Talk:List of South Park episodes

Notability supplied (Season 1)

Perhaps it might be useful to discuss the episodes concerned when notability is supplied, as has been for two already Alastairward (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The RFC is still ongoing. I fear this is premature Alastairward. It also ignores the history of episodes in respect to notability, as is being dissussed above. For these reasons, I am going to ignore this section, and I suggest others do the same. Ikip (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to look at it, be bold and don't! I'm also glad that you toned down your language after a few edits. Alastairward (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Volcano (South Park episode)

Line from the episode gained popularity on t-shirts and in a magazine article.

Information from Commentary:--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• The episode was inspired by dante's Peak and Volcano.
• The texture was improved to "come out more"
• Lines around the eyes are more crisper.
• The idea of kids drinking beer and shooting deer is not funny any more after colombine
• Ned was introduced. He didn't have the voice box when Matt drew him in high school.
• After trying multiple ways to simulate the voice box they just used their own voices.
• Stan's father is drawn similar to Matt's father. In this episode he's just the geologist and they decided on making him stans father later on.
• The producers froze frames multiple times to extend the episodes time.
• The shorts about what to do in case a volcano erupts was inspired by the duck and cover videos from the 50s and 60s.

An Elephant Makes Love to a Pig

No notability yet supplied

Information from commentary:

• Since College, Matt talked about how it would be great having an elphant the size of a pig.
• Tarry's sister used to "kick [his] ass every day". She's also called Shelly and is three years older than tarry. She had braces too.
• The little kid who is covered in dirt is based on the Pig-Pen character.
• It was decided in this episode that Kyle would be the good student and "school smarter than the other kids"
• The hybrid animals in the laboratory were concepts Tarry drew when he was in school.
• The episode includes a scene which was done with construction paper originally meant for the pilot episode but because it wasn't used there it went to this episode.
• Matt and Tarry put on the walls some stains and fingerprints so it looks like actual paper work.

--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded this one significantly with both the commentary and third-party sources. I think this satisfies both the merger tag and the third party source tag now. (Note: I didn't include the info Diaa mentioned about about the Pig Pen-inspired since the character was technically introduced in an earlier episode.) — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 02:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge per excellent work done by Hunter Kahn (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Death (South Park episode)

"Theme" cited, seems to be a review of sorts.

• In Leaving Springfield William Savage Jr. writes an essay about this episode and TV censorship in general (pp. 212-219). --Maitch (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Tom's Rhinoplasty

No notability yet supplied

"I'm going to do what I've always wanted to do: hang out and screw hot chicks! " Ikip (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Expanded. — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 15:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Cartman's Mom Is a Dirty Slut

No notability yet supplied Nothing yet

Mecha-Streisand

This episode needs expansion too, to meet the notability guideline. Great work on the other episodes by the way. How do u find all these sources?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It's already met it (IMHO), it's already got a section on a response by someone notable who has nothing to do with the show itself. Alastairward (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability for Gnomes (South Park), Butt Out, Terrance and Phillip in Not Without My Anus and Spontaneous Combustion (South Park)

Here are some sources we can work from:

Gnomes (South Park)

• relation to capitalism
  • the only question to assert here is the reliability of the author, which I doubt is a major issue, being a professor as a major US university... --MASEM (t) 22:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Critique of the cultural imperialism
  • Gold. Also see the second book you list in Butt-out. There's a mention of the plot there, but I didn't read fully. --MASEM (t) 22:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
  • These four, while not critiquing the episode itself, establish that "underpants gnome" has obtained a metaphorical status for "bad business plan", which is good for a legacy of the episode. --MASEM (t) 22:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• actual underpants theft
• and another
  • Weak connection, but given the above, I don't think you'd need to worry about these. --MASEM (t) 22:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Nice job with these sources, Masem! I've added info based on just the above sources. I haven't done my Lexis Nexus thing for this episode yet but frankly, I think the episode is already proven notable with just these above sources. Anyone agree or disagree? — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 05:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I should point out these I didn't find these sources, someone else did (I'd have to look back); I'm only commenting on how good the source is for establishing notability. --MASEM (t) 13:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Phase 1: Unleash Hunter Kahn (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia's articles on South Park episodes.

