Talk:Tonsil Trouble

Cash Cells a metaphor for expensive cure?

When Cartmen and Kyle where injected with then shredded remains of droller bills into their vain, which caused the A.I.D.S cells to retreat, thus curing them of H.I.V.S. Is this a parody of how expensive the cure of A.I.D.S is? EmperorofFatalism 7:09 P.M 26/08/08

Could be, got a cite? Alastairward (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary

...Should be a summary, not a line-by-line retelling of the entire episode. I edited the plot way down to just the plot--not story specifics, which are not part of the plot. Where interesting information was contained in the plot, I moved to other sections below.

--Adam D 3/21/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.196.190.29 (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ryan White

76.101.204.40 seems to think we should talk about Ryan Wayne White. --TIB (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So does 216.220.216.171[1]. --TIB (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Cultural references

I don't think the supposed "Airplane" reference really exists; that's a common phrase heard at airports. I'm not removing it, but it's something to think about.71.32.82.193 (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

HIV or AIDs

Did Cartman and Kyle get HIV or AIDS? The episode refers to both, but this article alternates wording between the two and I'm not sure which one should be referenced. The Chronic 06:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• I believe they contracted HIV, but the virus never progressed enough to go into "AIDs" territory. Th 2005 (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• • That's "AIDS" with a capital S.
    • But at points, both characters said they had AIDS. And who can blame them? AIDS is much funnier than HIV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.230.183 (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
      • At the start, the doctor tells Cartman that he's contracted HIV. Cartman thinks he has AIDS, but the doctor corrects him.
        • HIV is the actual virus that destroys the immune system, right? And AIDS is just the condition when the person is attacked by some other virus that could have been stopped with an immune system, right?

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

HIV is the virus that causes AIDS, saying you have AIDS when HIV positive isn't that big a deal. However AIDS is the condition when your immune system is near completely wiped out by HIV. Without the immune system (being destroyed by HIV) your symtoms and infections are called AIDS, living in bubble won't help since your body contains many infections already. Though some argue that you can't say you have AIDS just because you're HIV positive is pointless, for the layman they are one and the same, the difference is sort of like having stage 0 cancer compared to haveing stage 4 cancer. Getting technical when talking about layman understanding (much less cartoon children) is silly. Sorta like trying to get technical with fruit verses vegetables. Being that botanists can tell you what a fruit is (the ovum of the plant), while vegetable means nothing (not technically part of anything to botanists)69.154.137.88 (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess undo is pretty confusing

Let's just put two equals signs around Plot and call it a revert[2]. User:MaulYoda doesn't notice, so he just keeps editing, and so does User:Dfwriter [3]. Dfwriter, notably, actually puts text after

 [edit] Notes

like somehow he doesn't notice someone felt bad for replacing the plot with "I LIKE POOP" and decided to hit back, and copy paste the non-wikified text back in[4]. But don't worry, he caught it shortly afterward and instead of checking to see where the vandalism occurred, he just wikifies "Notes". All the wikilinks and references? Don't worry about those. I've hit next edit up till the current (it's not that many and it's not hard) and it seems that nobody has ever gone back to the days pre-poopfan to make sure nothing of value was lost. --TIB (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Avoid Trivia!

Even if you call it "Notes," it's still an unsourced, fully speculative trivia section. Professor Chaos (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you call it "Cultural References," it's still trivia! Since the Philadelphia reference is probably true (I've never seen the film and don't plan to), I've attempted to work it into the plot synopsis. It's a bit awkward, maybe someone can improve it. But don't give it its own section! Professor Chaos (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Trivia is the only interesting part of an article relating to a tv episode, since the powers that be decided that there was no place for trivia on wikipedia these articles have got really shit Lovefist233 (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I Agree, I personally rarely read the plot summary of the episode (as I have already seen the episode when I check the wikipedia page, or don't want any spoiler if I haven't seen the episode). I think the "cultural references" are interesting, especially for me, I'm French and don't always get all the jokes/references of the episode at first view. There must be some way, to dissociate these from the plot and put them in a separate section without falling in total "trivia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.154.58.112 (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_trivia_sections_in_articles states uses of a separate trivia section should be avoided if at all possible. However it does detail that this isn't a guideline for removing it for the sakes of doing so. "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all." If someone wants to portray the trivia in this article in a more-accepted standard, then feel free to, but don't just blindly take it out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrorcide (talk • contribs) 17:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a perfectly acceptable standard. Nobody find the plot interesting. I didn't know the way cartman was dressed was a reference until I saw it on a previously deleted page. I found that interesting and I learned something. Nothing important but nothing I learn on wikipedia is important. It'd be like watching Nascar but finding out there are no races, only commercials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.253.53 (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Fuck avoiding trivia. Fuck it to hell. It's great if you want to know some facts about something without having to read the whole fucking page, when will you people fucking learn that. Fuck. Eat me, Fank.

You have an eloquence that almost, but not quite, completely fails to convince me you're intelligent. Professor Chaos (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is that if you don't want to bother yourself with reading, an encyclopedia is not the place for you. Phoenix1304 (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

But you must admit, he makes a fucking good point old boy Lovefist233 (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The matter of fact is that most people would really find it more useful if cultural references sections were separated from the rest of the plot, and, truth is that you can't reference some stuff (like the Philadelphia/Tom Hanks reference in Cartman's dressing in this episode, for example), as well as you can't reference the plot, either. Would you call that "original research" too? that's absolutely moronic. But since you have no fucking life, and we do, you'll continue to perpetrate your Wikipedia fascism, and we'll have to look in the discussion page for the interesting and useful informations we'd like to know. Until you no-lifers who have the time and the fucking patience to delete useful information as soon as they're in decide that it is wrong to keep it here, too, because, y'know, wiki discussions page aren't a place for fucking trivia. Way to go fascists, I have absolutely no idea how to fight you here, hope you're satisfied with your obsessive "keep it in the rules at any cost" policy (which is strongly discouraged from wikipedia itself, but like good fascists as you are, you apply just the rules that prove your point and simply don't care about the others). Cheers, hope I didn't make too much errors, I'm Italian. Sickboy3883 (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, pretty much your whole post is one major error. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

But to answer some of your questions:

1)the plot summary sections are generally not original research because they are sourced to the primary source - the show itself and what the average viewer can easily verify by watching the show.

2) Of course it is possible to provide a source for cultural references. Often times reviewers will note the cultural references such as the south park storyline mimicking the plot of the film Philedelphia. Or an analysis of the show will be published later on that makes connections from the show to other events. And there is the South Park FAQ site/DVD commentaries that generally include statements from official sources as to what the inspriations for jokes/scenes/plots were. However, it may be difficult to find a source to verify the particular cultural reference for a show that you might wish to include. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I know i'm not gonna win this argument, simply because I don't have the time and patience to edit back what some people cancelled and put in here, much to everyone (yes, i mean everyone BUT those people, which means everyone) chagrin. Consensus seems to be clearly in favor to keep the cultural reference sections separated from the plot (it is clearly more useful that way), and i'm gonna quote another user:

Consensus seems to agree with keeping these. It's not WP:OR to mention blatantly obvious connections such as these. They are also of value to people who haven't seen the second source. (see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 60#Verifiability taken too far?)–OrangeDog (talk • edits) 19:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you say that it is O.R. to write the plot of an episode, or the plot to a movie? No, clearly not, as you said. And of course no one does cite anything in doing this. Why it should be different for a BLATANT reference? Of course, if the connection is not blatant, it needs a cite. But if in an episode which is about aids cartman wears a scarf and a cpa with a P on it... well, c'mon. As I said, i'm sorry if I did attack someone, it won't happen again. But I do think this is a form of fascism: Wiki-fascism, but whatever, you'll win the argument in the end, ignoring what consensus is simply because... well, you can. Just look how many seconds passed since i got a response to what i did write... Sorry for the annoyance, cheers. Sickboy3883 (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Plot discussion

