Jump to content

Talk:Fishsticks (South Park)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleFishsticks (South Park) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starFishsticks (South Park) is part of the South Park (season 13) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 17, 2009Good article nomineeListed
March 29, 2010Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 14, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the South Park episode "Fishsticks" spoofed rapper Kanye West who said that his feelings were hurt by the show?
Current status: Good article

The joke itself

[edit]

This page lists part of it as: "Do you like putting fishsticks in your mouth?" Isn't that the part of the joke where the play on words occurs and it becomes "Do you like putting fishDICKS in your mouth?" I was going to correct it but I thought I'd check here first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.70.62 (talk) 04:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Fishsticks and fish dicks are obviously not homophone, just very similar. Therefore you can trick the "victim" into admitting he likes fish dicks. 129.142.143.67 (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree absolutely. The fact that Kanye does not get the jokes, which is repeatedly described as a 'play on words', is part of the plot. Especially because the joke stems from the way it sounds, I think it needs to be explained in an article that is in text. It's not funny in text because there's no ambiguity. I have tried to make this change and had it reverted several times. I can't believe that editors think it is suitable to write an article about an episode where Kanye West not getting a joke is a *key plot point* and yet not explain that joke. TorontoGavin (talk) 05:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Toronto, I think the problem was not with what you are adding, but that you were trying to add it without sources, which several editors suggested. In the future, rather than constantly reverting and risking an edit war, you should just take the time to listen to the advice of your other editors and look for sources, because it didn't take me much time at all to find any. I've readded the info now with two sources. — Hunter Kahn 14:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo, cites are always the key ;) WikiuserNI (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny episode, but I think the wiki page gets it wrong...the reason that Kenye could not 'get' the joke was that from the beginning, he was a gay fish...he wasn't somehow convinced to be a gay fish. The absurdity of the joke was lost on him, due to him actually being a gay fish. (Even though that's absurd in real life) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.30.232 (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?

[edit]

The episode just ended on TV and the article about it is already written?!?!? WTF???? HOW??? Is there a way to watch SP episodes eariler than their premiers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.126.43.159 (talk) 05:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind timezones... 70.251.79.159 (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not applicable unless he's on the west coast. Still, I can beat that. A new character gets introduced and there's fanart on DeviantArt before the episode even finishes. That's happened before.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.36.169 (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics for the song at the end

[edit]

music starts to play

"don't be sad for me guys! I'm going home!!"

I've been so lonely girl, I've been so sad and down, couldn't understand, why haters joked around, I wanted to be free with other creatures like me and now I got my wish....

Cause I know that I'm a gay fish, gay fish... (gay fish yo) mother f'in gay fish (I'm a fish yo) ???? (it's all right girl) making love to other gay fish, gay fish...

All those lonely nights, at the grocery store, in the frozen fish aisle, feeling like a whore, cause I wasn't being true, even though everyone said that I had to make a switch (gay fish)

Now I know that I'm a gay fish, gay fish... (gay fish yo) mother f'in gay fish (I'm a fish yo) ???? (now I'm where I belong girl)

04:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Someone uploaded the video/song to youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkdBoV6wvSI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.79.159 (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too much detail at the end

[edit]

Its strange seeing how vividly described is when Kanye becomes a gay fish at the end. I dont think anybody cares whether or not its some sex-changing grouper.--71.168.108.32 (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Mencia

[edit]

It's a cultural reference that mencia took credit for the joke. It's posted about on Wiki under Carlos_Mencia#Accusations_of_plagiarism Wiggl3sLimited (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Mencia is pretty notorious for his supposed plagiarism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.67.169 (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to point out that the scene where Kanye is interrogating Carlos Mencia is very similar to an interrogation scene from Carlito's Way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.162.201.68 (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the cultural reference to Mencia's alleged plagiarism removed?--LTsereteli (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So? 87.69.176.81 (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flame On

[edit]

When Cartman says flame on, isn't that a reference to the fantastic four, and the flame guy from that? --71.207.24.196 (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation and original research, I'm afraid. Richard BB 21:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not speculation, it's an exact quotation, thus probably should be mentioned Jay794 (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an exact quotation, mentioning it and the rest of the script line for line would be simple plot reiteration and rather counterproductive. If you mean Jay794 that it should be mentioned in reference to the Fantastic Four, then you'll need to go further and produce a cite. Alastairward (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not this again Alastair, he says "flame on" then bursts into flames. Nothing more should be needed as that's exactly what Johnny Storm does. Jay794 (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

85.145.146.57 (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)I second that, it's a well-known trademark action and catch phrase. No doubt on that. The reference is as obvious as 'I thought I thaw a puthycat' would have been (Tweety & Sylvester)[reply]

stone/parker relationship?

[edit]

Can the episode be seen as an answer to all the people asking about how south park is written now and why only Parker get credits on screen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.240.8 (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, that's what I said before it got deleted. Trey Parker has written & directed most, if not all, of the Episodes past Season 3.

TBone777 (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Heh, I'm curious about that, too. It seems like there's something behind it but I'm thinking now that it's most likely just a play on Mencia and his credit-taking, or people who do that in general. I can't really see Parker using the show to make such a harsh attack on Stone. I think the two have been pretty clear on their roles and credits, also, and there doesn't seem to be any riff there. --Breshkovsky (talk) 02:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ya I think Parker is putting himself in Cartman's role. Forgot the exact quote put Cartman is once saying something along the line: we won't start checking who wrote this or that, we are a team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.240.8 (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which photo should be used?

[edit]

Two photos were put up around the same time for the episode infobox. I don't really care which one we use, but I thought I'd throw them both on here and see which one a majority of people prefer, and then we'd go with the consensus: This one or this one? — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 05:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who finds it hilarious that I put in the Carlito's Way reference 4 separate times, only to have it removed as "unsourced" but as soon as some douche on a blog also sees the connection, then you can "source" it and it can stay in the article? Just great guys. I think I'm going to start a blog just so I can point out all the obvious things in South Park episodes for Dbag's like RichardBB and Alastairward so you don't have to use your brain to find similarities, but just quote other people's brains... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.29.158.21 (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Alastairward, how long until you're going to erase EVERYTHING on the page except for the basic plot summary? Alastairward is to the South Park wikipedia what "No tolerance" laws are justice. Throw all your fucking common sense out the window and only do what you're told (I.E. What other people have said about the episode). I swear, Alastairward has completely ruined all the South Park wikipedia pages. What a dick.

These episode pages used to be an interesting source for finding out cultural references made in South Park and some of the thinking that went into the episodes. Now they're just enormous plot summaries. I believe I'm making a valid point when I say this can't possibly be the intended structure of Wikipedia, a plot summary that's too long to read and NOTHING else? It seems that certain obsessive editors (I've seen the name 'Alastairward' like a million times) are patrolling them and destroying anything that doesn't fit their personal view of what Wiki 'should' be. I'm only a casual user/ editor, but this kind of militaristic approach annoys me. To me, this kind of editing is as bad as vandalism. It annoys just as many people, and takes the fun out a series that is supposed to be about just that, fun. Perhaps we should move for a variety of editors on these pages, people who know the rules of Wikipedia well but don't put their enforcing over other people's interest and enjoyment of the show. Let me know what you think before this post is removed as well, or I get a condescending citation of 'the rules' with a link Wiki:how to or something, or get told to use the sandbox... I think this is a constructive post for freedom of speech.Joncheetham88 (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it would be helpful for the sake of discussion, Joncheetham, if you could give us examples of what you feel should be included on these pages that is being removed? For the most part, as long as you can cite something I'm in favor of it's inclusion, especially stuff that's more analytical like themes or with a behind-the-scenes feel like production. But most of the stuff I see get removed is uncited stuff like useless original research/speculation ("Clyde is probably Mysterion!!") or cultural references that are neither accurate nor particularly interesting ("The whiteboard might be a reference to House because they use whiteboards sometimes too"). — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 01:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it were limited solely to that, I'd be happy. The problem with great editors such as Alastairward is that they don't exercise their thinking at all when it comes to enforcing rules. Yes, "Clyde is probably Mysterion" is a speculation because one of the episode's points was to NOT reveal his identity. However, "Mr. Jefferson is Michael Jackson" or "When Towelie gets high, the Popeye theme plays in the background" are obvious examples of important references that definitely should be included in spite of lack of so-called "verifiability." By the way, Hunter Kahn — you are speculating over the statements and blowing them out of proportions. For example: "The whiteboard might be a reference to House because they use whiteboards sometimes too the scene setting parodies the series and Kanye calls one of his crew members House; also, the same crew member happens to be drawn suspiciously similar to House himself." Yeah, you Wikipedians are probably correct... it's all coincidental, they invented a character called Mr. Jefferson without even thinking about Michael Jackson, they wrote a new tune for Towelie without having the Popeye jingle in mind and they just happened to call a minor character "House" (a name that's even more popular than Jack!)... if it ain't written elsewhere, it doesn't exist. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; what you've given as examples isn't interesting at all, and no-one wants to read the sort of speculation taht should be confined to message boards and Youtube. However, if you check out some of the Futurama episode pages, they're actually pretty good in terms of having a short plot summary, reception to the episode, and continuity as well as cultural references. Continuity sections are particularly interesting in a show like Futurama or South Park that frequently makes callbacks to other episodes, and as for Cultural References, having a link to the thing referred to always worked for me. For example, The Coon parodies The Dark Knight, so you follow the link to the Dark Knight (if for some reason you haven't heard of it) and there is a well-written article backing up what you initially read on the first article. This kind of link would build trust between the people writing different articles, as they would all need cohesiveness. Obviously, they all still need to be looked after, but the beauty of Wikipedia for me has always been that one article can lead you onto other lines of interest. With South Park, you could end up looking at a lot of contemporary politics articles, and that's got to be a good thing - South Park has been called a 'prism' of culture after all. Currently, it's lacking that kind of thing, and its a shame to discourage people from editing Wikipedia. Anyway, hope you read this and give it a think.Joncheetham88 (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just seen the episode and haven't even edited the article, what exactly have I done wrong here? Alastairward (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Editing to add (before this turns into a soap box or forum) Joncheetham88, look back at the edit history of some of the season one episodes and see what Hunter Kahn has done to improve them and then tell me that the articles aren't getting better. Alastairward (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the protests here is simply the existence of the policies against adding original research, plain and simple. Alastairward (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. Again, Alastairward is trolling this discussion by making other editors puke blood to prove their arguments while valiantly ignoring their points. The problem is not with the existence of the rules, it's the logic of enforcing those rules. My main problem is with editors that refuse to accept exceptions to rules, such as WP:IAR and WP:COMMON, while engaging in WP:GAMING, WP:WL and — Alastairward's favorite — WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. 'Nuff said. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please remember no personal attacks. It's quite notable that you haven't gone to seek help from an admin yet, despite your opinion that I'm trolling. Perhaps we might move on? Alastairward (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House reference?

