# Talk:W.T.F. (South Park)

Was this really originally titled "Wrestling is Awesome"? I know it was the name of the first preview clip, but I never saw any official press release saying this was the actual title of the episode. If it wasn't the redirect should be deleted in a few days. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

At the end Kenny is killed yet when the boys start fighting right before the credits you hear Cartman "Don't even start with me Kenny!" How could Cartman be talking to Kenny if he was just blown up. --68.209.227.3 (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and you can even hear Kenny muffling something at the end. --KennyStanWendyFan 5:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
It's likely this is a reference to nothing that happens in wresting (at least the TV versions like they were parodying) are real, and the events are actually inconsequential.

The description of the plot is too exhaustive. The plot description should indicate the main storyline and leave it at that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.192.255 (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC) 

Assume some good faith here.  I came at this from Greys#1990-present day after seeing the ad for the new V remake and thinking Visitor (disambiguation) was a notable synonym for Grey aliens.  Turns out South Park is the one reference blending Greys and Visitors that shows up readily on Google. 
I don't care about the contest but after some searching, this episode falls into the ongoing contest so I'll wait to enter this trivia after the contest is over.  Let me rephrase the question.  Is there a visitor in this episode?  I don't care what time mark.  The visitors in each episode is trivia carried through the other episode articles. 97.85.185.160 (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I restored the cultural references section, it was deleted by another user for not having citations.  Fix the section instead of deleting the whole thing.  And most of the things listed are observable in the episode, I don't think an external source is needed.  Do we need to cite someone when we say the sky is blue? 147.9.225.71 (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". In other words, source it before adding it. Without sources, the references are left entirely to the interpretations of the most recent editor. While some are obvious, others aren't. For example, this page has stated at various times that Kenny's mask is a ref to either Rey Mysterio or Blue Demon, or that Token's costume references Kofi Kingston or R-Truth.-- Scorpion0422 02:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
If it's a decent amount of work that is plausable but is not sourced, some editors use the ettiquette of copy/delete/pasting to the article talk page or onto the editors talk page instead of straight out deletion. alatari/talk 03:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I second this.  I somewhat diagree with the necessities of this Cultural References thing, but seriously?  Citation?  Does somebody randomly create a website automatically create some kind of legitamacy?  There needs to be some kind of reasonable discrimination between those scholarly or controversial articles that obviously needs facts' backing or something of public importance that has other secondary sources and those that are observable by everyone else.SiriusAlphaCMa (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Read the reliable sourcing policy. Reliable sources are not some "randomly created website", they are third party news sources. -- Scorpion0422 02:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I still don't see citation as an absolute necessity.  I am skeptical of the premise that everything of encyclopeadic interest in an is news worthy or worthwhile for a 3rd party to maintain or critique.  I am interested in what happens to eggs if you microwave them.  I certainly do not expect an expert on egg-microwave interaction, let alone some expert to publish an article on microwaving eggs or special microwave preparation of eggs.  Yet, some random person's experience would have no chances of being in Wikipedia and IMO, wikipedia is that much less richer, falling more short of its democratic/"crowd-sourcing" ideals. My point is the vigor may not be demanded by some users.
I am not saying that there is no danger to lack of self-editing or sourcing. But this absolutism sourcing policy is set by the few who have time and interest to edit the policy and further more go around patrolling other pages. Those few serve a great function for wikipedia. Yet, as a participant of wikipedia, I gravely disagree with the said policy and strongly believe that the judicious opinions of the few are, while a necessary component of wiki's good operations, against the principles of wiki.  The policies of wikipedia is thus also sadly overrepresenting certain demographics' contribution/influence on wikipedia.  While those policies are for general good, I disagree with the relevance of their application here.
I do think that the policy as it is now overrepresent only certain types of people who use wikipedia. While their ideas are not incorrect or wrong or disagreeable, they may have disagreeable influence due to their shear involvement. In theory the relatively apathetic like me can equally contribute to the specifics of wikipedia's operation; however, as said, I fundamentally find a conflict of ideals. But here as a participant of wikipedia and appealing to the democratic ideals that wikipedia represents.. I share my vote to disagree with the policy's application and for a more restrained application of such policy when the value of wikipedia is not damaged in this instance.SiriusAlphaCMa (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
If we could slice pictures from the episode and paste them right by the reference that would be saying "there ya go. Directly observable"
@SiriusAlphaCMa, take up your issue with the guidelines editors.  We have to abide by Wikipedia guidelines or chaos rules.  alatari/talk 03:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
People seem to forget what wikipedia is supposed to be. If you want place where users can add pages of unsourced cultural references and trivia based on their opinions, what you want is a fan site, or a very specific wiki, not a general encyclopedia. -- Scorpion0422 23:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, SiriusAlphaCMa, very well spoken, but this has to be discussed in a broader forum. Or... has it? I've read, written and discussed several articles in the German and English Wikipedia and think the English Southpark-Wikipages have the strictest citation rules ever. The no-original-research rule is one of the most important rules in Wikipedia. But there are still some things you shouldn't need to cite and you can't cite, because they are too obvious to be found in books.--JakobvS (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't edit a lot of South Park articles, but I find the citation rules to be no worse than any other television pages. You have to remember that episode pages attract a lot of IPs who think minor things are very important and basically add whatever they like. We, the regular editors, need to adopt a strict stance, otherwise pages will all look like this rather than this. This means treating all unsourced statements the same, even if some are more obvious than others. -- Scorpion0422 23:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Surely the only citations you need is to watch the episode itself? the references in the episode are obvious with or without citations 80.229.169.189 (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a decent reason for seeking cites in the Forbidden Planet article. I was poised (when I started editing here) to point out the similarity between the Krell machinery in that film and the Great Machine in Babylon5. A clear homage (striking resemblance in the usual parlance of anonymous IPs) thought I. Actually, no, says the cite. The similarity was seen by the makers of B5, but was just a fluke of the show's production. So, with the cite, we get a bit of background information and higher accuracy. I don't see what's so bad about that, and I don't see why we can't ask for similar in other TV articles. Alastairward (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, the Mexicans don't say that line that is written here in the article when Kenny (el Pollo Loco) dies, but instead "Dios Mio, mataron a El Pollo Loco, bastardos!"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.187.228.65 (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC) 

