Talk:Probably (South Park)

message: Who is Chris in this episode meant to be? --87.112.69.70 12:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is "Chris"?

message: I vaguely remember something about Mormons not believing that people of other religions go to hell. Am I going insane and remembering things that never happened? Playstationman 02:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Mormons and Hell 

message: I stumbled across this factoid a while back and deleted it. Now I see it again: 
"Although the little girl with whom Satan speaks is never specifically identified, there is speculation that she may be JonBenét Ramsey. The Ramseys were parodied in the 2001 episode Butters' Very Own Episode."
Outside the fact this sentence is using weasel words, is there merit to this claim? Just because the Ramseys were parodied in another episode and the girl meets the description of JonBenét, doesn't make it her. If I don't get a reply, I'm just going to assume its complete fan speculation and nix it.  --Mitaphane talk 06:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  JonBenét  

message: I've begun cleaning up the South Park episodes per the following guidelines and policies: WP:EPISODE, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:WAF.  Allow me to quote from the relevant pages.
  
WP:EPISODE, a guideline, instructs: "*
Content about television episodes must conform to Wikipedia content policies, including but not limited to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.
*Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  
Avoid excessive trivia and quotations.
*Extensive quotation from episodes is a violation of copyright and unlikely to be fair use.
*Here are some ideas for what information to include about a television episode, where possible:
**The plot summary of the episode
**The episode's relevance in ongoing story arcs, if any
**How the episode was received by critics
**The episode's impact on popular culture
**Information on production and broadcasting of the episode
*Elements which are best avoided in any episode article:
**A scene-by-scene synopsis. An overall plot summary is much better; the article should not attempt to be a replacement for watching the show itself, it should be about the show
**Particularly for comedies, no attempt should be made to recreate the humor of the show. This rarely works, and is contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia."
WP:NOT, a policy says: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply:  Plot summaries. 
Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic."
WP:V, a policy, is clear: "The policy:
# 
Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
# Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
# The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."
WP:OR, a policy, states: "
That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article." 
WP:RS, a guideline, reads in part: "Popular culture and fiction
Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included."
WP:WAF, a guideline, tells us: 
"Wikipedia policy on verifiability requires that articles "rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." However, articles written from an in-universe perspective are overly reliant on the fiction itself as a primary source. Lacking as they are in any critical analysis of the subject, these articles may invite original research. In other words, lacking critical analysis from secondary sources, Wikipedia editors and fans of the subject often feel compelled to provide such analysis themselves. Consider this analogy: Would it be acceptable to write an article on flight based solely on watching birds flying? Furthermore, much of this analysis might seem on the surface to be quite sound. For example, assume that an editor creates an article on a starship recently introduced on a science fiction TV show. Using the episodes as reference, he or she writes, "Finn-class starfighters have purple shielding and can fly faster than Mach 3." But how do we really know that all Finn-class starships have purple shielding? What if there are green ones that just have not been introduced yet? And what if later episodes show that Finn-class starships come in slower or faster varieties, too? The editor has made an inference, based on limited fictional information. Framing things from the perspective of our own universe eliminates the problem altogether: "In Episode 37, Commander Kinkaid obtains a Finn-class starfighter with purple shielding. Vice Admiral Hancock calls the ship 'a real space ripper' and says that she can 'make it past Mach 3'."
Please understand that Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia and just not the place to repeat jokes from the episodes or say what product placement you have happened to notice.  If you want to write a deconstruction of the episode's use of narrative and novel juxtaposition of cultural memes, that's fantastic.  Find some reliable 3rd party sources and show us what you've got.  Adding more items to a bulleted list of things you can see when you watch the episode is just not acceptable.  Take a look at the Featured articles, that's some good writing, that is what we're shooting for here.  Cheers. L0b0t 04:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate what you're doing LObOt, I'm trying to do the same myself. Alastairward (talk) 09:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia cleanup and OR claims 

message: There appears to have been a tendency on this article to put down every stylistic representation or artistic interpretation as a "goof". This impacts negatively on the quality of the article. Observations of the sort that have been made re: Mormonism etc are either trivia, or not relevant. A goof is either a production error or a mistake or misjudgement which results in a loss of realism.
Now, this episode's whole comic appeal is based on its re-imagination of pan-Christian ideas - the goofs list would be endless if it weren't for the fact that these innacuracies are clearly deliberate and for comic effect. --JamesTheNumberless 12:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goofs 

message: Just wondering if it was of any note that the sound played when cutting the scenes of hell is the same sound played when you click on an Academy in Star Craft.
:Just another shared sound effect, one of many reused many times by many different TV shows, video games etc. Of no note, unless you have a cite handy. Alastairward (talk) 09:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starcraft 

message: The show portrays the Mormon heaven as the Mormons doing stereotypical "too good to be real" activities for eternity.  Shouldn't this article have some note on the true beliefs?  I know this is wrong but I'm not sure of the real ones; I heard that they believe they'll spend eternity as gods and goddesses, having children to populate new planets, which is quite distinct from this parody version.  Anyway, someone should put up a note on it (similar to how Jewbilee has the note contrasting Jewish beliefs with urban legends about Jews). Kilyle 18:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Mormons and Heaven

message: :Image:411 church building.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:411 church building.gif

message: The title "Probably" could be an answer to the previous episode "Do the handicapped go to hell?"
76.186.222.183 (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Was this ever in question? --Captain Infinity (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Title 

message: Uncite material;
* During the "previously on South Park" recap at the beginning of the episode, a reference is made to the Happy Days episode where Fonzie jumped the shark.
* The repeated line throughout this episode, "Yeah, well, where was I going to go? Detroit?" was from the 1970s cult film Kentucky Fried Movie.
* When Cartman says "the tooth fairy thing didn't work" it's a reference to "The Tooth Fairy Tats 2000".
* Cartman also says "the boy band thing didn't last"; it's a reference to the episode, "Something You Can Do With Your Finger".
* The organist for the children's church is Schroeder from the Peanuts comics.
* God claims he's a Buddhist.
*The way Cartman acts in his church is very similar to how famed evangelist Marjoe Gortner used to act as seen in the film Marjoe.
*The young girl of whom Satan asks advice about his lovers resembles JonBenét Ramsey.
*Cartman's actions after opening his church are most likely a reference to Peter Popoff.
*The lines of the man who introduces the new arrivals in Hell are very similar to a sketch by Rowan Atkinson in which he pretends to be the devil.
*When Satan wakes up in Sadam's hotel room an Antonio Banderas blowup doll can be seen.  This is a reference to the the one Cartman had in the episode Korn's Groovy Pirate Ghost Mystery.
*When the children go to Cartman's house, several Chinpokomon dolls can be seen lying around. This is a reference to the episode Chinpokomon.
Cite please. Alastairward (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited material