Talk:List of South Park episodes/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Is there any information at all not already on the articles page which would be merged over? If not, just call it a delete, and if someone wants all 183 episodes deleted, then nominate them for a proper AFD discussion. Dream Focus 04:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking. As far as this page goes, if/when any merge takes place this page will became a basic episode list. It will have title, writer, director, airdate, and episode number. The reason being is because at 13 seasons, it is just too large to have plot summaries for every episode. Now, as far as the episode articles go, besides any that are

are already a no-no, and if it is unsourced it would be "deleted" from the page itself anyway. If it is sourced information, then it can be added to the season page like any other, except not under the header of "Trivia". It should be presented in a more professional way (e.g., if Parker and Stone did something special with the character designs, it could be called "Character design", or simply "Production"). The reason we do not do an AfD on all 183 pages is because again, no one is trying to delete anything. Yes, as I said, an Admin can restore history, but it is much easier to merge and redirect a title, and then later un-redirect it (should it meet the criteria) then be forced to submit a formal request to bring back to the history of the page so that you don't have to recreate it all by hand. Also, the people that run the AfD get mighty annoyed by mass nominations like that, no matter how legitimate they may be, because most of them end up with people saying "merge", which isn't a valid response at the AfD.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

04:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael, that is a deliberate misrepresentation. If a basic merge takes place, then at any time afterwards, if more information displaying notability is found, a more extended article can be formed. It is not a delete, else I would have performed an AfD. You are not helping this discussion with arguments like that.

talk

) 10:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just applying the

Duck Test. Sorry if we do not agree. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

01:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael, I also pointed out that THIS page would be the only "simple list". I clearly stated that the season pages would look virtually like the individual episode articles, in that they would contain the expanded plot summaries that appear there (with the exception that it will all appear on a single page, as opposed to 15 different ones). Any sourced information can be moved over into appropriate sections (as they all exist in "Trivia" sections right now), which I would be happy to help with.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I acknowledged that you had a work-in-progress in a sandbox and apologized for my earlier mis-impression. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not go ahead and create these season pages, and then people can determine whether they prefer them to the separate episode articles? When I'm trying to remember every detail in an episode of Battlestar Galactica, I go to the articles for them and read through. Helps keep things straight. I edited a few last night. When you enjoy a show, you want to have as much information as possible to read through. Dream Focus 21:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A compromise. Excellent suggestion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The pages have already been created in sandboxes (see above). As for the idea that "When you enjoy a show, you want to have as much information as possible to read through", that would be tackled by existing guidelines on trivia and plot lengths. The episode articles would be cut down to size, as they have been already (how long does the plot for a 45 min or less TV show have to be anyway?)

And as for the assertion in the edit summary (not a place for commentaries), a deletion is effected by an AfD, this is a merge suggestion, plain English.

talk

) 21:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no dichotomy between season pages and episode articles. Since Wikipedia is not paper, we can have both. If your intent is to cut information from the episode articles, this is not really a "merge" suggestion. Making season pages that nobody wants in order to offer them up as a false compromise is a waste of your time, as well as everyone else's here. --Pixelface (talk) 05:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at

WP:NOTPLOT, Wikipedia is not a list of plot summaries, which most of the articles currently are. I have since added {{TVreview1}} (below) to this page for review. –Dream out loud (talk

) 19:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT is also disputed. That policy has been contentious ever since it was added to WP:NOT after there was no consensus to add it. There is no consensus that articles that are simply plot summaries do not belong on Wikipedia, but most South Park episode articles are more than mere plot summary anyway. --Pixelface (talk

) 10:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as I wrote on

WP:EPISODE

talk page today:

...as my research above shows Wikipedia talk:Television episodes#1 Wikipedia talk:Television episodes#2, this page was illegitametly made into a guideline, despite 2 to 1 against it becoming a guideline, and it has only remained a guideline because a handful of editors remove any tags which question its viability as a guideline.

Bignole wrote on

WP:EPISODE

:

"What I find funny is that

WP:FICT

is just about complete, and it will take the place of this guideline anyway." and

"As for FICT, yes there is bickering over petty wording, but trust me..the bickering will end and FICT will be officially made a guideline for fictional articles."

Well,

WP:FICT

failed miserably to be promoted as a guideline, for the third time.

there has never been consensus for WP:FICT, WP:EPISODES, or merging south park episodes.

talk

) 19:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What I suggest is that those asserting a problem here get a new canned "vandalism" note added to their respective Talk pages about "wasting other editors time about that which was settled long ago". I would follow that by classifying that note with qualifier "im". Perhaps something based on {{subst:uw-delete4im}}. As an inclusionist, I find discussions like this really tiring.

Tempest noted. Teapot noted. The former is clearly contained in the latter. Don't y'all have something better to do? Get involved in real politics, maybe? - Denimadept (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's such a non-problem, why hang about? Why not just quote a few policies, give a few examples of it in action and we can be on our way? Why not work on the articles yourself?

talk

) 20:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone asked for participation, so I came here and contributed to the general discussion. If you look, you'll likely find I have worked on the articles myself. At the very least, I've undone some vandalism. With stuff I have no particular contribution for yet have an interest in, I often watch for that. And I love requesting bans on vandals. I imagine the little fuckers being sent to detention for getting a blackmark on their school. I can dream, anyway. South Park is the only TV show I actually bother watching on any regular basis, so I have an interest. - Denimadept (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Request away then! :)

talk

) 20:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't a threat; I was just explaining one way I participate in the South Park episode articles. I don't see you as a vandal, just as someone I disagree with. Come to Inclusionism! Join us. Join us. We're laid back. - Denimadept (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not easy dealing with intelligent stealthy vandals, who are wisely disguised as "contributing editors"... I just try and preserve my personal energies for real life. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist be, I simply seek a third path to tread between you :)

talk

) 10:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you mean "tread on me?" ;) NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Pixelface is being singled out for his comments against merging on this page:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement

comments are welcome.

talk

) 05:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(This was buried above, but I would like to bring it out as an idea).

I propose the following "test" instead of pushing for a merge at the present. The idea is that if a handful of episodes that currently lack notability and are lackluster episodes (middling ratings from fans) can be shown to be expanded to show notability, then likely the rest can be as well, and we should not merge these at this time - though we need assurance from the South Park project that they will strive to establish notability of other episodes.

The process (which I think can be replicable without calling for fait accompli) is the following:

• Four episodes from the overall series are picked. For purposes of being impartial, I would not use any first season episode (when the show had shock value), the seasons that bookend the movie, and any established-notability episode like "Trapped in the Closet". Episodes should be picked randomly (maybe as a non-involved admin to pick from a list) of those episodes that have average ratings from some SP fan site - that is, we're not looking at SP's best or worst, just an average episode. We will also only pick episodes out on DVD so if there's any Stone/Parker commentary to draw from, that's possible.
• We give the SP editors (and anyone else that wants to get involved, I'd consider inviting the ARS) to improve those four articles in the course of a month.
• After a month (or sooner if they are successful), we evaluate the differences:
  • If all four clearly pass notability guidelines (and for purposes of this, we will assume
    WP:N
    , but this doesn't mean we cannot consider an alternative bar if this helps with defining WP:FICT or WP:EPISODE), then we should presume that all other SP episodes can also meet that bar, and we will not merge.
    • It will then be tasked on the SP WikiProject to make a good faith effort to improve the other episode articles in a reasonable amount of time. Exactly what is "reasonable" is broad, but if this is the situation, I'd like to see what happens after 3 or 6 months. If it turns out that no improvements are being made, a merge of non-notable episodes should not be contested. (that's part of this compromise). I don't expect that all SP episodes by the end of this period to be notable, but coordinate project efforts or season-by-season improvements are the types of signs I'm looking towards.
  • If some or none of the episodes cannot should notability, then we have to agree to merge all non-notable episodes, still leaving the possibility of re-creation from the redirect if notability can be later shown.

