Talk:List of South Park episodes: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of South Park episodes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days

	List of South Park episodes is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 16, 2005 Featured list candidate Not promoted November 3, 2005 Featured list candidate Not promoted January 26, 2006 Featured list candidate Promoted March 22, 2008 Featured list removal candidate Demoted Current status: Former featured list

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Animation: American / Television / Computer List‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the Animated television work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Computer animation work group. Comedy List‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists List‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles List This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. project's importance scale .

Television: Episode coverage List‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as High-importance).

United States: Animation / Television / Colorado List‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Animation - American animation work group. This article is supported by American television task force. This article is supported by WikiProject Colorado, our collaboration to improve, create, and update Wikipedia articles about the U.S. State of Colorado. To comment about this article, select the New section tab above. For questions about, or to make suggestions for Colorado articles, go to our project's talk page. We invite you to join us!

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This will be on Paramount+ and Comedy Central.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know that there was once a discussion about this somewhere. Some editors have taken it upon themselves, without discussion, to go back to all old SP articles and rename any reference of Token Black to Tolkien Black, due to the character's retcon name change in "The Big Fix". I do not see a reason to do this. There are existing DVDs, interviews, and multiple other web and media sources that all confirm that prior to the episode, the character's name was Token Black. Just because the producers decided to change his name on pretty much any media they can get their hands on (games, closed captioning of old episodes, etc.) does not mean that the character was not previously named Token. His name was Token until Parker/Stone decided to change it, and all articles up to "The Big Fix" should maintain the old name. I'd appreciate any feedback on this. - SanAnMan (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose these changes. His name was clearly Token Black until The Big Fix. Barry Wom (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with SanAnMan and Barry, all mentions of the character prior to The Big Fix should use his pre-retcon name. The only problem I see is that we need a source that talks about the producers changing the name in captions for previous episodes and games, so as to alleviate any confusion for any new readers who see the captions and mistake it for being his name the entire time, which is an issue since I couldn't find any reliable source mentioning that action even though it's clearly notable. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So we've got another Paramount+ special coming soon, but this time, the episode doesn't seem to have a production code (see [1]), plus the fact that multiple sources stated Credigree Weed St. Patrick's Day Special was definitely considered the finale of S25. It's definitely too early to call Streaming Wars part of S26. Also to note that the sources state another Paramount+ special will be airing some time this summer. So the question is how to list these in the episodes table? I don't think it's accurate this time to call Streaming Wars part of S25. Maybe we should just list a separate "mid-season" section after S25 and maybe call it S25 Films or such? I'm open to ideas on this one. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to make somewhat of an acceptable edit on this. I'm listing the 2022 Paramount specials in S25, but clearly stating in multiple places that they are not considered part of the regular season. It's the best solution I can think of at this point. Again, suggestions to improve are welcome. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we’ve seen The Streaming Wars and see that it’s basically a continuation of Season 25, is it safe to say we should list it as such. Post Covid and The Return of Covid are both listed as a part of Season 24, and this is due to it containing elements of the previous specials and being a continuation of the story presented in them. The Streaming Wars is essentially a longer episode in Season 25, so I feel it should be listed as such instead of separated from that season. Zvig47 (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zvig47: As per discussion above, the S24 specials were included as part of S24 primarily because they had production codes that were the same as the other episodes of the season, not just because of their continuity. On top of that, there was never an official "end of season" announcement for S24 (or at least no documented source of such). In S25, the specials are different. First off, there are no production codes for "The Streaming Wars" at all. And secondly, the S25 episode "Credigree Weed St. Patrick's Day Special" was very clearly advertised as the end of the regular season including a graphic on screen during the episode, and there are cited sources to confirm that it was the end of the regular season. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SanAnMan: If that’s the case and these tv films should be treated differently than episodes, isn’t it a better idea to group them in their own page. Much like the fact that there are seasons, there could be a page dedicated to Paramount+ films for South Park. It would be listing them more organized. Zvig47 (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zvig47: Again, this is something that has already been discussed and agreed upon for consensus. The Paramount "movies" are nothing more than extended-length episodes that follow both canon and plot of the regular-season episodes. They also do already have their own separate section in South Park (franchise)#Paramount+ films so there's definitely not a need for another article about them. I understand it's a bit confusing, but that's the decision we are going with at this time. - SanAnMan (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SanAnMan: I can agree there may be no need for a separate article for only 3 tv films at this time, but we should also acknowledge the fact that there will be more of this episodes, and things will get messier on the series overview section on the if these episodes are not better organized. Also I don’t even think Post Covid and Return of Covid should be listed as a part of Season 24, as the newly produced home media for that season only includes the pandemic and vaccination specials. If we are truly going off production code instead of the home media, then I won’t say much further, but you mentioned how the consensus supports listing it this is listed, but the last conversation on this page was before the Streaming Wars came out. No one knew if it was going to be a continuation of the season or a new story. I think it’s safe to assume that all of the tv films will follow their previous seasons, considering how seasons are becoming much shorter in length, so I feel they should either be listed with the seasons, or on their own all together. I apologize if this is a little too long I just had a lot to say. Zvig47 (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The concert was aired, so wasn't just a concert but also a sort of episode. It should be listed here as some sort of special -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 04:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

