Talk:South Park/Archive 1

message: Every time I go to this page, there are less and less pictures. There used to be over ten, but now all I see is three (including the main picture on the infobox). What's the deal? Is it copyright issues or what? Zone46 02:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What the hell happened to all the pictures on this page?

message: *I didn't award this article "Good article" status because of the way it is written. The narritive is often rambling and unfocused; it is often very repetitive, and the Trivia and Running Gags section are punishingly long. Someone who knows the show very well could likely clean it up in a few days and have it ready to become a good article. TheImpossibleMan 10:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Just gave it a full read, needs to be cut back by a good 20-25%. Running Gags- as written- could probably get snipped altogether. Saint Mahone 23:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doubly Agreed. The character section and celebrity appearances could use their own articles as wellJruffatto 17:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that I might be up for the challenge of re-writing the article. If I can find some time, I'll give it a shot... I've read quite a bit of the article, and it's all over the place. It needs some BIG reorganization, and a lot of content isn't necessary. honestly, do we really need to know that after the woman voicing Wendy offed herself (no offense) her husband started up a foundation in her name? Many things are also repeated quite a few times. I'll see what I can do over the next week or so, but I'm giving no guarantees. NetStormer 20:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *sigh* I'm sorry to everyone, but I've just not enough time to be doing an overhaul at the moment. I'm very busy with work and my home life and things are a bit unorganized... sorry once again, and I'll attempt at some small edits here and there. NetStormer 07:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: All right then. Perhaps I can pick up the baton...given that I don't get extremely busy either. I've been watching over this article for a long time, since I don't recall seeing an animated series on either the "Good Article" or "Featured Article" lists and I see this as the best bet (though perhaps The Simpsons is a very good pick too). For the recurring gags section, should that be put up as a separate article, or has much of my work already been done? Ron Stoppable 19:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why I failed this article

message: It disappeared recently and I was just curious as to were it went. Zone46 03:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What happened to the picture of Kenny getting electrocuted?

message: Think I found a hidden code in the 'Goobacks' episode.  See the 'Goobacks' talk page for details.
Well I looked at the goobacks talk page and all i saw was something about terminator:3--Yowiki 06:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hidden Code in Goobacks

message: I noticed that the last person to edit the page [*cough*SCIENTOLOGIST*cough*] deleted the entire thing. I threw it back up for you all.
:Do you have evidence it was a scientologist? --Quirex 15:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: South Park Discussion Vandalized

message: The link at Jesus vs. Frosty leads to a page that describes it identically to "The Spirit of Christmas", and doesn't match the description on the page. I don't know which is right, so I'll leave the edit to someone else, and also drop a note on the other page.
Are the creators Republicans? If its not well confirmed maybe it shudn't be part of the encyclopedia. I have little idea as I live far far away in India. But my objective is to bring to notice that part of the article to others who can more objectively analyse and judge.
The confusion is most likely do to the fact that there were two shorts titled "The Spirit of Christmas"  with Jesus going up against Frosty in the first one and against Santa in the better-known christmas card one.Apofisu 20:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus vs. Frosty 

message: We should add characters uncle jimbo and his friend who speaks with the artificial voicebox... i'll do it later if i have time 64.59.209.89 14:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  uncle jimbo 

message: Just a query: What on earth does the PSP have to do with Terri Schiavo?
:In real life, nothing. But in the epsiode "Best Friends Forever," which parodies the Schiavo controversy, a lot.
:Kenny dies after he gets run over while playing a PSP. In his will, Kenny left his PSP to Cartman. After Kenny got a feeding tube, Cartman led the fight to have it removed, claiming Kenny wouldn't have wanted to be on life support. Of course, the truth is, Cartman just wanted Kenny dead so that Cartman could keep the PSP.  Meanwhile, Kenny uses a PSP in heaven to control God's armies in their battle against Satan.
:Hey, you asked. Kirchherr 18:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Terri Schiavo and the PSP

message: I don't recall anyone in South Park with the surname of "Harrison". Brittany 22:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They're in the All About the Mormons? episode. KeithD (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who are the Harrisons? 

message: Currently the Chef Aid article is a redirect to the Chewbacca Defence. Would it be possible to create a stub for Chef Aid keeping the links to the preceding and successive episode. Thanks for your help. Capitalistroadster 05:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done! Now I leave it to someone else to fill in the stub and merge/separate Chef Aid and Chewbacca Defense as appropriate. Taiichi 2 02:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Chef Aid]]

message: Why has South Park not done a parody of the Killdozer?  It is perfect material as 1) nobody was killed or injured (except Marvin), 2) it happened in a small Colorado town, 3) the real mayor sounds as corrupt as the mayor from South Park, and 4) the method is so outrageous it lends itself to satire.--RPlunk 16:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why they haven't, RPlunk, but this isn't really the right place to ask.  This talk page is supposed to be for discussion about the article, not about your thoughts on the show.  Therefore, discussing something that has not happened, and speculating about things that have not occurred, probably isn't going to get anyone to respond to you.  Except for me, and i'm telling you that you should ask these sorts of questions elswhere.  cheers  — Fudoreaper 09:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Killdozer]]

message: Sorry folks. I posted two edits to this article by accident. My intent was to revert one edit, but it looks like somehow I also managed to revert a chopped off text on the political controversy as a 2nd revert. If that one's wrong or anything feel free to fix it. Thanks FT2 22:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Weird edit

message: I think that Tweek should be removed of the major characters section. He had some important time in the 6th season as the 4th friend, but it only was for three or four chapters. After that he never had a relevant role. And there is a lot of characters that could be there such as Wendy or Chef, that always made important appearances. Even Jesus or Saddam have more major time than Tweek.--Bauta 22:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the major characters 

message: In the past week the Catholic League have managed to get the episode Bloody Mary cancelled from Comedy Central's lineup: http://www.defamer.com/hollywood/south-park/bloody-mary-episode-ensures-south-park-guys-a-bungalow-in-hell-145774.php
The League have issued a press release regarding the yanking:
http://www.catholicleague.org/05press_releases/quarter%204/051230_Southpark_pulled.htm
Perhaps they forgot to read:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/06.html
*You can say whatever you want to, it's up to the corportations if it's worth it to distribute that speech or not. --Mercury1 01:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloody Mary vs Christian League 

