Talk:Make Love, Not Warcraft/Archive 2

message: I've added some dispute templates to the article and talk page. I feel they should remain until the disputes are resolved. --Pixelface 02:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the category dispute template. The article is an episode of the tenth season of South Park, and heavily parodies World of Warcraft. How is that 'disputed'? I'm sure anyone could agree these categories are appropriate. —♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 13:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, when browsing the dispute templates I saw "The inclusion of one or more of the categories on this page is disputed." and so included that template on the article page. I now realize that I was looking for the word section and not category. Thanks --Pixelface 13:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Nobody else has presented a case as to what may comprise original research in the article. Even those who object to sections in the article do so on a completely different basis. If there really was OR in the article, it could be presented by more than one editor. Given this, I am removing the OR warning template, and the OR category. I feel safe in saying at this point that it was never OR in the first place, but just a vague case of need of sourcing, and by my placement of World of Warcraft itself within the references, I solved that problem. Or, to summarize, nothing within the two disputed sections is OR because it comes from the episode, or the now properly cited game. If there is serious objection, someone can of course revert my edit and we can discuss it further. - 66.93.144.171 15:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputes

message: Just to get some reading from the community here, do you think that the sections in question, Characters' Warcraft Data and Incongruities With Actual Warcraft Play comprise Original Research according to Wikipedia's No Original Research policy at WP:OR? I do ask that those who want the sections gone for other reasons not falsely vote yes if that is not their real opinion. - 66.93.144.171 03:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This may now be unnecessary. I have added the game World of Warcraft, complete with ISBN number, to the references section of the article. As nothing in the disputed sections comes from outside either the episode the article is about or the game, it is not original research, it is simply reflecting one or both cited primary sources. - 66.93.144.171 05:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That section was part of the "original" content of the page, added about 5 minutes after it first aired on the east coast. I agree that the exact details were irrelevant; I just happened to have the "nerd switch" flipped on when I typed that, and wanted to link to a few of the pretty places seen in the episode. The only part I would still like to see in that little paragraph is the note that Cartman correctly points at the map behind him when describing his strategy, as this is a rare level of exact accuracy for the show. SlvrEagle23 05:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research Straw Poll

message: People people. This episode was about people who play this game too much. Now, making giant tables, explaning what character in WoW Cartman and Stan etc had, isnt really helping. We don't need lavish giant explanations of each character in WoW that was mentioned or appeared in the show. And we don't need corrections, from inaccurcies made in the episode. Koolgiy 01:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The tables are far from giant, and other episodes' pages include inaccuracies. Is there a bias here simply because the episode was about WoW? - 66.93.144.171 03:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was more WoW information here than on Leeroy Jenkins.  Note that an article specifically about the game doesn't mention irrelevant details such as class name, gender, equipment, and so forth.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository of every little fact only a select few care about.  This article doesn't even mention the subtle "poor Kenny" jokes by observing his sub-par framerate and obsolete monitor, which is South Park trivia.  Likewise, the article on the SPAM food product doesn't mention how the cans are created and the metal working processes to create said can.  Why?  It's irrelevant and only metal workers would care. Sabar 20:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, remember that just because you don't care doesn't mean that everybody agrees with you, nor does it mean that even everybody who isn't a fan of the game agrees with you. Do some agree with you? Sure. I'm just asking for a look at the bigger picture. - 66.93.144.171 20:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WoW Details 

message: Just wanted to give a fair warning to the fine folks who contributed to this page that we've all been judged by Digg.com's sterling userbase as lifeless nerds who don't grasp or understand humor. I would suggest a series of edits reinforcing the fact that we did in fact find the episode funny, and were putting the info up here as sort of a "making of" database, rather than claiming the episode was inferior because of these differences, which it wasn't. I don't know about you guys, but the thought of Digg users staring down their noses at me just makes it hard to sleep at night. SlvrEagle23 17:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, Digg truly and utterly missed the point. I don't think a single WoW fan was posting here angry that South Park "got it wrong". I think they were simply trying to create an interesting article illustrating compariosn and contrast between the game as depicted in the episode, and the real game. - 66.93.144.171 21:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Digg Hates This Page

message: This article should be about the episode. Not about how it relates to world of warcraft.
The reason I say this is simple. If it is allowed to be an analysis as it was, it would be full of original research which is simply not acceptable. All claims must be coupled with verifiable, reliable sources.
Also, regarding the trivia section. How is stating that a poster that appeared in episode x and also appeared in this article notable enough to be included. It is beyond trivia, it is just a useless observation that bares no importance on the episode itself.-Localzuk(talk) 18:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My edits 