I don't like plot overviews being this detailed anywhere, but I guess that's just how it's done on Wikipedia. But is there really any need to mention quotes like Cartman's "HIV positive" gag? Even if the idea of the plot section here is to detail the entire story, I think things like this and mentioning Jimmy Buffet, etc. are hugely unnecessary. Can anyone justify the inclusion of things like this to me? DanTheShrew (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. Sadly, there are idiots all over who feel that every funny quote belongs in a "Trivia" section or elsewhere. Now and then you even see a list of characters who did NOT appear in an episode, as if it were notable. The only thing to do, since those things will be continually added, is to at least work them so they don't sound totally retarded. Fix the grammar and put them where they make the most sense. Trimming is very hard on these articles because of the people who want them to include the entire script. Professor Chaos (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Shut up you nerds. People like me want to see funny quotes from south park episodes on wikipedia. Otherwise we will just go to All Great Quotes or IMDB. This discussion is pointless. I mean "Professor Chaos" is 'interested in politics'. You should leave this discussion immediately. In fact I am reporting your account for abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.229.70 (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, anonymous, for the kind vandalism done to my talk page. Also for reporting the abuse I have done by suggesting following Wikipedia guidelines. I guess I must have been really out of line. On the other hand, quotes generally go in WikiQuote, trivia should be avoided, and plot synopses should be short and concise. There's a point at which you should just watch the episode if you want to know about it. Professor Chaos (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but what's the justification for excluding something from a plot outline, if it was indeed part of the plot?72.240.220.234 (talk) 05:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I deleted redundant statements, and the one that wasn't redundant I worked into the plot. Essential is a hard thing to define, since everyone will disagree on that. These South Park articles tend to get bloated and overloaded with redundancies and bad grammar very quickly. It is very hard to maintain them sometimes. What did I delete that you are complaining about? Professor Chaos (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not complaining, nor did I say anything that could be construed as a complaint. I was just asking, what constitutes a valid plot element? Out of genuine curiosity. 72.240.220.234 (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's very hard to define it rigidly, since it's so subjective. By necessity every article will be a different length. As a guideline, I think there's a point at which if you include any more information you might as well just have the whole script. The plot synopsis should cover only the basic points for someone unfamiliar with the episode, more detailed than what you find on the back of a DVD, but not an in-depth review of the episode. If there's a good review, maybe a sentence summarizing it, with a link to that review. Professor Chaos (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The synopsis makes me cringe more now than when I first read it. Articles like this make it very difficult to take this site seriously as an encyclopedia. DanTheShrew (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Give it time. Even the articles on Britney Spears and Harry Potter levelled off once the fans decided that they don't care if their "OMG and than Herminone kissd him rite in frot ov evry1!!1" edit makes it on the page. Phoenix1304 (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Lawsuit

Surely if Magic Johnson filed a lawsuit against Parker & Stone for this episode, it'd be all over the internet? I just googled a variety of terms trying to find a source for the claim that he filed a lawsuit against them, but I haven't had any luck finding anything at all. Th 2005 (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Totally agreed, I'm confident this isn't true...so I'm removing it! Tehniobium (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. But for how long?

I have made the 'Plot' section much more attractive, simply by removing text which I consider unsuitable for an encyclopedic synopsis. I'm sure it won't last, but it has given me brief pleasure. DanTheShrew (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I work so hard on these articles the first few days after the episode, because it never does any good then. I guess I'm just not very patient with idiots. Don't worry, pretty much as soon as the next episode airs, the idiots mostly move on and it suddenly becomes a relatively easy article to maintain. Thanks for your hard work, when I have time I'll take a look at the summary (hopefully it's still intact). Professor Chaos (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree, PC. I remember being so proud of my edits to the Brenda Meeks article (when it existed), only to have some idiot come in and "clean it up", so that it made close to no sense at all when he was finished.  :| Phoenix1304 (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see what you mean, Professor Chaos, it is a bit all over the place at the moment. I'm reading a different synopsis every time I visit the page.DanTheShrew (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep. The latest is my major revision, keeping everything that was already there but much more concise, two paragraphs less. These can really get bloated with many words that say very little. Also, I have a lot of homework to do and I'm editing this article as a delay tactic. Professor Chaos (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