message: Where do you guys get most of your episode screen shots from. I like to include a screen shot from their "Free Willzyx", but that is not included in Wikipedia yet. Thanks. Zach (Smack Back) 03:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshots 

message: Just a little nitpick, but the image on the article is wrong. It says one of the many deaths of Kenny from the episode Rainforest Schmainforest, though he doesn't actually die in the episode.
----
Actually, he does die. He is resusicitated, however, but still, had Kelly not been there he would have remained permanently dead. Hurricanehink 02:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Once it [a living body] shuts down, thats it, you're dead." What TV show are you talking about!?!?! Kenny dies and comes back to life in the next episode all the time, why wouldn't he be able to die and come back to life in the same episode? And the show violates known facts about biology all the time (such as people learning to eliminate waste through their mouth, hybid clonings etc. etc.).207.69.137.23 01:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kenny death image 

message: Is it just me being paranoid or there used to be an article about episode 12 (season 8), "Stupid Spoiled Whore..."? You know, about that Hilton creature.
Looks kind of weird: every single episode has a separate article, only that one is in red. --Bicycle repairman 01:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're looking for Stupid Spoiled Whore Video Playset (South Park) --Billdorr 06:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode deleted from Wiki? 

message: I can't say for sure, but it seems to me that the first major appearance of Butters indicated that he was Mr. Mackey's son.  The episode was one third of the "Meteor Shower" trilogy, the episode with the party at Mr. Mackey's house.  I was under the assumption that the reason he was at the party (and had to hang in the basement with the other kids) was because he lived there and Mackey couldn't find a babysitter (like the other parents).  The way he talks is almost like a child version of Mackey's voice, although a little more energetic, and I think he even shared the "mm'kay" in that early episode.
Since I don't have the DVDs of that season, I'm hoping someone can review this episode for me.  If I'm right, I think it's worth noting in the article.
- Ugliness Man 17:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of Butters 

message: Under running gags, in the part about Chef talking to the kids, it says 'Curiously, Chef always refers to even one child as "children".'  I think some verification is needed on this, because I think the only time Chef ever did this was in episode 113 "Cartman's Mom is a Dirty Slut", when Cartman went to Chef's house thinking Chef was his dad.  It seems to me that the joke is that because Cartman is so fat, Chef refer to him in plural terms, but as far as I know, it was only Cartman, and only that episode.  I'll leave it for awhile, but if nobody can site another episode as an example, I'm going to change the text. - Ugliness Man 18:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold when you're editing - this is only really a minor thing which doesn't really warrant talk page discussion.  Go ahead and edit it!  If anyone disagrees, then head for talk.  Thenugga 03:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the reason I left it up in the air was that I haven't seen all of the episodes, I'm still in the middle of season 6, so I thought there might be episodes I haven't seen where Chef refers to someone other than Cartman as "children".  I'll go ahead and edit it, but while I'm catching up on the series, I'll keep an eye out for any other examples. -  Ugliness Man 07:45, 27 February 2006
I dont remember myself and trying not to drop any spoilers but pay close attention to the end of season 6, he may say it there. Discordance 18:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Interestingly enough, I just finished watching to the end of season 6 on Sunday, and when Chef took Cartman to Scotland, he refers to him as "children", but I didn't notice any other incident where he used the term for a single boy. - Ugliness Man 11:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: For obvious reasons in that episode. Discordance 15:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello, children 

message: Well, not everywhere. I have made some minor NPOV edits which I doubt anyone will think are unwarranted. My main worry is in "Political Controversy" section which apart from being POV and unsourced needs major cleanup. I personally have little opinion on the show, though I tend to like some episodes more than others. It needs cleanup because it repeats itself a little. It needs cleanup because it repeats itself a little. Views such as it being conservative need to be sourced as coming from someone, it's not enough just to say it, you also cannot out-and-out say it is conservative, you need to say that "some say" that it's conservative and reference who says it. There is plenty of criticism from the Parents Television Council to be referred to. It needs rewriting so I'm tagging it. No offense dudes. Angrynight 03:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV, POV, everywhere and not a View worthwhile... 

message: The current edit of this article says:
In January of 2006, Comedy Central's United Kingdom affiliate removed the episode "Trapped in the Closet" from its broadcast schedule, reportedly in order to avoid legal action by actor Tom Cruise, considering Matt and Trey just signed with Paramount who also happens to employ Cruise. That episode was screened on February 20 on SBS in Australia. SBS has since been threatened with Legal Action.
The alleged legal action filed against SBS needs to be sourced. I am familiar with the station in question, and I know that no legal threats have either been made or followed through on. I realise "original research" has no validity, but if the legal action reference is to stand it needs to be sourced properly. Using the Fairfax newspaper library in Australia (which has a record of every article published in Australian newspapers) I have been unable to find any published reference in the Australian media of such a legal threat. (Whoby 00:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged legal action over Trapped in the Closet episode 

message: Someone deleted a previous edit without explanation.  The creators of the show are obviously against stem cell research as shown in "Krazy Kripples", and so it at least deserves being mentioned.  Do not delete it again.
:If you're going to start ordering people around, there are three things you should do.  First, get an account and stop doing your crap anonymously.  Second, sign your comments (it's not hard, four tildes is fairly simple).  Third, watch the fucking show.  Episode 513 showed an extremely (and not at all ambiguous) pro stem cell research stance.  Don't start assigning your morailty to the show's creators if you're going to be too gutless to even set up an account. - Ugliness Man 18:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't inserting my opinion into a show, I said what I believed to be the position expressed in one specific episode.  The Gutless Wonderkook said that the show's creators were obviously supporting one view on the matter (coincidentally, the view shared by said kook), and I cited an episode which expressed the other view, to show that you can't arbitrarily assign either standpoint to the entire series.  And the reason for my nasty tone (which I am not retracting at this moment, by the way) was because someone without an account anonymously stepped in and decided to tell the rest of us that we shouldn't delete the edit (apparantly not wanting to allow for the possibility of another viewpoint even existing).  If you think I'm a hypocrite for showing that both sides of an issue are valid, so be it, but I've been on this planet long enough to learn that everyone's a hypocrite in one way or the other, so your little jab doesn't hurt me.  And for the record, there's no umulat in my screen name. - Ugliness Man 11:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christopher Reeve and Stem Cell Research 

