Jump to content

Talk:Imaginationland Episode I/Merge debate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no merge
; suspended pending resolution of RfC Will (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge poll

This poll is if we should merge Imaginationland , Imaginationland Episode II and Imaginationland Episode III into one page.

This will be a 15 day poll opening on 25 October 2007 (UTC) and closing on 09 November 2007 (UTC)

Support

Please vote by putting a # the reason for your vote and signing --~~~~

  1. Support As other multiple part episodes of South Park have been merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Haunted Angel (talk • contribs) 11:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Merge, but wait until episode 3 airs that way the emrge can be properly planned out.--Swellman 17:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    for the same reasons I've been saying. People seem to think that no matter what, merging is a bad thing, but if it improves readability and notability, it's better off thar way. "But seperate episodes deserve separate articles." That's not a valid reason for not wanting to merge. See Cartoon Wars or Go God Go. They were merged because they would be better off together. Alone they would have been nothing better than stubs, but together they form a good, thriving article. I also think you all need to take a look at Wikipedia:Pokemon test.
    "But their's too much info for one page." Hardly. The plots need to be cut down anyway. Their's supposed to be only 10 words per one minute of story, meaning that the plot sections should only contain about 200 to 220 words. And the character list could also be easily merged. It's practically the same list on every page. What's the point of that? And even if the list is too long, it will be severely cut down on once unsourced names start being removed (which I'll give a couple of weeks to do, in case any more sources show up).
    Any counter-arguments besides the two I just covered?--Swellman 23:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    Neither of your arguments are persuasive. You dismiss the "separate articles" argument with a wave of your hand, and point to other articles that should not have been merged in the first place. You then cite some "supposed to be" guideline pulled out of thin air. As for the list of characters, I agree, they should all be combined...and given their own separate article. Captain Infinity 23:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    A seperate article has been made, (See Inhabitants of Imaginationland) and is being considered for deletion. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inhabitants of Imaginationland for why people believe it should be deleted.) As for my supposed "guideline pulled out of thin air", see Wikipedia:Television episodes#Plot Summaries. It clearly states how long a plot summary should be.--Swellman 00:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Merge all three episodes into one page - per readability sense - they are tripartite episodes in a series which has a very loose if at all continuity. Current practice is to do so, because it makes it easier for the reader to understand. See, for example, the 170-odd pages for the old serials of Doctor Who (as opposed to 690 episodes), "Cartoon Wars", Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story, "Encounter at Farpoint", "Exodus (Lost)", "Pilot (Lost)". In reality, "Go God Go" itself should be merged as well. By the way, most against votes are quite weak, because of:
    • "What about Star Wars?" - Star Wars is treat in-house as six different constituent parts. In addition, there are many EU materials that go in between the films, most notably Clone Wars
    • "What about The Lord of the Rings?" - Strictly speaking, it's anywhere between one and seven books (The Ring Sets Out, The Ring Goes South, The Treason of Isengard, The Ring Goes East, The War of the Ring, The End of the Third Age, Appendices in my version). The LOTR main page says "Although intended as a single-volume work, it was originally published in three volumes in 1954 and 1955 due to the high cost of paper as a result of the war, and it is in this three-volume form that it is popularly known.". Look at the films, et cetera.
    • Other points rely entirely on other episodes not being merged, notably the Meteor trilogy and Go God Go. That isn't a reason why this shouldn't though. Will (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    So you suggest that we should merge the Bourne Identity, Supremacy & ultimatum? This is just like the LoTR, it is one single story told over 3 different movies. Heck the 3'rd film even starts immediately after the second! LoTR according to JRR Tolkin was one book and should have always been treated as one... yet the wikipedia articles talk about the 3 parts not only because they were published as 3 books, not as the 6 chapters and 1 Appendices (the Appendices were published a few years after the last book btw and included with RotK). But because so much happens in the books that the article would become too large to cover everything or too glib to keep the page smaller. There are many cases of shows having a single story going over many episodes, Babylon 5 is considered by the Guinness book of world records as the longest miniseries ever broadcasted. Why you ask, well the entire 5 season series was scripted from beginning to end. Meaning that many episodes had stories that completed much later. Heck if we did merge them the page would become way too long and would have to be split. So I see no real good reason that these 3 episodes should become one page it would just end up sacrifice quality to keep down the length. -- UKPhoenix79 06:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    You're making straw men. We're not concerned just about story, we've got to factor in production, advertising, et cetera in an article to be encyclopedic. Take for example Bond 22, which will start two minutes after the end of Casino Royale. Now, we can't just have plot summaries. The article about Casino Royale has information about Daniel Craig's casting, Bond 22 has information about filming for the film. The Babylon 5 argument isn't very good because there's an entirely different scope of continuity involved - Babylon 5's continuity is very strict, as South Park has very little continuity at all.
