. The Cultural References section was particularly well done. Please put this information back and do not delete information based solely on your own notion of what does not belong on wikipedia. Efeinberg (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I typically delete the section hoping that when it comes right back there's less crap in it. Then I work it into the plot synopsis where it belongs. Trivia sections are to be avoided. Professor Chaos (talk) 07:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note: I just went back to work in the trivia, and it was all there in the article already! The entire trivia and cultural reference sections, the parts that weren't irrelevant, were redundant. So they're gone again. Professor Chaos (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While some of it should be restored, the eight days comment shouldn't be. If "eight days without internet" means that Monday is the eighth day without it, then there's no goof. I therefore think the comment made about eight days is an error. 129.67.53.232 (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus seems that the South Park articles should have a cultural reference section. it seems to me that lots of people don't find it useful to integrate those references into the article. Dear, DEAR Professor Chaos, Wikipedia is NOT yours. Let's not start an edit war shall we? let's see if the consensus is to integrate the references into the plot or to leave 'em in their own section. Stop bossing people around saying "what is written is crap, i'll make a better article, so shut up". Thanks.Sickboy3883 (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back i agree the section was absolutely not well written. That doesn't mean you have to delete it, however. You could easily write it in a better way, if you're so good at it. I would do it but English is not my first language and they would end up to be maybe worst than the one we already had. Well, before you deleted it all out. Sickboy3883 (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close Encounter of the Third Kind[edit]

Communicating with it digitally was a direct spoof of Close Encounters of the Third Kind. The paragraph should be reworded to mention this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.114.210 (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Allusion to the status of Gasoline[edit]

Wasnt this episode sort of like an allusion to how people would react if they was not Gas left or something. Thats what I thought it was. Rio de oro (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely not and without a source its just WP:OR Strongsauce (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I thought it was. Kept saying "not enough to go around", and also in the end "over using". I thought it was refering to how the USA is a large cousmer of OIL(Gasoline Usage). I thought that what it was refering. I thought this episode was just a illusion to the current situation the United States has with oil consumption. --Rio de oro (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or (IMHO) about Energy Consumption [tm] -- not oil specifically, but our dependency on electrical/electronic gadgetry to do pretty much ANYTHING nowadays, including having fun (and finding out the weather -- guilty!) 199.214.26.9 (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, Grapes of Wrath, "there ain't enough jobs to go around!" 71.178.208.37 (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amir?[edit]

Was he that Arab kid from the episode the Snuke or something from last year. Someone added it to trivia. Rio de oro (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useless trivia. Strongsauce (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is why trivia is trivia! :) Julyda4th (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no, this kid is Shelley's age. The last kid would ahve been in fourth grade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.180.79.209 (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Also the Arab kid who was in The Snuke in season 11 was named Bahir, not Amir. Efeinberg (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bahir... Amir. The ending seems kind of close to the same. I think it was an illusion to Bahir. Also that guy look he was Arab. --Rio de oro (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not EVERYTHING that seems vaguely similar is an allusion. Other than that they are both (seemingly) Muslim, the two characters have nothing in common, so there's really nothing to indicate that there is an allusion. -76.16.71.212 (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was something it could have been some randow bs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rio de oro (talk • contribs) 00:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Known Parodies[edit]

Isn't this entire episode a reference to that country recently that was left without internet for like 3 days. I forget whether it was Japan or China, maybe even part of Russia. Jay794 (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was Vietnam a few months ago. 81.50.225.33 (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't hear about this but it's kind of a stretch to consider they were directly mentioning a specific outage of the Internet. Strongsauce (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I remember hearing about the entire continent of Asia being without internet for a little bit recently. I don't remember the exact details, even though it was just a month or two ago.76.105.205.97 (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, maybe we should mention something about that in the article? cos even if it isn't based on that it is the same. Jay794 (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't the black and white scenes and the plot of moving out west a parody of Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath? 75.46.43.187 (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absoloutely Grapes of Wrath, right down to lashing everything they own on the car. Schoop (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So can we add in the part about Asia losing the internet possibly being the entire basis this episode? Jay794 (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can't, unless there's a statement from someone in an official capacity at South Park Studios or Comedy Central, who says that that is the basis. Professor Chaos (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case you can't list what the episode parodies unless Matt or Trey say that. Jay794 (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for that stipulation for the internet outage is because it's so ambiguous. Is it a direct parody of Asia's outage? Is it a deeper allegory for overuse of resources? If so, is it specifically oil or another resource? Or is it a parody of something else altogether? It's not like Major Boobage, which was no doubt parodying Heavy Metal. In that case, a link to Heavy Metal is sufficient; in this case it would take Matt or Trey answering a question or something to definitely state what the influence was in this case. There may not have been an influence for the internet plotline, maybe it was an original idea. Professor Chaos (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that Major Boobage does not need citations for Heavy Metal because it is no doubt parodying? In that case, this page should be able to refer to Grapes of Wrath, which it is no doubt parodying. Dialogue copied, stuff lashed unto the car, side characters with identical clothing in transient camps... Note that I am not talking about what type of shortage there is, I am talking about how the shortage is handled, portrayed and responded to by characters. Stijndon (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the episode a parody of Grapes of Wrath, particularly with the heading west theme and that no internet was found at the destination either (as with jobs during the Great depression)? --65.121.141.101 (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got cite? Alastairward (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Professor Chaos suggests we do not need cites when something is too obvious, like Heavy Metal in Major Boobage. This is as obvious. Stijndon (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moonraker[edit]

The scene when they are at "The Internet" and they attempt to communicate with it "digitally."