message: The "Response" subsection of the "Censorship" section is almost nothing but a discussion of the 10th-season premiere where Chef is killed off.  This material is already covered in the "Chef" entry in "Recurring Characters."  It seems better to take the Response section out because of the duplicated information; in my opinion, this info fits better in the "Recurring Characters" section.
South park would never sell out 02:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship->Response section should possibly be removed 

message: Does anyone know why South Park has never been released from Season 5 onwards in the UK?  Play.com had Season 5 as 'available soon' for about 2 years before giving up. Douglasnicol 23:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Park DVD's 

message: The part about religion claims that Chef wants to give anal sex to little kids and then goes to hell is... from what I recall, not true. As far as the hell thing goes, anyway. --Discharger12 02:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's absolutely true that the Chef character (as a result of being brainwashed) did want to molest the children.  As for going to hell, I don't see where it's mentioned in the article, but if it is mentioned, it's incorrect as you say, considering that he didn't actually die. - Ugliness Man 11:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chef 

message: I saw an ad on Comedy Central congratulating them on the win.  I looked for verification and found it.  Got lazy and decided not to cite the page, but if someone has the urge...  Also, perhaps we should add a section regarding awards the show has won. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.251.46.22 (talk • contribs) 
:I agree, and I just wanted to note that if we add an Awards section, we should also fix up the movie's article.  Currently the only Awards mention I can find on that article is something called "Wings TEC Critics Awards" (which I've never heard of.  Aside from the infamous Oscar nomination (and Robin Williams performance) of "Blame Canada", I seem to remember "Uncle Fucka" winning something on one of MTV's awards shows. - Ugliness Man 08:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peabody Award  

message: Is R. Kelly really a Scientologist as it says in the "Scientology Scuffle" section's "Origins" paragraph?
* No, he merely attempted to get Tom Cruise etc. out of the closet and thereafter entered the closet himself.JTFryman 00:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  R. Kelly's a Scientologist? 

message: I remember watching the movie a bit before, (I've been watching the show South Park start to finish as of late) and am wondering when I'm supposed to watch the movie. I noticed that during the movie Devil had stopped having gay sex with Saddam due to telling him off and in later episodes of the show he was indeed with someone else. And another reference as to when we should watch the movie is Stan and Wendy. He always puked whenever Wendy came like inches from him like he does in the movie but later in season 4 I think he gets over that puking business. So when  exactly do we watch the South Park movie for all of us who are curious?
:Continuity was never a major concern for Matt and Trey, although some continuity has become part of the series over the years.  However, if you're going to watch the entire series starting at season 1, I'd recommend watching the movie between seasons 2 and 3 for a close approximation of "continuity". - Ugliness Man 01:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually belongs between Tweek vs. Craig and Sexual Harassment Panda  it was released July 4th, 1999.  However as long as you watch it before Season 6 as that's when Kenny's character changes. In addition, Most main characters in the movie have been properly developed by episode 1 of Season 2 (namly the Satan+Sadaam relationship).  As stated, continuity is not important in the show and you can ignore it for the most part.  But those are the important factors for when you watch. --Kinglink 16:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When Oh When to watch the movie? 

message: The trivia section is way too long, in my opinion. Any ideas on how to trim it down? M2K e 19:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trivia of South Park Page could be made.  However a large amount of this information is overly wordy and duplicate (it take two paragraphs to meantion how in the first five seasons kenny dies almost once an episode and then they say 'you killed kenny"  "You bastards"?  I just did it in a sentance.  Explaining the special features of it can be held til each instance of the special features (first christmas episode he lives)   Info about the production company or Matt and Trey's personal life or problems with Moore could be placed elsewhere.  It definatly is too wordy, and the list of running gags and such as needless as well as much of the trivia.  Trivia of South Park is probably best but getting rid of half the trivia should be easy.--Kinglink 16:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: Whoever added Pip in the "Main character" section seems to be in denial that Pip was never a main character or simply has his information wrong. Pip had very few speaking lines per episode in the early episodes, and by the later seasons he's barelly in the backround anymore. He had a slight roll in the Dodgeball episode, One episode to himself ( which most people hate ), and a minor roll in the Meteor shower episode ( and was upstaged highly by Butters ) and that's about it. He was never was, and never meant to be a main character. Nor was he popular. Pip simply shouldn't be up there. If any kid should be up there, it should be Jimmy who's starred in several episodes and on the cover of a DVD boxset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercyfulfate666 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pip was never a main character 

message: In the article the following is said in reference to Mr. Garrison's homosexuality: "At the beginning of the series, Mr. Garrison was a chronic gay basher and until confronted by his "Gay Side," had gay fantasies which he always denied having. Mr. Garrison also had a hand puppet, named Mr. Hat, which he explained was gay to a therapist in one episode. The therapist told Mr. Garrison that he expressed his repressed homosexuality through Mr. Hat. This eventually led him to admit he was gay and proud of it." I feel that this is misleading in that the episode being referenced with the therapist ("Summer Sucks") doesn't really lead to Garrison accepting anything about his homosexuality. Rather, the episode "4th Grade," where Mrs. Choksondik seeks out Mr. Garrison in the mountains and impresses upon him that he must come to terms with who he is is moreso why he accepts his homosexuality. Blinutne 21:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr. Garrison 