While this invokes

I don't agree with that, you are free to bring back the pages if they get merged. It's not like they will be deleted completely. If you can get a few episode up to notability standards then great. but There are just too many and until an article meets notability standards it should be merged. Gman124 ^talk 00:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If there wasn't a clear opposition to merging the pages to start, I'd agree that we merge, and split off when notability is shown. I'm trying to extend a good faith assumption to progress forward instead of in-fighting indefinitely. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd be more than willing to help out with this idea, Masem; if we go forward with it, I'd like to be involved in improving the randomly chosen articles. And I commend you for coming up with an alternative idea, rather than just getting caught up what seems to be becoming a pretty emotional debate. However, as you might see from above, I've tried improving each of the Season 1 episodes that are in question (so far have done

Starvin' Marvin and Pinkeye) and I do plan to continue improving each of those articles. I don't think it would be a problem to do both... — Hunter Kahn _(contribs

) 05:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against it, since it's been evidenced that at least one user has dug out some notability and intends to look for more. My original aim was for a more concise presentation of the information to hand, which seemed to lend itself to a season page alone. If an article is significantly more than just plot, then of course it's own page would be suitable.

talk

) 12:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above, Hunter Kahn (talk · contribs) has already done some great work in this area (case study Weight Gain 4000), and I think this idea by Masem (talk · contribs) is a positive and constructive one. Cirt (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hunter Kahn (and anyone else) should feel free to continue efforts on any episodes they want, that's great and what's shown so far makes sense. But they are Season 1 episodes, when the show still had shock value and thus was watched far and wide by the media. (I remember quoting lines weeks and weeks after the premier). The substance of this value will be the demonstration of shows in latter seasons that aren't already clearly notable. --MASEM (t) 12:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought above someone said that the Season 1 episodes had the least coverage and that is why they should be the test case, not the other way around? Whichever way it is, the collaboration work currently being done certainly is excellent, but we shouldn't be changing the criteria for this little mini-project midstep, IMO. (In other words, saying yeah the test case is Season 1, oh wait no it is Season 2 now... etc.) Pick a model test case and run with it. Cirt (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

@Masem (talk · contribs) - perhaps you could name four episodes which you think could be the test cases? Cirt (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Being involved, I would not want to be accused to deliberately selecting episodes that will be difficult, which is why I suggested a random selection of middle-rated episodes based on (unreliable for sourcing purposes, but fine for this) fan sites. Alternatively, if people want to show that a fair number (four or so) episodes from separate seasons beyond the first are notable considering their present form, that could work as well. Basically, the core argument is here: will those pushing for merging be satisified of the "by example" notability demonstration and allow time for the SP WP to work towards a more completed approach? --MASEM (t) 15:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with it (so long as, like you pointed out, the episodes selected aren't ones that were clearly notable in the news and are just in poor condition right now). As long as it is clear that that is not a free pass for all articles, just proof that with some hard work and a little more time they can get more episode pages up to snuff with the criteria, while admitting that should some fail to make it there is a willingness to let those be merged.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a silly proposition - for the articles that dont currently meet

WP:N guidelines. -- The Red Pen of Doom

15:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

We're trying to create a compromise Red. Nothing ever gets accomplished on Wikipedia effectively if people hold to their guns on subjective actions (the subjectivity comes in from "if these are notable then it needs to show"), and basically stay on the "it's my way or the highway" argument. This is a pretty fair compromise that Masem drew up. It doesn't give leeway to let articles stay forever without asserting notability. It basically says, "if, in a month, you can assert the notability of four, random, average popularity articles then we'll be will to give you another 6 or so months to get as many other articles as you can to assert notability. Whichever articles after that time don't show notability, you agree to merge them into a larger article until they can show notability (again, nothing is permanent)" <--Masem explains the second part better.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I missed the "what happens after 3 or 6 months. If it turns out that no improvements are being made, a merge of non-notable episodes should not be contested. " Objection withdrawn.-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to be clear that my suggestion was that if the four selected episodes were shown to clearly be notable, then we'd hold off anything else on SP episode notability, but presume that the SP project was working (considering no

WP:DEADLINE) in good faith to improve the rest with coordinate projects and the like. Even after 6 months, if they've only managed to get, say, a season's worth of articles to notability, but are still actively working in good faith, we don't touch them. But say they coordinate and get a season's worth of articles in a month, and then sit idle for 5, that's not good faith, and the merge suggestion goes forward. Basically, let's give the SP the benefit of the doubt and show us what can be done with a small sample of articles, in return, they need to show that trust wasn't misplaced and show progress on the rest. It avoids a fait accompli approach while still encouraging improvement. (and no, we're not expecting 4 FA-quality articles, just enough in terms of references to assert notability, though certainly this gets the articles part of the way tehre). --MASEM (t

) 05:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What about other episodes that are notable. Is this an everything or nothing? I didn't understand well from the explanation above. Would episodes like Weight gain be merged?--

talk

) 16:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think that we cleared Weight Gain from the merge proposal. This isn't an "everything or nothing" proposal. This is more of a, "if in the end, X episodes have failed to assert notability after X amount of time" then everyone agrees to merge just those episodes. Now, the time to determine that will vary based on the good faith efforts of those seeking to establish the notability of all the episodes. In other words, if in the next two months everyone is continually working to establish notability then there is no reason to merge anything at the moment...unless there is some consensus among the SP members that some episodes just don't have any information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Four episodes for case study?

It would be nice to agree on the list of the four episodes that will make up the case study sooner, rather than later, so we can begin working on them. :) Cirt (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I consider myself an uninvolved admin-editor (uninvolved in the sense that I've only watched about 5 SP episodes in my life, I don't remember their names, and I am unable to determine the true protential for their articles). As many other editors above, I support Masem's suggestion as the best way of course, to determine the best presentation and future improvement of SP ep articles, no matter if it's merged or as stand-alone articles. I have done some blind scrolling and clicking, and have come up with the following random episodes: Gnomes (South Park), Butt Out, Terrance and Phillip in Not Without My Anus and Spontaneous Combustion (South Park). (I have no problem if I, these episodes or Masem's proposal get rejected.) – sgeureka ^t•c 23:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I would almost go against Gnomes (only because of the three step plan becoming a minor internet meme), but I realize that would be a strength to being able to source about that, something that is not an uncommon occurence in other SP episodes. T&P in NWMA is related to the movie so also might be good if that digs up connections. --MASEM (t) 00:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know Masem. I just ran through my university database with "Terrance and Phillip in Not Without My Anus" and I got absolutely nothing (mind you, it doesn't include LexisNexis). I did a google scholar search and got nothing, the same goes for Google news. I did find 2 books that list the title, but from reading the passages at Google Books it appears to be more of a mentioning of the episode in relation to the two characters that appear on South Park (i.e. it's really talking about the show and mentioning in passing the episode). Now, I'm not saying there isn't anything out there, just that with some quick searches it certainly wasn't easy to turn up anything.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well again, that's why I proposed this test, and I think sgeureka's suggestins are perfectly fine for it; none of the episodes immediately come to my mind as instantly passing notability, but some seem to have a chance. Let's give them time to work it and see what results. --MASEM (t) 05:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Other than being weighted a little bit toward the early seasons, it seems a representative sample with a major "storyline" episode in "Not Without My Anus" and typical social commentary episode in "Butt Out" (smoking) and "Gnomes" (national corporation vs. local businesses). If there is not material for those, well.... -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Season 2 doesn't have any commentaries so I'd suggest removing the episodes from season 2 (

talk

) 16:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability doesn't just come from director commentary. Reception from third-party sources is actually more important than commentary for these. --MASEM (t) 16:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"notability can't be esatblished in such a short time, or probably ever" ... well if that is the truth, then we shouldnt have stand alone articles for them. But I disagree with your premise- all it takes is to find a couple of secondary sources discussing the episode in a meaningful way (i.e. other than just regurgitating the plot) to establish notability. And even if currently no one has done such an analysis, there is no reason to believe that such a cultural icon as south park will never have someone do a scholarly analysis of an episode that would lead to an episode that is not currently notable to becoming notable. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) These four proposed by sgeureka (talk · contribs) sound fine to me. Cirt (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Too late to object or support now, but I think they represent a broad spectrum of episodes from social commentary (as Redpen noted above) to general silliness. Sounds ok to me.

talk

) 22:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is a good model: List of The Simpsons episodes. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You are aware that they use the exact same format right? The only difference is that they don't put any sources next to their information (I really hate that), but put them all at the end of the page. That page also does not cite any of the release dates for Regions 2 and 4 (that I can see), or include the writer/director of each episode.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The quality of sources used at List of The Simpsons episodes is a bit better, but yes the format is similar. Cirt (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources for what? Their DVD info comes from TVShowsonDVD (just like mine). They don't source Region 2 or 4, I think mine wins by default in that category. They cite FoxFlash for their episode titles, I cite MSN (not really a problem between either). In theory, that page actually does not completely meet the FL requirements, because it failing the style guideline regarding sourcing formatting (all must be formatted consistently), and the verifiability policy with regard to the DVDs of Region 2 and 4 (the page cites this one when claiming that 11 seasons are o DVD in all the regions, but that source says nothing about Regions 2 and 4).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

