Talk:Butterballs (South Park)

Pop cultural references, continuity notes and other details

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

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

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

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

Restored mention to video

I've restored the mention to the Cypress Ranch High School video for many reasons:

1) It is obvious that the episode satirizes the video. I understand that "obvious" is not good enough for Wikipedia, however, putting a "citation needed" and letting it stay for a while will enable editors to put a reliable secondary source reference when (and if) they eventually find one (I tried to google up one, but failed). If this won't happen in a reasonable time, the reference may always be removed in the near future. This behaviour is advised, for example, here.

2) In the article on Cypress Ranch High School, a link to the youtube video is considered a good enough source to substantiate the statement that the school video was spoofed by South Park. I don't know if this is OK by Wikipedia guidelines, but it sure makes a lot of sense to me.

3) In my humble, irrelevant opinion, pointing out the existence of the video makes the article better, even if the correlation is not (yet) substantiated by a reliable secondary source. This was actually the kind of information I was looking for when I first checked the article (at that time the reference was still there). After all, a satirical work makes little sense if you don't know what it is satirizing - this would make the reference to the school video something more than a mere piece of trivial curiosity. So I've decided to be bold, ignore all rules and restore the reference.

I'd like to point out that I'm not a registerd user, I don't know Wikipedia rules in depth and my English is not very good, but I modified the article in the honest belief that my edit would make it better. I hope my contribution wasn't (at least too much) disruptive. --93.47.22.249 (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Found a source at IGN. The reviewer also agrees with my previous statement, saying that "had I not seen the original video, I don't think I would have thought it [the spoof video] nearly as funny". --93.47.22.249 (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

"I understand that "obvious" is not good enough for Wikipedia, however, putting a "citation needed" and letting it stay for a while will enable editors to put a reliable secondary source reference when (and if) they eventually find one" I'm sorry, but that's not how it works. The way it works is, when you add the material in question, you have to include a source. If you don't have one, you don't include it, and it does indeed have to be a secondary source, and not the video itself on YouTube, which is a both a primary source, and a site whose content is user-generated. Such policies regarding sources are fundamental core policies on this site, and cannot be violated by merely citing WP:BOLD or WP:IAR, as that is not what those policies were intended for. WP:IAR advises us to apply policies and guidelines with common sense, and with regard to the intent behind them, not to simply throw them out the window when it prevents us from adding something we'd like to add, regardless of whether it damages the reliability of the article. Remember, IAR states that we should only ignore the policy in question if prevents us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, but part of improving and maintaining the project is making sure that the material in its articles is reliable and verifiable, and for evaluative or interpretive content of fiction, that means including citations of secondary sources. IAR is not a carte blanche trump card that justifies any edit, or that nullifies all policies and guidelines.

The IGN source is a valid secondary source, and it is for that reason that we can include it. For future reference, though, please do not add unsourced material to articles. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

And by the way, the Lead section is for article's most salient info. Explanation of what this gag is a reference to or that that visual is a nod to is not salient info. Remember, articles are not indiscriminate collections of information. They should summarize the most important real-world, out-universe information about the article's topic, like production info, what went into making an episode, what effect it had on the culture, how it was received etc. Some explanations of pop cultural references can have value, but only if it is properly incoroporated and contextualized, as in sections devoted to real-world material. What's unfortunate is that in the four days between my last edits to the article and the ones I made just now, someone added an IGN citation, which provided not only an explanation of the video reference, but that real-world context as well, and yet the only way it was used by the editors here was by supporting the mention of the video, and in the Lead no less. Why not roll up your sleeves a bit and actually improve the article by actually adding some valuable material that incorporates the bit about the video? Finding that IGN review and using it to justify sticking an extraneous mention of the video in the lead is like stumbling across gold treasure inside a Pharaoh's pyramid, and instead by fascinated by the dead rat lying next to it. Nightscream (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Nightscream, I understand this is a quite late reply, but I've noticed your edit summary only now ("It's amazing that you had the IGN source, but couldn't do a bit of work by adding far more relevant Reception info into which the ref could've incorporated.") and I must say I'm a little upset by it. Wikipedia is a free project, and everyone is entitled the right to contribute whichever amount of time or money is of his or her liking, as long as the contribution isn't disruptive. I put the reference in a place you say is wrong. I apologize for that. I just restored a previous edit from another user, and thought it was in the right place since that sentence was stating other things that were referenced by the episode. Again, if I did it wrong, I apologize, even for the time it took you to point it out and fix it. I also found a valid reference for a bit of information. That was a valid contribution, however small. If you find it could be used better than I used it, of course you are welcome to use it. But I'm not interested - and I bet nobody is - in the fact that you find it "amazing" that I didn't use that information in the way you found it had to be used.

I kindly but firmly reject your reproach, and your sarcasm too ("Finding that IGN review and using it to justify sticking an extraneous mention of the video in the lead is like stumbling across gold treasure inside a Pharaoh's pyramid, and instead by fascinated by the dead rat lying next to it."). A free project where free people freely contribute isn't a school or an office, and nobody in the Wikipedia community - no matter how experienced, dedicated or knoledgeable - is either my teacher or my boss. I contribute just what I see fit to contribute and I don't have to explain my reasons for deciding that amount, and I find it mildly annoying if someone tells me that I should've done more. I think that attitude is disruptive to the free and open approach to Wikipedia, where everybody contributes just what they see fit (of course taking care not to be disruptive, and I've honestly tried not to be).

I apologize if I've been too "touchy" in dealing with such a trivial matter, but I felt like this had to be pointed out.

Sorry again for my poor English.

Best regards, --93.47.4.247 (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I understood your English perfectly fine. :-) I'm sorry you were upset by my message, and I in no way was implying that you had to go beyond the edits that you made, but I just wish there were other editors who shoulder the burden of improving the South Park articles, especially in light of another editor's recent suggestion to me that I step back and let other editors "handle" them. Sorry if it came out wrong. Nightscream (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

So it seems I have been too touchy. I'm in turn sorry for having misunderstood you. --93.47.4.247 (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Does Stan masturbate in the closing scene?

Contrary to what Carl Cortez mentioned in his review, Stan does not masturbate in the scene. While it's true that the chorus singers talk about "jackin' it", a review of the scene at South Park Studios (which you can see for free here), shows that all Stan does is dance around in the nude. Putting aside the question of whether Assignment X is a reliable source (I've made an inquiry at RSN, but have incorporated its material into the Critical reception section as a show of good faith), just because that assertion is in the source doesn't automatically means that it's right. To illustrate this with another example from the same review, he refers to Bucky Bailey's an anti-bullying organization, which is called Bully Buckers™ in the episode, as "Bully Busting". Does that mean we should change that organization's name in the synopsis, even though it's clearly wrong?

Also, beyond this point about the masturbation, there was no rationale provided for blanking the entire paragraph based on Cortez' review from the Critical reception section. Please do not blank content without a valid rationale or discussion. Nightscream (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph blanking was an honest mistake, and I apologize for that. As for "Bully Busting", naming in the episode was inconsistent (as far as I recall) so the reviewer most likely got caught up in the mix, so to speak – this doesn't remove the validity of the review in its entirety. Finally, as for the masturbation issue – bluntly showing that would be a hell of a stretch even for South Park, so I guess the repeated chorus line is enough to make the assertion. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, Jason Russell did it (according to the news reports) - so presumably Stan was doing it too since that is the incident that is being referenced. Stan is, pointedly, only seen from the back. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Butterballs (South Park). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120411201139/http://www.southparkstudios.com/news/411961/episode-1605-butterballs-press-release to http://www.southparkstudios.com/news/411961/episode-1605-butterballs-press-release

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Nick or Mick?

So, I edited this because I originally saw it listed as "Nick" elsewhere and then it got reverted. But I went to check the clips... and the voice actor is, to me, clearly saying "Nick". What's more, this seems to be both the majority of search results listed, with a good chunk of those saying "Mick" being apparently quotes from this page. Is there any way to confirm this being one way or the other? --181.115.61.74 (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)