Talk:The List (South Park)

message: I think "Storyline" would be a better description, because what the title said was a bit specific and I'm sure I detected sarcasm in it. 86.162.29.210 (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor recently  removed a lot of plot based on our policies of WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOT and guidelines of WP:WAF, WP:PLOT etc. What type of community consensus policies/guidelines are you basing your "hint" on? -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, If truth be told, I do not base my "hint" on anything. It was strange for me to call it a "hint." What my point is is that, if there are guidelines over the length of the plot sypnosis, why have all these individual pages for each episode? Why not just have a simple episode guide of the type they have for Curb Your Enthusiasm or My Name is Earl? If you have all these individual pages for each and every episode, you can expect a detailed plot sypnosis. If you don't expect one, don't waste space with all these individual pages. If you feel that it spoils the plot, don't visit the page. Grieferhate (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Line By Line retelling of the entire episode

message: I do realize that the reference to the incident that occurred two years ago is mostly original research, yet I feel that it is important enough to the overall presentation of the article to be included.
Ks7 02:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's not. Why don't you wait a few hours and see exactly what's in the episode before adding it. Right now, this is totally irrelevant original research. vineetcoolguy 03:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I've seen a leaked copy of the epsiode, and it is most certainly a ripoff of the incident. In my opinion this is not original research; it is common knowledge
Ks7 03:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you've seen a leaked copy of this episode, and if you have that is not a viable reference.  This "fact" only belongs in the article if on, say, South Park Studios Matt and Trey say that this is what they're parodying.  Just because a similar event happened, that does not mean that is what they are doing.  Maybe something similar happened to Matt or Trey in their younger days, and that's the inspiration.  Wait until there is a real reference. Professor Chaos 08:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It's original research.  That event happened a long time ago, whereas the "Best Friends Forever" episode aired shortly after the Terri Schiavo incident.  Therefore there is no basis for the idea that the episode's plot was based on it.  Also, neither Matt nor Trey has said that it was anything more than an idea that they came up with themselves.  And I am writing this having seen the episode on TV, so whether you have seen a leaked copy of the episode or not, it has no consequence.  You are supposing things when they are in fact pretty far-fetched.  71.251.40.161 01:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research Debate

message: Just out of curiosity, why in hell is it necessary to edit that into the article?  How long is that relevant?  When it re-runs, can I say in the article "a re-run is airing this minute" or can I say "the episode on DVD is playing in my DVD player as we speak?"  Just wondering if that's encyclopedic content, or if I put that in if someone would remove it, that's all. Professor Chaos 03:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The show is currently airing and The List

message: In my opinion, this list is totally irrelevent and really shouldn't be included in the article. It's false, and the only accurate information we got from the episode regarding the order of the list is that Clyde isn't number one. Dannysk89 04:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should stay, people who haven't seen the episode obviously want to know what the list contents are seeing as the entire plot is based around it. I would.  Jeff24 13:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Corrupt" List 

message: Kenny Gets shot and killed, and then a toaster with poptarts springs up. Is this a reference to Vegas death in Pulp Fiction, where Bruce Willis's charactor shoots him, and then the pop tarts  fly up?
68.106.107.192 (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not.  It's original research at this point, so don't put it in the article.  71.255.94.129 (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kennys Death Possible Reference 

message: I just finished watching the first airing of this episode in California at 10:00 pm and the scene where Cartman gives Nelly the fingure and uses the "F" has the word uncensored however the second time they use the word in the it is censored. Shouldn't something about this be posted?
Baruch88 23:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That must be a local thing, they censored it when I watched it. Professor Chaos 07:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it was censored when I watched it too, so I don't know what you're talking about.  71.251.40.161 22:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well it depends on the region you're in. Comedy Network airs the new South Park episodes uncensored. CuffX 04:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they should just say it uncensored. It's ridiculous!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.64.130 (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncensored Curse Word 

message: Shouldn't there be some mention of the bit with Lincoln guiding Kyle?  That was an important part of the plot.  I would add it myself but I forgot how most of it went exactly to be suitable for Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.85.151.37 (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lincoln 

message: I'm sure it was of something, or maybe many things, but I don't know what.  Discuss! Professor Chaos 07:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was definately a similarity to the child abduction episode, the whole Ghost of Christmas Present thing, but I think it's just because both episode parodied the same idea, not each other.  The conspiracy bit with the gun looked like all conspiracy movie showdowns, but there was a certain feel to the list committee bit that made me think it was directly lifted out of a movie.  But if no one has added it in a s a trivia, maybe not.  It sure was weird, though. Professor Chaos 04:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was this a parody of? 

