Talk:Gnomes (South Park)/Archive 1

Archive 1

More on 123Profit meme

Since the popular culture/meme bit was still tagged citation needed, I merged it into the plot summary and removed discussion of the internet meme, since that's not what this article is about. If anyone feels so inclined, an article specifically about the meme might be more appropriate. I don't personally think that, as a meme, it quite qualifies to have its own article. The discussion below references the O RLY? article, but I don't think this meme is on the same scale as lolspeak. I don't really even think I'd call it a meme. That said, I also think that the claim that people aren't referencing the episode when they say something along the lines of "1. (action) 2. ??? 3. Profit!" is pretty unfounded. I think that most people who are saying that are referencing the episode, or perhaps referencing someone who referenced the episode (this is where it begins to seem like a meme). So, since people reference it, it seems reasonable that the article mention it clearly enough to get picked up on a google. I just ended up at this page because I couldn't remember where a reference came from, and sure enough google picked up this article first. --Hurtstotouchfire (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems the best approach, looks better on the article page. Alastairward (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that a sentence or two in reference to the meme under cultural impact would be sufficient. Something like "The gnomes' business plan has inspired a widespread internet meme replacing "collect underpants" with various other actions". 74.104.191.245 (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Snowclone status

Would someone add a bit to this article about how the 3-step system is a snowclone? A lot of people use the phrase 1. foo 2. ??? 3. profit! 128.158.145.51 16:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I did it myself! 128.158.145.51 16:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Snowclone Source

From the article: "The three-step business plan alludes to a recurring joke (and a snowclone) on websites like Offtopic, 4chan, Slashdot, Digg, and Fark."

I don't recall ever seeing this snowclone on any of these sites before the Underpants Gnome episode aired. Can anyone confirm that this episode is the source of the phrase, and not "alluding" to it? 72.1.197.234 15:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Four steps

Usually, in the snowclone, four or more steps is used and several question marks are added, as such:

1. Get a gun
2. Become an hero
3. ????
4. PROFIT!

However, this can't be sourced. :/ 90.231.13.132 20:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No longer on air

Why has this episode been pulled from reruns on the air on Comedy Central? It hasn't aired in years. Has it been removed from broadcast, like "Jared Has Aides" and "Pip"? AndarielHalo (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but on the original website, you can see all episodes without censorship or something (but with annoying ads). --> http://www.southparkstudios.com --91.16.125.50 (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

WoW Reference

The Dranei male makes a joke where the second step is skipped and he says "Something is missing" or something. Clearly a reference to the Underpants Gnomes.PokeHomsar (talk) 08:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What? AndarielHalo (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Dranei are a race in the game "World of Warcraft", each race has a few pre-recorded jokes that players can make their characters tell. This is what the op is talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.212.81 (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The Gnomes

The Underpants Gnomes' business plan

The "Underpants Gnomes" are a community of underground gnomes who steal underpants, notably from Tweek.

The Underpants Gnomes have a three-phase business plan, consisting of:

1. Collect underpants
2. ?
3. Profit

None of the gnomes actually know what the second phase is, and all of them assume that someone else within the organization does. The three-phase business plan has become an Internet meme and a snowclone.

The Underpants Gnomes also appear in another episode, "Red Sleigh Down". In it, they appear as Santa's elves; it is explained that they work on their own for most of the year, but assist Santa during the Christmas season.

An Underpants Gnome also appeared among various good imaginary beings in the episode "Imaginationland".

123 Profit meme in Cultural References section

• As seen in this episode, Officer Barbrady is a regular customer at Tweek's shop, where his usual order is getting slapped in the face with a stray cat. This clip is shown in the Monty Python documentary The Life of Python as an example of Monty Python's Flying Circus's influence on South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker. Monty Python is famous for this style of bizarre humour, in this case, the recurring theme throughout Monty Python and the Holy Grail where assorted background characters beat hanging carpets with cats.
• Towards the end of the episode, Tweek's mother accuses the campaigners of being no better than Rob Reiner which is a reference back to Proposition 10.