message: I keep making a small section on the South Park page about how some people Critisize South Park, and people keep reverting it, what is the problem?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Park&diff=56852774&oldid=56852519
I think this is a perfectly fine section of it.  People need to know about these kinds of things, and I am staying 100% neutral with my opinions, im just laying down the FACTS of what other people believe.
WHAT is the problem this time?!  User:Igotsomeapples
::Please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~.  Exploding Boy 17:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok I signed it, now can someone tell me what im doing wrong? 
Igotsomeapples 18:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't very well written or even spell-checked, just for starters. St. Jimmy 18:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It's got too many Katie Courics.  "Some people think..."  "Many have claimed that..."  "You've been accused of..."  "Some critics note that...."  "Parents are angered by..."  Identify these people.  Quote the critics.  Cite their statements. Bjsiders 15:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, to put it another way, avoid weasel words.  Nuge talk 18:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Park Criticism

message: "South Park is an American animated television comedy series about four fourth grade school boys who live in the small town of South Park, Colorado." FWIW, the four were in third grade in seasons one, two and three. Perhaps, this could be clarified somehow. 67.168.45.34 07:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy 

message: *The controversial/political aspects could be reasonably merged with South Park Republican as South Park (Politics) or something thereof.
*Recurring characters and articles should be checked for stubbing and merged in Recurring_South_Park_characters as needed.
Cwolfsheep 02:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggesting some cleanup & splitting 

message: In the religion section, the one sentence i have a problem with is "This is ironic because in one episode they blatently call Mormonism a complete hoax made up by a guy who was obviously lying." They definitely do strongly imply it's a hoax, it's just not blatant.--Charibdis 18:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was extremely blatant and not just with the general storyline. During the whole creation of Mormonism story, the background song was "Dumb, dumb, dumb, etc" after everything that happened. When someone finally questioned what Smith was doing and saying, the song immediately switched to "Smart, smart, smart, etc" and then straight back to the "dumb, dumb, etc" after. --pIrish 19:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your interpretation of that episode is questionable. Yes, the back story did mock the story of the book of mormon, and it did imply that Joseph Smith lied. But it was emphatically NOT an attack on Mormons themselves. If it was, think of all the stuff they could have ripped! No caffeine, special underwear etc. Instead, Gary (the little Mormon kid) criticises Stan for worrying emphatically about those stories (as the episode itself had). He was shown to be wise, arguing that, fair enough it was a shitty story, but look what good Mormonism does. Thats a pretty fair message from where I'm standing. --frogemporer 22:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion section 

message: Well, I didn't read the article in full, but I did do a few searches, and there seems to be no mention of how the children's voices are done. In this official faq link the faq maintainer say that the children's voices are done by adjusting pitch. Someone even readjusted the pitch of two scenes in the movie so you can hear what they sound like here (Mr. Garrison teaches math) and here (What Would Brain Boitano Do?. If you know what Matt and Trey sound like, then you can hear them easily in the boys' voices.
Surely this deserves a mention in at least the trivia section. I watched the entire series as of now, and the movie, and always just assumed Matt and Trey were incredible at mimicking young boys.70.66.9.162 07:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digitally Altered Voices 

message: :I see from reading this entry...
:In the 1999 episode "Rainforest Schmainforest," an environmental activist, voiced by Jennifer Aniston, made a harrowing trip to the rainforest of Costa Rica with the children, and the experience caused her to conclude that the rainforest "sucks ass."
:...that the person who wrote it doesn't understand Satire. It is obviously not meant to be taken literally, I mean Parker and Stone are not putting across the message that we should cut down the Rainforests. It may seem that way if you take it literally, but its really the same as the episode Red Man's Greed, this is not actually saying Native Americans are evil, IT'S SATIRICAL! In-fact it can be argued that they are actually saying exactly the opposite of what is portrayed in the episode. I mean come on do you really think that it is portraying Logging companies as the good guys and the natives as Evil savages?, it's obviously Satire.
:Also in broader terms, although certainly some episodes of South Park have what could be called anti-environmental themes, there are also several episodes with what could be called pro-environmental themes. Such as that episode where they parody hunters as trying to "thin out the number" of animals in order to "help them" etc. (and well, Jimbo is a running criticism about Redneck hunter types). I think it was in this episode Volcano (South Park episode), with Scuzzlebutt and all that.
:--Hibernian 02:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I think your edits were very good, and made the section more accurate and NPOV. I suppose the section (or a similar one) should probably still be there, as many people do think the show is "anti-environmental", so if it's deleted it would just be put back. Better perhaps, to put both interpretations forward. It's true that South Park mainly makes fun of people not causes, and I think it's the case here. Also, the article should mention the apparently "pro-environmental" episodes. --Hibernian 21:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rainforest Schmainforest" isn't actually anti-environmental 

message: Trey Parker writes the episodes alone and sometimes he's supported by the "advisors". Matt's name is not in the credits, i thought it really would suck if he didn't collaborate writting the cartoon he co-created but he really doesn't, as you can check on the oficial site, if he did though, it WOULD be in the credits, i've never seen his name in none (but it could still be some kind of internal joke), so you have to alter LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTS of articles like this one, matt stone's, terrance and philip: behind the blow ("there are some rumours...") and so on. That sucksass but he fun thing is that the show express Trey's and Matt's points of view, so i guess this means that Parker knows pretty well his friend.
The ideas for the episodes come from a writting staff(Trey and Matt are part of this writting staff)and then Trey writes the final script for the episodes.Matt wrote and directed episodes from several seasons himself.User:alfredosolis
:Matt has not had a writing credit on the show since the Season 4 premiere, The Tooth Fairy Tats 2000. Trey has been credited as sole writer for every episode since. - Zone46 04:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matt Stone is not co-writer 

message: Not to nag, but could someone please remove the picture of Muhammad on the page. I respect the right to free speech, but the picture of Muhammad makes it seem like this show is overly insensitive. I have no objection to keeping it on the episode it was in, but right now people might read this, see Muhammad, and get spooked. I don't think political correctness goes too far when it protects the honor and integrity of a group of people. Gorgo7h3 01:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, how much the image would scare people away is debatable.  The image is completely justified considering the text next to it.  If someone is reading the article just for the pictures, and then goes on to make a grand assumption about the show because of one picture, I'm not really sure they're worth having here. Looking at the image itself, if it didn't have a caption or related text next to it, I seriously doubt anyone would correspond it to Muhammad; for one thing he's wielding fireballs, and for another the physical man is over a thousand years dead. It could just as easily be assumed it's some random guy with a turban that's wielding fire.  Sorry if this was all confusing; it's late and I'm not making much effort to make my point clear.--Charibdis 05:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad on front page 