As a regular contributor to this article, I must ask why there is some much edit warring on this page?  The reverts are way above average for any South Park article, wouldn't you say? Torkmann (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it ironic that you are questioning and complaining about the edit warring, when you yourself engaged in it? -- Scorpion0422 16:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
this episode is based around wwe, so its major fanbase (mostly children) will be vandalising this page over and over, if you look at the history you can see it, so hence the page being protected  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.222.11 (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC) 

There actually hasn't been a lot of real vandalism so far. The page was protected because of a content dispute because some users believe that a plot section should be kept to basic plot points, while others believe it should detail every minor joke. -- Scorpion0422 16:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and Scorpion0422's insistence that the "Cultural" section be deleted, contrary to every other South Park episode article, which has a "Cultural" section.  Ironic how the "protected" version retains this cultural section it is. Torkmann (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really, I've given up on trying to remove it, because it's a fight I'll never win. Forget the fact that policy demands such sections be small and sourced, this article needs one just because others have it. -- Scorpion0422 19:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
That is right, baby!  Just go with the flow, that's what I say...let mother nature take her groovy course.  Peace and love, Torkmann (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Really, if Scorpion wants to remove the cultural reference section here he better go edit the thousands of other episode pages with the same section to bring it into line with his standards.  Or better yet delete all episode articles because they aren't encyclopedic. 97.85.185.160 (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I have nothing against sourced cultural references sections. I've worked on a number of pages on Simpsons episodes, and most of them have CR sections. However, I'd rather remove completley unsourced sections filled with original research rather than tag them, because very rarely does adding a "citation needed" tag do anything. -- Scorpion0422 23:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The fact that you acknowledge that this "is a fight you cannot win" is telling.  Wikipedia consensus therefore is squarely against your position.  Wikipedia policy (and rules) is only a reflection of this consensus, and where the rules differ from consensus, the rules, sir, will be changed.  Torkmann (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, policy, and many established editors, say that all CR sections should be outright removed (and I disagree with that). When I say it's a fight I can't win, I refer to the dozens of IPs that quickly revert me. -- Scorpion0422 23:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I too tend to like these cultural references sections.  I also think that one gets put back in after being removed is telling, sourced or not.  Unfortunately, this is the sort of unstable, HAL 9000-esque behavior (explained in 2010: The Year We Make Contact) one is going to get when, on the one hand, Wikipedia is supposed to be all about citing reliable sources (and some authors on some occasions pull out the ruleboook), yet on the other hand the rules themselves say to be bold about ignoring or breaking the rules.  No side of the discussion can "win" in any case, as there will likely always be differing opinion on whether a particular piece of content improves the wiki or doesn't. Furthermore it's possible not even a consensus can be reached.  At the very least in this specific case, my opinion is the more people pointing out cultural significance(s), the better.  These whole bunch of people bringing these things up makes me see the episode in a new way which I wouldn't have seen without their comments. -- Joe (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I totally understand what you are saying.  The IP's, however, are wikipedians too.  Their input to process and content is just as valuable to the project as named accounts (and rightly so, since it only takes 2 seconds to register!) Torkmann (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Registering is a little act of faith that shows a desire to do more than hit and run editing. Alastairward (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Funny I dont see the locking of this page to have been discussed anywhere prior, or any requests having been made for the protection of this page.  Torkmann (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't need to be a discussion, when an administrator (in this case, Juliancolton) sees an edit war that is getting out of hand, and few attempts are made on the talk page to stop it, they can protect it at their discretion. It's better than being blocked for 3RR. -- Scorpion0422 19:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The cultural references section states that Cena and McMahon speak with strong English accents in this episode. Though there were minor quirks in their pronunciation of a few words, for the most part they speak with standard American pronunciation, and the statement that they have strong English accents is, in my opinion, absurd.--Toepoaster (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

And that's why statements in cultural references and trivia sections need to be sourced. -- Scorpion0422 19:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to change the article, but somebody locked it without any discussion!  Torkmann (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so I can change the article except for the fact that it cannot be changed? Thanks.--Toepoaster (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The following is a proposed new section, your comments are welcome.  I would like to get approval to have the admin add this to the main article.  Thank you Torkmann (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The premier broadcast of this episode received 3.83 million viewers on 21 October 2009, according to tv.com.  This figure was by far Comedy Central's highest viewership for any program not only that week, but for the entyre month of October.  Furthermore, this episode garnered the highest viewer ratings for any South Park episode since the much-hyped Make Love, Not Warcraft episode in 2006.
While critical reviews of the episode were mixed, with some writers wondering why South Park, having been broadcast since 1997, would wait twelve years to skewer a phenomenon (WWF/WWE) that was arguably much more in the popular conciousness during the early part of the show's run than it is today.  
Lay opinion of the episode was much more favorable.  John Cena remarked that the show "was wicked hilarious" and a "good spoof of pro wrestling today."

Reception sections defintely have attribute statements to sources. It would probably be best to switch the second paragraph (about why South Park would wait 12 years) to a quote from a specific reviewer. John Cena's comment and the ratings will also need sources. If you could add more thoughts from critics, such as the high points/low points, and possibly any other opinions from wrestlers, that would help. -- Scorpion0422 22:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I was able to throw in a few decent cites for Dead Celebrities. IGN and TV Squad will usually post a review the day after the episode shows, Google News is a good way to search for episode reviews as well. From these, you can also pick up a few cultural references too. I'd sit down and do so myself, but I'm going to be lacking internet access for a while, so can only edit here and there. Alastairward (talk) 09:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Here are a few I pulled from Googlenews. Alastairward (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
A respite, I got online and was able to pull in some of those cites. Not a controversial episode, so nothing from any reliable sources save the obligatory IGN and AV Club reviews. Alastairward (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Until some decent sources can be found, this section does not need to be in the article. As of this post, previous versions have been chock full of those dreaded weasel words "possibly" and "likely". - SoSaysChappy (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The show's opening Raw event sees the boys cheering a match between WWE wrestlers John Cena and Edge, along with two divas. Edge, a Canadian wrestler, notably does not have the "beady eyed Pac-Man head" of most Canadian characters. Cena, a native of Massachussets, speaks in a sophisticated upper class, slightly English, accent in this episode, as does Vince McMahon, possibly adopting a stereotype of the Broadway crowd. - First half of this statement is trivia. Second half is pure original research.
Darryl Weathers and the other South Park rednecks reprise their garbled "Tuk er jeobs!" chant several times, from episode, Goobacks and Margaritaville. - This could work if it were worked into relevant context in a "production"-like section. As it is now, it's collective trivia (merely referencing other episodes) as part of an indiscriminate collection of information.
When the wrestling teacher looks at the news of the W.T.F., there is an article of the Colorado balloon incident which is in the same state as South Park, but "balloon" is misspelled as "Ballon." Later, in a newspaper article about Vince McMahon, there's another article that says "Balloon stunt a hoax". - Same thing applies here...it would work better as a sourced bit in a new section about the creators poking fun at the incident. The misspelling bit is merely a goof.
Cartman's character "Bad Irene" is likely a reference to Irene Vilar, author of a book that was in the news in the weeks preceding the episode that detailed the authors "addiction to abortion" and detailing Vilar's 15 abortions.[2] Like Vilar, Bad Irene also had an addiction to abortion. - Same reasons as the last two. The source used here simply links to an article about the "abortion lady" in question, and there is no mention of the episode.
While holding auditions, the man who watched wrestling since he was a boy sings a song about wanting to be The Undertaker to the tune of "Nothing" from "A Chorus Line," an American musical about a dance audition. - Does it? Needs source. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 07:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to this information being added and reverted; first off, it needs sources in order to be verified. While a reference was added to the "Irene" paragraph, the source only contains information about the "real Irene", and does not support the claim that the scenes were a direct spoof of her actions. Yes, in all likelihood, this is the case, but making this connection based on a source which does not constitutes original research, and cannot be used in its recent states in the article. When and if the proper sources are found and added, the "Chorus Line" and "Irene"  information can be re-instated into the article within the proper context of a "Production" or "Reception" or a "Cultural references" section written in prose rather than presented as a list of occurrences in the episode, thus a list of miscellaneous information. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Me (the cunt whos been reverting):
Im not sure how this works but look, like you said, it is very possible, in fact probable that bad Irene is named after Irene Vilar. Names match up, dates etc. But look, I aint gonna kick the arse out of it yeah. Sound!