Alastairward (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

C'mon. It's true that internet memes aren't likely to have really good RS to back them, but it doesn't need really outstanding RS since 1) the fact that it appeared in the show isn't really disputed, and 2) a quick Google search shows it's an obviously widespread meme. Anyway, there are some borderline RS for it [1][2], which aren't enough to create a separate article for the meme, but should be good enough for a brief mention, especially when the original screencap isn't disputed. --Underpants (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking if it's a meme or not, it's whether this episode is the source of it. Alastairward (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

See here. Hit fast-forward until you get to the 4:54 segment, once there, jump to 4:10. --Underpants (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I remember this from the episode, I'm not doubting it was a part of the it. If this meme is to have it's own section within the article, it would really only deserve it if the episode was the source of the meme. A few people seem to have used it having watched the episode, but does that mean the episode sprouted the meme itself? Alastairward (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Without doing too much WP:SYN: Google says ~20% of the 1) 2) ? 3) Profit hits mention "underpants".

At the very least, it should be added back in with a {{fact}}. The fact that this has been in the article for 4 years and 10 months without either 1) finding an earlier source that South Park itself was referencing, or 2) suggesting an alternative etymology for the meme, gives a great deal of weight to the suggestion that they're linked.

Also, for most of the article's early life, the 1) 2)? 3)! blurb was either the only thing in the article, or was at the top of the article. To remove it at this point seems like it wouldn't be in agreement with many of the other contributors. --Underpants (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

But... nothing conclusive. So most of the early life of the article was spent out of the gaze of editors who might otherwise have tagged it. So what? I've seen plenty of OR spend months or years out of sight of an appropriate tag. Give us some conclusive proof that the South Park writers came up with this meme, then we can return it. Alastairward (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I never suggested that OR and RS be conflated. I said that if there were alternate hypotheses for the origin of this meme, someone would have brought it up here, if anywhere. Since that hasn't happened, maybe {{fact}} or {{dubious}} is a little more appropriate.

It's almost certain that someone else will revisit this, and having it up on the article tagged with {{fact}} is more likely to bring in evidence one way or the other, versus not mentioning the problem. Also, many articles are tagged {{dubious}}, which seems to suggest, despite WP:V#Burden of evidence, that non-BLP statements maybe can stick around to gather better evidence. --Underpants (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've seen {{fact}} tags sitting around for too long without anyone citing them to be happy with all of this sitting in the main article. If it really is obvious, surely there's a big fat cite sitting out there waiting for it? Alastairward (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody said it was obvious. It's the etymology of a meme, it's going to be difficult to track down. Statements like "it was used on X forums at least as early as Y" are sometimes all that can be found (which aren't tremendously useful since correlation != causation).

I agree that {{fact}} can sometimes get out of hand, but... why can't we just trim it down to a single statement, put {{dubious}} on it, and hopefully someone will dig up some data? Is there any other plausible hypothesis for its origin? --Underpants (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at that link to O RLY?, the "1.Idea... etc" meme might arguably be given an article of it's own and this article could link to it. Alastairward (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Is the unreferenced tag necessary

As stated in the changelog, I agree that the episode itself is reference enough. The article is just basically a plot summary. User Alastairward keeps reverting tag removal, and a request for comment on his talk page was met with an uncivil comment: "I usually don't give users much credence, if they can't be bothered registering." An editor's reason to use an IP address instead of an account is unrelated to the question.

Even less if they can't be bothered signing their comments Alastairward (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You're heading into uncivil territory. 70.22.154.184 (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Not bothering to sign your comments is equally so, why should someone have to resort to tracing edit histories to follow a discussion? Alastairward (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, South Park episodes are available for free online, right? Include that as a primary source reference, allowed by WP:OR. Problem solved. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 00:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone think the bigger issue here is the lack of even general notability? Regardless, plot summaries do not need to be cited, as their source is implied (i.e. the episode itself). See WP:MOSTV#Plot section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If it is, then Alastairward can stop removing cultural references from episodes as well. Even had an admin tell him to stop removing these things, and if an episode is good enough, then we don't have to cite each and every single little thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Another-anomaly (talk • contribs) 21:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible refs

Capitalism essayBusiness WeekMotley FoolAmerican Dailysame articleBook sourceetc. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Other media section

Needs much better sourcing then all these blogs and self-published sources. Saving text here, to be worked on. DP76764 (Talk) 05:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Refs

Reliability

I think all but the first three are reliable. DailyKos maybe too. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

As I look at it more closely, it appears to be all original research as far as using the reliable sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, none of the semi-reliable sources back this material up. The 2 (duplicate) links to the actual 'budget' appear to be fluff. The final ref, the only link to this is in the user-comments. The 2nd to last ref also doesn't appear to corroborate any of this material. DailyKos, I would have to lean against (despite enjoying reading it); it is, afterall, a blog collective. $0.02 DP76764 (Talk) 20:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV on new material?