Phase 2: ?

Phase 3: Profit!

Cirt (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• LOL! — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 05:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If your still wondering who added all these sources, it was User:Hobit who added the last six references and me who added the first two and the rest of the other episodes sources. (Good in finding sources, not good in formulating them well enough) :) .--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, whoever it was deserves a lot of credit. — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 16:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Butt Out

• little info about anitsmoking activism
  • What pages Google Books has (searching specifically for "Butt Out" in that book) is really just a mention in passing (it can be used to help the plot to assert Rob Reiner was spoofed but doesn't establish notability)... --MASEM (t) 22:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• South Park and company executives.
  • ...but on the other hand, this one seems find since there's a critical statement about the portrayal, as well as Matt and Trey's views on Reiner per that episode (p82). This one is gold. --MASEM (t) 22:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• I've added a bit to this one as well. Several of my Lexis Nexus sources had the same info as Masem's second source, but it did indeed come very much in handy. I think I can find more on this one on Lexis, but even so, I'm pretty sure right now it's expanded enough to address the notability tag. — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 01:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Hunter Kahn (talk · contribs) does great work, yet again. Cirt (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Terrance and Phillip in Not Without My Anus

• some info about the relation to "Not wihout my Anus" and hamlet ...
  • It's more than mere mention but at the same time only a single data point; there should be a few more sources to help out. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• I've expanded this one a bit, including a reference to the above source from Masem. I think this one satisfies the notability and source tags on the page. — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 22:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Great job by Hunter Kahn (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 05:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Spontaneous Combustion (South Park)

• I've done some expansions here. Added "Production", "Theme", "Cultural references" and "Reception" sections. — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 16:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Another excellent job by Hunter Kahn (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting the feeling that 3/4 of the examples are notable (I couldn't find much on the Terrance and Phillip one). My guess is that most of season 1 is notable, about half of the rest of the 1990s eps are notable, and probably just about all from the (post internet explosion) 2000s are notable. Not sure what to do with this information. It would be great if the SP project could start looking at them in groups of four or something, putting found references on the talk pages, and intelligently merging dubious ones, but since they only have one GA, they're probably not equiped to do such a thing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think that most South Park episodes are notable and that excellent editors like User:Cirt and User:Hunter Kahn could probably turns most articles into GA's. The real problem is that the South Park WikiProject is not very active, so I doubt they will even manage to improve enough articles to establish notability to keep up with the current season. If they can't do that the number of bad episode articles will just pile up.--Maitch (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad articles may be piling up, but not non-notable ones. The new ones are the easiest to find sources for. I'll drop the project a note to check out this section. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Where's this merge discussion going?

It looks like most, or maybe all, of the episodes are notable. Are we going to force Hunter Kahn to improve them all, under pain of redirection? Of the four test articles, it was easy to find refs for three of them, and Hunter Kahn found refs for the fourth, using Lexis Nexis or something. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

