![]() | This article is rated Start-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:PLOTSUMMARIZE and 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.
If you're new to Wikipedia, please click on the wikilinked policy pages above to familiarize yourself with this site's policies and guidelines.
I've restored the mention to the Cypress Ranch High School video for many reasons:
1) It is obvious that the episode satirizes the video. I understand that "obvious" is not good enough for Wikipedia, however, putting a "citation needed" and letting it stay for a while will enable editors to put a reliable secondary source reference when (and if) they eventually find one (I tried to google up one, but failed). If this won't happen in a reasonable time, the reference may always be removed in the near future. This behaviour is advised, for example, here.
2) In the article on Cypress Ranch High School, a link to the youtube video is considered a good enough source to substantiate the statement that the school video was spoofed by South Park. I don't know if this is OK by Wikipedia guidelines, but it sure makes a lot of sense to me.
3) In my humble, irrelevant opinion, pointing out the existence of the video makes the article better, even if the correlation is not (yet) substantiated by a reliable secondary source. This was actually the kind of information I was looking for when I first checked the article (at that time the reference was still there). After all, a satirical work makes little sense if you don't know what it is satirizing - this would make the reference to the school video something more than a mere piece of trivial curiosity. So I've decided to be bold, ignore all rules and restore the reference.
I'd like to point out that I'm not a registerd user, I don't know Wikipedia rules in depth and my English is not very good, but I modified the article in the honest belief that my edit would make it better. I hope my contribution wasn't (at least too much) disruptive. -- 93.47.22.249 ( talk) 00:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I understood your English perfectly fine. :-) I'm sorry you were upset by my message, and I in no way was implying that you had to go beyond the edits that you made, but I just wish there were other editors who shoulder the burden of improving the South Park articles, especially in light of another editor's recent suggestion to me that I step back and let other editors "handle" them. Sorry if it came out wrong. Nightscream ( talk) 23:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Contrary to what Carl Cortez mentioned in his review, Stan does not masturbate in the scene. While it's true that the chorus singers talk about "jackin' it", a review of the scene at South Park Studios (which you can see for free here), shows that all Stan does is dance around in the nude. Putting aside the question of whether Assignment X is a reliable source (I've made an inquiry at RSN, but have incorporated its material into the Critical reception section as a show of good faith), just because that assertion is in the source doesn't automatically means that it's right. To illustrate this with another example from the same review, he refers to Bucky Bailey's an anti-bullying organization, which is called Bully Buckers™ in the episode, as "Bully Busting". Does that mean we should change that organization's name in the synopsis, even though it's clearly wrong?
Also, beyond this point about the masturbation, there was no rationale provided for blanking the entire paragraph based on Cortez' review from the Critical reception section. Please do not blank content without a valid rationale or discussion. Nightscream ( talk) 20:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Butterballs (South Park). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
So, I edited this because I originally saw it listed as "Nick" elsewhere and then it got reverted. But I went to check the clips... and the voice actor is, to me, clearly saying "Nick". What's more, this seems to be both the majority of search results listed, with a good chunk of those saying "Mick" being apparently quotes from this page. Is there any way to confirm this being one way or the other? -- 181.115.61.74 ( talk) 07:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-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:PLOTSUMMARIZE and 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.
If you're new to Wikipedia, please click on the wikilinked policy pages above to familiarize yourself with this site's policies and guidelines.
I've restored the mention to the Cypress Ranch High School video for many reasons:
1) It is obvious that the episode satirizes the video. I understand that "obvious" is not good enough for Wikipedia, however, putting a "citation needed" and letting it stay for a while will enable editors to put a reliable secondary source reference when (and if) they eventually find one (I tried to google up one, but failed). If this won't happen in a reasonable time, the reference may always be removed in the near future. This behaviour is advised, for example, here.
2) In the article on Cypress Ranch High School, a link to the youtube video is considered a good enough source to substantiate the statement that the school video was spoofed by South Park. I don't know if this is OK by Wikipedia guidelines, but it sure makes a lot of sense to me.
3) In my humble, irrelevant opinion, pointing out the existence of the video makes the article better, even if the correlation is not (yet) substantiated by a reliable secondary source. This was actually the kind of information I was looking for when I first checked the article (at that time the reference was still there). After all, a satirical work makes little sense if you don't know what it is satirizing - this would make the reference to the school video something more than a mere piece of trivial curiosity. So I've decided to be bold, ignore all rules and restore the reference.
I'd like to point out that I'm not a registerd user, I don't know Wikipedia rules in depth and my English is not very good, but I modified the article in the honest belief that my edit would make it better. I hope my contribution wasn't (at least too much) disruptive. -- 93.47.22.249 ( talk) 00:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I understood your English perfectly fine. :-) I'm sorry you were upset by my message, and I in no way was implying that you had to go beyond the edits that you made, but I just wish there were other editors who shoulder the burden of improving the South Park articles, especially in light of another editor's recent suggestion to me that I step back and let other editors "handle" them. Sorry if it came out wrong. Nightscream ( talk) 23:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Contrary to what Carl Cortez mentioned in his review, Stan does not masturbate in the scene. While it's true that the chorus singers talk about "jackin' it", a review of the scene at South Park Studios (which you can see for free here), shows that all Stan does is dance around in the nude. Putting aside the question of whether Assignment X is a reliable source (I've made an inquiry at RSN, but have incorporated its material into the Critical reception section as a show of good faith), just because that assertion is in the source doesn't automatically means that it's right. To illustrate this with another example from the same review, he refers to Bucky Bailey's an anti-bullying organization, which is called Bully Buckers™ in the episode, as "Bully Busting". Does that mean we should change that organization's name in the synopsis, even though it's clearly wrong?
Also, beyond this point about the masturbation, there was no rationale provided for blanking the entire paragraph based on Cortez' review from the Critical reception section. Please do not blank content without a valid rationale or discussion. Nightscream ( talk) 20:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Butterballs (South Park). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
So, I edited this because I originally saw it listed as "Nick" elsewhere and then it got reverted. But I went to check the clips... and the voice actor is, to me, clearly saying "Nick". What's more, this seems to be both the majority of search results listed, with a good chunk of those saying "Mick" being apparently quotes from this page. Is there any way to confirm this being one way or the other? -- 181.115.61.74 ( talk) 07:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)