This article was moved to the same title but with a "South Park episode" qualifier. "W.T.F." simply redirected to it, but since there is no article by the exact name "W.T.F.", a qualifier is not necessary...yet. I reverted the move for now so that a discussion can be started first. 
The thing here is the episode title includes full stop punctuation marks, while the disamb page is simply "WTF" (without the periods). However, both uses are still presentations of the same acronym, periods or not. Should typing in "W.T.F." take you directly to the SP article, or be redirected to the WTF disamb page? I definitely think that most users would still associate the acronym more with its use as a common slang for "What the fuck?" than they would as "the title of a South Park episode", so I would lean towards redirecting both "WTF" and "W.T.F." to the disamb page, which places its description as an internet slang acronym for "What the fuck?" at the top and includes a link to the episode article right underneath. Now, after that, would moving the article to a new title with a qualifier still be necessary? There is no other article called "W.T.F." (with the punctuation marks included), but seeing "W.T.F. (South Park episode)" in the drop-down suggestions box below the search field might help users looking specifically for this episode's article to bypass the disamb page. Please post thoughts below. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree, SoSaysChappy. I arrived here from the other side of the coin after finding absolutely no disambiguation page for "What the fuck" (and no mention of it on WTF) and its spaghetti of redirected articles below. At least WTF *has* a disambiguation page already. (If there's a better place to discuss this wider topic or if this is just a case of wp:sofixit, let me know.) It was decided here in 2007 that "What the fuck" and "What the fuck?" should redirect to Fuck, but can we just tweak the disambiguation at WTF to include "What the fuck"? It might have a primary topic, explained something like: "'What the fuck' is an intensified use of the word Fuck."
What the fuck and What the fuck? redirect to Fuck as stated
What the Fuck... redirects to a hip-hop album on which there is a song of this title
What The Fuck Will Change? is a punk rock album with a duplicate article What The Fuck Will Change? EP
What the fuck do we know? redirects to the film What tнe #$*! Dө ωΣ (k)πow!?
What The--?! is a comic series.
...and the list goes on.
Sorry for all the cursing. ;) Ruodyssey (talk) 05:55, 18 January 2010 
(UTC)

I included a link to this discussion on the talk page for the WTF disamb page and not much discussion has been generated in the two months since, so I would definitely say it's safe to be bold and make the changes mentioned above. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:W.T.F./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: CTJF83 GoUSA 04:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Alt text
Done. — Hunter Kahn 15:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess in my other reviews I didn't pay attention to it saying it was rated MA...I think it should be is rated because it always has the same rating every time it airs, thoughts?
I'm sorry but I'm a bit confused. The rating is shown right now. Are you saying it should be or shouldn't be? — Hunter Kahn 15:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Do you think it should be present tense? ""W.T.F." was written and directed by series co-creator Trey Parker, and was rated TV-MA L in the United States." Do you think it should said and is rated TV-MA L, or is it ok how it is? CTJF83 GoUSA 20:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess I'd say it should stay the way it is now, since that tense is consistent with the rest of the article. However, if you feel otherwise, I could change it, or you could feel free to change it yourself... — Hunter Kahn 00:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Not a huge deal, just wanted to see your thoughts
I'm confused as to why ref 8 has two tables? I believe the SP number is wrong, and should be 1.37 mil viewers....well, please explain the 2 tables to me. Right above the 2nd table it says adults 18-34 but on the 2nd table it says 18-49.
You are right, it should have been 1.37. I fixed it. As for the reason for the two tables, it breaks it into the two different age groups, 18-34 and 18-49. Those are two age groups most commonly monitored by Nielsen ratings. In this particular source it only gives the South Park rating for the 18-34 age group. That's why in the first sentence of the Reception section, I make clear that the 1.37 million was from this age group in particular. — Hunter Kahn 15:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
CTJF83 GoUSA 06:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Passing GA CTJF83 GoUSA 05:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on W.T.F. (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 http://www.webcitation.org/5u4nPXIiC?url=http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/27/sons-of-anarchy-a-cable-hit-with-both-adults-18-49-and-18-34/31800 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/27/sons-of-anarchy-a-cable-hit-with-both-adults-18-49-and-18-34/31800
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) 01:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)