message: The [teaser] shows Kenny hitting Cartman; that's not in the [episode] itself, is it? --62.194.194.24 18:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Episodes of South Park are produced in one week. So, alot of stuff is last minute. They most likely cut it out, because the scene flowed smoother without it, or possibly because of running time issues.--Swellman 21:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that too.  If you look on the Wikiquote page for South Park/Season 11, the teaser is the only quote currently under the list, and it includes the extra footage.  THat probably should be changed.  71.251.40.161 22:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: People used to put that in as a trivia in every episode article, until it was clear that the previews (partly because of the short production time) are never exactly like the episode.  It would only be notable if it happened once or twice. Professor Chaos 04:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra footage in the teaser? 

message: Is it worth noting that, along with kennys death, they brought back the nostalgic scene of Stan throwing up over wendy at the end, which hasn't been seen for atleast a few seasons?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turtleboy267 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that both of these throwbacks to the early seasons of South Park are worthy of note. 71.251.40.161 22:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe; they seem to be heading in that direction at least.  We'll just have to wait and see. 71.251.40.161 01:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stan barfing in front of wendy 

message: Does anyone know what Kenny says in the opening scene where the boys first learn of the list?  It sounds to me like "They wouldn't put me at the bottom!  ...Would they?"  Any other theories?  (This is probably not going to be included in the article, but I'm curious.) Incidentally, this is also Kenny's first lines in this half of the season.  71.251.40.161 22:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kenny's last Line is (My name is Kenny.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.130.68.230 (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kenny's Lines 

message: In "trivia" there is something like this right now: "This is the first time that Butter's parents claim that they don't have to ground their son." That is not true, it has happend before in the "Butter's very own episode". --83.6.3.118 14:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been removed. It's hardly a notable fact anyway.--Swellman 14:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Butters not grounded 

message: Shouldnt there be some comment on how wendy feels Cartman is the ugliest, as compared to Chef Goes Nanners when Wendy starts having feelings for Cartman.
I agree - perhaps she's trying to convince herself of not having feelings of him, by putting him at the bottom of the list. (She did say in the episode it was "completely out of her system", but I don't believe that.) - Bella.
Croc
:Before you add that, I think you should take a look at WP:OR.---- Swellman (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wendy/Cartman 

message: Does anyone remember when Bebe had a crush on Kyle in "Clubhouses" season 2? Wouldn't that prompt Kyle to re-think that maybe he wasn't the ugliest boy in class (according to the fake list) if one of the main girls who created the list once had a crush on him? - Bella
:Possibly, but mentioning it on the article would be Original Research. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 01:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bebe/Kyle 

message: Frankly, who added a "deleted ending"?  How do the adder know about it? -- Patrickov (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who added it, but it is up on the south park website. Someone should add a reference, I would but don't know how. Here's the link: http://www.southparkstudios.com/downloads/preview/?id=7607 128.220.59.88 (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, and as a personal note I'm kind of glad having this ending deleted.  Cartman wasn't bad enough (in this episode) to deserve that and seems the directors switched roles for him and Butters -- Patrickov (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alt. ending? 

message: Could this be an inside joke from the writers based on the episode More Crap? I hate to make this sound like original research, but I found it interesting that he was picked "number 2" by the writers probably due to his skin color (no offense). Vic729 15:40 (UTC), November 17th, 2007
: Wha... wha... *walks away*Lukesed (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Token being 2nd in the "corrupt" list.

message: The way Clyde was all "posing" in the mirror was similar to the way Jim Morrison appeared for photos. That should be added on cultural references
:It's complete original reasearch, and so would be against Wikipedia guidelines to add. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 20:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, it's Original Research to claim that it's similar to one thing from a film or something. Also,  please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 23:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: A reference to Jim Morrison belongs only if there's an official source that says that's it.  There are many times in South Park and other shows and movies where people make poses like that, they're generic.  If South Park Studios or Comedy Central or a DVD commentary say so, then it's true.  Until then, it's not. Professor Chaos (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jim Morrison 