message: You can clearly see that Kenny has the slowest computer, or a serious lag. In the scene where you can see him play in his house it is clearly shown that he's character teleports from place to place. As I said. Either low FPS count or lag. Both connect with Kenny being poor. He is also the only one to have a CRT screen.
:Not to be annoying or anything, but how is that specifically relevant to the article? It doesn't seem to have any importance within the episode.-Localzuk(talk) 21:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really think the place for this kind of thing is in World of Warcraft/South Park blogs or forums. It just doesn't sit well in this article. Johan Aruba 21:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. I think people are forgetting that Wikipedia is not an arbitrary collection of information, it is an encyclopedia and as such has to maintain a level of 'notability' of the information included.-Localzuk(talk) 22:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? It's trivia i suppose thing like that should go there. Considering your opinion most stuf shouldn't be there. Dnak 05:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is my opinion. As backed up by our policies and guidelines about the relevance of content. I will ask again, how is it relevant to this article?-Localzuk(talk) 08:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I still say it fits in the Trivia perfectly. Becouse that's exactly trivia, a thing one may not see at the first time, but that hard to notice thing is a small bonus from the creators. Perhaps I'm the only one that thinks this way, in that case sorry, but i won't change my mind that Kenny lagging is a pretty nice detail...Dnak 12:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But you are missing one minor detail. Trivia sections should always be worked on in order to remove them and include the details within the main prose of the article. How could this detail be included within the article as a whole?-Localzuk(talk) 21:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kenny's screen 

message: Someone noted on the page that Butters is not seen after Cartman tells him to choose something that isn't a dwarf.  He actually does come back and can briefly be seen as a gnome in the video.
:How do you know? Is he identified as butters? If not then that is speculation and original research.-Localzuk(talk) 22:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Butters 

message: Was this payed for by Blizzard? It seemed like a 30 min advertisement disguised as comedy/satire.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.8.3.61 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 10 October 2006  (UTC)
Nice to see that Blizzard like to laugh at WoW players too!
One of the energy drinks is "Red Balls" and not "Red Bull".--65.167.98.2 16:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Product Placement 

message: On another topic, something that's been bothering me a bit. We'd probably want to standardize what the villain of this episode is called. I've seen all three of the above terms used. I would vote for Renegade as it's the only one used in the episode. - 66.93.144.171 04:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renegade, Ganker or Griefer 

message: Now that the page is finally protected, I have two requests.
1. Re-add the deleted sections. It is only 3 editors who keep removing them under a flawed understanding of WP:OR. If nothing else, we need to see what we are talking about.
2. Someone removed the game's ISBN number from the References section under the mistaken idea that games don't have them. I was looking straight at the game box when I copied it down. That needs to be reinstated. - 66.93.144.171 06:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Protection 

message: Hi! I guess it wouldn't be bad to put the boys nicknames in trivia. Whereas i can understand cutting 'lagging kenny' i think that this might fit it. Stan's nick is 'Loves to Spooge' which i find rather strange as he never shown any signs of sexist stances. Kenny would rather be the one to pick a name like that (though i'm not sure if we learn his in-game name).
Cheers!
Dnak 12:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There WAS a whole well researched section on the boys' aliases in the game. It was cut by a few editors overriding the will of the community for reasons they felt were good. We're trying to get that section re-established, along with all the other wrongfully deleted content. - 66.93.144.171 14:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I'm very sorry then for flooding. Either my Opera search button sucks, or there is no word 'spooge' in the whole discussion... You got my vote trying to re-establish that section ;)
Cheers!
Dnak 18:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The boys nicknames 

message: I came to this article after seeing it linked on the Digg.com frontpage. I discovered it in a state of high vandalism and a high level of original research. My main gripes with it are:
*Information not relevant to the episode is being included by some editors as it was in the episode (such as posters being spotted that were in prior episodes). This level of trivial detail is not helpful to an encyclopedic article and leads to the article being full of fancruft.
*A lot of information is included which contains individual editors analyses of the WoW characters and their appearance. In order to verify this information, one would have to have knowledge of the game itself. This constitutes original research as it is not verifiable without expert knowledge. I am quite happy for such information to be included if it is accompanied by a third party, reliable source.
*The level of detail in the synopsis is far too high. A synopsis is supposed to be a general from beginning to end overview of the episode. Not an analysis of as many of the jokes and minor details as possible. My comments on the matter can all be found above under the section Stop Slashing Content.
Various users seem to misunderstand our policy on original research and our policy on verifiability and this is where, I believe, the source of the problem lies.-Localzuk(talk) 16:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements by editors involved in dispute