They don't use www.jbhifionline.com.au or www.amazon.co.uk. Cirt (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you arguing that perference over secondary sourcing is more important than verifiability?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, just that preference of secondary sourcing is in general, preferred. Cirt (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Then, I stick to my original assessment that by default I automatically win because The Simpsons episode list does not cite region 2 or 4. Plus, that list was promoted back in 2006, and a lot has changed since then - even its FL review was only in 2007. Anyway, what other special DVDs do you want listed. I was going through the DVD release page and there are a lot, and it got me to thinking, "If we include all of these, exactly why would we need this DVD release page?"  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Which DVD release page? Cirt (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I was creating a section in the sandbox based on this page:

South Park DVDs page? I mean, you were worried about using venders as sources, but this page is one big "Look what you can get if you buy this" page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

18:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I didn't realize they were already listed at

South Park DVDs. Just like at List of The Simpsons episodes, the list of episodes page can simply be the episodes/seasons. Cirt (talk

) 18:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Soo...lol, are you saying drop the "Special releases" section?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the brief paragraph you have there looks appropriate. Just have a {{main|South Park DVDs}} link or something like that in that section. Cirt (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It's already at the top, just below the section header for "Home video release".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I re-added all of the episode titles (and move several that were not at the correct location...i.e. "South Park episode" instead of "South Park"). The page is basically done. I don't see a real reason to not put it in place. Any source preferences can be swapped as time goes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah okay thanks for adding the links back in. Cirt (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

All episodes except

Hinder? I think you mean help.

talk

) 15:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

To help establish notability and make Wikipedia an extensive encyclopedia, with just any topic one could ask about. To hinder the merge of easily expandable episodes and merge not so notable episodes. This is just an overview of all stub articles that would be in a future merger proposal. Creating a season page would solve our problems as each season is certainly notable and has enough info to have a standalone list with lots of info.--

talk

) 16:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I strongly recommend providing your input on the [#Alternate route to move forward above thread] on avoiding a fait accompli approach here. There's 150-odd episodes here, and to force editors to show them all to be standalone-worthy in a short time is not very helpful, so I've proposed a solution that tests the waters to see if random episodes can be shown to be notable such that we can assume all of them can be (in exchange for encouraging SP editors to work on getting the rest of the articles to include sourcing for notability, not perfection). --MASEM (t) 16:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the list after I read the above. Will focus on the suggested episodes.

comment duplicated from above section for context
Does this sound like a plan? Notnotkenny (talk) (AKA - The Red Pen of Doom 13:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This off topic, but I don't think one user can have two user accounts. Though I may be wrong. Gman124 ^talk 14:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no problem with someone having two user accounts as long as there is a legitimate reason, as is the case here. As long as the alternate account isn't being used to mislead, stack votes, or evade scrutiny, it's not a problem - see

Wikipedia:SOCK#Legitimate uses of alternative accounts. ~ mazca ^t|c

14:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

In disagreement, there IS a MAJOR problem here, as the two accounts are editing the same pages and giving a perception of false consensus for actions which IS a violation, whether intentional to mislead or not, as they have both edited

8_Simple_Rules_for_Buying_My_Teenage_Daughter

A_Hero_Sits_Next_Door

A_Picture_Is_Worth_a_1,000_Bucks

And_the_Wiener_Is...

Baby_Not_On_Board

Barely_Legal_(Family_Guy)

Boys_Do_Cry

Brian:_Portrait_of_a_Dog

Brian_Does_Hollywood

Brian_Goes_Back_to_College

Brian_in_Love

Chick_Cancer

Chitty_Chitty_Death_Bang

Da_Boom

Dammit_Janet!

Death_Has_a_Shadow

Death_Is_a_Bitch

Death_Lives

Deep_Throats

Don't_Make_Me_Over_(Family_Guy)

E._Peterbus_Unum

Eek,_a_Penis!

Family_Gay

Fast_Times_at_Buddy_Cianci_Jr._High

Fifteen_Minutes_of_Shame

Ginger_Kids

He's_Too_Sexy_for_His_Fat

Holy_Crap

I_Never_Met_the_Dead_Man

If_I'm_Dyin',_I'm_Lyin'

Jungle_Love_(Family_Guy)

Let's_Go_to_the_Hop

Long_John_Peter

Love_Thy_Trophy

Meet_the_Quagmires

Mind_Over_Murder

Model_Misbehavior

No_Chris_Left_Behind

No_Meals_on_Wheels

North_by_North_Quahog

One_If_by_Clam,_Two_If_by_Sea

PTV_(Family_Guy)

Padre_de_Familia_(Family_Guy_episode)

Pandemic_2_-_The_Startling

Patriot_Games_(Family_Guy)

Perfect_Castaway

Peter's_Daughter

Peter's_Got_Woods

Peter's_Two_Dads

Peter,_Peter,_Caviar_Eater

Petergeist

Play_It_Again,_Brian

Running_Mates_(Family_Guy)

Saving_Private_Brian

Stewie_Griffin:_The_Untold_Story

Stewie_Kills_Lois

The_Courtship_of_Stewie's_Father

The_Fat_Guy_Strangler

The_Father,_the_Son,_and_the_Holy_Fonz

The_Former_Life_of_Brian

The_King_Is_Dead_(Family_Guy)

The_Man_with_Two_Brians

The_Passion_of_the_Jew

The_Son_Also_Draws

There's_Something_About_Paulie

Wasted_Talent

Talk:List_of_South_Park_episodes

User talk:Notnotkenny

User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom

If RedPen is editing a page, there is no valid reason for NotnotKenny to edit the exact same page. Let RedPen OR Nontnotkenny edit a page.... not both. Else it will then encourage ALL editors to declare and open multiple accounts to edit the same pages all over wiki, as you will have allowed the acceptable precedent. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't RedPen identify themselves as also being NotnotKenny? And I don't think I saw Kenny make an opinion (beyond the one made directly to me about included Nielsen ratings), just summarize what was already being said on the page. So, I think it should be noted that, as far as this page goes (I haven't looked any other and don't care about the others), they have not actually tried to decieve consensus in any way that I can see.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. he certainly did, and I appreciate the transparency. However, in reading

WP:SOCK the use of multiple accounts to edit the same article is not among the condoned uses. If one were strictly maintanenece and one strictly editing, then sure... go for it. However, in looking at the other pages, this does not seem the case. I have sought clarification. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

19:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Without a doubt there is a MAJOR problem here. The same editor having two accounts that comment, in any way, on the same Talk page is deceptive--whether intentional or not. The only acceptable way would be for both accounts to constantly state the relationship and then to clearly opine in opposite directions. And if so whats the point? Had the relationship (2 names/1 editor) not been revealed (this thread) the general makeup of editor response would have seemed normal. Now, of course, it is drastically skewed and any attempt to create consensus has an air of deception and falsehood. Are there any other multi-named editors taking part in this discussion and choosing?

As an interested observer, I must say that this type of counterfit behavior is treachorous and threatening to a continued air of "assume good faith" that must exist between editors. Am I in a discussion with Edgar Bergen---or is it his hand puppet, Charlie McCarthy???? Who is the guy chimming in with the false nose and horn-rimmed glasses???? This duplicity is not in tune with editor fellowship. Double-toungued and two-faced---an interesting twist to the Wikipedia experience. My confidence in Jimbos' creation is shaken--Buster7 (talk) 04:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I find the claim of "counterfit behavior " and complete outrage on your part to be a bit disengenous when the 3 edits by my alternate account on this page come directly in a row and the final edit consists of me identifying that the account is my alt. And still there are no policy based arguements against the merger, only accusations against an editor. I had thought the politics of personal attack had been left behind and we had moved on to more rational discussions, but I may be wrong. And even if every other account supporting the merge were an alternate account of mine, the analysis of the discussion would still be the same: Merge - supported by multiple policies and guidelines, Do not merge - not supported by any policies or guidelines,

just a desire to have seperate articles. -- The Red Pen of Doom

01:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is

WP:ATA is a mere essay. There's no consensus to delete South Park episode articles. Now please stop trolling at South Park articles on Wikipedia, which I first noticed at Talk:The Ungroundable. --Pixelface (talk

) 05:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for at least attempting to find policy/guidelines/etc. to back your position before dropping into your personal attacks. However, the arguments you provide are not at all convincing.

1)

WP:BURDEN

section of the WP:V Policy: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

2) Your "jimbo sez"/ "precedent" arguement has been debunked above, but in addition there is

WP:CCC

, even if 7 yers ago the majority of people did not oppose unverifed seperate articles for individual TV episodes, it appears that (along with jimbo) the consensus of the community has also changed.

3) The basis for the merger is not the "mere essay"

WP:N

and other policies.