message: Sub-heading Animal Sexuality? Sure, that's the point. Animal sexuality. sheesh. Non-encyclopaedia-like.
"Scientology (which the creators consider a cult)". What use do the parentheses serve? Most people who have ever heard of it consider it a cult. I'm sure the wiki page makes that abundantly clear. Even the phrase "multiple episodes have tackled the shaky logical foundations of cults" is non-professional. I agree with it, but it's opinion, conjecture.
It's "Kyle's Mom's a Bitch", no 'is'.
The heading "Music" also basically recounts several episodes. It's dumb. Have a sub-heading "episode content" if you must. How was Kyles' Mom's a Bitch popular? Did it race up the rap charts?
I would say: good try, but this page needs to be shorter, with less unreadable blurb
Child abuse and neglect? Come on. You can't put a heading for every subject that every show's covered. 'It's a recurring theme'. Yeah, well farts are a recurring theme, famously, but the word fart doesn't appear once.
'Catholocism' is under 'controversy', but there is a heading 'religious humor' too.
Usually employing [..] black comedy? I don't agree with that.
Again, good effort, but there's so much, it's hard to navigate, and there's a good bit of tidying up to do.
:It's better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.  If you feel strongly about these things, go ahead and edit them yourself, that's what makes Wikipedia so great, you can do that.  And in the future, please sign your comments on these Talk pages, it's not really a big deal to hit four tildes. - Ugliness Man 16:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How stupid can one page get!? 

message: Hello everyone, I am User:Mr. Garrison. I have been contributing many articles recently under the username User:Timmay!, unfortunately I lost my password and left a message that this user is going. Well my new home is User:Mr. Garrison. Under both names I have created many articles for characters such as Ms. Choksondik and Shiela Broflovski.
Look on the proposed projects page and go to WikiProject South Park. Have a look at it and see if it interests you. It's aim is to improve and cleanup articles and to arrange articles into better categories to make it look better and easier to navigate. If you like it, add your name. Once there are about 10 names the project will start running. Please join and help make South Park better on Wikipedia.
Mr. Garrison 18:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject

message: There are too many words that describe Cartman. Clearly it has been written by a cartman hater. Not only that, but it makes out that cartman isn't a good character when this is not true. Cartman is a hilarius character who the writers love to write for. there isn't enough reference to his popularity.
:As far as I can tell, that section is merely a synopsis of each character; popularity doesn't apply.  Everything in the article is true though; examples can be found in various episodes for each of the adjectives used to describe him. These characteristics are what make him a "hilarius character who the writers love to write for;" it's not something you often see in television (or in movies, for that matter). I do agree with you, though, that the list may be a bit too long. The entire section is written somewhat unprofessionally for that matter. Definitely something to be rewritten.--Charibdis 05:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken a stab at cleaning up this section, still needs quite a bit of work though. --MutantMonkey (talk | work) 17:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just made the section say: Cartman is portrayed as.... This is clearly NPOV, as in the show he is portrayed all these thing, and, yet, it doesn't sound critical.--Orthologist 15:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in "Cartman" 

message: Fifty-one seconds into the following youtube clip is a sound effect commonly used in South Park:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09_5T8UmQQI .  The descending string, timpani stroke, wind outburst is from the first movement of Symphony No. 9 (Dvořák).  Its at the end of the brief adagio introduction and part of the segue to the main allegro portion of the movement.  Does anyone have a better reference for this effect?  I know I've heard it watching South Park many times before. DavidRF 04:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dvorak Sound Effect Trivia 

message: Matt and Trey do support gay rights.Tey were even nominated for a GLAAD award for the Big gay Al episode.
Also in Follow that egg Stan and Kyle don't break the egg but Cartman and his girl partner break their egg,this was a reference to gay couples beign better parents that some hetorosexual couples.
The Gay Rights section ought to be rewritten.  Currently, it seems to mistake several of the attacks on anti-gay rights as being anti-gay rights themselves.  The article misses the general South Park style and takes it as Matt and Trey's actual opinion as opposed to what they're trying to attack.
:What are you talking about? Each anti-gay statement is qualified as follows:
#"deemed "too offensive" to people with religious values"
#"homophobia is portrayed sarcastically when Mr. Garrison says to Stan when he asks what a homosexual is"
If there's anything else I missed that gives the impression of anti-gay rights then go ahead and write it so it can be corrected. Right now, I think the section is pretty good and accurately shows what Matt and Trey believe and what they mock. Gdo01 02:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Using a word like "obvious" doesn't make it so.  People see and hear what they want to, whether it be an opinion which agrees with their own so they feel justified, or an opinion which disagrees with their own so they can feel righteous in objecting.  Matt and Trey intentionall stradle the fence on issues constantly, and people can interpret them the way they wish, but just because you think that it's "obvious" doesn't mean that everyone else is going to see it the same way.  I've encountered people who think that it's "obvious" from the lyrics of They Might Be Giants that they're Christian, which is total bullshit (whether or not they're Christian, it's not an "obvious" factor in their lyrics).  The article might be poorly worded, but I'd say you're too biased to be the one to "fix" it.  Matt and Trey don't need you putting words in their mouths. - Ugliness Man 04:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They definitely don't support transgender rights though, do they? Magic Pickle 03:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gay rights

message: I suggest that the following characters be merged. These characters are very minor and only appear in one or two episodes:
*Bart Simpson 
*Big Gay Al  
*Chef's Parents  
*Crab People  
*Damien  
*Gobbles
*God
*Goth Kids
*Jesus
*Kyle Schwartz
*Mr. Derp
*Mr. Hankey
*Mrs. Claridge
*Ms. Ellen
*Saddam Hussein
*Santa Claus
*Satan
*Scott Tenorman
*Scott the Dick
*Skyler
*Starvin' Marvin
*Timmy's Parents 
*Ugly Bob
*Visitors
Any comments/objections?--TBCTaLk?!? 17:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there are so many more much oftener recurring characters--Lygophile 23:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging

message: A lot of the material presented for Cartman, Kenny, and to a lesser extent Butters, seems to be repetitive and superfluous.  It seems even more unnecessary when you take in to account that each of these characters has their own article where most (if not all) of the information is presented again.  How would you all feel about trimming down Cartman, Kenny, and Butter's sections to the size of Stan and Kyle's?  Mapache 22:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Character Section Editing 

message: This talk page has gotten really long, so I'm archiving it.--TBCTaLk?!? 17:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: There is a lot of redundant info here. There are a lot of lists and the whole article's quality degenerates as it goes on. It's weird how people worked hard to make list of South Park episodes a featured list (and a damn good one, too), but the main show's article is a mess. Just my opinion. - Zone46 01:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are removing entire sections, not just trimming them down. That's not what you said you would be doing. CovenantD 04:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page needs a cleanup

message: Is there a...North Park? I think it was mentioned somewhere....
:It was mentioned in Summer Sucks I believe. --MutantMonkey (talk | work) 22:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  North Park? 

message: <P> South Park's political bent seems not to be moderation or libertarianism, but nihilism; nothing really matters.  That's why the show mocks liberals (and to a lesser extent, conservatives- especially religious conservatives), especially celebrities; the creators seem to believe there is nothing earnestly worth caring about, and those that do care passionately about anything are rubes or simpletons that can be taken apart by three children.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.249.136 (talk • contribs) 
:Do you have a suggestion for the article? This is not a discussion forum about the show. CovenantD 03:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Subject matter in South Park covers this. Cwolfsheep 04:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political bent of South Park 

message: Yea, is the "photorealistic picture" supposed to be in color? I'm gonna leave it for now, but I'm pretty sure it never was in color before...71.192.228.21 19:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it was never in colour on the show, it was colourized by fans, there's probably a few different versions, varying in quality. - Ugliness Man 15:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Colored photorealistic photo?

message: "The show is often regarded as a subtle politically right perspective of American culture and society, eventually influencing the novel South Park Conservatives, while also spawning the phrase South Park Republican". I'm not sure if this is too NPOV, also, "often regarded" is so inappropiate for such a controversial show. I'm not sure if I should revert it. Any opinions?
-- Amenzix 23:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: Would it be too difficult to list the specific episodes nominated for Emmy awards on the main page?--MythicFox 09:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emmy Awards 

message: Shouldn't it be implimented in the Origins section? Moshe Gordon 18:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1st trivia entry 

message: I don't see anything about it on here. It was just deleted out of the blue. Seems a bit random. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.185.42 (talk • contribs) 
:It was deleted without reason by an IP user but at the same time the section was poorly written. The controversy section in Hell on Earth 2006 is concise and semi-cited. I would suggest transplanting that here or rewriting it somewhat and putting it here. Gdo01 23:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irwin controversy removed? 

message: There's a bit under the heading 'Music' that lists what Kenny, apparently, says. It says that 'With the exception of the latest line, all of these lines have been proven official in an interview with the creators', then it links to a source that appears to be just a fan site. Is this source really reliable?--Jcvamp 04:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Kenny Says 

message: With so many people editing this article every day, I don't want to just go ahead and delete something like this for fear of pissing some people off, so I'll "open it for discussion".  I think that the list of what Kenny "actually" says in the opening song should probably be trashed.  For one thing, unless someone can link to an unambiguous confirmation from Matt & Trey, it's fan speculation.  This is the case with pretty much every thing Kenny ever says on the show, I've seen countless fan-based websites with moronic "translations" of Kenny's dialogue, but it's all speculation, and I hardly see how such garbage belongs in this article.  Second, I'm pretty damn sure that Timmy doesn't say "live a lie".  He's a spazz with a speech impediment, and I don't think that part is actually words, it's probably just an exclamation of some sort half-way between "yeah yeah" and "la la".  Not only does "live a lie" not make very much sense (unless you're a conspiracy theorist/nutjob), but it's just not something that Timmy would say.  So maybe we should take votes on this or something... should the list be deleted, and if not, should Timmy's part be edited to something that resembles reality? - Ugliness Man 13:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening song list 

message: In the theme song Kenny actually says:
:Season 1 to 2 (Original Theme): "I like girls with big fat titties, I like girls with big vaginas."
:Season 3 to 5 (Season 3 Re-Recorded Theme & Fourth Grade Theme): "I have got a 10-inch penis. Use your mouth to help me clean it".
:Season 6: (Note: Kenny has been replaced by Timmy) "Timmy, Timmy, Timmy, Timmy, Timmy, Timmy, live a lie Timmy!"
:Season 7 to Season 10A and syndication: "Someday I'll be old enough to stick my dick up Britney's butt".
:Season 10B : "I would like to smell your pussy, clean it with my finger for you". Backwards: "Suck my penis, Suck my penis, Suck my penis, Suck my penis". 
::With the exception of the latest line, all of these lines have been proven official in an interview with the creators.Reference to Kenny's Introduction lines''
Please provide a better reference i couldnt find anything their (Gnevin 13:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just see here: http://www.spscriptorium.com/SPinfo/OCsecrets.htm Seb662 18:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  One fan site would harldy pass  WP:Source or WP:Cite need something more main stream (Gnevin 19:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed

message: In:
"He hates Cartman because of his constant ridiculing of his faith and race and..."
changed race to nationality since Jew is not a description of race. European Jews are white, Ethiopian Jews are black and so on. Nationality isn't the best word, either since American Jews are "American" by nationality but still better than race.
:RV as per  are a race (Gnevin 01:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Judaism is a religion, that's it. Israeli is a nationality. Kyle's race would be caucasian (white), so Cartman can't hate Kyle for his race unless he hates his own race. TJ Spyke 07:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, caucasian refers to someone from the Caucasus region, using it to mean "white" people is an American misuse. Cheers. L0b0t 19:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jew is more of a nationality, not race

message: Namely, "Black comedy" and "LGBT-related television programs".  Neither of the two fit under this article.  --66.227.194.89 05:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unrelated categories should be removed 

message: I'm not finding it in the article, but didn't South Park generate some albums early on?  I recall buying Chef Aid and that Christmas album sometime around the 1999-2001 time period.  Shouldn't there be a list of noteworthy spinoff media, or a mention of the most significant releases? -Timvasquez 04:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albums 

message: The current one has Mohammed in a red box. I know it's not very visible in the article, but to preserve formalities and prevent it from looking gaudy, methinks it should be replaced. Maybe I'm just being a prude about this, but it's just irking me a bit. eszetttalk 19:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different screencap for intro screen? 