    Now, you're mention length. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a TV guide. If you want to publish a plot summary that's 1,000 words long for ten minutes, go to TV.com or a South Park wiki. Current guidelines are around 10 words per minute for plot summaries, more if the plot is very complicated. I think a quality plot could be written for all three with as many words as the current count on this page alone (863). Will (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    So you think that the TV series 24 should only have recaps be by season and not by episode? It is one story with no interruptions and no middle story line (e.g. clone wars). -- UKPhoenix79 09:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    Yes. They've done that with Day 5, I think, and it's proved very successful. Will (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    They didn't, but lets say that they did... according to you there should be around 10 words per min for a good summery... well in the case of 24 each episode is around 45 min long and there were 24 episodes (excluding the prequel episodes on the web) so 45 times 24 equals a 10,800 word summery (45x24=10,800)... ok if we were to convert that into pages (with the average page length being around 250 words/page) that would make the summery alone 43.2 pages in length... I don't know about you but that is a very long read and would make a massive article page. So editors would have to trim it down and loose detail in doing so... So by merging it would make the topic suffer just to make the page more readable. -- UKPhoenix79 23:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    Last I checked, they had. See 24 (season 5). We don't need every detail, just the basic plot. Will (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    Wow I assumed that the 288 pros and 914 non pros word summery of the ENTIRE season was just a snippet. Hell the Prequel was double the length in pros reaching 481 words.... This according to your own logic is woefully lacking! Merging in this case has only created an article that is rather uninformative and not a good reference for an encyclopedia that does not use paper. -- UKPhoenix79 23:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    Ten words per minute is a guideline. Anything that makes the page less like a plot summary, the better. Will (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Merge Generally, I'd prefer to keep them as three different articles. If nothing else, it makes templates of episodes by season a bit easier to work with. Though looking at the ones that have been merged, they do seem to be done well and readable. Just so long as the articles don't lose any info than I have no problem with the merge. It would be nice to see a draft before the merge is finalized, though. Tweeks Coffee 17:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. I'm all for merging, but agree that it shouldn't be done until the third episode airs. Yes, yes, every seperate episode deserves a page; it all depends on how you define seperate. This trilogy is one single episode, that is just too long for its slot so it's split into a trilogy. In the list of episodes, there should be a link for each episode, but they should all direct to the one article. I also think this should apply to other two-parters such as Do the Handicapped Go to Hell? and Probably and Cartman's Mom is a Dirty Slut, for consistency. It'll be a bit longer than other South Park articles, but it'll be concise, and it really is all one story. Also, though I don't like the list, this is the only episode that I won't fight against including a list. This South Park episode is different from Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings because there's much less that goes on; those trilogies are much bigger and the information wouldn't fit in a single article. Professor Chaos 23:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. For: I do think it would be a good idea to merge, because it would make finding the episodes a whole lot easier by typing "Imaginationland" rather than "Imaginationland episode..." It worked with Cartoon Wars, after all. Grieferhate 09:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. Merge The Cartoon Wars merger was done pretty well, with existing links to the individual articles being routed to sections of the merged article. I change my opinion. --LordMinogue
  8. Merge Why is this such an issue! It makes absolutely no sense to basically have the same list of imaginary characters 3 times and it's obvious they don't warrant their own article either. I really do not want to see the list disappear so if it means combining the three episodes into one, do it! How is it going to "degrade" the quality of the article by combining them? It's not like it would be anywhere near the length of other large Wikipedia articles and the merging of such articles is not unprecedented. Olandir —Preceding comment was added at 02:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  9. Merge* A lot of the information is repeated in the three articles (character lists for example), and since the plot is effectively one single plot over the three parts, it would be easier to read them on one page (although each part should be listed under three separate sections within said merged article)Toad of Steel 04:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  10. Defintately merge them... it makes sense since it's one episode but in 3 parts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.32.255.195 (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  11. Merge, they are clearly a continuing storyline and preceding South Park multi-part episodes (Cartoon Wars, Go God Go) are presented as one page and hence are able to give the entire storyline more coherently.~ Mazca 22:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    And the Simpson's episodes Who Shot Mr. Burns are contninuing storylines kept separate in Who Shot Mr. Burns? (Part One) and Who Shot Mr. Burns? (Part Two) the first one is even a GA. -- UKPhoenix79 10:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  12. Strong Merge Previous serialized episodes have been merged, and it would work better for this since it is one storyline ~ flowerkiller1692, 2:21, 5 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.87.22 (talk)