jesus christ. who are all these a-holes who keep removing the trivia. it's the only reason for even looking at an episode page. i mean what is their problem? the only point to that misunderstood guideline was aimed at normal articles where a mass of information built up in a "trivia" section that would be better included in the main part. THIS IS NOT THE CASE WITH TV EPISODE PAGES. ffs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.240.216 (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Show me where it says that. I like trivia, too, but there are better sources for that. Wikipedia is not a repository for trivia. Maybe we need a WikiTrivia site where you can put all the trivia you want. It is much better to have a streamlined article where anything relevant is said in the main body of the article. If there is a particularly controversial episode with a lot of backlash, then a sourced section covering specifically the reaction is appropriate. Trivia is not, especially trivia like "there was a no-name character who looked like Token," or "Stan wasn't in this episode." Professor Chaos (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Technically, the reason "trivia" is discouraged is because of the "original research" policy. In reality, the entire plot summary is original research, unless you can cite every single line. What happens is we get a bunch of different admins who all subjectively try and interpret vague and ambiguous guidelines; the result? MAYHEM! Mayhem I tell you! Are you going to tell me that the articles for the "Scary Movie" flicks shouldn't include all the references to REAL scary movies? Are you going to tell me that? Absolutely not, because the entire point of those movies are the stupid references... and therefore MUST be included in the article. TRIVIA sections are discouraged... but saying "Cartman's outfit looks remarkably similar to that of Tom Hanks in Philadelphia" isn't a trivial line, but simply a statement on the similarity of the costumes... it's not even making the implication that Trey Parker did this on purpose. Also, I think that in a show where everyone wears the same outfit every episode (nearly), it is worth mentioning a significant change. NO I will not stop this rant. Take a look at old Simpsons pages, like "Mr. Lisa Goes to Washington"... I added a SEXY addition to the cultural references section "brevity is... wit" ... HA admins are funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.237.101 (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Concise Plot

I appreciate the effort to trim down the plot summary to almost nothing, but the fact is that all the plot points (and sadly more) that were there will end up in there one way or another. The solution is to at least make sure it's written well. The way it is now is not written well, so I'm going to put it back how it was a few edits ago, the way I wrote it. If we figure out a better way to present the information, great; but for now if we trim it too much idiots will put the stuff back in poorly. Professor Chaos (talk) 05:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Unverified claims

"The fact that HIV is cured by money suggests that the reason that rich people like Magic live on is because they can afford the healthiest lifestyles and best medication. On the other hand, the poor Nigerians cannot afford to inject themselves with cash i.e. cannot afford treatment."

Sounds reasonable, but appears to fall into the category Original Research. /Utu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.51.222.144 (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

Hey thanks for removing the part about Tom Hanks' character. Since I've never seen "Philadelphia", I had to look at one of the previously deleted pages to see why Cartman was wearing a cap with a P and a scarf. Great job trimming down the article. Hey, why don't you just make it one line? Surely you can sum up the entire episode with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.206.86 (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think as Wikipedia is a repository for information, and shows like South Park contain a lot of popular culture references which people just don't get unless they've seen the film/TV show/whatever it references, 'trivia' (which is a highly inaccurate name for it, as much 'trivia' are whole plot points in SP) should stay in the articles. It may not be relevant to many articles but it IS extremely important to South Park - jokes often are based around one element of pop culture, and as it's the article's job to explain the programme informatively, trivia is unavoidable and no attempts should be made to remove it. Remove the popular culture references from South Park and you not only do you bypass the point of most of the programme, but also detract from the information which people look for this article to read. The material is often uncited or referenced, however that does not give anyone the right to delete it - it should remain on the site with a 'citation needed' label in order to give editors the chance to find relevant information, where available. Citing pop culture references are often as obvious as just looking at the programme itself (it being the source to which the article can refer to) - if you write about a book, would you avoid citing the book completely? No. The same goes for all recorded media resources. MathiasFox (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of the "cultural references" aka trivial have been contradicted by various editors of wikipedia, they do need to be referenced. Think about it, you're suggesting that you know what the writers were trying to reference simply based on your own opinion, in what other article would that be appropriate?

Cultural references

• When Cartman and Kyle enter Denver International Airport, the female public address announcer from the beginning of the film Airplane! can be heard.
• Cartman is dressed up in a red Phillies hat and coat, making a reference to the Tom Hanks character in the AIDS themed film, Philadelphia.
• The episode plays on the painful contrast between the rich West where expensive AIDS-treatment can keep an infectee relatively healthy for decades, and the third world where those who cannot afford medicine cocktails succumb quickly.
• The scarf and hat Cartman wears throughout the episode is a reference to the 1993 film "Philadelphia" in which Tom Hanks plays a victim of HIV.

Reference the above and it can be left back in the main article Alastairward (talk) 08:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The hat that Tom Hanks/Cartman wear is not a Philadelphia Phillies hat. It's just a generic black hat with a red "P" on it. 68.37.60.130 (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Philadelphia: Relevant!

I still think Philadelphia is very relevant to this episode, and I've added a one-liner on it in brackets. Please don't edit it, I think it belongs there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.238.68 (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Very Special Episode?

Isn't this a simple parody of Very Special Episode? -- 88.192.72.86 (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)