South Park (season 25). - SanAnMan (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I did state a "special", like other specials, like making of specials, and anniversary clippshows, or live readings. The concert was aired, and is part of South Park, so superficially it s a special broadcast -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@64.229.88.43 But again, it is not an EPISODE of South Park. This article is about episodes. As stated earlier, the concert is discussed in two other articles that have more relevance. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just to note, the other two articles also discuss the tv special of the concert, so there's that. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SanAnMan:

1. Per
   MOS:ITALICS
   , television episodes are formatted with quotes, films are formatted with italics.
2. The lead to this article states On August 5, 2021, Comedy Central announced that Parker and Stone signed a $900 million deal for extending the series to 30 seasons through 2027 and 14 feature films [...] Two films were confirmed to be released at the end of 2021, which Parker and Stone later indicated would be made-for-TV movies. All four film articles begin by detailing each entry as an American adult animated comedy television film.
3. South Park (franchise)#Paramount+ films, as well (and rather self-explanatorily), lists its header as "Paramount+ films", and details how ViacomCBS [...] decided to advertise them as movies. South Park also states in its lead the series was renewed through 2027, and a series of films was announced for the streaming service Paramount+. {{South Park}} lists the four entries under a Films category.

Either they are films and are to be listed as such, or they are not films and the prose and formatting detailing them need to be adjusted. These articles do not get a pass to violate the WikiProject Television and WikiProject Film's Manuals of Style. If you cannot find it in yourself to understand this situation, I am happy to take it to an expanded venue, such as an RFC. Cheers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the violations of the MOS, this is a fairly unique situation. You may want to review the previous discussion before taking further action. Barry Wom (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted the summary of that discussion, and I agree with Gonnym; they cannot be both a minor and major work at the same time. The consensus formed is only a local consensus between a few editors; in the case of MoS violations, a wider and more firm consensus should be established. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, it's a unique situation. The arguments for treating the "films" as extended-length episodes are more plentiful, as detailed at the previous discussion (creators' comments, runtime, production codes, plot continuation). But if you feel strongly about it, go ahead and raise an RFC. Barry Wom (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your unique situation is

WP:OR and not backed by sources or supported by Wikipedia's MoS. Gonnym (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I disagree. Each of the reasons I just mentioned for treating the films as episodes are not OR. Barry Wom (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Runtime is irrelevant. I've known series where all episodes are feature length, as well as serious with entries that range between 40 and 150 minutes.
2. Production codes are irrelevant; that is simply a unique numbering for the production of entries within the series. Simply because it does or does not a production code, it may or may not make it part of that broadcast season, that is not a defining factor.
3. Plot continuation is irrelevant; that is entirely an in-universe perspective.
4. Creator's comments are ultimate irrelevant to us, they are a primary source on an encyclopedia that is secondary-source based, and do not overrule Wikipedia's guidelines and polocies.

That's each of your reasons you just mentioned covered. Thus, the point still stands: they are either films (i.e. major works), or episodes of the series (i.e. minor works). -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Runtime is relevant because very few feature films run under an hour.