For myself, the four-episode test passed, so if we follow my original plan, we now assume all other SP episodes are notable, so no merge should happen. Now it is up to the SP WikiProject to continue to work on adding notability to the rest of the articles; while Hunter is doing a great job, he is but one person so I'd really like to see a more coordinated effort, however, that's not required. As per my original suggestion, we now give 3-6 months to see how the notability of the rest of the articles progresses - we're not requiring them all to be shown to be notable in that time, just that there is a good faith dedicated effort to do so (even if it's a slow process). If it looks like there's no attempt for further improvement after that time, then a merge of all the remaining non-notable episodes should proceed unchecked. --MASEM (t) 13:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'd be willing to keep this thing rolling in the form of a a Wikipedia:WikiProject South Park task force or something, but I do think we've done enough to justify ending this merge proposal. — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 14:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I still oppose the merge and I still maintain that issue can be effectively settled. But I've put a bit more thought into the task force issue, along with Masem's suggestion that we see where the South Park episode are in the next 3-6 months before considering merging remaining non-notable episodes. Since, as Diaa abdelmoneim (talk · contribs) pointed out about, most of the Season 2 episodes are currently lacking notability, I'd like to help form a "South Park Season 2 Task Force" through the WikiProject South Park (which would require consensus over at that Wikiproject). I would propose that we set certain goals to be achieved in 5-6 months; a few possible examples are to bring all 18 individual episodes up to notability standards, bring three or four up to GA status, maybe even try one or two (I'd suggest "Chef Aid" and "Gnomes") up to FA status. If by the end of the task force duration we have achieved these goals, then we abandon talk of merging non-notable episodes (after which, hell, we could move on to Season 3). And, in addition to improving the South Park Wikipedia coverage, I think this could help jump-start the seemingly dormant WikiProject South Park. Before I bring this over to that Wikiproject though, I'd really like to hear feedback here, and also ask if any of you guys would be willing to participate if I proposed it. (Incidentally, I've never started a task force before, so if I'm misunderstanding any aspects of it, please let me know.) What do you guys think? — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 16:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree the requirements of the challenge have been ment, so I think we should drop the merge proposal. I would suggest setting up a page like Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Featured topic Drive, which can coordinate and document the efforts of the participants. I'm not suggesting that you go for a featured topic - less can do it. Anyway, I think that you should try and rally up some participants. I seriously doubt one user can do it alone. --Maitch (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think the progress made here has demonstrated that a mass-merge is (a) never going to gain consensus and (b) is quite possibly not appropriate anyway. It's clear that most, if not all, South Park episode articles can be sourced and cleaned up to a completely unobjectionable state. At this point it seems to be that what's needed is ongoing editorial progress rather than any kind of mass article edict. It may be that certain episodes (at a guess probably in series 2-4) really cannot support independent articles, but certainly these will be in a minority and probably should be dealt with individually. ~ mazca ^t|c 17:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think a featured topic drive is a good idea. Maybe the currect season, since I think that's what SP editors are looking at, and maybe some can be drawn in. Also, maybe spam the projects member's talk pages with one short notice. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on putting off merges in light of Hunter Kahn's work. Agreed also on giving the South Park wikiproject a boot up the rear, little to nothing seems to happen on their pages, it seems all too quiet. Alastairward (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

To help I added an article alert subscription on the project page, it should alert any users to merge suggestions etc. Alastairward (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Most fans of any series don't care whether it past the idiotic Nobility guidelines/suggestions. They are against the deletion of their articles in any form. This includes a merge, where you delete the article but preserve the history, and put a redirect where it use to be. If there are enough fans around to defend their article, then you aren't going to delete/merge any of the articles. Dream Focus 11:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow you Dream Focus, is that friendly advice, a warning, a threat? Alastairward (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

An observation on what articles get deleted, while others do not. I see this all the time. No matter what the rules are, it all comes down to consensus. Consensus is formed by whoever is around at the time, that feels like posting their opinions. The more fans you have to speak out, the less likely anyone is going to be able to delete something. That's how it works. Dream Focus 12:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Changing an article to redirect as part of a merge is not a deletion; the information and contributions are still in the history and restoring it once determined to be appropriate requires no admin action. That said, because it's not a deletion, there's no (yet) proper larger venue to take the merge for discussion akin to WP:AFD, and thus the merge discussion will take place on talk pages of fans associated with those articles, who are generally highly resistant to such merges despite whatever policy or guidelines problems may be there. Since they require no admin action, then unless consensus is clearly for a merge, nothing will happen. (That's why there's a present attempt to create a Merges for Discussion venue ala AFD to get wider input into these.) --MASEM (t) 13:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Dream Focus, are you suggesting that the changes that have been made to the articles in question haven't proven notability? I could understand your argument if it was just a matter of people saying, "These articles shouldn't be merged!" and then not doing anything about it, but the articles in question have been expanded with credible sources and improved. It's not just a matter of fanboys sticking up for their favorite show. — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 14:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Even those that episodes that have not been proven to meet the requirements for notability, will be saved, if enough fans are around to defend them. Many were against eliminating articles before some were changed to meet the requirement, by having references added in. Most people don't care about the notability guidelines at all, and want to keep articles regardless of whether it fits the suggested guidelines or not. Dream Focus 17:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have problems understanding that the improved articles do meet the criteria for notability, thanks to the considerable efforts of Hunter Khan and others (not, I notice once again, you). Also, your edit summaries are somewhat discourteous and provocative. pablo_hablo. 18:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand that some of the episode articles now meet the requirements, but not all of them do. And I'm saying you aren't going to be able to erase any of them, even those that don't meet the requirements yet, if enough fans are around to protest. Dream Focus 18:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall ever saying I wanted to delete any of them. Straw man alert.