[edit]

the part where kanye writes on a white board, it seems like a coincidence rather than a reference to house md, writing on a whiteboard isn't like a House MD exclusive, anybody else agree? I'll remove the text unless anyone disagrees within a week.--Alex Kolsov (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The West character specifically calls one of the members of his entourage House in that scene, which is also a pun on the use of homes. I'm not going to restore it, though, because it's trivial and was a very small part of the episode. 129.15.131.185 (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you "disagree" about. The claim I made about West's dialogue is indisputable. Although I won't be finding sources, because, like I said, it's not worth mentioning. 129.15.131.185 (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MY bad, i didn't notice West had said that, my bad for bringing this up. --Alex Kolsov (talk) 06:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why they used Kanye West

[edit]

They used Kanye West in this episode because he has a huge ego and is very unoriginal. Something like this needs to be added to the article:

"When Cartman rants about how Jimmy is unoriginal at the end of the episode, there is a close-up shot of Kanye. This is alluding to the fact that Kanye samples heavily to create his songs and therefore lacks originality. The viewer can assume at this point that Kanye will have a revelation. He does, but he (instead of admitting he isn't as talented as he thinks), realises he's a gay fish."

That's the whole point of the episode. It's not just random celebrity appearances like on Family Guy. Everything in every (recent) South Park episode is always tied together. Carlos Mencia steals his jokes just like Kanye steals his background music.

Also, it's obvious near the end that Kanye is going to have an epiphany. He has an epiphany that he's a gay fish and that's called a "bait and switch". So what was he supposed to have an epiphany about? Well, obviously since Cartman was talking about not being original and stealing people's material, you'd think that's what Kanye would realise he was doing.

I can't believe this point isn't mentioned in this article already. It's so obvious to me what Matt and Trey had in mind when they wrote this episode. I wish I cold get their input on this matter... but then again, they'd probably say I'm full of it just to be funny... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.13.66 (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • His ego is already discussed in the issue, and it's sourced: "Rapper Kanye West is featured prominently in "Fishsticks" and lampooned for the rapper's perceived ego problem; West frequently speaks highly of himself in interviews, declared himself the "voice of this generation" and said his greatest regret was not being able to see himself perform live." — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 14:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from using original research. If you can find a reliable third-party source that backs your statement, we may include it in the article. Cheers, —Terrence and Phillip 03:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that's pure irony. When Kyle was mentioning about ego, he was referring to Cartman. However Cartman somehow misinterperted Kyle's point and thought he was talking about Jimmy. Also if Kayne is really unoriginial, there would be at least something about it in Google or Google News about it. Otherwise, it would be considered as orginial research in wikipedia. (IMHO, I think Kayne is a bit untalented in real life like Carlos Mencia.) —Terrence and Phillip 07:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't there be 2 jokes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.9.203 (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kanye's songs mainly lyrical material and subject matter are very original he dose sample alot of other songs for the BEAT but if that makes him unoriginal I believe that speaks volumes for almost all music now a days —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.106.232 (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viewership

