This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
South ParQ Vaccination Special article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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 pertaining to 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 analytic, evaluative or interpretative claims, such as cultural references in works of satire or parody, because in such cases, such claims are being made by the editor. This is called synthesis, which is a form of original research, and is not permitted 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.
The amount of secondary sources which state that this and the previous episode are standalone does outnumber the amount of secondary sources that state that they're part of season 24. However, the one primary source that calls it a "special event" does not use the word "standalone" and does not explicitly confirm that this is not part of season 24. I'm almost willing to call its use in the article synthesis of published material for claiming something that isn't directly stated in the source. Meanwhile, the one primary source that lists this and the previous episode as season 24 are very clear about it. It should be noted that calling an episode a special event does not mean it is not part of any season. Secondary sources are good for confirming notability, but at the end of the day primary sources are more reliable for info. Given that one primary source directly lists them as season 24 and the other primary source never directly states that this episode is standalone, should this and the previous episode be considered season 24 here, while keeping the secondary sources that call it a standalone special to note that there is confusion? Unnamed anon ( talk) 19:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable. I will be changing the episodes' pages and the South Park episodes list to list the two specials as season 24 based on all primary publishers now giving the same info after previously giving conflicting info, while leaving the secondary sources to acknowledge the initial conflicting information, and if you still feel like there is not enough confirmation, I may open an RFC to let third party users analyze the sources and give their input. Unnamed anon ( talk) 21:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Secondary sources conflict on whether this and the previous episode are considered part of season 24 or standalone specials. A higher number of secondary sources state that the two episodes are standalone, and prior announcements did not mention season 24, but primary publishers (HBO Max and the Comedy Central website) directly list the two episodes as season 24. Which claim can be considered correct? Unnamed anon ( talk) 21:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
This is really just non-binary. Tacking specials onto specific seasons is something broadcasters do, but it isn't necessarily organic, and may just have to do with promotional convenience in the DVR listing. If the upcoming seasons continues off of the specials, then they will be "cemented" as season 24. If not, future bundling might change.-- Droid I am ( talk) 07:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I suggest we change the text to say: "Some sources, including Comedy Central's website, [1] list the specials as part of Season 24, while 'other reports suggest that the hour-long episodes are separate from the upcoming season'", using a quote from Screenrant.
SanAnMan, I believe this is an improvement because it mentions the primary source, and the phrase "other reports suggest" is sourced. (Comment continued from Talk:The Pandemic Special#Season premiere or standalone special?) Kolya Butternut ( talk) 19:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I see no problem with emphasizing the Comedy Central source, as ultimately the primary source is the most reliable source of information (for example, nobody in their right mind can call 9/11 or the George Floyd murder hoaxes because recordings exist as primary sources). Unnamed anon ( talk) 21:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
By some accounts, 'South ParQ Vaccination Special' is South Park season 24, episode 2 — although other reports suggest that the hour-long episodes are separate from the upcoming season." [2] This source is from last month, so OVERCITE claims wouldn't have been as strong six months ago. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 02:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
:
Kolya Butternut The ScreenRant cite clearly only mentions this special, it doesn't directly state anything about
The Pandemic Special. Yes, I realize there's a degree of inference there, but it doesn't state anything directly about the first special. I'm fine with leaving this article as it is with the two refs each, and if you want to shorten The Pandemic Special, then I'm ok with using a bulleted list as Nightscream suggested. But since the ScreenRant cite is only about this special, I really don't think using it as a cite belongs on the first special. -
SanAnMan (
talk) 21:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
the hour-long episodes", plural. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 21:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
fine with leaving this article as it is with the two refs each", so since Screenrant speaks to both specials, there doesn't seem to be an argument left for treating The Pandemic Special any differently. I would say that it is time for an RfC, but that seems silly when we will have more information when more episodes are released in the near future. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 03:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
We shouldn't be citing factual claims, such as statements about reactions of particular groups of persons, to unreliable sources, and particularly not sources expressly marked as generally unreliable in WP:RSP. Opinions from bad sources are not exempt from this in the wording of WP:RSOPINION - saying "but it's an opinion!" would not normally be acceptable as an excuse for otherwise-unacceptable sourcing.