Here's a mad idea. Instead of banging on about half-understood policies and "secret deletion", and "merge=delete", and what the evil "deletists" "want" to do, and what they "will be able" to do, and asserting that "fan's protests" make more sense than good-faith efforts by hard-working unpaid editors to improve Wikipedia, why not, just once, try and source an article yourself? Go on, give it a go. pablo_hablo. 19:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I for one am not willing to let the implied threat of mob rule impede my desire to bring articles into encyclopedic quality and compliance with Wikipedia's policies. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I think we should just cut this off before it turns into a big argument that isn't going to serve anybody. I think Dream Focus's concerns are valid and he's probably right to be concerned that fanboys will blindly defend remaining non-notable South Park episodes without putting out the effort to improve them. However, I think we've proven here that the articles in question are now notable, and we're working on plans to continue improving South Park episode articles in the future, so I think we should just keep moving forward with those. Based on the above, am I hearing that there's more of a consensus for a South Park episode articles notability drive rather than a South Park Season 2 episodes task force? — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 19:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A general notability drive vs. season by season? The former perhaps since it's been proven that users like Hunter Kahn can drum up plenty of information at their own pace. Now that we've tested the waters and seen that South Park seems at the moment to have plenty of notable episode, we might forget about another merging round up until we find ourselves at a plateau of some sort. Alastairward (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hunter Kahn's proposed South Park Episode Notability Task Force

Ok all, I've made a subpage on my user page with what I hope will eventually become the South Park Episode Notability Task Force as part of the South Park WikiProject. Check it out here:

As you can see, I plan to make little subpages for each of the South Park seasons listing all the episode articles currently failing the notability standards. I've set the loose deadline tentatively at October 31, just to give it a little more than six months, but I'm open to changing that. (Please bear in mind that I have never started a task force before, so please let me know if I'm doing anything wrong so far.)

I believe the first step will be to bring this over to the South Park WikiProject and ask on the talk page for a consensus in starting this task force. But first, I wanted to run it by you guys and see if you had any thoughts, suggestions or criticisms. Also does anyone want to serve as a co-coordinator with me on this? Please let me know.

Thanks all! — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 22:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a great idea. Might I suggest aiming higher, and modeling this proposal after WP:DOH/TOPIC, with the ultimate goal of making Featured Topics? If we do not attain our highest goal we could still realistically make a bunch of Good Topics, and if we don't attain that, we could demonstrate notability for each of the individual assigned pages as already mentioned above. Thus, it'd be a three-step process but the ultimate aim would be higher: 1) Demonstrate notability check for the pages, 2) GA drives and Good Topic drives, 3) FA drives and ultimately Featured Topics. Cirt (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not necessarily opposed to it. Part of me thinks we should focus more strongly first on taking care of the notability problems, then maybe once that mission is accomplished we can start a new task force for the features topics. (Given how limited the activity is in WikiProject South Park right now, diving headfirst into a Feature Topics drive might be biting off a bit more than we can chew.) What do others of you think? Also, incidentally, I know little about Featured Topics other than what I just read at WP:DOH/TOPIC, but it seems if we modeled it after this, each season would be a feature topic. Given the fact that currently, only Season 1 has its own stand-out season article, could this be a problem? — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 04:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• In answer to your first part - we would create the pages with the end goal of featured topics (with the WP:DOH/TOPIC model) - but the first step/focus would be assuring notability. As for your second part, I do not think that would be a problem, but we can cross that bridge when we get there. Cirt (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Notability Task Force. FABULOUS IDEA Kahn, you earned a barnstar.