Neutral

Please vote by putting a # the reason for your vote and signing --~~~~

  1. Neutral Since the "Cartoon Wars" articles have been merged into one article I think it would be appropriate to merge the "Imaginationland" articles if those two episode remain merged as well, if not, please leave it like this. Baldrick90 16:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. NeutralIf you're going to merge them, you should wait till after the 3rd episode of the triligy. Many people have mentioned movies being merged, but we're not talking about movies.J miester25 11:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. If we can make a simpler plot description by merging I won't oppose that. -- Patrickov 16:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Merging is an option, but the main priority is to cover the material at an appropriate level of detail. 750 words plus a list of more than 120 "Character references" for less than 25 minutes of TV time, is excessive. --Tony Sidaway 20:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral - Personally, I think the page should be kept separate. However, there are also good reasons to merge the three pages together. The Chronic 07:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Please vote by putting a # the reason for your vote and signing --~~~~

  1. Strong Against Would we merge each part of the Lord of the Rings? Should we merge the Star Wars trilogies? These pages would become too bloated and would have to be split in the end. There is no good reason that these THREE episodes should be merged. -- UKPhoenix79 09:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Against I disagree with the fact that "Cartoon Wars" was merged, but the fact still remains that most television series with separate episode articles don't merge multi-part episodes. Furthermore, the articles currently merit separate articles -- each has a significant amount of information that is unique to each episode. I propose the lead section to read that "Imaginationland was the first episode of a three-episode story arc, similiar to the stance we took on "Go God Go". If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 12:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Weak Against-- Even though combining all of the allusions into one brick would be nice, the synopsis would be too long and it would violate the tradition of giving each South Park episode has its own —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Minogue (talk • contribs) 05:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Against -- In general I'm for keeping separate episode pages separate. The fact that two episodes are related shouldn't automatically mean they should be merged --after all there are a lot of shows were every episode flows into the next. South Park seems to particularly play up the different nuances of separate "to be continued" episodes, for example: the first season's Cartman's Mom Is a Dirty Slut, which had an entire spoof episode tucked in between it and its sequel; or the recent Go God Go/Go God Go XII where the second episode worked on its own. --Bobak 15:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Against - Each of the two episodes (and soon to be three) already have a lot of info for each, and merging them would make it into a big confusing article. I also apply this to Cartoon Wars as well. The Chronic 15:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Against - Do Not Merge Separate episodes deserve separate articles. Captain Infinity 22:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Against, Go God Go and Cartoon Wars are separated, so should Imaginationland. A separate article for each episode, a disambig page and an article for inhabitants.--Cartman005 18:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Strong Against Yes, obviously we must merge multiple films and episodes into one lump. Mr. Raptor 04:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    *sigh*, read the merger's argument instead of knee-jerk reactions. Will (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Against This individual episodes are all documented individually and are too long when combined. Cartoon Wars part 1 & 2 was not merged so dont merge Imaginationland --Cs california 10:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  10. Weak Against: Not because of my love for the show, but think about it: The other merged episodes had only two parts, whereas this one has three. The merged article would indeed be very protruded, if you include all of the trivia/imaginary character sightings lists. I still believe we should not merge.User:TheSilverAce —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.155.86 (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  11. Don't merge. Per Captain Infinity's reasoning. — PyTom (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. Don't Merge. These are two completely different episodes. Why would someone merge them? Although Trey Parker and Matt Stone said that they wanted it to be a movie, just make another page titled The South Park Triology: Kyle Sucks Cartman's Balls and merge them all there. But leave these individual episodes alone. There is absolutly no point in merging the two episodes. - Dude7324 09:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  13. Don't merge per all of the above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.217.222 (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  14. Don't merge because each individual episode of South Park deserves its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.121.27.2 (talk) 02:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  