The sound played by the piano is the same sound used in the James Bond movie Moonraker (film). It is the sound played by the keypad used to enter the lab in Venice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.125.245 (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the use in Moonraker was an allusion to the earlier Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Schoop (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Even the short "runway" makes it look like Encounters--74.14.165.66 (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know that, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.150.103 (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know that the episode is a reference to "The Grapes of Wrath"?

Jericho[edit]

The opening to the episode with the whole town standing around realizing no one has internet anywhere is without-a-doubt a reference to Jericho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.140.203 (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street for a bit. 76.105.205.97 (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reference to Ghostbusters.[edit]

I have deleted the mention that Randy getting slimed with ectoplasm is a reference to Ghostbusters. Ectoplasm pre-dates Ghostbusters by some time, and I fail to see a connection. Perhaps put it back if you can find a reference? DanTheShrew (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were right to remove the statement. My opinion is that it probably is a reference to Ghostbusters, but it's not noteworthy and only belongs here with a reference. Professor Chaos (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the line "I've been slimed" basically proved it was referencing ghostbusters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.87.166.229 (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Independence Day reference[edit]

This one seems to be pretty vague. That scene is probably in every single movie where there is a secret government lab.

Probably just a Stargate ref.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.150.174 (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Fart Porn[edit]

There was an edit for Brazilian fart porn being a spoof on 2girls1cup. This is not correct. Brazilian Fart Porn is a site where you see videos of girls smelling each others farts... DON'T CHANGE IT BACK! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.40.27 (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


If you ask me, I think the whole "Japanese Girls Puking in Each Other's Mouths" thing is more of a spoof on 2girls1cup. ~Samrikku (talk) 04:41pm, 18 September 2008

southparkstudios.com[edit]

southparkstudios.com does not breach any copyright because it is and always has been South Park's official website.--Theoneintraining (talk) 09:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia (... again)[edit]

I came in here to see what movie/or event the ending in this episode spoofed. This appearently was removed in an edit, so I had to check the history to get the reference. Who is to blame for this? I want the references.--Eikern (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alastairward has been editing every single south park article known on wikipedia in this fashion. Look at the china probrem talk page for the whole gory discussion. 21:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Another-anomaly (talk • contribs) [reply]

Yeah, all the stuff that you actually want to read gets cut away. We cannot interpret references. The only interpretation that is allowed is his. Stijndon (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong; the only interpretation allowed is one allowed by Wikipedia policy. To echo Eikern's words (although I'm sure he meant this differently), "I want the references": the references that prove any so-called 'spoofs'. ≈ The Haunted Angel 14:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Router[edit]

The article currently says: "a gigantic Linksys-like wireless router that has stopped functioning for an unknown reason." However, the episode is solved by Kyle plugging the router back in. The cord is seen in the episode as coming from behind the router, which makes this presumably a wired router. 98.221.236.202 (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was the power cord. Wireless power doesn't exist. The internet function of the router is wireless, as you can see by the antennae. --98.203.233.109 (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wireless power does exist. Out of the scope of the article, however. 98.203.233.198 is correct. 141.218.216.143 (talk) 04:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural References[edit]

"Added references. Quoting the FAQ: "If you type in 'parody' in the search bar, you may be pleasantly surprised as well." If you wish to challenge - don't remove, discuss"

This edit summary is not terribly civil. Remembering the burden of proof on the editor adding the material, you should really discuss the addition first if you think it controversial.

I am challenging, reverting and discussing. The video tags have been quoted as not being linked to the Southparkstudios.com FAQ, they are there to aid searches if anything. Alastairward (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still open for discussion.

These episode pages used to be an interesting source for finding out cultural references made in South Park and some of the thinking that went into the episodes. Now they're just enormous plot summaries. I believe I'm making a valid point when I say this can't possibly be the intended structure of Wikipedia, a plot summary that's too long to read and NOTHING else? It seems that certain obsessive editors (I've seen the name 'Alastairward' like a million times) are patrolling them and destroying anything that doesn't fit their personal view of what Wiki 'should' be. I'm only a casual user/ editor, but this kind of militaristic approach annoys me. To me, this kind of editing is as bad as vandalism. It annoys just as many people, and takes the fun out a series that is supposed to be about just that, fun. Perhaps we should move for a variety of editors on these pages, people who know the rules of Wikipedia well but don't put their enforcing over other people's interest and enjoyment of the show. Let me know what you think before this post is removed as well, or I get a condescending citation of 'the rules' with a link Wiki:how to or something, or get told to use the sandbox... I think this is a constructive post for freedom of speech.Joncheetham88 (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As ever, I simply went and got the cites, instead of rambling on the talk page. Alastairward (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also go get cites for the notion that the "internet machine" would be a router. That's completely unsourced and should stay out of the article to avoid confusion. Either cite it or leave it out. Stijndon (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Already did, read the article again. You should stop removing cited material, it creates confusion. Alastairward (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find your cites or references, so in the meantime I put the article in safe-mode by scrubbing the blatant original research. There should only be cold hard facts, not opinions of private editors. Stijndon (talk) 07:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The material was cited in the reception section, so we can replace it now. Alastairward (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time[edit]

In the morning they discover that there is no internet, Shelley and Kyle state they need to get online before school. Yet, 8 days later it is Monday. 173.73.76.113 (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Over_Logging&oldid=1206790064"