Eventually I think a project like this should be expanded to all fictional characters and episodes, similar to the WP:RESCUE model.

The irony is that Hunter Kahn's Notability Task Force page shouldn't be needed to assure that episode articles exist. Because of community consensus, a clear unwritten notability exception for characters and episodes has existed since the deletion/merge war began in 2004. To acknowledge this exception, I suggest we consider a Character and Episode Task Force page to include such articles as:

Talk:List of Law & Order characters#Wholesale edits of article

The same editors who have contributed little to nothing of any content to any of these South Park episodes they attempted to delete/merge, are now deleting large portions of text in these Law and Order articles. Ikip (talk) 07:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

One step at a time. I suggest this be a task force off of the South Park WikiProject, much like WP:DOH/TOPIC is a task force off of The Simpsons WikiProject. Cirt (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point Cirt. I agree, lets build the South Park page of Hunter's now but consider expanding it to all characters and episodes in the future. They can coexist.

Minor concern This Task Force maybe hijacked by editors who are more concerned with merging articles then adding content. This has been the troubling trend on many wikiprojects. So if this goes into mainspace Hunter Kahn, you inheret an important responsiblity to monitor the Task Force and make sure that the intended spirit of the project is retained.

Major concern I suggest changing the name to South Park Episode Task Force or South Park Episode Inclusion Task Force. Notablity has been unsuccesssfully but relentlessly used by editors to delete and merge thousands of articles. The only reason that many of these episode and character pages exist is because of consensus giving episode and character pages an unwritten exception to the draconian notability guidelines. By using the word "notability" in the title, it will only strengthen editors who merge argument that those articles which do not meet the hundreds of notability guidelines should be deleted or merged. Ikip (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) A good location/name would be Wikipedia:WikiProject South Park/Featured topic Drive, with the first step in the process being notability sweeps for individual episode pages. Cirt (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

What a great idea! Since you are familar with this process, why not create the page right now? Ikip (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Ikip (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, poor show old boy. You might get a bit more help if you weren't so openly hostile to other users. Remember to be civil ok? Alastairward (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think we need to combine the best elements of Wikipedia:WikiProject South Park/Featured topic Drive and User:Hunter_Kahn/SouthPark1. (I'm heading out the door for some real-life stuff at the moment, but can work on it later.) If I'm understanding Cirt's suggestions correctly, we need to identify on the subpage that the priorities are 1) resolving the notability issues for the episodes, 2) doing GAs and 3) featured articles and featured topics. I think the best model would be to break it down season-by-season in little sub-subpages for each season (I have the beginning of a set-up like that User:Hunter_Kahn/SouthPark1 here); then on each individual season subpage we can list which articles need notability expansion, and which ones we recommend can be expanded to GAs and FAs. Does this sound right to you guys? — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 14:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking from the standpoint of the original intent of this, I suggest some organized effort to at least work through the SP episodes and establish their notability; its great that what Hunter's done to date has not only established notability but likely leaves articles one good copyedit away from being a Good Article, but its more important to make sure that there's a grounded effort to establish that all the other SP episodes are notable, given that Hunter's shown 4 randomly selected ones are. It doesn't have to be done tomorrow or in a few months, but there just needs to be obvious effort towards that. If, for example, Hunter was the only one that decided to keep adding notability and he then decides to forget about it and leave the project, and no one else takes over, then there's pretty good grounds to merge the rest of the episodes until someone else offers to do so. However, the more people on board and doing it at a volunteer's pace, the more obvious that there's good effort behind it. We are not expecting GA or FA quality articles, though I do point to the Simpsons project that have made several seasons worth of episodes Featured content (both articles and topics) and from what I've seen, there's a good likelihood a few seasons of SP can be there to, and that can be a secondary purpose. But my recommendation is to focus on notability first, then quality. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Page created