message: The opening sentance of the article "Southpark is about four -foul mouthed- fourth grade school boys" struck me as needing adjustment, in the form of the "foul mouthed" section being removed. I would argue that referring to the characters as foul-mouthed in the opening sentance is superfluous, considering that a good deal of the rest of the article is devoted to analyzing the vulgarity of the show (and additionally, the vulgarity of the central characters is not by any means atypical for boys in that age group). In addition, are the characters really fourth-graders? IIRC, they're supposed to be 8 years old, Mr. Garrison was identified as a teacher of third grade, and fourth graders are typically 9-10 years of age. I could be wrong though, on that point, so I didn't change it. 
-wgw2024
The characters are in the third grade up until season 4 episode 11. From then on the boys are in the forth grade.80.47.111.117 01:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First sentance

message: These are two completely different things.  Right now, the transgender episode is just tossed into the middle of the gay episodes.  Not only are they totally different identities, Matt and Trey seem to be in full support of gay rights and completely against transgender rights.  In any case, I'm taking the transgender sentence out and giving it its own heading.Rglong 05:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay vs. Transgender (vs. Transsexual) 

message: This would be an interesting article, listing the celebrities who have been spoofed in the show, the episode they were spoofed in and maybe their voice actors. Do you think it would be important? YuckieDuck 18:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, and the article would probably be deleted. TJ Spyke 07:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of celebrities spoofed in South Park or Category: Celebrities spoofed in South Park 

message: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the show criticizes antitheistic views far more intensively than atheist. I can't remember an episode which mocks atheists, and Go God Go and Red Hot Catholic Love express disdain for antitheistic views, such as the belief that the world would be better without religion. Being an atheist, and not an antitheist, myself, I have never been opposed to any form of religious belief, and I know that South Park doesn't rip on anyone's opinions, unless there's an aparent reason. --Orthologist 15:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: I had put the article in the Science fiction television series category, but this has been contested.  This series is as much Science Fiction as it is satire - time travel, extra-terrestrials, space travel, talking animals, frequent trips to hell/heaven/the underworld, outlandish science and inventions, and many more staples of conventional science fiction all frequently form the center of many of the episode's stories.  As such, it should be categorized as science fiction.  Discuss.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that South Park has not lampooned scifi - science fiction story elements have played a major aspect of many of the stories from episode one.  And the Weird Al analogy doesn't work - proportionally South Park has had more science fiction based episodes (and more pivotal ones at that) than Weird Al has had rap songs.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All analogies are flawed because you're comparing two different things, I was simply using it to illustrate a point.  Yes, South Park has had many sci-fi elements in many episodes, but there have also been many episodes without any sci-fi elements at all, episodes where it's simply kids in a Colorado hick town trying to get by, with no aliens or time-travel or monsters or anything else like that, and "proportion" does not cancel that out.  The episodes with sci-fi elements don't make it a sci-fi show any more than than the many humorous episodes of DS9 make that show a comedy (another inherently flawed analogy that you will no doubt nitpick).  And whether or not sci-fi elements "have played a major aspect" in the plots of a handful of specific episodes does not mean that "South Park has not lampooned scifi".  It has, many times. - Ugliness Man 08:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science fiction 

message: The musical section could use some cleanup, maybe converting the broken paragraph and sentences into a list of episodes with cartman singing? Shad0w 06:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Musical section

message: The opening sentance of the article "Southpark is about four fourth grade school boys" struck me as needing adjustment, in the form of the "foul mouthed" section being removed. I would argue that referring to the characters as foul-mouthed in the opening sentance is superfluous, considering that a good deal of the rest of the article is devoted to analyzing the vulgarity of the show (and additionally, the vulgarity of the central characters is not by any means atypical for boys in that age group). In addition, are the characters really fourth-graders? IIRC, they're supposed to be 8 years old, Mr. Garrison was identified as a teacher of third grade, and fourth graders are typically 9-10 years of age. I could be wrong though, on that point, so I didn't change it. 
-wgw2024
The characters are in the third grade up until season 4 episode 11. From then on the boys are in the forth grade.80.47.111.117 01:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First sentance

message: So, I know of this website where you can watch any SP episode ever made. You can even watch the movie and lots of bonus stuff. Would it be appropriate to add it into the external links section? I'm not sure. Irish rover 11:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be an obvious copyright violation, very much not appropriate. - Ugliness Man 07:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually the site that he's probably referring to doesn't actually host the files, they just link to them. It's not illegal, at least i don't think there has been any legal case about that. (Just like i never heard about any Bittorent tracker being shut down in the USA by court). But sure, since everything is controlled by the media anyway, not adding the link would probably be the right choice. Ran4 01:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Matt Stone and Trey Parker have said that they don't care if their episodes are viewed on the Internet. However, it would be best if we didn't link to it.--Orthologist 09:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: I think that we could include the fact that the children in the show have a large amount of freedom in travelling. They seem to be able to go wherever thay want, in episodes such as Cartoon Wars and The Passion of the Jew, without any interference by their parents. This is quite different from neglect, as, even though the kids care for the children more or less, the kids never seem to ask them for permission to go to another town or city and the parents never seem to prohibit them to do it or even know about it.--Orthologist 19:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is simply a cartoon.  The creators have stated time and time again that they aren't too concerned with the tiny details of the cartoon; they just want to entertain. Jmlk17 08:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freedom 

message: whats the leaders of the 6 grades name
hamburger dan
:Are you asking what the name of the little 6th grader gang is? Jmlk17 21:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  whats 

message: I don't think that in the controversy section, Mormonism and Judaism should be grouped together. Mormons were devoted only one episode that mocked them(and were actually given a quite flattering representation in another), while as Jews are lampooned (even if it is just a throw-away comment by Cartman) in every single episode. Also, how is it considered controversy if the churches have not even issued statements?Kman34 03:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it really?  I mean I am not fully convinced that the Jewish issue in South Park is truly a controversy.  I realize the Scientology and Mormon episodes were big, but that's because they completely made fun hardcore of those respective religions, while the Jewish jokes are often just limited to one-liners. Jmlk17 07:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mormonism and Judaism 

message: Uh, some guy put "TWO more seasons are planned, with an option of renewal at the end of season 12." I'll fix this... Jay B. 22:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this was before the 11th season started. Jmlk17 21:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two more seasons?!? 