Production codes are relevant because they indicate that the studio considered the "films" to be part of the season.

Creators' comments - the Paramount PR department announced "feature films" and the creators declared that they were not "feature films". Why are their comments not relevant?

Plot continuation. This is where I believe that by insisting on strictly following Wiki policy we will be introducing unnecessary confusion. The vast majority of readers don't care whether Wiki calls these "films" or "episodes". The plots for each of the episodes in season 24 are inextricably linked. Your suggested change of moving the films to their own section, with the season number being repeated from the episode table, at first glance doesn't seem to make any sense. I don't believe the binary insistence that they must be either "films" or "episodes" in this particular case is necessary or desirable. Barry Wom (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When this discussion started way back in Season 24, I was in the same POV as Alex 21 was. I was standing fast that films were films, episodes were episodes, and that they should be separated. But the more I looked at it, and the more I discussed this in talk pages with other editors, I changed my mind on the subject. Paramount is pretty much the only source calling these things "feature films". They may be considered films by them, but common sense, logic, production codes, plotlines, and many other factors indicate that they are nothing more than extended-length episodes, with no "film" having even had a runtime longer than 60 minutes (to date). Heck I've seen Doctor Who episodes, both regular and special, that have run longer than that, just for an example. When the two main people (Parker and Stone) who created the show, direct and produce the show, voice nearly every major character in the show, and are pretty much considered the backbone of the show flat-out say that these things aren't films, I'm not going to argue with them. As Barry Wom has stated, the average reader doesn't care if they're called films or episodes, but the fact remains that they are linked, and I have no issue whatsoever with saying that they are BOTH episodes and films at the same time. I don't beleive they should be "major works" but since Paramount wants to insist that they be called films for whatever marketing reason they have and they choose to market them with an italicized title, then we at least have to honor that title styling. THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS OPINION ONLY IMO, If these specials had been originally aired on Comedy Central rather than Paramount, this whole thing about "films" would be a moot point because CC would just call them special episodes, somewhat in the vein of long-term specials like Imaginationland, which was also classified as a "film" even though it was a compilation film. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If they are not films, then they are not to be formatted and detailed as films, and need to be adjusted appropriately. The average reader doesn't contribute to our MoS's, which we have for a reason. However, your perspective on how we format titles is completely wrong; how they format titles is irrelevant to Wikipedia, we have our own formatting standards that are not based on other entities. There was an argument over how to capitalize a Doctor Who episode title; the consensus determined that how the episode or production titled it is irrelevant, we have our own policies for that.

So either, 1) they are extended-length episodes and not films, and their formatting needs to be changed, or 2) they are referred to by secondary sources as films, and we list them as such appropriately. Which is it? -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: We should go by what the sources call it and that is a made-for-TV movie. Deadline, Vareity, The Verge, ComingSoon.net, /Film, Gamespot. IMO, they should be treated as such and the pages look fine. I'm not really sure, but is the main issue here about if the titles should be in quotes or italicized? The sources provided use italics, not quotes. Mike Allen 15:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that at the moment we're treating them as films in one respect (italicized titles) and episodes in another respect (included in overall episode numbering, use of infobox television episode on the article pages). Both myself and SanAnMan are arguing that this hybrid approach is the best solution, per the reasons given above. Barry Wom (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source that explicitly calls them episodes, and that they contribute towards the episode count? If so, they need to be formatted as episodes. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your hybrid approch is not backed by Wikipedia's Manual of Style and again, is two editors' complete WP:OR (and a bit of lovely