15. Don't mergeBecause the idea is almost as silly as a talking towel, and just as useful. Seriously, wait until all three episodes have aired, create a semi-duplicate entry for the episode as a whole (call it "Imaginationland Trilology" or whatever) and do it that way. If you're going to start arguing semantics like this, you may as well go ahead and build a time machine to go back to last week where you can ask Matt and Trey if this deserves a single entry on Wikipedia or one for all three episodes. --Iwriteu 03:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  16. Don't Merge. There are three related, but separate episodes. What a jumble will be in trivia and in "Imaginationland inhabitants" sections, if you will merge it! Fleutist 08:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  17. Strongly Against a merge is not nesaccary or needed because A) they represent individual parts of the story that are equally important B) it might confuse important details of the trilogy incorrectly citing them C) makes navigating through south park episodes tedious —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark-Ace (talk • contribs) 13:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  18. Weak Against While all three episodes do make one overall story arc, they are three different episodes, and as it's customary for all episodes of series (be it South Park, Simpsons, etc.) to have their own article, there should be three different articles for these three episodes. I know that Cartoon Wars was merged, but I disagree with that as well. I don't feel particularly strongly about this, so there's no point in trying to argue with me about it. :) faithless (speak) 02:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  19. Against It would be best if every episode had its own page. Merging episodes would make reading a plot synopsis unpleasent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twelvepack (talk • contribs) 03:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  20. Do Not Merge. Separate episodes deserve separate articles. Captain Infinity 22:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  21. Agree--do not merge. See above. Tenk you veddy much. -Wack'd Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork! 22:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  22. Do Not Merge. To much info for one page
  23. Do not merge - just cut the list of characters that appear. --User:Kaizenyorii —Preceding comment was added at 04:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  24. Do not merge All 3 articles need 3 summaries for the events that happened in each episode. However, all 3 "Character references" sections should be moved to 1 article, something to the effect of: List of character references in South Park's Imaginationland trilogy, and have each of the 3 articles link to it. --Zimbabweed 07:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  25. Strongly disagree. If you merge the articles, then the one resulting page would be a mess. (Emigdioofmiami 19:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC))
  26. Do not merge you bunch of Ewoks There are 3 episodes not one. It's as simple as that. Merging would improve nothing in this case. Dorkules 14:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  27. Oppose The fact that these are three DIFFERENT episodes, not one, should be reason enough not to merge. Dadude3320 21:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  28. Oppose Three different episodes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.155.40 (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  29. Against This page is a mess - if we're going to merge then we have to move all those lists onto another page which is just "A List of characters in imaginationland". If we're going to keep seperate lists then we can't merge. My vote is for both seperate pages AND another page for the list of characters (there's far too much ridiculous and unnecessary repetition in different lists for each episode) - but the one thing that is clear is that both a merge and 3 seperate lists is madness (madness I tells ya!) however I think it can all be saved with a clear head and some prudent organisationWarchef 23:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    Of course it's not going to be like that in the end. That's just an interim solution. Will (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    THANK YOU. I've been saying that all along about the separate list. I tried creating it myself but it was deleted.--Cartman005 02:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  30. Do Not Merge Too much information for just one page. JesseMeza 19:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  31. Oppose. Don't turn the 3 articles into redirects. You can merge the 3 articles into 1 additional article. I don't think the decision is only between 1 article and 3 articles. You can have both: 4 articles. I think there should be an additional article on the trilogy as a whole. I suppose that could be considered "neutral", or even "merge but don't redirect", but I'm opposed to having only 1 article for 3 episodes. If an additional article on the trilogy does not happen, I would prefer 3 articles to 1. In the interest of instant-runoff voting, my order of preference on the number of articles is 4, 3, 1, 0. I think there should be 1 article for each episode and 1 article for the trilogy as a whole. I think this is a reasonable compromise. I think each episode is notable on its own. And since the trilogy will supposedly be released on DVD, that means the trilogy as a whole is notable. If all 3 episodes were aired back-to-back