4) While there was no consensus to delete a particular South Park article several months ago, that article is not part of this merger proposal at all. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:V is disputed. It was added so an editor could win an editwar over the UGOPlayer article, which they had nominated for deletion. I have never said that all episode articles get a free pass because "Jimbo sez." And the precedent argument absolutely has not been "debunked", since the arbitration committee themselves mentioned

it. That line in WP:V and the seed of the WP:GNG in WP:N both came from one editor. Wikipedia is not a dictatorship.

And where is your evidence that consensus has changed? You have none. I, on the other hand, have plenty. In addition to that: An article about an episode of South Park nominated for deletion. Kept. An article about an episode of X-Files nominated for deletion. Kept. An article about an episode of Frasier nominated for deletion. Kept. There is absolutely no reason to have articles about some episodes of South Park and not the others. Now please stop trolling, please stick to one account, and have a nice day. --Pixelface (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE-- The Red Pen of Doom

04:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

@ NoNoNotKenny AKA The Red Pen of Doom...Since this specific thread is about multiple accounts, I would have thought you would sign it with both monikers. It would seem to be the most obvious place in all of WikiPedia to convince fellow editors of your stewardship. Maybe it should convince them of something else.--Buster7 (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Since there is no way to meet the requirement for notability for most article pages, what should be done with those articles?
  • Delete them all, because of the current rules.
  • Keep them anyway, ignoring the rules.
  • Go to where rules are at, and try to have them changed, so that episode lists[1], and trivia are allowed.

Dream Focus 05:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

None one is calling for deletion. Merging will retain the article page and its history but replace the text with a redirect, so that if an episode is later shown to be notable, it can be easily recreated at an episode article. Trivia of the type most SP episodes are is not acceptable (it violates

WP:OR for one), so a solution involving that is not going to be possible. --MASEM (t

) 06:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Every South Park episode is notable Masem. And there is no policy against trivia. You're assertion that trivia about South Park episodes "violates WP:OR" is false. --Pixelface (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

But not every article passes the threshold of notability that we required (please see my attempt on WT:N to restate WP:N in terms of a threshold instead of just notable/non-notable). And

trivia sections are strongly discouraged - yes, this doesn't mean trivia isn't allowed, but it needs to meet all normal content guidelines, and the average trivia bit for South Park tends to be "X is a parody of Y"; unless that's backed by a source, that's original research and not appropriate, even if it is glaringly obvious. --MASEM (t

) 13:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no "required" threshold of notability Masem. Nevertheless, every episode of South Park is notable. And

Wikipedia:Trivia sections as if their lives depended on it, in order to justify removing everything they personally deem "trivia." And describing obvious parodies is not original research at all. Editors are allowed to made descriptions of primary sources, and doing so does not qualify as original research. Pandemic (South Park) is a source and the film Cloverfield is also a source. You don't need South Park Studios to write that that episode parodies that film when that is glaringly obvious to anyone who is familiar with both sources. It's not synthesis either to note it. --Pixelface (talk

) 15:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

@Dream out loud - Regarding: Many or all of the existing individual episode pages for South Park appear to fail the notability guidelines for television episodes, and have been tagged accordingly. - what is backing up this assertion? Cirt (talk) 06:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Whether the page is deleted, or simply "merged", it doesn't matter. The only difference is that it is easier to undelete later on, if somehow that episode becomes notable, which you know wouldn't happen. The only way to make sure the episodes are safe, is to vote to change policy. So I suggested it be done here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Voting_time.___Any_television_series_that_has_at_least_a_million_viewers.2C_may_have_an_article_for_every_episode If enough people vote to Support it, then policy will be changed, and the episodes are fine. Dream Focus 06:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • That seems a tad
    WP:POINTy. Cirt (talk
    ) 06:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Dream Focus, I think your best bet would be to create Wikipedia:Notability (television episodes) as a {{proposal}} and write there that a million viewers is evidence of notability. Wikipedia:Notability is not a policy. Episode articles are already supported by policy, Wikipedia is not paper, going as far back as seven years. --Pixelface (talk) 10:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:EPISODE is not a notability guideline. It is a content guideline. Your first sentence completely invalidates everything that follows. --Pixelface (talk

) 09:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• I was told at
  WP:NOTABILITY that was all that mattered. When an article doesn't pass notability, more often than not, it is deleted in the AFD. If you want to save this, and other episodes, then you have to change the Notability policy, which can only be done by consensus. Discussion doesn't matter, it all having been said before, and people just argue back and forth filling page after page with the same thing. Been there, done that, nothing changes. But it says a strawpoll is a good way to establish consensus. So, everyone go vote in the strawpoll, and if enough people support this, it gets changed. Otherwise, people will just keep trying to find a way to delete the episode list. Dream Focus
  10:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • That's because Bignole doesn't know what he's talking about.
    WP:NOT#PAPER is. Episode articles have over seven years of precedent, according to the policy Wikipedia is not paper. Wikipedia:Notability is a guideline, and it's status as a guideline is muddled. Articles about topics that editors feel are non-notable are often deleted, but it's apparent from attempts to delete South Park episode articles that editors think episodes of South Park are notable. When you say discussion doesn't matter, you're wrong. --Pixelface (talk
    ) 10:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was, I'm active on the AFD and I see a lot of people voting based on the rules of notability alone. If there are enough fans around to defend an article, then it is saved, otherwise it is deleted. That is how it works. Those who vote only on

WP:NOTABILITY to stop the people from deleting every article they can. Dream Focus

10:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Many people seem to think that lack of third-party coverage != non-notable, but that is simply untrue. And Wikipedia:Notability doesn't say as much anyway. I agree that Wikipedia:Notability needs to be changed, and there's a current RFC on it as a whole, as well as several threads on the talkpage about doing so. --Pixelface (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, "what is backing up this assertion?", perhaps it would be more useful to look at it from the point of view of an inclusionist and say why it should stay? It seems pretty clear why a series may be notable and individual episodes aren't. Why is an organisation notable but not every member, why is a city or town notable but not every street or building etc etc.

talk

) 16:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is people are asserting individual episodes are not notable, and talking about them all in one big pile, when the above case study with Weight Gain 4000 shows proper research has not yet been done about each one individually. So the people making these claims about lack of notability are not backing them up with research on the individual episodes and trying to find which reliable sources discuss them. Cirt (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And to counter it, there's a whole lot of talk of notability but few editors supplying it. The articles have been in existance for months if not years, very little has been done for them in that time. It's something of a shame that it's only action such as this that seems to spur other editors on.

talk

) 20:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because the articles are not in a high state of quality at present, does not mean that the individual episodes are not notable. Cirt (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nor does it mean they are notable either. We need evidence for that.

But I'll state my suggested path forward that avoids a merge: if you can show that 2-3 "average" episodes from Season 2 onward that are presently not notable can be made notable through sourcing, I would be reasonably convinced that every episode can be made notable. (By "average", find some fan site that allows user voting on SP and find those with middle-of-the-road summary rankings, eg we don't cherry pick ones that clearly are notable like Trapped in the Closet or ImaginationLand). Or, if you can show me two separate reliable sources that provides episode reviews for each episode except for maybe the latest ones, I'd consider that acceptable. Given what I've seen and know of the show, I don't believe either of these can be met, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

@Masem (talk · contribs) - that sounds like a great idea! Course, we'd need a bit of time to work on it. Cirt (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if others pushing for a merge would allow for this "test" of random episode notability to be made, to select the test cases, and then see what results after (lets say 4 episodes) a month, that they would agree to the same. Mind you, there's validity in their argument that they all may be notable but because there's neither no deadline but no required work, it may be better to still merge if it's going to take years to complete them all. I assume that the SP WikiProject is watching this, and they may want to work on a coordinated effort, season by season, to establish the notability of each episode in a reasonably short period of time, presuming the handful of examples I suggest can be show and the merge avoided. --MASEM (t) 21:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Episode reviews don't really show notability though do they, just that the episode was broadcast.

talk

) 22:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Episode reviews from reliable, non-self published sources are exactly the type of sources we want to establish notability; they're third-party and secondary, and as long as not done in a self-publishing interest, shows there's some aspect of notability to the episodes. There's other things but this is the easiest to start with. --MASEM (t) 22:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really, they don't dicuss any sort of notability other than existing as a television programme. If they themselves included a note regarding some sort of further notability, then that would be great. Otherwise, it's not much better than the production studio saying "We've made this."

talk

) 23:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Critical reviews of a work is a long-standard consideration of notability. The only criteria is that the source needs to be more than an average blog. Sure, there may be more than reviews (particularly for South Park, as some episodes generate controversy), but a first pass accepted level of notability for episodes is critical reviews. --MASEM (t) 00:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Masem on this. Reviews are essential. But, IMO, it should be made sure of that the reviews are actually analyzing the episode, and aren't just a basic "I liked this episode", with no real reason behind it. I say this only because that type of stuff provides no actual context to a reader, as one might as well have had any random editor provide that opinion (I've once not included Roger Ebert in a film review because he actually said absolutely nothing about the film, but ranted about other things loosely associated with it).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure that wasn't Andy Rooney stepping in for Ebert on that? :) --MASEM (t) 00:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think episode reviews are evidence of notability, but I would like you, Masem, to explain to me in your own words why you think episode reviews establish notability. --Pixelface (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A profession review (one that meets

WP:RS) of an episode will do two things. The first is usually to help supply details for a plot summary - not usually a complete one but allows for better sourcing beyond the primary work; this is not necessarily needed (the plot can be sourced from the primary but if you start working on FAs, they dont like to see unsourced plots), and this facet doesn't affect notability. But the other facet is that a professional review will generally establish how significant the epsisode is within the show's history as well as to the rest of television, establish context for suggested influences and references (rather common for a show like SP), and otherwise summarize why the show is more than just random images moving about for 22 minutes. Additionally, if someone is professionally being paid by a RS to review the show, then that RS must still consider the show a significant influence, thus demonstrating that it is more notable than episodes that don't get reviews. --MASEM (t

) 13:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The point of the review is to establish the context of the episode outside of the episode itself (the plot section is what's there to establish the episode). Whether that's comparing to other episodes of the same series or to other shows entirely, or to affirm what may be obvious parodies to present events (something SP often does). That needs to be done by an "expert" (someone who's profession is to review television episodes). It's the same concept that, if discussing a scientific principle, we don't take the original scientists' word on it that wrote the paper, it's the experts down the line that establish the context of the principle that are important in terms of establishing the topic for an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have finished reformatting this article, so everyone can take a look at it. This is not based on the idea that the season articles will all be split back out (if so great, if not then just remove the links to them), but the fact that this series is too long to be able to handle all of the plot summaries, no matter how brief. Plus, it was not well sourced. Other than aesthetics, and the fact that I sourced all of the DVDs, the only real change was the removal of the "Best of" stuff. I wanted to keep this, but looking at the sources suggested that it would be best to remove it. One source was a dead link. The others did not actually list the episodes in question, so I assume that they were placed their as Comedy Central was airing them (which we cannot verify without a source). Two of the sources looked like they came from some fansite, I couldn't even tell what they were. Oh, and I only included links to episodes that I came across that had already been well established as notable episodes. Links to the others can be added as need be (just like how the links to the season pages can be removed if need be).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

These www.jbhifionline.com.au, /www.tvshowsondvd.com, and www.amazon.co.uk, are not proper sources, but rather just sites selling DVDs. Best to stick to secondary sources, this seems too much like a violation of

WP:NOR. Cirt (talk

) 21:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

TVShowsonDVD.com is not a vendor, and they are considered reliable for DVD release info (They've been bought by TV Guide as well, adding to their reliability). Vendor sites like Amazon are fine for past releases of DVD, though often a press release can be found to replace it. --MASEM (t) 21:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

They're considered valid sources when it comes to identifying the original release date of a box set. There is no requirement that ALL sources must be secondary, nor that sources identifying a non-controversial date must be secondary. Plus, OR is "original thought", and there is no "thought" here. As stated, "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." - There is no position to advance when stating when something was released.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing stuff to the sites that sell the DVDs is really not best practice. Has an attempt been made to try to find secondary sources for this info? Cirt (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well again, TVShowsOnDVD.com is not a vendor site even though you can clickthrough to Amazon. Plus, they generally post any press releases direct from the publisher regarding the DVD set, so in that case they're just a passthrough of direct information. (there's no need to secondary source release dates). --MASEM (t) 17:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

So I take that to mean no one has tried to research this and source with secondary sources? Cirt (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC)It's no different than sourcing financial figures from the studios. The websites are not being used in the EL sections, which would invoke a level of NPOV violation by suggesting they buy this. They are used as sources for dates. The only issue I have ever seen brought up with citing Amazon or any other online vender with regard to release dates is the problem of personal identifiers (i.e. in the url, everything that comes after "ref", because it actually is associated with that personal account instead of a generic page on the website). If you can find another source, that's fine (I wouldn't fight you or anyone over replacing one source for a better source...there are not always official press releases to "professional" news outlets with regard to DVD releases), but I have never run into a problem with citing Amazon or any other similar website for the purposes of just the release date of a product.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay I could go with that if we could agree that it would be best practice where possible to replace with better sources in the future. Cirt (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's always best practice to fine the most neutral, third-party source avaiable. If they can be found, awesome. I'm just saying that I have never come across a page held up in any type of review because there was a source to Amazon for the release date of a product (so long as that was the only thing being used - e.g. a whole section wasn't written about a product based solely on what it says on the Amazon page).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I find that extremely hard to believe, surely there are reviews of upcoming DVD releases that mention their release date. Cirt (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It just comes across sort of like if people go down to the References subsection while reading this page, they would find 99% of the References are just links to websites selling DVDs, which does not seem too professional or encyclopedic. Like I said, generally when newspapers and secondary sources review newly released DVDs, they mention the release date. It does not appear that there has even been an attempt to try to find secondary sources in this case. Cirt (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, secondary sources are not a requirement, nor do I go out of my way to find them for something as uncontroversial as a DVD release date. I doubt most people check every single source for a release date, because it's not the same thing as quoting someone's words. It's up there with calling the Sun yellow. The only time it's an issue is with future dates (in such case there are only like 2 or 3 of those for this show). So, I say, if you want to find some, be my guest. It seems to be more of a personal issue of yours than one I have ever seen from the community.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Only two out of the 42 sources used in the References subsection at User:Bignole/Small sand are to quality secondary sources, namely BBC News and The New York Times. Now I am not saying that all the other sources are wholly unacceptable, just that it does seem odd to not have any other secondary sources such as reviews of the DVDs in newspapers, books, magazines, etc., and to have 95% of the References be websites and sites affiliated with the pushing of a product. Cirt (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"Odd" is not a problem of mine. They don't push a POV, or violate any actual policy. They are used in a generic way to cite a single, uncontroversial number. And when it comes to regions 2 and 4, venders are sometimes the only thing you can find. Like I've been saying, if you have such a problem with it,

be bold and find some different sources and swap them out (I don't care if you edit my sandbox).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

17:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's not make this about me please. Please comment on content, not on contributors. The community actually does set higher standards than linking to multiple different websites that push a product and use those as the vast majority of the sources on a page. For example

Featured List = much better sourcing. Cirt (talk

) 17:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but notice what sites its using for the DVD release information - TV shows on DVD and "Simpsons Shop". Yes, there needs to be better sites for the episode information, but release date from these sources are fine, as they meet both

WP:V. --MASEM (t

) 17:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't comment on YOU. I said if you have a problem then you can edit my sandbox. Two people are saying it is fine, one person is saying that it isn't. I have not said, "don't touch this". I agreed that any secondary source would be better, but they generally are. I did not disagree with you on that. I merely stated that these are just fine as well, but if you find something else feel free to swap it. That isn't a personal attack on you, and could not be construed as one either. "Better sourcing" does not make the original source "Bad", and would not inhibit an FLC. Going back to what I said, for the third time, if you find a better source PLEASE go ahead and swap it out.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to use CAPS, let's all please stay civil, thanks. As for User:Bignole/Small sand, let's not use this until it has better sourcing. I also notice that User:Bignole/Small sand for some reason is missing other DVD releases of special selections. These should be included. Cirt (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That was not me yelling, that was me urging. A part from Cirt, does anyone else have any problems with the the information being put into place? Cirt, remember, if it's the main page then everyone can edit it to their liking, and replace sources, and add new information. It's merely a cleaned up version of what's on the page now (which, IMO, is a much worse version to have on display...at least my version has sources).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

@Bignole (talk · contribs) - you do have a good point, the current version could use better sourcing. And I will accept that you were not yelling with the CAPS, but please try to avoid use of CAPS in that fashion in the future - as it does come across to most people as yelling. Though the sandbox version is better in some respects, in other respects it appears to omit key information from the current version, such as other DVD releases and special editions. Cirt (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

(Sorry for the confusion about the caps, wasn't trying to insinuate that I was trying to get a point across by yelling). I only know of one special release, and that was Trey and Matt's "Greatest Hits" DVD. I based everything off of what this page says. If there are others I don't know about them (the movie wouldn't really be appropriate for this page, because it was not a release of the show). If there are others, come on over to the sandbox and help me create a table for "Special DVD releases" or something to that effect. I don't watch this show, so I welcome anyone's assistance that does watch it and knows about all this stuff that could be added that isn't here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology - it is most appreciated. I also note that the sandbox proposal removed virtually all links to existing Wikipedia episode articles. These still exist as Wikipedia articles and they should be linked. Also, The Hits, Volume 1 was released as a DVD edition and this was removed as well. Cirt (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned the episode links at the top. They can be added back. When I was starting it I was just putting in the episode titles and not bothering with making sure I had the links in (beyond like two of them). I couldn't find anywhere to put it, that's why I removed it. I didn't remove it under the guise that it shouldn't be mentioned, just that my goal was merely to clean up the page to a suitable level and anything else can be done afterward.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The episode Wikipedia-links and the section on The Hits, Volume 1 should be included on this page. Cirt (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to go back to work, so I cannot do it right now, so please (;D, sorry, couldn't resist) head over to my sandbox and take care of what you can. I'll be gone for a few hours, so my responses will be spaced and limited (not really supposed to be on Wiki while at work).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

So, is there any opposition to going ahead and putting in the cleaned up version of the page?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer better sources - but it is a much better model than the current version - no objections. Thank you Bignole (talk · contribs) for all the work you put into this. My apologies for belabouring a point too much. Cirt (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It's all good. Anyone else (it's basically been Cirt and me discussing this)? I'll leave this open till the end of the day, then if there are no other objections I'll swap out the codes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been waiting for this for a long time. Please do it. The design is much better. More prose would be better but we should collaborate on that on the mainspace. Is the color coding recommended? I thought it's not good for FL.--

talk

) 16:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The only time I've ever run into a color coding problem was way back when that first started springing up. Now, the only time I've ever seen it brought up is by people who have not reviewed television related lists before. It's not a random color (it's the color of the DVD boxes), and it allows the reader to not be bored with the mundane "gray" default coloring. So long as it is readable on all browsers (which, if it is not, let me know so that we can adjust to better serve all users), then it should be fine.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok good Idea of color coding according to DVD box. There are many necessary improvements though:

• The refs are in the air date which poses a problem in season 1,4 because they aren't clear and are difficult to be seen. It would be better having them above each table with some prose would be better ( I think).
• Viewers count is also important and should have its own column
• Why are the descriptions gone? Are u intending on creating Season pages?--
  talk
  ) 17:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That seems to only be an issue for the couple of the darker colored seasons. Plus, I don't think it's a big issue when it comes to verifying because it's already aired episodes, and the reference section below identifies the separate pages. What I could do is adjust the title for the references to indicate which seasons fall within the pages so that it is easier to navigate there. As for the viewership, that's easy to add...if you have the information. I didn't have the information for every episode, so I couldn't add it in. About the plots, if every episode has its own page we won't need them. If there are episodes that need merging then season articles will probably be the better bet. At 13 seasons, even a brief 1 to 2 sentence plot is going to bloat the page, because you're talking about 183 episodes and counting. I mean, it can be done quite easily as well, it will just make the page very large. Season pages (regardless of merging) might be the best avenue anyway, because there is some information that is strictly season related (seasonal averages, awards given to a show and not specifically to an episode during that season, the DVD release of the season, the key players for that season, etc.)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is rubbish now! What good is just listing the title? I used to check here all the time to see what episode I wanted to watch and the one line plot summaries were very useful. Now I have to click through to each individual episode's page.122.108.12.220 (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Seasons articles

I'd like to suggest moving all seasons to standalone lists. I don't mean by that removing the Seasons sectons from the page but merely copying the Episodes information, like what was done in Season 1, to other articles with short description of each episode. This would be later expanded to included general plot of the Season, cultural references, Viewers ... etc. I find it bad removing all the description of the original list before this reformatting and am therefore suggesting just splitting the older list in several season articles.--

Even without a merge, it would probably still make sense, it would match what was done for other series too. Bignole kindly pointed me in the direction of some handy coding for the episode lists that looks cleaner than what had been used before.

talk

) 21:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Season articles are completely appropriate and can be used to include reception information on season releases as well as for the somewhat expanded plot descriptions. Also any significant season changes (that can be sources), such as .. er, whatever season Kenny was considered dead and gone (5? 6?) can also be outlined, even though SP has minimal overarching plot. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A number of the season one episodes appear to lack notability, I propose merging them into this list of episodes. This was originally discussed

(and again) Per

not encyclopedic. The chart layout can be modified to easily include Neilson ratings which are frequently the only 3rd party material related to the episodes. -- -- The Red Pen of Doom

17:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of the articles seemed to be relatively unnotable ,going by the

notability test and a related discussion on the talk pages for the list of Farscape and Lexx

episodes (bit of a disclaimer here, I love those two shows but completely support the merges).

None of the merges were prejudicial to the essential information each individual article contained. As I said, the pilot and Mecha-Streisand are notable. One as the pilot episode of the entire series, the other since it drew attention from a third party source (if the cite I provided in the article is verifiable), showing it had attention outside of the simple fact that it was an episode of the show.

A lot of what I could say is actually repeated in the links I provided above to the Farscape and Lexx discussions, please have a little look at those too.

talk

) 21:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I support a merge of all episodes that fail notability (the assertion of such), but I also (if it doesn't already exist), I would suggest creating individual season lists (like

Lost (season 2) as this show has been around for 12 seasons and that's a bit much to have plot summaries for all that on just this page. You can cut all of that out, which would neaten it up and allow it to become a featured list, while at the same time creating an aggregate page that could flesh out the plots a little better than this page could.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

19:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

No. All episodes should have their own page. And I'm not just saying this for South Park, but for all shows. One of the things that make Wikipedia so great was all the crazy facts about such a wide variety of subjects, and this whole "notability" thing seems to be ruining this whole site. Bring back the old Wikipedia. 71.182.229.224 (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The changes that have already occured on the site are awful. A long list with short summaries is a pain to the eye and offers little information. The current way, with separate sites for each episode looks fine... --95.33.106.254 (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your opinion is not shared by the Wiki community, which has

non-trivial content about the episodes and add it so that at least some of the meet the notability guideline and are not merged.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

20:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You aren't the first to suggest they be merged, but trust me. They aren't getting merged. Notability on wiki is second to popularity. Everytime this gets proposed, the merger is opposed 20 to 1. Besides, if you're going to have individual pages for almost every episode, why leave out pages for a few?

No Bignole, Wikipedia has notability guidelines because it was common for people to vote delete and say "non-notable" in VFDs. And what in the world is a "run of the mill" episode? Third-party coverage is not the only evidence of notability, and if an article does not cite any, that means nothing whatsoever. --Pixelface (talk) 11:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Because the growing trend is that "popularity without a viable argument is not enough". There must be a valid argument presented to ignore the notability guideline nowadays. As for why merge some and not all, I think that if we were to go through every page we'd probably be merging all but a few (maybe an episode here or there). I doubt it would be that the majority are notable and only a handful are not.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a 12 season list may be reaching (or already be past) the end of easily navigatable length and that seperate lists for each season may be in order- provided that the consesus shown so far for redirects of

non-notable episodes into season lists reaches its logical conclusion. -- The Red Pen of Doom

23:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge all individual articles, except for Trapped in the Closet episode and other episode articles that have good amount of other information, than just the plot. After the merge, create Season pages instead. And perhaps then it could be made like the Simpsons page, who have the episode summary on the season page rather than the main episode list page. --Gman124 ^talk 16:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, is the merge being disscussed here or at the

here. Shouldn't there be just one place for this disscusion. --Gman124 ^talk

16:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Added message at Wikiproject South Park to discuss merger here not there. --Gman124 ^talk 16:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the season pages were already created [2] they were just merged with the list because they didn't have enough stuff in them. --Gman124 ^talk 16:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So take a trimmed plot, as I had started to provide for on the main list of episodes page, and move that to a restored season page instead. I could go for that.

talk

) 12:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Going by

Smallville (season 8)) that would allow us to put them on the page in an organized fashion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

12:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If we redesign the table as part of this change, we can incorporate the initial viewership ratings as well. (and perhaps the "TV-MA" etc. rating) Although tables in wikiformat are a pain in the butt.-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to the table on this page? If so, then I was say that unless you can get them for every single episode, it's best not to do that. You'll never pass FLC if you have scattered episode ratings. If you can get them for all the episodes, awesome, because it's a great addition to have.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the approach that we should not add the information that we can verify because we cant verify information for everything. Without ratings information how could this article ever achieve Feature List status anyway? Notnotkenny (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The same way that List of Smallville episodes did. Nielsen ratings could only reliably be found for that past two seasons (7 and 8), that left 6 seasons with scattered ratings here and there. If you cannot complete the information, then you need to find another way of presenting it. One could try just listing the average rating for the entire season if you cannot find every individual episode rating. It is not going to look good to have scattered numbers across the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I am all for articles looking pretty, but in a choice between having perfect layout and having sourced content- Sourced on-topic content will always win in my book. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it's about presentation, not ignoring sourced content. If the information can only be half complete, there has to be a way of presenting it in a more satisfactory manner. A season average (which is typically easier to find than 20+ individual numbers for each season) is one of those possibilities. If you find one for 15 out of 22 episodes, then it's going to be hard to pass an FLC because the discussion will be "why can't you find the others?". But, if you have all of the season averages, that's just as good for an article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to agree to disagree since it is essentially a moot point - i dont think we have any data to include anyway. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Reading the discussions, I repeatedly see "A number of the season one episodes appear to lack notability", which must then imply that some of the episodes do indeed have individual notability, and that the ones that "appear" not to, may just actually be so. So... per

Wikipedia:Television episodes

:

Note: Stubs are allowed on Wikipedia and many articles are stubs. It may be inappropriate to merge or redirect an article about a television episode just because it is a stub. Before executing a merge, ask yourself:

• Will the merge reduce the quality or coherence of the target article?
• Are more sources available? (Do some basic looking for additional source material that could be used to improve the article.)