WP:GA. Gonnym (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@MikeAllen The main issue is this: an entry cannot be a major work and a minor work at the same time, this conflicting situation is not supported by any MoS, guideline or policy. Therefore, this article needs to be updated in one of two ways: either 1) they are films, movies, whatever term editors would like to use, and need to be made separate from the regular episodes of this series, or 2) they are not films, and are "extended length episodes", and their formatting and separate articles need to be updated to remove references to them being films. However, option 2 is not valid, as this is what secondary sources explicitly call them. The styling the sources use, however, is irrelevant; we have our own MoS to abide by. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's also worth noting is that neither of the home media releases for Seasons 24 and 25 include the films. Season 24 was released with two actual "extended-length episodes" (that's what it says on the cover), and neither of the films; Season 25 is set to be released with the six episodes of the season, and neither of the films. This only goes to show that the series' distributor does not consider these films to be episodes, or part of those respective seasons. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are separated because of different contracts, the films are exclusive to Paramount, the regular episodes to Comedy Central, and thus separate distributors. Both want their own DVD contracts. I think at this point we have reached an impasse in this discussion since no one is changing their minds. - SanAnMan (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, so they are not episodes, they are separate entities and thus independent films related to the series. It's not a matter of changing anyone's mind; any further edits I or anyone else makes to separate the films are based on reliable sources and Wikipedia's Manuals of Styles, whereas yours as based on original research and no supporting guidelines or policies, meaning you would have no reason to revert. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that if the current approach is unacceptable, we treat them as episodes rather than films and I think I've found precedence for this.

The Sherlock episode The Abominable Bride is treated as an episode of a series, using infobox television episode. The Black Mirror episodes USS Callister and San Junipero are the same.

But all of these won the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Television Movie. So there's clear primary sources indicating they're television movies, but they are treated as episodes of a series on Wiki.

Also note that none of these South Park "films" are even eligible to be nominated for the television movie Emmy because they are less than 75 minutes in length. Barry Wom (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And are the awards won by an episode, regardless of their importance, any part of Wikipedia's Manuals of Style? I don't believe so. For the examples you've given, they are all reliably sourced, by primary and secondary sources, that they are episodes of their respective series. For the "films" of South Park, they are all reliably sourced, by primary and secondary sources, that they are indeed films. Summary: the awards won by an episode are irrelevant to the point of this discussion. -- Alex_21 _TALK 12:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search later; I'm sure further examples can be found:

"Film" listed as an episode of season 24

Reference to the "Post COVID episodes"

What is South Park's post-Covid episode?

Post Covid - "The 2021 episode"

Reference to Post Covid as an episode

Post Covid a "special event episode"

"The specials are technically being counted as the first three episodes of season 24" Barry Wom (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: Also worth noting is that Paramount themselves appear to have backtracked from their initial press release announcing "feature films". Nowhere on the press release announcing the Post Covid episodes are they referred to as films or movies. The cover of the home video release similarly doesn't mention films or movies. In both cases they're described as "events". Barry Wom (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

mediation. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@Barry Wom: If a compromise on this is needed, then based on your last comment, I would work with you on reclassifying the "films" as "special episodes", "specials", and/or "events" including re-wording the articles to note in each that while Paramount originally marketed them as "films", the ongoing marketing is indicating otherwise. This would also include re-formatting the titles and such from film-style to TV episode-style to be more in alignment with MOS. Thoughts? - SanAnMan (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with that solution. "Specials" works better I think; "event" sounds a bit publicity-speak. I'd presume at the same time we'd be removing them from the season articles. With their lack of production codes it was always a bit of a stretch calling the latest two specials part of Season 25 anyway.

For further evidence that Paramount are now (generally) calling these events rather than films, there's the four press releases for the specials [2], [3], [4], [5] and the trailers for two of the episodes [6], [7]. Only one of these mentions "movie" but that one also refers to "the first three “South Park” events". Barry Wom (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to the above in one reply. (It's amusing to be accused of OWN simply in retaliation, when the reverts to this article don't just border on OWN but violate it, given that no MoS, guideline or policy supported your reverts.For perspective, OWN is a policy; BRD is an essay.)

Out of the seven initial references listed, one is an episode guide, four are unreliable per the scope of Wikipedia, only the last two are usable. If they are referred to as episodes, then their formatting and listings need to be changed as such. These specials/events/episodes/whathaveyou are still not, however, part of the respective seasons in which they are listed, which is why I then agreed with the first paragraph of Barry's latest reply. If they are to be updated as episodes, then this article, the respective season and episode articles, South Park (franchise)#Paramount+ films, South Park, {{South Park}} all need to be fixed/updated. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we should wait a few days for any further input before applying any changes.

And I'm presuming that the move from "films" to "specials" will allow retention of these in the overall episode count. Barry Wom (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@