message: Wasn't it in the episode Terrance and Phillip: Behind the Blow that Clyde mentioned that his Dad is a geologist?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.161.88 (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in that episode Clyde states that his dad is a geologist.  (Stan's dad, Randy, is also a geologist, as revealed back in Season 1.)  Then, in this episode, it is stated that his dad is a shoe salesman.  That seems like a pretty notable continuity error.  Is there anyone who thinks that it should not be mentioned in the article?  (It should also be added to the Clyde Donovan article as well.)  71.251.40.161 (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've created a new section "Continuity" which includes the error regarding Clyde's father's occupation, and I've also modified the Donovans' section of the List of South Park families article appropriately.  71.255.94.129 (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It is not a continuity error.  Continuity in South Park is not set, they mess with it whenever it suits their purposes.  A continuity section only belongs in an episode article if there is an internal error within the episode, or if the episode is supposed to work off of another episode. Professor Chaos (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just figure that at some point during the two episodes, Clyde's dad left his career as a geologist for some unknown reason and now works at the shoe store.  Problem solved. 70.230.254.12 (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuity error regarding Clyde's Dad 

message: What keeps happening to the promotional image that is at the top of the box, it keeps being taken down and put back up.  Why?71.255.94.129 (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotional Image 

message: First, these descriptions are written from the proper perspective: 
Problems associated with an in-universe perspective include:...
* A fictional character article or section written like a biography.  Therefore, it comprehends a fictional-character section, provided it is not written like a biography. There is no way that five simple physical descriptions written in less than 400 words could be considered five biographies.
Second, I agree that the descriptions do not fit into the secondary information category you quote above.  Of course they do not fit into the above category, they derive from the primary source.  Secondary elements are not the only elements included in an article about a fictional work.  In the section preceding the one you quoted:
2.1 Primary information: The term primary information describes information that originates from primary sources about the fictional universe, i.e., the original work of fiction ... Even with strict adherence to the real-world perspective, writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source.
Examples of information available in primary sources include:
* background information on fictional creatures - which is what these simple physical descriptions are.
* and, of course, the plot itself - they also fit in here to a lesser degree after I edited them to try to fit your preferences.
Third, these criticisms could be leveled against the entire article, yet you single out 390 words that I included.  Try editing them instead of deleting.--2008Olympianchitchat 01:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that WP:OTHERCRAP exists is a poor defence for keeping even more crap in the article. No one is claiming that the information you are adding is from secondary sources - in fact the major issue is that it is MORE "stuff" from the primary source and that the article has practically ZERO material from other sources .... therefore the bar is extremely high to add more primary source material. You have not in any way shown that this increase in primary source material is essential for the understanding of the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your initial criticism was that none of this was from secondary sources, so I addressed that it was from primary sources.  And you are correct, the fact that WP:OTHERCRAP is in this article is not a reason to get rid of this material.  What was there is not the end all be all of primary source material.  Edit the other stuff if you think it is too much.  You can't say that just because some primary source info is already in the article, nothing else can be added.  This is the only episode that those characters are in, so they deserve some individual mention in this article.  This section can't really be edited down much more although I and another editor already has done so.  If you think that the rest of the article is too long and has too much plot in it, edit it out.  But these characters deserve a blurb in this article.  This article isn't that long anyway.  If you just don't like these type articles, go edit some ones you are interested in.  It's just a fact that there isn't going to be much secondary sources about an episode of a cartoon comedy episode.--2008Olympianchitchat 05:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And without material from secondary sources, we dont have large articles: WP:OR; WP:N; WP:V etc. If you want to write articles without providing secondary sources to back up your claims, you should not be editing Wikipedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, read the guideline. "Even with strict adherence to the real-world perspective, writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source."  If you can't follow the guidelines, maybe you shouldn't be editing.--2008Olympianchitchat 09:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And still you havent and the article doesnt demonstrate why your physical descriptions of the ugly kids is necessary to understand the episode. The burden is on the editor wishing to include material to 1) provide proper third party sourcing and 2) show that the material is important / substantial to the meaning and understanding of the topic. And thats where the second party sources come in - when an independant source goes into the descriptions of the ugly kids and makes the analysis that such a description is important, then it is not just your opinion. (and it is my opinion that the plot summary section itself is too long for the article - feel free to condense it further)-- The Red Pen of Doom 13:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't any sourcing beyond the episode for anything in the entire article, except the list itself.  So under your logic the whole plot summary should be deleted except for the list itself.--2008Olympianchitchat 07:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

text: *If there are no secondary sources regarding the content of this article, it's likely the article shouldn't even exist. Have a look at Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ugly Kids descriptions are primary not secondary information