[edit]

Most south park episode articles here at Wiki state how many people viewed the episode on its debuting night (Wednesday). Does anyone here know of a credible news source which provides the size of the viewing audience that night? Thanks.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Usually, the Nielsen Ratings info isn't available until the Tuesday after episode airs. TVbythenumbers.com and Variety.com are usually good source, but for this episode I wouldn't expect it to be up until April 14. — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 19:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

the link on the buttom "Gay Fish (Long Version)" from Southparkstudios.com points to http://digg.com/d1oPwB instead of the actual page http://www.southparkstudios.com/crap/downloads/sounds.php

it doesn’t make sense to use a URL shortening service on Wikipedia 80.109.120.119 (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jewbots

[edit]

Seems to me the Jewbots look a lot like the Cylon Centurions in BSG. Their constructions are essentially the same with their long face, thin legs/fingers, even how they fire off shots from their arms draws great similarity. On top of that there are two kinds of Cylon Centurions in BSG as there are two distinct models of Jewbots in this episode. Maybe another cultural reference? Baboo (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a reliable source can be provided, it can be added. Richard BB 00:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section: Wording. Kanye didn't watch the whole episode? Nor "bruised"

[edit]

If you look on a blog post after his first response 04.09.2009 the next day on 04.10.2009 he posted here.

http://www.kanyeuniversecity.com/blog/?em3106=227945_-1__0_~0_-1_4_2009_0_0&em3298=&em3282=&em3281=&em3161=

"THE SOUTH PARK EPISODE DID NOT MAKE ME HAVE THIS EGO EPIPHANY! I ACTUALLY ONLY WATCHED A PIECE OF THE EPISODE WHICH WAS FUNNY. I'VE BEEN WORKING ON MYSELF FOR A WHILE NOW, WHICH IS HARD TO DO IN THE PUBLIC EYE. I JUST USED THIS AS A PLATFORM TO EXPRESS WHERE MY HEAD IS AT."

So shouldn't some of the wording in the main page be changed for reception section? He didn't watch the whole episode?!

Change the description under the picture to "he enjoyed the show" "he watched a segment of the show"?

Also Kayne West never said he was "bruised" but "it hurt my feelings".

http://www.kanyeuniversecity.com/blog/?em3106=227887_-1__0_~0_-1_5_2008_0_0&em3161=&em3281=

"SOUTH PARK MURDERED ME LAST NIGHT AND IT'S PRETTY FUNNY. IT HURTS MY FEELINGS BUT WHAT CAN YOU EXPECT FROM SOUTH PARK! I ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN WORKING ON MY EGO THOUGH. HAVING THE CRAZY EGO IS PLAYED OUT AT THIS POINT IN MY LIFE AND CAREER. I USE TO USE IT TO BUILD UP MY ESTEEM WHEN NOBODY BELIEVED IN ME. NOW THAT PEOPLE DO BELIEVE AND SUPPORT MY MUSIC AND PRODUCTS THE BEST RESPONSE IS THANK YOU INSTEAD OF "I TOLD YOU SO!!!" IT'S COOL TO TALK SHIT WHEN YOU'RE RAPPING BUT NOT IN REAL LIFE. WHEN YOU MEET LITTLE WAYNE IN PERSON HE'S THE NICEST GUY FOR EXAMPLE. I JUST WANNA BE A DOPER PERSON WHICH STARTS WITH ME NOT ALWAYS TELLING PEOPLE HOW DOPE I THINK I AM. I NEED TO JUST GET PAST MYSELF. DROP THE BRAVADO AND JUST MAKE DOPE PRODUCT. EVERYTHING IS NOT THAT SERIOUS. AS LONG AS PEOPLE THINK I ACT LIKE A BITCH THIS TYPE OF SHIT WILL HAPPEN TO ME. I GOT A LONG ROAD AHEAD OF ME TO MAKE PEOPLE BELIEVE I'M NOT ACTUALLY A HUGE DOUCHE BUT I'M UP FOR THE CHALLENGE. I'M SURE THE WRITERS AT SOUTH PARK ARE REALLY NICE PEOPLE IN REAL LIFE. THANKS FOR TAKING THE TIME TO DRAW MY CREW. THAT WAS PRETTY FUNNY ALSO!! I'M SURE THERE'S GRAMMATICAL ERRORS IN THIS... THAT'S HOW YOU KNOW IT'S ME!"