message: The page lists the obvious four (Cartmen, Kenny, Kyle and Stan), but it also lists Butters.  Now, this is arguably true since Butters was a "fourth friend" after Kenny's season-long death.  However, so we Tweek, yet Tweek is not listed.  Should Tweek's info be moved to this section?  If not, then I think it's fair to remove Butters.  Geeky Randy 06:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fair to assume that there are only FOUR main characters.  Cartman, Kyle, Stan, and Kenny have been the four main since the shows inception.  Thus, even though Kenny spent about a season "dead", his return has given him the stature again.  Butters is more than a minor characters, but I think he is far from "main".  Jmlk17 06:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think I have found a middle ground here. While I can see and partially agree that the MAIN characters should be the original four, Butters is too big to be a secondary character. Instead we should classify characters as MAJOR and MINOR characters. Therefor the original 4 are both major and main charatcers. So I propose we change the title listing from MAIN to Major characters that way it stays true to the nature of the show. (Thrawny 14:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would work for me. Tweeks Coffee 15:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good deal. Jmlk17 18:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main characters 

message: I'm still unsure about the bureacracy of editing pages, but I removed a piece of the article that appears to be nothing more than vandalism.  The word "nigger" was randomly inserted as a heading, with absolutely no reference. It was above the section describing minor characters. I may use the rest of my afternoon browsing old versions of the page to find the user who made that change in the first place. --le petite robot 17:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was done by the editor before you.  A simple act of vandalism, nothing to get too worried about. Tweeks Coffee 17:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Get used to that around here...far too many random acts of vandalism.  Tweeks Coffee is right though" nothing to get all worked up about.  That's why we have undo and reverts. JṃŁЌ17 21:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whatever, Editors. 

message: A new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This noticeboard has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard. Please disregard the above post. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard]] 

message: people must see that its absalutly hillarious, mabye not for some but for others, it just cracks me up! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.129.193.60 (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is a great show.  Jmlk17 03:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  its so funny 

message: This should be removed, the websites/links are unofficial and we should not promote free downloading, viewing etc. 
:I've deleted it several times, but the user keeps adding the link(s).  He was reported to WP:AIV, and is currently blocked, so we shall see what happens after the block expires.  Jmlk17 03:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Online episodes

message: The main article claims the 2nd half of the 11th season will start Wednesday, October 3, 2007, at 8:00 a.m.  Does this make sense that it will resume at 8:00am?  What's the significance of that time?  New episodes typically air at 10:00pm (EST). -David White 20:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's edited correctly now. Jmlk17 03:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 11 - 2nd Half? 

message: SP was tagged as being long, so I made several sections into subarticles, thus, summarizing them here. hmwithtalk 22:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good...thank you! Jmlk17 05:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagged as long

message: I've already asked this in the episode list discussion page, but figured I'd have a better chance of getting a response here... has there ever been an official explanation of why the first 4 episodes of season 4 have the year 2000 tagged onto the episode titles? - Ugliness Man 05:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was already responded to on the other page. Jmlk17 10:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, lol, I may as well answer it here as well.  The season started off at the beginning of the year 2000, when everything was "2000" this and "2000" that, and I believe the writers wanted to just add a little subtle joke into the titles of the episodes. Jmlk17 10:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2000? 

message: say what?· Lygophile has spoken 16:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, the hell does that mean? 20:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: my question exactly. its halfway in the section music· Lygophile has spoken 00:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "belies his baser motivations" 

message: There is something very unique about south park.Because of the style of animation, it is actually possible to have an episode of south park in an .svg animation, which is a file format that allows for unlimited up-conversion of images and animation but only in a way of simple shapes,and since south park is already a somewhat brick style animation, you could theoretically up-convert it to high definition using the .svg format and it would look just like that was the normal resolution. Rodrigue 20:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true.  Also, computer episodes can readily be made available in smaller size files (such as .rm), instead of the much-larger .mpg, .avi, or .mpeg.  I think that's a big reason the show has garnered such a cult following on the internet. Jmlk17 20:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animation 

message: This is from the Characters section.  I don't recall this at all.
One of the most popular recent additions to the show's offbeat cast of characters is a Humpty-Dumpty inspired, big-headed drug addict named Turd Ferguson. In the season finale of the 11th season he stuffed Kenny into a crack pipe and smoked him with Towelie. Turd Ferguson was inspired by Sheri Dunn, who is possibly the devil.
--DMW 20:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turd Ferguson 

message: I've noticed that their isn't really too much information about the actual production of episodes on the main south park page. So I suggest a "Production" subform (with "animation Style" being part of it). I have a few links to actual info about the production of the show (mainly the writing of the episodes). Though i'm not very good at writing articles yet. So if anybody else thinks this is a good idea, i'd be happy to give you the links, that way somebody else could add the info to the main page. But if nobody is interested I will do so myself, and hopefully it will be edited to perfection.--Swellman 02:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production 

message: Anyone notice that the name "Ike" is similar to the ethnic slur called "kike". Should I add that in triva.
:No, even if that were relevant to anything, it isn't trivia.  Ike is Canadian, not Jewish.  Also, see Wikipedia's policy on trivia.  --DMW 23:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IKE=.....