![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please do not add mention of pop cultural references, continuity notes, trivia, or who the targets of a given episode's parody are, without accompanying such material with an inline citation of a reliable, published, secondary source. Adding such material without such sources violates Wikipedia's policies regarding Verifiability, No Original Research, and Synthesis.
While a primary source (such as the episode itself, or a screencap or clip from it at South Park Studios) is acceptable for material that is merely descriptive, such as the synopsis, it is not enough to cite a primary source for material that constitutes an analytic, evaluative or interpretative claims, such as cultural references in works of satire or parody, because in such cases, such claims are being made on the part of the editor. This is called synthesis, which is a form of original research, and is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia, regardless of whether one thinks the meaning of the reference is "obvious". Sources for such claims must be secondary sources in which reliable persons, such as TV critics or reviewers, explicitly mention the reference.
In addition, trivial information that is not salient or relevant enough to be incorporated into the major sections of an article should not be included, per WP:TRIVIA, and this includes the plot summary. As indicated by WP:TVPLOT, the plot summary is an overview of a work's main events, so avoid any minutiae that is not needed for a reader's understanding of the story's three fundamental elements: plot, characterization and theme. This includes such minutiae as scene-by-scene breakdowns, technical information or detailed explanations of individual gags or lines of dialogue. Nightscream ( talk) 03:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
It's actually three paragraphs, not one, took far less time to write then everything else in the article, and much of my other contributions to WP, and it's necessary because of editors whose additions often violate the site's policies and guidelines. If you really think that three brief paragraphs is "ultra dense", and that being informed of the site's rules is "unwelcoming" (as if one can only be welcomed if they are implicitly allowed to break the rules), then the problem is not the note above, it's the editor who reacts to it as you did. Anyone who really wants to contribute should be willing to learn the site's rules as I did. Those who don't want to shouldn't be editing here. Nightscream ( talk) 13:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The guy from the A.V. Club gave the episode "an 'B'"? Surely his opinion is so vital to our understanding of humanity (who is he, again?) but you can't give someone an B. You can give them a "B," or a rating of B, but not an B. Oh, and good thing the article is locked! We wouldn't want anyone correcting any of this.
Seriously, do people run to the internet after their favorite shows air so that they can trash the relevant Wikipedia articles? Humanity is certainly doomed if that's the case. Dear god... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.76.228 ( talk) 05:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I think you have it backwards. It is the constant whining by people like you about the content of the South Park articles, who seem to do nothing about it, that is "tired", since I'm constantly coming across these rants. By contrast, those like me who point out that you yourself can fix it, seem to be in the extreme minority. More to the point, by dismissing it as "tired" without answering it, you sidestep the point entirely: Again, why can't you fix these problems? If you're not willing to do some searching for other reviews, then what obligation do the others here have to do so? What do you hope to accomplish by complaining about it on a talk page? I do my part. Why can't you?
Editors add reviews from the reliable sources that are available. Since the number of sites considered reliable that provide reviews of TV episodes may be limited, this will naturally limit the number of reviews that can be added to articles. Since IGN and the AV Club regularly provide such reviews, naturally, it's easier to add them to articles. But when other sources do become available, they are added. 1% is an aforementioned example of an episode article that cites five different reviews. Another is Crack Baby Athletic Association, for which one IP editor complained that the one review by IGN was biased, and pointed to a review by an NCAA critic as one that would make a good addition. Why that IP editor couldn't just add that other review himself, he never said. So I did it myself.
And as far as your accusation of editors adding "their own reviews", either substantiate that accusation, or go elsewhere for your web hobbies. False WP:COI accusations by people who barely contribute to articles serve only to violate WP:AGF, and do nothing to improve individual articles, or Wikipedia as a whole. Nightscream ( talk) 20:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't care if you phrased it in the form of a Broadway sonata, a TV jingle or a dirty limerick. The fact is, you suggested that editors are making WP:COI violations, and without any substantiation for that idea, which violates this site's policies on Assuming Good Faith. You've offered nothing in the way of answers to any of my questions, or solutions to the issue of sourcing, you refuse to do any checking regarding your stated concerns, and you contribute little to begin with, and denigrate editors who contribute more than you, while simultaneously coming here to express a supposed concern over the quality of articles. If you bothered to just go to The A.V. Club article, for example, you'd know that it's a notable website of a notable publication, The Onion. I myself have no affiliation with that publication, any more than with IGN or The Huffington Post or any other publication whose reviews I add to articles. None of this has anything to do with "having all day to make updates constantly", since I don't either. It has to do with you whining about something while choosing to do nothing about it except make false accusations, and remain willfully ignorant of any relevant facts. Either step up to the plate and offer some ideas of actual value to the issue you believe exists, in a transparent and civil manner, or go elsewhere. Nightscream ( talk) 21:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Can any one explain why they're making fun of Natalie Portman in this episode? why are they saying she needs to open her "warm hole"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.110.17.43 ( talk) 22:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please do not add mention of pop cultural references, continuity notes, trivia, or who the targets of a given episode's parody are, without accompanying such material with an inline citation of a reliable, published, secondary source. Adding such material without such sources violates Wikipedia's policies regarding Verifiability, No Original Research, and Synthesis.