If the answer to either of these questions is "yes", it is probably better to avoid merging or redirecting. Instead, consider improving it, or offer suggestions for its improvement on the talk page

So, my thoughts...

1. Has anyone created a list of stubs proposed for merge?
2. Have these stubs been tagged for Notability or Sources and allowed to grow?
3. How diligent was/were efforts to expand these stubs before proposing a merge?

I respectfully opine no merge until it is shown that the current guideline for such has been fully addressed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between being a stub and being an article consisting solely of a plot. Since the onus is not on people to prove something does NOT exist, but that it DOES, someone should really be showing that they can be improved. What you see in EPISODE is a suggestion, not a mandate. I just randomly picked one of the episode articles, and here is what I found. [the new Google Wiki search results] (there is apparently a block on this link, so just follow the link from

WP:DEADLINE works both ways. Just for the sake of argument, I just grabbed another episode from last season (given the theory that the longer the show runs the more in the public eye it is). I randomly chose "Eek, A Penis!". Here is the [Google Wiki] (same issue as before, just use "Eek, A Penis!", Google News, and Google Web results. The only viable page I found was an IGN review, which does not meet the "significant coverage from reliable secondary sources" criteria. Hell, even using TV Squad, which is the bottom feeder of TV reviews as they generally never say anything insightful about the episode beyond "I like it" (thus making most of what they say unusable) doesn't help, as only 2 sources (with no other real world information) is not enough. A season article would be best for the vast majority. If no real world information can be found, then make it a season list. If a few things can be found, but not enough to warrant a separate page, then make it a season article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

03:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I searched the newspapers for all of these episodes and zip. Checking wikibooks now (and then on to wikischolar). When those come up empty, then the onus will REALLY be on those wishing to include to supply the material that meets

WP:N and has been removed from the list. -- The Red Pen of Doom

04:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone readded it. I saw only one source added to the article, which is probably why someone re-added it.

WP:NOTE requires "significant coverage" which is defined as more than a single source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

05:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"Significant coverage" is more than passing mention in a single source, "Death" is the focal subject of the article. It also appears that Tom's Rhinoplasty has been the subject of a number of scholarly analysis and would appear to meet

WP:N -- The Red Pen of Doom

05:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I see a single sentence in that "Death" article. That is not "significant" coverage. It clearly says at WP:NOTE: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." - NOTE says "sources", not "source(s)". Later on the page it says: "Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article." - "Sufficient detail for a comprehensive article" can generally never be covered by a single source. What search engine are you using. I just did a quick Google Scholar on "Tom's Rinoplasty" and got only 4 hits, 2 or which just cite the episode title, the other two come from the same source which is a South Park book. Here is the Google Book search, and out of all of them I could only find one that actually discussed the episode, but since we cannot see the follow up page unless we buy the book (stupid Google books), all we know is that it recounts the plot of the episode. Since only a couple pages later it doesn't mention the episode, I'm not thinking that it covers it too comprehensively. The thing that everyone needs to remember is "is there enough information to warrant a separate article". Meeting the bare minimum requirements of the GNG is not enough, especially when 4/5 of the article is plot. If you have a bunch of episodes that have a couple of sentences about themes they exhibit, it's quite easy to create a section on a season page chronicling the themes present in that given season, and making note of specific episodes that stood out. That's how you have a comprehensive article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It is entirely possible for a single article to provide "Sufficient detail for a comprehensive article" about a single TV episode.

Re Tom's Rhinoplasty: [3] On the first page there are like 4 gay studies books that come up. -- The Red Pen of Doom 06:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a long shot to think one source will provide enough detail for "comprehensive" coverage. As for the books, I covered that above. I told you that most only have the episode listed ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], and [11]), and the one source that starts to talk about it doesn't have the follow up page to show us what it was saying. Look at those books closely. A good portion of them are talking about Ellen doing a voice-over for South Park's "Tom's Rineplasty". The LGBT aspect of it is because of Ellen. Then look at the other sources, Google Book let's you know how many pages that term hits on, and several of them only appear on one page and it is part of a list of LGBT media. That's "passing mention".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

In response to MichaelQSchmidt, "yes a due diligence search for sources was conducted and no evidence was found that 8 of the 10 articles proposed for merger would be able to meet would be able to meet our notability guideline of significant 3 party coverage in a reliable source." The evidence of whether the 2 other articles, namely Tom's Rhinoplasty and Death meet our guidelines for stand alone articles is contested. Given that the overwhelming consensus of policy based reasoning, I would suggest that in a few days if no more evidence appears supporting stand alone articles 1) that the 8 be merged into a Season One article, 2) that the remainder of this article be broken into stand-alone Season articles, and 3) that merger discussions for Tom's Rhinoplasty and Death continue on their individual article pages (unless some type of consensus appears here on whether or not the evidence for stand alone status has been met) Does this sound like a plan? Notnotkenny (talk) (AKA - The Red Pen of Doom 13:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to give a little note, there are thousands of article with no sources in Wikipedia that aren't merged. These articles are good ones, and their only external link can serve as reference. They can be greatly improved, however merging is just going the other way round. So Strong Oppose. --Fixman^{Praise me} 19:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

you like it the way it is doesn't mean that it is the correct way to be.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

19:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't cite that worthless essay Bignole. And the only way to "fail"

WP:GNG, all came from one single editor. Wikipedia is not a dictatorship. Policies and guidelines must have consensus in order to be policies and guidelines. You're welcome to try and argue that South Park is notable yet the episodes that comprise the show are somehow not-notable. Good luck with your cognitive dissonance. --Pixelface (talk

) 11:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I'm against the merging. Strong Oppose. Nightscream (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you actually have a reason, because

WP:NOTE. That's just the way that it is. It can expand on what NOTE says, and clarify points, but it isn't allowed to contradict it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

16:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, guideline supports such lists. His simple opinion is as valid as all those who have expounded at length and so must be respected. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

