Talk:Trapped in the Closet (South Park)/Archive 2

message: I see that this article is tagged as a high importance Scientology article.  Is one TV show that important?  Thanks. Steve Dufour 03:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any medium or low importance articles in the Scientology series? :-)  Steve Dufour 15:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please refer to WP:SCN and the associated talk page for more info, not here.  Thanks.  Smee 16:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is not high importance. It is of zero importance to understanding Scientology, the correct purpose of the Scn series. It is of low importance to understanding (as opposed to simply repeating) criticism of Scientology, another valid purpose. It is of high importance to presenting a biased view of Scientology, a disallowed use of Wikipedia. So, Steve, pick which one of those is your goal for the project and make the appropriate adjustment to the rating. Remember, the most important thing about Wikipedia is that it is a wiki - you change things that you believe are wrong, misrepresented, etc. --Justanother 16:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a more appropriate discussion for the WP:SCN talk pages.  Please move any further comments in this thread there.  Thanks.  Smee 16:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Steve can move it there if he cares to. I can answer his question here if I care to. And it is totally appropriate that parties interested in the South Park series but not especially interested in Scientology know what is going on with this article so here is just fine, thank you, Mr. Smee. If an actual change is made then, yes, any needed discussion should take place there. --Justanother 16:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That sounds more fair to me.  I understand that this episode was a very important event in the history of the South Park series, of which I have never seen an episode since we don't have cable TV. On the Scientology issue, I have already said that there are way too many articles for this fairly small group of people with a not too remarkable belief system.  On the other hand, their founder was quite an interesting guy.  Wishing everyone well. Steve Dufour 17:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Later...  Smee 18:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: High Importance?

message: << moved new subsection post to the bottom >>
I was looking at the article for the South Park episode "All About Mormons," which similarly criticizes a religion with flashing "THIS IS WHAT THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE" captions.  In that article there is an "Inaccuracies" section which, obviously, contains what was not adequately portrayed about that particular faith.  Just wondering, I suppose, if anyone knows enough about Scientology to know if there are any inaccuracies in this episode's depiction of Scientology?  I suppose Scientologists won't be able to help us out here, seeing as how this article will most certainly be on their blocked websites.  Mileslivingston 10:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: False Information Section?

message: #Which is a higher rating, "Good Article", or "A-Class Article" ??
#Is this article ready for nomination to "Featured Article" status?
#If not, what other steps, suggestions are there to improve its quality? 
Yours, Smee 01:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not the one who has been doing all the work on the page, so I can't answer the second and third questions, but in answer to the first, the A Class rating is higher than GA, but anyone can promote an article to A status (even if it isn't a GA) whereas to attain GA status, an article must be reviewed by a different editor. Some regard the GA as being higher than A for that reason and don't even bother promoting articles to A-class. But officially, A is higher. I hope that answered your question. -- Scorpion0422 01:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  In that case, perhaps this article should now be upgraded to "A-Class"...  Smee 01:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article upgrade??? 

message: Article now has citations from (40) reputable sources.  Now to just go back and make sure they are all formatted with Wikipedia:Citation templates, which will be a tedious but worthwhile endeavour...  Smee 07:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (40) citations. 

message: What exactly is not portrayed truthfully? I believe, on basis of the OTC3 "scriptures" from xenu.net, handwritten by "the Prophet"/"Sci-fi author" L.R. Hubbard, coincides with the depiction in the episode. Can someone reference this? Madskile 00:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight variation of the Xenu story 

message: *"Alleged" is a Wikipedia word to avoid -- and as this information is backed up by a WP:RS reputable source, there is no need to use this word in this context.  Therefore, this edit Diff, is unnecessary.  Smee 05:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I get a "Red Alert" if you use the word "reputable". Looks fine however, taking WP:RS. Go ahead and spread the lie (i.e. revert me). Misou 05:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for acknowledging that this is a reputable source.  I would prefer it if you were to revert yourself on this one.  Thank you.  Smee 05:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Alleged" is a Wikipedia word to avoid 

message: *
*Page 137 -- "In the episode, Stan learns the actual dogma of Scientology in brief.  The "president" of Scientology tells Stan a short version of the story of Xenu, based directly on the actual Scientology OT III document.  This is accompanied by an onscreen caption reading, "THIS IS WHAT SCIENTOLOGISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE."
;Quote, from reputable sourced citation
This is the direct quote itself, from a citation from a WP:RS reputable source.  This explains why this should be in the article, without the word "alleged".  Smee 05:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I get a "Red Alert" if you use the word "reputable". Looks fine however, taking WP:RS. Go ahead and spread the lie (i.e. revert me). Misou 05:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for acknowledging that this is a reputable source.  I would prefer it if you were to revert yourself on this one.  Thank you.  Smee 05:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reputable citation 

message: Problems with this article that fail GA criteria.
# Big issue, literally, is the plot. First, "plot synopsis" is redundant, as a synopsis is a summary of the plot. Given the length of detail it should be simply "Plot". This isn't that major, just something minor as I get to the other problems. The plot is overly long. There are 980 words for a 22 minute episode. Wikipedia does not create Derivative works, as they violate copyrights, and the 3 non-free images along in the plot do not meet non-free criteria either. There are 4 screenshots for this page alone. Screenshots are used with critical commentary, not decoration. Here are the criteria. More specifically 3a (as little non-free content as possible)
#What is the purpose of the Scientology infobox?  -- Moved down instead to a "footer" template, used as a navigational tool for readers and editors. Smee 15:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, unless it's been replaced, last time I checked the Simpson's featured articles had them removed. I didn't know the MASH one had it as well. It isn't excepted for films, so I don't see why it would be accepted for television shows. Mainly because when it comes to the audience, for film's the creed is "money talks", and for television it would be "Nielsen ratings talk", as that would be the equivalent. It's just not an accurate representative sample of what people think. Nielsen Ratings do that best, as you can actually see that so many million people watched the show. There are far too many viewers for IMDb or TV.com to create an representative sample rating for an episode. Bignole 23:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No no, I wasn't saying that what was there was the best, just that what should go there should be the best illustration. Bignole 21:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Currently failing GA 

message: *Ref number 12 looks like it used to point to Rolling Stone, but the cite is now gone, any ideas?  Smee 09:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Michaelas10 10:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome.  Smee 10:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing ref? 

message: I'm confused by the sentence describing the comparison in the Robert Arp book. The synopsis presented here says that the Mormon episode and the Scientology episode both used the "This is what ___ actually believe" device, and uses this to demonstrate Comedy Central's inconsistency? I'm suspecting this is a typo, and that the caption was absent from the Mormon episode. Can anybody verify? Poobslag 13:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arp reference?