While a primary source (such as the episode itself, or a screencap or clip from it at South Park Studios) is acceptable for material that is merely descriptive, such as the synopsis, it is not enough to cite a primary source for material that constitutes an analytic, evaluative or interpretative claims, such as cultural references in works of satire or parody, because in such cases, such claims are being made on the part of the editor. This is called synthesis, which is a form of original research, and is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia, regardless of whether one thinks the meaning of the reference is "obvious". Sources for such claims must be secondary sources in which reliable persons, such as TV critics or reviewers, explicitly mention the reference.
In addition, trivial information that is not salient or relevant enough to be incorporated into the major sections of an article should not be included, per WP:TRIVIA, and this includes the plot summary. As indicated by WP:TVPLOT, the plot summary is an overview of a work's main events, so avoid any minutiae that is not needed for a reader's understanding of the story's three fundamental elements: plot, characterization and theme. This includes such minutiae as scene-by-scene breakdowns, technical information or detailed explanations of individual gags or lines of dialogue. Nightscream ( talk) 03:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
It's actually three paragraphs, not one, took far less time to write then everything else in the article, and much of my other contributions to WP, and it's necessary because of editors whose additions often violate the site's policies and guidelines. If you really think that three brief paragraphs is "ultra dense", and that being informed of the site's rules is "unwelcoming" (as if one can only be welcomed if they are implicitly allowed to break the rules), then the problem is not the note above, it's the editor who reacts to it as you did. Anyone who really wants to contribute should be willing to learn the site's rules as I did. Those who don't want to shouldn't be editing here. Nightscream ( talk) 13:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The guy from the A.V. Club gave the episode "an 'B'"? Surely his opinion is so vital to our understanding of humanity (who is he, again?) but you can't give someone an B. You can give them a "B," or a rating of B, but not an B. Oh, and good thing the article is locked! We wouldn't want anyone correcting any of this.
Seriously, do people run to the internet after their favorite shows air so that they can trash the relevant Wikipedia articles? Humanity is certainly doomed if that's the case. Dear god... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.76.228 ( talk) 05:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I think you have it backwards. It is the constant whining by people like you about the content of the South Park articles, who seem to do nothing about it, that is "tired", since I'm constantly coming across these rants. By contrast, those like me who point out that you yourself can fix it, seem to be in the extreme minority. More to the point, by dismissing it as "tired" without answering it, you sidestep the point entirely: Again, why can't you fix these problems? If you're not willing to do some searching for other reviews, then what obligation do the others here have to do so? What do you hope to accomplish by complaining about it on a talk page? I do my part. Why can't you?
Editors add reviews from the reliable sources that are available. Since the number of sites considered reliable that provide reviews of TV episodes may be limited, this will naturally limit the number of reviews that can be added to articles. Since IGN and the AV Club regularly provide such reviews, naturally, it's easier to add them to articles. But when other sources do become available, they are added. 1% is an aforementioned example of an episode article that cites five different reviews. Another is Crack Baby Athletic Association, for which one IP editor complained that the one review by IGN was biased, and pointed to a review by an NCAA critic as one that would make a good addition. Why that IP editor couldn't just add that other review himself, he never said. So I did it myself.
And as far as your accusation of editors adding "their own reviews", either substantiate that accusation, or go elsewhere for your web hobbies. False WP:COI accusations by people who barely contribute to articles serve only to violate WP:AGF, and do nothing to improve individual articles, or Wikipedia as a whole. Nightscream ( talk) 20:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't care if you phrased it in the form of a Broadway sonata, a TV jingle or a dirty limerick. The fact is, you suggested that editors are making WP:COI violations, and without any substantiation for that idea, which violates this site's policies on Assuming Good Faith. You've offered nothing in the way of answers to any of my questions, or solutions to the issue of sourcing, you refuse to do any checking regarding your stated concerns, and you contribute little to begin with, and denigrate editors who contribute more than you, while simultaneously coming here to express a supposed concern over the quality of articles. If you bothered to just go to The A.V. Club article, for example, you'd know that it's a notable website of a notable publication, The Onion. I myself have no affiliation with that publication, any more than with IGN or The Huffington Post or any other publication whose reviews I add to articles. None of this has anything to do with "having all day to make updates constantly", since I don't either. It has to do with you whining about something while choosing to do nothing about it except make false accusations, and remain willfully ignorant of any relevant facts. Either step up to the plate and offer some ideas of actual value to the issue you believe exists, in a transparent and civil manner, or go elsewhere. Nightscream ( talk) 21:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Can any one explain why they're making fun of Natalie Portman in this episode? why are they saying she needs to open her "warm hole"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.110.17.43 ( talk) 22:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)