Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation/South Park task force: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 86: Line 86:
:I worked in a university, there was never a professor or doctor who would have suggested using Wikipedia ''at all'' in class or as something to use for research.
:I worked in a university, there was never a professor or doctor who would have suggested using Wikipedia ''at all'' in class or as something to use for research.
:Also, reception in terms of the quality of the episode as a television show alone and in terms of its cultural impact are two entirely different things. To have both in an article is relevant and appropriate. [[User:Alastairward|Alastairward]] ([[User talk:Alastairward|talk]]) 15:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
:Also, reception in terms of the quality of the episode as a television show alone and in terms of its cultural impact are two entirely different things. To have both in an article is relevant and appropriate. [[User:Alastairward|Alastairward]] ([[User talk:Alastairward|talk]]) 15:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine I give up. I tried at least. I know real fans of the show who actually get what these episodes are about find this section to be absolutely ridiculous. Read up on genuine criticism and maybe then you'll see how ridiculous this is. Also, there aren't many but there a good handful of college professors for Freshman level classes that are younger and past the biases held against Wikipedia. Just because you've never had a professor doesn't mean they don't exist. But anyways, read up on real criticism. I've done my part, I just feel so embarrassed for MS & TP if they ever read any of these South Park articles.

Revision as of 18:21, 14 January 2010

South Park articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 2 6 8
GA 7 3 19 9 1 39
B 4 1 6 4 15
C 5 46 12 2 65
Start 1 3 227 49 6 286
Stub 8 8
List 8 3 9 20
Category 44 44
Disambig 3 3
File 74 74
Project 20 20
Redirect 6 2 246 254
Template 4 4
Assessed 20 17 319 84 391 9 840
Total 20 17 319 84 391 9 840
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 1,861 Ω = 4.42

Season list in infobox

I've noticed that most of the episode GAs don't contain season lists in their infobox, while most other episode articles do. Assuming this is the preferred method, do all other episode articles need to have the season list removed from the infobox? Or...do the GAs need to have season lists added to theirs? Either way, each episode article needs to be consistent with the others. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has been going away from season lists on individual episode pages (from what I've seen over the years). If you remove them, you'll probably never have to worry about it again. If you add it to all of them, the issue may come up again. I'd say remove them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not keep the list but make it automatically hidden? Nergaal (talk) 07:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the discussion in which it was decided not to add season list infoboxes? I find them very helpful when navigating episodes. Now Season 13 is inconsistent with other seasons. I can't find this discussion on any talk pages. laurap414 (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It had been discussed over the course of several of the FAs that have gone through the WikiProject, if I'm not mistaken. But we can certainly have the discussion here again; after all, consensus can change. I was initially a fan of the season lists, but I've since come to the conclusion that they clutter up the infobox and don't really add anything much of value. With the "Previous/Next" option, the link to the List of South Park episodes is more prominent, which can allow the user not only easy access to the other episodes of the season if the user wants them, but easy access to all of the series episodes. And, as Peregrine said, the trend across Wikipedia in general has been heading against them... — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content ratings in lead

Several episode articles contain "the episode was rated TV-MA in the United States" in the lead section. MOS:TV doesn't seem to have a guideline on how to present the content ratings of television shows, but a similar guideline (MOS:FILM) states "Ratings given to individual films by motion picture rating systems will vary by territories in accordance to their cultures and their types of governance. In film articles, avoid indiscriminate identification of ratings and instead focus on ratings for which there is substantial coverage from reliable sources." (see MOS:FILM#Ratings)

Stating the MA rating in the US seems rather redundant to me, and also a little undue weight-ish. Every SP episode in the US is rated TV-MA, and the main article already covers this as well as briefly going into how other countries broadcast the show. Just a minor nitpick that I wanted to bring up. Any thoughts? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Personally, I think the best option would be modifying Template:Infobox television episode to include the episode rating. Then we could add the TV-MA to the infobox and drop it from the lead of the article. This would be helpful to all television episode articles, not just the South Park ones. The infobox could specify that TV-MA is the U.S. rating, and then any other ratings in any other countries could be added in a separate line under that same field. I guess we could ask the Wikiproject Television folks what they think, or we could just be bold and add it ourselves. Thoughts? — Hunter Kahn (c) 17:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Southparkstudio FAQs

Have these been scrubbed recently? The FAQs on the Southparkstudios site now only seem to go back to 2009 now, this could affect quite a few cites in articles. Alastairward (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best Friends Forever

The episode Best Friends Forever has been moved to Best Friends Forever (South Park Episode) after an article for the internet slang term BFF was created. It's late and I don't have the energy to check all this out right now, but I wondered if BFF was really a more important search term than the South Park episode. Alastairward (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image question

Hey all. I wanted to bring your attention to a discussion over at the Cartman Gets an Anal Probe page. There is a question over whether the infobox image should be used, and I wanted to get some other opinions. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 05:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Season 3 infobox

I was browsing and I discovered that there's an error in the ordering of the Season 3 infobox.

If you look at South Park (season 3), you'll see that 304 is 'Jackovasaurus' and 305 is 'Tweek vs. Craig'.

Now if you look at any of the episodes from season 3 and look at the infobox, you'll see that 304 and 305 have been mixed up, which is contradictory to their release dates, 16 and 23 of June respectively. Jackovasaurus couldn't possibely have come after Tweek vs. Craig.

I thought I'd bring it to your attention since I don't know how to edit infobox templates. Thank you. --138.217.152.62 (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The episode article infobox has them listed in production order and not airdate. That is, one was made before the other but aired afterward (this was during the time that they were making the film and episodes at the same time, and the production had yet to settle in the now-customary "one week at a time" production method).
See the discussion above. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A challenge

I was looking at Wikipedia:Reward board and saw something South Park related. So I'm just poionting out this to see if anyone wants to take the offer. GamerPro64 (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lower navigation boxes

I've asked the user responsible, but wondered if anyone else had a view on the removal of the lower navigation box from the episode articles? Alastairward (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought they weren't needed because of the change in the above. Afro (Not a Talk Page) - Afkatk 01:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the bottom of the infobox in Dances with Smurfs better than the one in Are You There God? It's Me, Jesus? Nergaal (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South Park Mega Millionaire

There's nothing here about the iPhone game South Park Mega Millionaire. Can we have an article created about it please? --VitasV (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the "Reception" section present in the articles? IGN is not a real TV review site. They review video games (poorly).

Has anyone actually read that section? Honestly, IGN is not a TV review site in the first place. This section always sounds so incredibly tacky when one reads a South Park article, and frankly its irrelevant and not real information that pertains to the episode. I might understand if every season had reception in place, but who's idea was it to put those horrible reviews as a standard for every South Park episode? I'd say if there was a 1-10 scale for well-written criticism that IGN's reviews wouldn't even break into the 1 level, because they are just that amateur and irrelevant. Let's just pretend they were the most amazing reviewers in the history of the world, is it really required that every single episode have that section? Look at other shows from the past of other series -- is there a reception section? Of course not, because that is so pointless and irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.206.190.113 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on the given show is notable information as long as it comes from notable sources, theres no reason why it can't be added. Afro (Not a Talk Page) - Afkatk 21:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was also raised by the Anon IP above on the Hell on Earth 2006 article talk page. I replied with the following;
If you beleive that IGN is not a reliable third party source, please contest it at the reliable source noticeboard. If you simply disagree with their quality of article, that's just something subjective.
Reception sections prove notability by providing us with coverage of the article subject from sources not directly involved with the subject themselves.Alastairward (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I responded with Okay man, I agree with your logic there, except I really think you need to take a step back from black and white thinking and just really use common sense here. Firstly, its IGN. I personally do not care THAT much about this to try and figure out how to disprove the notability of a website on wikipedia, I just always use Wikipedia so much but the fact is, it irked me everytime I read this South Park page. I know enough to know poorly structured criticism when I see it, but for the reviews that are being included on this page? Come ON man. They aren't even content-driven. They are vaguely subjective to a point where they might've just said "I thought it was good." "I thought it was bad." Most of the times they repeat the line "But the episode was still funny." Really? That's like a music review saying "Yeah, but the music is still good." WHAT is that telling us? Far more relevant reception that goes along with your logic would be reception from the PUBLIC in terms of controversies and the such (see "With Apologies To Jesse Jackson"'s reception section). Frankly, leaving the reception in there as it is makes Wikipedia look like a joke site -- I know I'm not alone on this thought because I had a professor use a South Park episode to discuss social commentary and the impact on the public it had, but specifically told us not to use Wikipedia's entries for "Reception" due to how irrelevant they were. I'm not going to change it, but I felt I was at least doing my part by making the problem known. If no one wants to take this further, its not doing anything apart from making the site look bad.

Also: "as long as it comes from notable sources" <-- Once again, calling IGN a notable source for TV criticism is like calling your local newspaper's music review section the most relevant music criticism in the business -- though to be honest even that is being a bit generous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.206.190.113 (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I worked in a university, there was never a professor or doctor who would have suggested using Wikipedia at all in class or as something to use for research.
Also, reception in terms of the quality of the episode as a television show alone and in terms of its cultural impact are two entirely different things. To have both in an article is relevant and appropriate. Alastairward (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine I give up. I tried at least. I know real fans of the show who actually get what these episodes are about find this section to be absolutely ridiculous. Read up on genuine criticism and maybe then you'll see how ridiculous this is. Also, there aren't many but there a good handful of college professors for Freshman level classes that are younger and past the biases held against Wikipedia. Just because you've never had a professor doesn't mean they don't exist. But anyways, read up on real criticism. I've done my part, I just feel so embarrassed for MS & TP if they ever read any of these South Park articles.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Animation/South_Park_task_force&oldid=337839005"