If there is a claim of a serious reason for using such sourcing, a talk page WP:LOCALCONSENSUS may not be safe, and it would probably need a convincing argument on WP:RSN - David Gerard ( talk) 23:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
South ParQ Vaccination Special article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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 pertaining to 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 analytic, evaluative or interpretative claims, such as cultural references in works of satire or parody, because in such cases, such claims are being made by the editor. This is called synthesis, which is a form of original research, and is not permitted 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.
The amount of secondary sources which state that this and the previous episode are standalone does outnumber the amount of secondary sources that state that they're part of season 24. However, the one primary source that calls it a "special event" does not use the word "standalone" and does not explicitly confirm that this is not part of season 24. I'm almost willing to call its use in the article synthesis of published material for claiming something that isn't directly stated in the source. Meanwhile, the one primary source that lists this and the previous episode as season 24 are very clear about it. It should be noted that calling an episode a special event does not mean it is not part of any season. Secondary sources are good for confirming notability, but at the end of the day primary sources are more reliable for info. Given that one primary source directly lists them as season 24 and the other primary source never directly states that this episode is standalone, should this and the previous episode be considered season 24 here, while keeping the secondary sources that call it a standalone special to note that there is confusion? Unnamed anon ( talk) 19:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable. I will be changing the episodes' pages and the South Park episodes list to list the two specials as season 24 based on all primary publishers now giving the same info after previously giving conflicting info, while leaving the secondary sources to acknowledge the initial conflicting information, and if you still feel like there is not enough confirmation, I may open an RFC to let third party users analyze the sources and give their input. Unnamed anon ( talk) 21:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Secondary sources conflict on whether this and the previous episode are considered part of season 24 or standalone specials. A higher number of secondary sources state that the two episodes are standalone, and prior announcements did not mention season 24, but primary publishers (HBO Max and the Comedy Central website) directly list the two episodes as season 24. Which claim can be considered correct? Unnamed anon ( talk) 21:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
This is really just non-binary. Tacking specials onto specific seasons is something broadcasters do, but it isn't necessarily organic, and may just have to do with promotional convenience in the DVR listing. If the upcoming seasons continues off of the specials, then they will be "cemented" as season 24. If not, future bundling might change.-- Droid I am ( talk) 07:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I suggest we change the text to say: "Some sources, including Comedy Central's website, [1] list the specials as part of Season 24, while 'other reports suggest that the hour-long episodes are separate from the upcoming season'", using a quote from Screenrant.
SanAnMan, I believe this is an improvement because it mentions the primary source, and the phrase "other reports suggest" is sourced. (Comment continued from Talk:The Pandemic Special#Season premiere or standalone special?) Kolya Butternut ( talk) 19:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I see no problem with emphasizing the Comedy Central source, as ultimately the primary source is the most reliable source of information (for example, nobody in their right mind can call 9/11 or the George Floyd murder hoaxes because recordings exist as primary sources). Unnamed anon ( talk) 21:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
By some accounts, 'South ParQ Vaccination Special' is South Park season 24, episode 2 — although other reports suggest that the hour-long episodes are separate from the upcoming season." [2] This source is from last month, so OVERCITE claims wouldn't have been as strong six months ago. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 02:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
:
Kolya Butternut The ScreenRant cite clearly only mentions this special, it doesn't directly state anything about
The Pandemic Special. Yes, I realize there's a degree of inference there, but it doesn't state anything directly about the first special. I'm fine with leaving this article as it is with the two refs each, and if you want to shorten The Pandemic Special, then I'm ok with using a bulleted list as Nightscream suggested. But since the ScreenRant cite is only about this special, I really don't think using it as a cite belongs on the first special. -
SanAnMan (
talk) 21:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
the hour-long episodes", plural. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 21:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
fine with leaving this article as it is with the two refs each", so since Screenrant speaks to both specials, there doesn't seem to be an argument left for treating The Pandemic Special any differently. I would say that it is time for an RfC, but that seems silly when we will have more information when more episodes are released in the near future. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 03:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
We shouldn't be citing factual claims, such as statements about reactions of particular groups of persons, to unreliable sources, and particularly not sources expressly marked as generally unreliable in WP:RSP. Opinions from bad sources are not exempt from this in the wording of WP:RSOPINION - saying "but it's an opinion!" would not normally be acceptable as an excuse for otherwise-unacceptable sourcing.
If there is a claim of a serious reason for using such sourcing, a talk page WP:LOCALCONSENSUS may not be safe, and it would probably need a convincing argument on WP:RSN - David Gerard ( talk) 23:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)