I did some reformatting to the topic drive page, at WP:SOUTHPARK/TOPIC. Please continue discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Park/Featured topic Drive. Prior to any GA drives, the first priority will be notability assessment sweeps of all episode pages. Cirt (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

South Park Featured topic drive

WikiProject South Park participants have started a page at WP:SOUTHPARK/TOPIC to organize featured topic drive collaborations. The primary goal is to improve the quality of articles about South Park episodes, with the ultimate end goal of getting sets of episodes by season to Good Topic or even Featured Topic status. We are starting off by focusing on Season 1, to get it to Good Topic status, see Wikipedia:WikiProject South Park/Featured topic Drive/season 1. Any help is appreciated, and feel free to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Park/Featured topic Drive. Cirt (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Formatting

Um, so what happened to the formatting changes to this page that apparently had consensus and were reverted by some random IP? You know, the actually sourced page? To clarify, if there was contention over the consensus (lack of opposition does equal approval), that's fine. But I'm pretty sure "don't fuck with a good thing" isn't the formation of a new consensus.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Diff? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you asking what the difference is, or for a "diff" link? The latter is in my statement, the former can be seen by comparing the two pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A diff link. If the '"don't fuck with a good thing"' link was supposed to be the diff, it's actually a link to this talk page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I just realized that. That's my bad. Apparently I copied the wrong link. I have amended the link to the correct diff. :D  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This article needs to go to the short summaries with season pages, I think (most) people agree. In all the individual episode brouhaha, I don't think anyone has actually taken this page under their wing. Also, the short version should probably only be used if their actually exists a season page that has all the eps. Glancing at season 11,[5] Ned Scott redirected it, probably because it was way incomplete. I didn't look at the others. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

My assumption was (I took this page off my watchlist after the reformatting) was that the season pages were going to be reopened (regardless of episode article existence). South Park (season 1) was reopened, but apparently all the rest are still redirected. Even with a couple of sentences per episode here, you're talking a significant increase in size when you have a 13 season show (plus the fact that the show will probably continue on for additional seasons). That was why they were dropped. Even if you don't have the season articles, you still have a page for every episode (and a link on this page to them), which means you have the full plot (...shudder...) on all of those pages already.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Mostly each season's table needs to copied over to the season page (remembering GFDL attribution), if it's better than the one there, and this should be reverted back to the short version. I don't really feel like doing the work myself, but this conversation can at least help guide people. If you or anyone else wants to do it, I'll back them up in any ensuing discussion. I'm feeling too lazy myself. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What I'll do (not this very second, The Masters is on and I want to go watch Tiger kick ass, :D) is unredirect all of the season pages and go ahead and start each's infobox and table (I'll also tag them for expanding). Once I'm finished with that, then I'll revert this page back to the shorter version. This way, the summaries will still be available (I'll just copy the summaries from here and put them on their respective season page tables).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, all of the season pages are up and running. They still need major work, but the basics have been started. Someone could probably go through and expand the plot summaries for each season (I don't watch the show), as most are just single sentences.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've had this page watchlisted for months, and I've been studiously ignoring it through all the acrimony over the last few weeks! Can I just take this opportunity to say I think it looks far better now, the new format with the split season articles is much tidier - nice job to all involved. ~ mazca ^t|c 12:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the consensus? Two people (mostly bignole) in a new discussion thread? After the original format was returned, it remained that way for several weeks, which should say which format was preferred in this discussion. It's not a matter of looking cleaner, it's a matter of usefulness. Making individual season pages makes no sense because individual seasons are not notable by themselves, and just distributes information rather than adding it. Bignole is some sort of lone radical who just stated he doesn't even watch this show! It's truly ridiculous (and unencyclopedic may I add) that he would be drastically editing this or any of the SP pages without any knowledge of the show itself. Disgusting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1234onthedancefloor (talk • contribs) 12:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, even thought Consensus isn't about "numbers", just to point out it would be me, Peregrine, Cirt, Mazca, Masem and Diaa abdelmoneim. So, no, it isn't just "two people". On the other hand, it is just you opposing it. Ok, so let me get this straight, you'd argue that the individual episodes are notable, but the individual seasons are not notable? That's an interesting argument. I think the fact that I don't watch the show makes me an impartial editor to the page, whereas you (who I assume do watch the show) would have a bias when you edit.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Just noting that I do agree with how Bignole's relayed out the articles, and yes, that each SP season is likely notable - either through general reviews of the season or through reviews of the DVD sets that can out (I spotchecked for RS and there's a least a couple for each). The Series/Season/Episode split approach that's done here is pretty standard across TV shows. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• And for the record, toss my name is there with those who support Bignole's new format. — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 14:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• It's SOP for TV series that run to a lot of seasons. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think if you read above on the talk page you'll see that several people besides myself had earlier commented about this page's format being better before it was shortened. Whether or not other television shows use a similar format should not be the point, nor should the aesthetics be supported to the detriment of the content. If you watched the show, you would also know that the individual seasons of the show are not notable on their face because the episodes that comprise them are rarely related to each other. It's a silly way to group them. In a paper encyclopedia, the person writing the articles is familiar with the subject- you do not seem to be. What you're doing now is simply dispersing the same information that existed on one page, increasing the number of clicks someone has to make to access it. If you'd like to make season pages then fine, but I think this list should retain the short summaries; I simply don't see how your format improves anything besides making it prettier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1234onthedancefloor (talk • contribs) 02:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you'll need to point to where you're talking about because I am/was not aware of any dissension over the structure of the page. The page was too large to provide sufficient information about all 186+ episodes of this never ending show. Coupled with the fact that the version you "prefer" is completely unsourced and grossly inadequate, the restructured page is/was better. The fact that someone has 1 extra click is irrelevant. Yes, it's only 1 click because every episode still has an article to itself, and thus anyone can click the title and read the full fledge plot summary there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Schmidt, Buster7, Dream Focus, 122.108.12.220, Pixelface, Sid-Vicious, and myself all made statements opposing your format of this list, thought not necessarily all in the same place. Who cares how long the article is- it's a website not a giant piece of paper. If someone wants to know the basic plot at a glance, rather than have to click on every single article, this page is perfect for that purpose, as the title alone does not always indicate clearly. Again, you're not adding any usability to this page by moving the information in it to season pages. As a style issue, I don't see any reason to put quotation marks on prefer. I do prefer the old format, I don't "prefer" it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1234onthedancefloor (talk • contribs) 05:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, please go read their comments more carefully. You cannot pull people's comments out of context to support your side. They were making comments based on notability, and they DID NOT oppose the restructuring of the page. What they opposed was the creation of the season pages in an effort to merge the individual episode pages. Please read that more carefully, you cannot pull people's opposition against merging into an argument on page restructuring that has no claim on merging. Also, please sign all your comments with 4 tildes (~).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Bignole (talk · contribs) has done some great reformatting work to this page and it looks much better. Cirt (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

was the RFC disscusion for merge still going on? it's been archived by bot since noone edited the section for 14 days. It still has the RFC templates. see here. --Gman124 ^talk 13:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's been presumed to some hard work by Hunter that for now, all episodes of SP are presumed notable, and a task force has been created to drive the rest of the articles to a quality level. --MASEM (t) 13:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

More at WP:SOUTHPARK/TOPIC. Cirt (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

season 10

season 10 is now out in region 2 so shown be edited in head section 90.210.5.53 (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Eliotrw 13/04/09 19:41 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliotrw (talk • contribs) 18:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Missing info:

"Are You There God? It's Me, Jesus" --- Director: Eric Stough
"The Tooth Fairy Tats 2000" --- Director: Trey Parker --- Writers: Trey Parker, Matt Stone & Nancy M. Pimental
"Timmy 2000" --- Director: Trey Parker
"Something You Can Do with Your Finger" --- Director: Trey Parker
"Helen Keller! The Musical" --- Director: Trey Parker
"Fat Camp" --- Director: Trey Parker
"The Wacky Molestation Adventure" --- Director: Trey Parker

Sources are the episode credits on southparkstudios.com