Also this is funny too to add.

http://www.kanyeuniversecity.com/blog/?em3106=227986_-1__0_~0_-1_4_2009_0_0&em3298=&em3282=&em3281=&em3161=

SOUTH PARK pt. 3 I WAS AT CHEESECAKE FACTORY YESTERDAY AND THE MANAGER BROUGHT ME A PLATE OF FISH STICKS... (in a sarcastic tone) uuuuuuum, GREAT! : /

misspelling

[edit]

it shoold be spelled couch not coach

It should be spelled "should" not "shoold". And sign your posts. Khajidha (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice way to reward someone's attempt to improve the article... 85.145.146.57 (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kanye fish sticks reference

[edit]

An interesting fact which can explain why Kanye was chosen and the "fishsticks joke" was used.

Kanye has actually mentioned fish sticks in one of his raps. In Jamie Foxxs "One night extravganza" he sings:

"Do like i did, Come back when you get dough. A fish stick nigga, now we messin wih lobster, We messin with Grammy's, We messin wit Oscar's."

I could also be mentioned that "Oscar" in addition to beeing an event in the movie bussiness, also is a very colourful fish, often used in aquariums.

Strange, but it seems to bring it all together.

Aaaahahahahaha! 129.15.131.185 (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Double standards for references (pinheads take note)?

[edit]

How come pinheads refuse to include the "Sideways" reference in the "Eat, Pray, Queef" episodes, but at the same time, allow the "Carlito's Way" reference to be included in the "Fishsticks" entry? Don't get me wrong, I'm completely for cultural references being included in Wiki for TV shows. Though, everytime I mention this, a pinhead counters with "verify verify verify!!!" and then links me to the Wiki policy. That "verify" policy should be for normal entries on people, places, and things; so as not to include faulty information about them. It wasn't written with silly TV shows in mind, that might have 1000 references in them that are common knowledge to the common man, but haven't been able to written down in another source to be regarded as a fact.

At any rate, if a pinhead won't allow the "Sideways" reference in "Eat, Pray, Queef", how in hell are they allowing the "Carlito's Way" reference to be included in this entry!? Was that obscure reference written down somewhere's else and is now a "fact" because of this?

At any rate, wiki rules should be slightly different for popular culture entries.

Nicolaslabbe (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's there because it's been verified by a reliable source: [1]. TheLeftorium 19:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been involved in this issue at all, but I would argue that one is not a "pinhead" for merely adhering to one of Wiki's most basic and fundamental rules: cite your sources. Your personal knowledge of movie trivia, no matter how true it is, is not a verifiable source which others here can check. However, the one used in the article for the Carlito's Way reference is a verifiable source:

Itzkoff, Dave (2009-04-09). "Carlos Mencia Responds to "South Park"". The New York Times. Retrieved on 2009-04-10.

I hate to say it, but Wikipedia is only concerned with "truth" that can be verified, not "truth" as perceived by an editor's anecdotal observation. If no verifiable source bothers to mention the film "Sideways" in regards to this South Park episode, then there's no reason to include it at Wiki. Remember, Wiki is nothing but the sum total of facts pulled from various reliable sources (whether they be books, journals, articles, etc). If we were to include your input about "Sideways", than this article would become a blog about personal thoughts, not a credible online encyclopedia.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]



(sigh)

Nicolaslabbe (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A.V. Club

[edit]

For someone living outside of the US; what the **** is A.V. Club, and who cares that their reviewers always whine about South Park being "unfunny" and "boring"? How come the wiki about ALL SP episodes end with "Douche McBaggington at the A.V. Club complained at the episodes, not dealing with blablablablabla..."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.221.253 (talk) 22:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm guessing you already know this from visiting the A.V. Club's entry, but they are an entertainment newspaper and site published by The Onion. I don't always agree with them either, especially when it comes to South Park, but they are a reliable source and are more than appropriate for these entries... — Hunter Kahn (c) 22:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the link to its article is right beside the reviewer's name. IGN and the AV Club are usually the first reviews added as they review the episodes the day after they're broadcast in the US. Unless someone has queried them and found them wanting, they're good for an RS to cite the reception section.
Have to add, I've noticed certain of their reviewers don't like SP as much, but I still add the review for balance. Alastairward (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fishsticks (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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What controversy?

[edit]

The article several times refers to West's "controversial performance" at Bonnaroo.

But neither the Bonnaroo Music Festival article, nor the Kanye West article mention anything about any controversy at this festival.

Some description of the alleged "controversy", with, perhaps a reference or two, would seem to be in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fishsticks (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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fishsticks (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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fishsticks_(South_Park)&oldid=1244557111"