New material added [3] seems to be somewhat lacking on WP:NPOV. The Theme and Reception sections are completely dependent on quoting 1 source and do not cite opposing viewpoints. How is this neutral? DP76764 (Talk) 15:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV requires that we represent all sources according to their prominence. This episode isn't crazy famous, so I have a feeling we've got all their is from reliable sources included at this point. If anyone finds more, it should be included, of course. There may be some season reviews that can add more viewpoints to the reception section, but theme is fine as it is. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Cantor said the use of children in the anti-Harbucks commercials demonstrate a liberal tendency to use young people to advance their positions.

Children are used by everyone to promote a cause or sell a product. A major tire company has a baby on one of its tires, saying buy their stuff, because "so much is riding on your tires". This appeals to women apparently. Point is, it isn't just liberals using children, but major corporations, and even politicians running for office will show off their kids. And why is so much of the article just one guy's analyze of it? I don't care if some people consider him an expert on pop culture, and he published a few books that probably only sold if colleges classes were required to buy them. I see no reason to have his personal view filling up the article. Is there consensus to delete? Dream Focus 00:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say delete it, but shorten it since it relies only on two sources.--Swellman (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I obviously feel it should stay. Eventually, the South Park Featured Topic Drive will get to this and add more sources, so maybe it will be shortened at that point as more perspectives are added in. But for the most part, all the opinions are attributed and I don't think there's anything inappropriate about the material. (It's especially puzzling to see the "Reception" section tagged with neutrality tags. It's the Reception page. It's for subjective reviews.) — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 03:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Having only one opinion, the source of which already has a very large (undue weight?) presence in the article, hardly seems neutral. $0.02 DP76764 (Talk) 04:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems odd to me that the "Theme" section currently is focused solely on the whole Harbucks thread. While admittedly it's the driving storyline of the episode, the Gnomes thread is not devoid of significance. I'd always taken the gnomes' business plan as an indictment of the dot-com business model, i.e. Phase 1: find some niche, Phase 2: ...uh, something magic happens, and Phase 3: profit! Anyone know of any citable commentary along these lines? Dave (talk) 04:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

How the heck is Paul Cantor relevant to the entry at all? Yet he's inserted three times? Inserting an anti-Cantor POV for "balance" doesn't help any, either. If someone's got a single-minded viewpoint of an episode but wasn't involved in its production, it doesn't matter what the viewpoint is -- it doesn't belong. If Matt Stone or Trey Parker have something to say about the episode (however NON-neutral), fine, but Paul Cantor's as relevant as a secondhand nightstand.66.202.165.154 (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Original source was a Gary Larson Far Side Cartoon

This meme is not from southpark: It is from a far side cartoon by Gary Larson from the 1980's or 1990's. I currently do not have to book in which to find the exact reference but I remember it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckelloug (talk • contribs) 03:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

What meme? Mezigue (talk) 10:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Gnomes plan image

I don't believe this image passes fair use rationale, since its content can easily be conveyed in text (and it indeed is in the text description right next to it: "Phase 1: Collect Underpants, Phase 2: ?, Phase 3: Profit". I think the current infobox image serves a purpose that justifies a fair use rationale; it illustrates the propagandist use of imagery and the exploitation of the kids. But the Gnomes plan image, I feel, serves no such purpose and is ultimately unnecessary and should probably be removed. Thoughts? — Hunter Kahn 04:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