What guideline? I'm pretty sure that the notability guideline doesn't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep the various articles. Oppose merger. There is nothing wrong with episode articles. Dream Focus 19:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• • ALL articles must meet
    not being solely a plot summary. There is no inhereted notability.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
    19:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    • With respects, the pages meet the requirements of
      WP:PLOT it must be remembered that if proper inclusion of the information would overburden the parent article, a sub-article is bot encouraged and allowed. The reducing of the sub-articles to one-liners to then merge back into the parent acts to diminish a paperless encyclopdia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
      19:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd like to point out that
      WP:NOTE is often ignored in AFD. Otherwise articles for bestselling novels and clearly popular mangas would be deleted far more often, since they can't meet the requirement of getting reviewed in a major news source. The policies are just suggestions, it all coming down to the consensus of people discussing it at the time. See common sense and ignore_all_rules. Dream Focus
      00:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
      • To Michael, I'm not sure what you're reading at either WP:POLICY or WP:EPISODE, as these articles do not meet any guideline or policy (except the ones on what Wikipedia is not). I've said this before,
        WP:DEADLINE
        swings both ways, read it carefully and it explain that. Yes, there is no deadline for improvement, but that is for articles that have established notability. DEADLINE is referring to when articles just look shitty, but meet all of the basic criteria for existence. DEADLINE does say, "We can afford to take our time, to consider matters, to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established."
      • To Dream, there are quite a few articles deleted every day that fail notability. NOTE is NOT often ignored. If it was then we would have tagged it as a historical document long ago. Don't misinterpret a few subjects that are guarded by extreme fans in great numbers as being "the community". You might want to read
        WP:IAR a little closer, because it is not a get off free pass for whenever a policy or guideline exists that you don't like. IAR is only when the guideline or policy prevents the betterment of Wikipedia. An individual episode article with nothing but a plot does not hurt Wikipedia should that plot be moved to a central location. When you have multiple policies and guidelines saying "this isn't correct", you'd be hard pressed to prove that ignoring all of them betters Wikipedia.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
        00:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Do you agree that South Park is notable? Then how can you say with a straight face that South Park episodes are non-notable?
          WP:IAR?. If a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it. You're taking about removing all but three or so lines from these plot summaries. How does that improve Wikipedia in any way? How does having articles for some episodes of South Park but not all of them improve Wikipedia in any way? When you have multiple policies and guidelines saying "this isn't correct", and you have thousands of articles where it's accepted, you'd be hard pressed in saying that those policies and guidelines actually reflect community-wide consensus and community standards instead of the whims of a handful of bossy and domineering editors with inflated egos. --Pixelface (talk
          ) 12:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Yet again Bignole, that is false. And these articles do not "fail" any notability guidelines because these episodes are notable. And
      WP:NOT#PLOT is an illegitimate policy, and there is no consensus for it to be policy. And you just happen to be one of the editors who has re-added that section of policy to WP:NOT. Nevertheless, your claim that these articles are solely plot summaries is also false. And you still have not explained how South Park can be a notable show, yet the episodes that comprise the show be not notable. --Pixelface (talk
      ) 02:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merger, in other words keep individual articles. In all honesty, it seems to me that
  notability guidelines. But since we're discussing this further...my feeling is not every episode will necessarily be notable, but may will be. Rather than getting rid of all the articles in one foul swoop, the burden should fall on editors to prove with each individual episode article that it meets notability guidelines. If the editor fails to prove that article is notable, than it should be deleted. If the editor proves it, then it shouldn't. But to simply get rid of them all, frankly, seems a horrible solution to me. — Hunter Kahn _(contribs
  ) 19:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think that was what this discussion was doing. Currently, we are only talking about the first season of the show (as far as I know/knew). As such, all of those articles in question were individually tagged. If you look above, the only "foul swoop" action was against 8 articles that our editors could not find anything for at all (though all of the various Google options - scholar, news, books, etc.), and that there were two that would warrant further discussion on their individual talk pages. The purpose here is because you need a centralized discussion area.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmmm...you may be right in that I think I initially misunderstood the discussion, but I also wouldn't rush to simply merge these into a list just like that. Granted, these eight articles in question are in bad shape now (mostly nothing but episode descriptions, even in the cases where some other info is included it's badly out of balance), but I find it very hard to believe there are no sources for them (or, indeed, any of the Season 1 eps) that once applied would make these articles satisfy the notable standards. I mean, I obviously can't speak for how much research has been done yet, but take
      WikiProject South Park who would be dedicated specifically to improving the Season One episodes. If after a certain amount of time, the articles are still in bad shape, then we can talk about the merge, or about shutting down those individual articles. If they're in good shape, then we're all the better for it. I'd definitely be happy to participate in such a task force, and I doubt I'd be the only one... — Hunter Kahn _(contribs
      ) 20:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
      • This is the problem that we've always had, and it's what makes it difficult to assess at a glance. Going through the Google stuff, the TIME article is about the show in general (Mr. Hanky the character is discussed), IOL mentioned a girl wanting a CD title "Mr. Hanky...", another one note mention not related to the actual episode, announcement of a DVD including the episode, and none of the others really even mention the episode either. It's case of false appearance. As for the DVD stuff, I haven't the slightest. There are no commentaries on the DVDs. They apparently made a special CD you could order (have no idea of it's still in print). But, it always comes back down to the question of, "even meeting the bare criteria, does it still warrant a separate page?". Unless the audio commentary covers a substantial amount of real world information (non-trivial), then you still have to address the lack of "secondary sources" in the artical. That was why there was the proposal of re-establishing the season pages. There have been good things done with season pages lately (see
        Smallville (season 1)), which allow for limited resourced information to still be presented in a manner that is befitting to the subject, and still complies with our policies and guidelines.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
        21:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I hear you, but as of right now, I still fall on the side of opposing the merger.
          Wikipedia:Television episodes is a guideline which specifically states television episode articles are acceptable so long as they meet notability standards, so yes, if there are secondary sources or episode reviews or anything of the like out there, I feel they do warrant separate articles, even with the "bare minimum" criteria. (Even some of the examples you point out, like Lost and Smallville, have individual episode articles in addition to season pages.) As I said, I'd like to do some further research, do some Lexis Nexus searching (the fact Google News produces few results doesn't mean there's no more news sources out there), look at the DVD (for more than just trivia), check out some of the books written about South Park (there are several), etc. I think the task force idea is still valid, although I'd be happy to do this research on my own too. Until them I'd lean heavily toward erring on the side of caution and keeping the articles... — Hunter Kahn _(contribs
          ) 21:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Wouldn't erring on the side of caution actually be merging the articles? Say you leave them, but never find enough to actually warrant separation (remember, EPISODE points to NOTE, which says "significant coverage"). That means that all the while the pages act as an influence, with people saying "well, they were left alone and no one is merging them." How many times do people point to other articles in the same shape as justification (I think someone did that just above actually). I've said this before to others,
            WP:DEADLINE works both ways, and if the information cannot be found reasonably soon, then the best avenue is to salvage what you can into a merge and then create a taskforce to go through each episode one by one and see which ones warrant separating. That was how it was handled on Smallville (the season page was created first, and then the two episodes there were split off after). Otherwise, you've not made any actual progress in cleaning up the pages, because (and I have seen this before), eventually people just leave them as they were until the next "fight", in which case it's the same old "let's leave them, and see what we can find in the mean time". It's one circular event, as I don't think this was the first time South Park was put on the "chopping block", so to speak, either.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
            21:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
          • to Hunter_Kahn: no one is asying that individual episodes that meet
            burden rests on those who wish to keep or add material.-- The Red Pen of Doom
            21:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
            • Good point, but it must be noted that
              WP:BURDEN also advises that such be tagged and allowed a sufficient time for sources to be added... and editors may come forward to do their own due diligence searches to find what others have not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
              22:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
              • And indeed for most of a month the articles have been tagged for this merger and many have been tagged as being inadequately sourced for much longer. And ineed, once the merger is complete, editors will have all the time they wish to research reliable sources and re-create the new article that actually meets our guideline. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
                • "For those who so adamantly claim notability, please conduct your own reseach and provide the 3rd party sourcing to significant coverage." That's what I plan to do. I'll be able to use my Lexis account tomorrow, so that's where my research will start. It's my hope that if this merger happens, it won't happen for at least a week, which should give me some time. But yes, I think you're absolutely right, for those of us opposed to this merger, the best solution is not to simply argue about it here, but to get working on improving those articles and proving that they're notable (if, that is, it turns out that they are.) — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 02:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Having read the above discussion, it is becoming evident that these episodes do not have the notability that people wished they had. Some editors may find that a bitter pill to swallow at first (I've had the same experience with two of my favorite shows), but the intent is to improve wikipedia, not to hurt anyone's feelings. Keeping around unimprovable articles as stand-alone articles is not improving the 'pedia, quite the opposite. Relax, think about how bad articles reflect on you as fan editors, and agree to merge the articles to make them shine amidst
  WP:OTHERSTUFF, and help build a kick-ass encyclopedia in the process. – sgeureka ^t•c
  21:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Sgeureka, please state how South Park is a notable show, yet the episode that comprise that show are not notable. Merging these articles would not improve Wikipedia in any way whatsoever. Redirecting articles does not improve Wikipedia either. Your bias against "fan editors" is noted. Merging these articles would not "help build a kick-ass encyclopedia." Anti-episode editors need to climb off their hobby horse and burn it already. Your views may be more welcome at Britannica 2.0. --Pixelface (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Sgeureka, as I usually do. Most of these should be merged as we have done for other series. Eusebeus (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh look, all the E&C1 and E&C2 doctrinaires have come out of the woodwork to support a merge regarding articles that were explicitly mentioned in E&C1. Which makes me wonder if you're actually following the rulings of those cases. "Wikipedia is not a battleground" indeed. --Pixelface (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment OK, as per my comments and the discussion above, I've started a bit of work on "
  WP:MOSTV. And it wasn't all that difficult to do. If each of the articles in question could be upgrades this way, wouldn't that satisfy the notability standards for them? (Also, on a somewhat related note, Season One commentaries got dropped from the S1 DVD and were available on a separate CD for a time, but they don't seem to be available anymore on the South Park site. Anyone know where these can be found? They'd be helpful in improving these articles...) — Hunter Kahn _(contribs
  ) 00:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)