To me that image plays a big part in the story. It mocks how so many companies during the dot-com boom had similar strategies - to do something on the Internet and then figure out how to profit later. There was also a dispute at one point over the exact text portrayed in that scene which was resolved by having the image on the page. I think it also adds visually to the page and is a big source of the humor of the story. Is that sufficient enough for keeping it? --Greg (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I personally just don't see how this image serves any purpose that the text itself doesn't serve. What you are explaining about how it mocks the dot-com boom strategies is conveyed by the text, and if removal of the image isn't detrimental to the readers' understanding, then I don't believe it passes fair use rationale muster. But that's my opinion, and I'd like to hear what others have to say. — Hunter Kahn 01:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the picture is there only to help where text cannot adequately describe the contents of the article subject. WikiuserNI (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Crazymonkey1123, 18 March 2011

{{edit protected}} I would like the line under the plot heading: are grouped together with Tweek, a jittery child, who suggests that the presentation be on the "Underpants Gnomes," tiny men who sneak into his house and steal his underwear. The boys agree to stay at Tweek's house to work on Mr. Garrison's homework assignment and to see if there really are Underpants Gnomes. to be changed to: are grouped together with Tweek, a jittery child, who suggests that the presentation should be on the "Underpants Gnomes," who are tiny men that sneak into Tweek's house and steal his underwear. The boys agree to stay at Tweek's house to work on Mr. Garrison's homework assignment and to see if there really are Underpants Gnomes. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^(Shout!) 20:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

May I ask why? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Reference to other media?

I always felt that a lot of this episode (the capitalism explanation in particular) was a pastiche of/reference to Yankee Dood It. 70.36.140.79 (talk) 08:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Cultural references

Tweek being suspected of having ADHD and the business with Native Americans being slaughtered are not cultural references. They are minor plot points (more like gags actually) that do not belong in such a section. Please do not put them back without justifying it. Mezigue (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure they are 157.157.194.209 (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Who can argue with your unassailable logic and impecable reliable sources? Clearly "because some guy says so" is sufficient for you. Regrettably it's not sufficient for Wikipedia. 87.115.52.162 (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Dilbert

In Dilbert, during the episode called "Y2k" S1E10, at about 3:25, the boss says "...as real as the dwarf who sneaks in my bedroom at night and steals my underwear." could this be a reference to this South Park episode? --blm07 22:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Tweek Bros.

I think it's pretty obvious "Tweek Bros." is a reference to "Hills Bros." coffee, e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSLugb2jiqQ , not really sure what to add to the article though (is it original research?) 75.158.104.172 (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, without a reliable source to back this up, it would be considered original research. – Richard BB 08:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Strange and superfluous

Does anyone else find this article to be, um, unnecessarily academic? The information it contains is certainly quite interesting, that is not what I quarrel over, but to me it seems like all of the content going into depth raises and explains certain topics that don't really need to be discussed in an article about one episode of a cartoon. Some of the ideas just sound incredibly absurd and half of these things aren't even properly sourced, for instance -- "The gnome characters and their underpants collection represent the ordinary business activity of capitalism that takes place on a regular basis in front of everyone, but is seldom noticed by society." Really? Does this person really think Trey and Matt actually meant to hide some elaborate social commentary within some characters that are called the underpants gnome? Methinks not... (NBMATT (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC))

Yes, they do. They comment on aspects of life, making amusing parodies of it. Dream Focus 10:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think it's wrong to include the academic commentary, though I admit it does come across oddly and a tad preachy when analyzing to the gnomes' "business plan." Cantor, Rhodes and Westwood appear to be using this episode as a metaphor for their own ideas and their interpretations do not necessarily reflect what Stone and Parker originally intended, especially in light of remarks both have made in interviews, and frankly gives those two way too much credit. For example it's quite obvious that the gnomes do not profit from their "plan," so the idea that they are practicing "pure capitalism" doesn't jive. The real parody is far simpler. It mocks businesses that have a product idea but no real business plan, and fail to ever come up with a way to monetize it in a way that's profitable (e.g. Pets.com). It also mocks a frustrating phenomenon of some very large businesses where upper management is extremely remote and disconnected from the actual workforce and thus not totally aware of day to day operations. In these businesses, employees' labors in a specific project area, or specific work-related tasks, literally aren't profitable or are even entirely pointless, but continue anyway with nearly everyone remaining oblivious, though the workers themselves are often suspicious.