I could see a good reason to merge and have only 1 article, but they are 3 separate episodes that aired in 3 different weeks. The number of viewers of each initial airing likely differs. And the critical reception of each individual episode may also differ, just like some critics prefer The Empire Strikes Back to Star Wars Episode IV and VI. Each episode has its own individual summary on TV.com. What if one of the episodes gets nominated for an award but the others don't? So far, the main argument I see for merging them is that they contain a continuing storyline. Many articles on fictional works have continuing story arcs but that is no reason to merge all of them. One benefit I can see to merging these 3 articles is that the character list (which some people want/some people don't) could be all on one page instead of split across 3 articles or in its own article. I see that the individual article for the character list has been deleted. If the 3 articles are merged, it's likely the plot description will be trimmed. If the purpose of the merge is to cut content, I don't think they should be merged. I suppose some options are: 3 articles for 3 episodes, 3 articles for 3 episodes with 1 article for character list (which was deleted), 1 article for the trilogy, and 3 articles for 3 episodes with 1 article for the trilogy as a whole. I am in favor of keeping the 3 articles and favor the creation of an additional article on the trilogy as a whole. Editors who want separate articles get their separate articles. Editors who want one article get their one article. A continuing storyline is not a good reason to merge articles down to 1 in my opinion. The 3 Lord of the Rings films by Peter Jackson were all filmed at once. They each have their own individual article, and there is also an article on the trilogy as a whole. Individual articles on fictional works with an article covering the series have also been used for the Ender's Game series and Harry Potter. Is that redundant? Perhaps, but nobody is forcing you to read it. We also keep articles on episodic video games separate. WP:EPISODE says if articles contain little content, consider merging them, but I would not say that these 3 articles contain little content. I question the size of the suggested single article. I would have to see the proposed single article so I can decide whether it's an improvement, before I would considering merging and redirecting. But I do suggest that people who want a single article for the whole trilogy create that article, at Imaginationland (trilogy). One issue that may arise with an additional trilogy page is the character list. These are some options:
    A) List on 1, list on 2, list on 3, combined list on trilogy page.
    B) List on 1, list on 2, list on 3, no list on trilogy page.
    C) No list on any page.
    D) Use the {{main}} template under character sections. On 1 see trilogy page, on 2 see trilogy page, on 3 see trilogy page, combined list on trilogy page. I favor this option. --Pixelface 21:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    The articles at their current states are plot summaries and WP:TRIVIA. Again, you're missing the point, like so many opposers are: Half Life 2: Episode One/Two, Harry Potter were conceived to be in seperate parts. The LOTR films have production information, etcetera, to prove their individual notability. This is regarded by SPS to be one entire episode, but split into three parts. Precedent is to do such, see Exodus (Lost), Pilot (Lost), etc, etc. Will (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    The articles contain more than plot summaries and trivia. You think these 3 episodes were not "conceived to be in separate parts"? They weren't aired all in one night. Do you think that 3 individual articles and 1 article on the trilogy cannot co-exist? Is each episode notable? Yes, otherwise they could be deleted. If they're not notable, a single article for all 3 of them could also be deleted. Is the trilogy notable? Yes. WP:EPISODE says merging should be considered when articles have little content, but I do not think these 3 articles have little content. Back to the Future Part II begins right where Back to the Future ends, yet each film has its own article. The trilogy also has its own article, Back to the Future trilogy. These 3 South Park episodes have incremental production numbers: 1110, 1111, 1112. The production numbers are not 1110a, 1110b, 1110c. They're clearly 3 separate episodes. Speaking of Doctor Who, those are considered serials and share the same production number. There is clearly a precedent for merging episode articles: the 2 Cartoon Wars episodes were merged into one article, the 2 Go God Go episodes were merged into one article. The guideline on television episodes says nothing about merging story-arcs. There is also a precedent for keeping episodes separate: the South Park episodes Cat Orgy, Two Guys Naked in a Hot Tub, and Jewbilee are a 3-part story arc, yet each have their own articles. That is why I suggested a compromise of an additional article for the trilogy as a whole. I highly doubt that the producers of the 3 episodes got paid for only 1 episode. And I don't know if the production crew was the same for each of the 3 episodes. This article is currently protected from all editing, so editors might as well get started on Imaginationland (trilogy). But there should be a consensus to turn these 3 articles into redirects before actually turning them into redirects. --Pixelface 10:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    Well there is also the precedent set by arguably the most famous cartoon split episode ever, and that would be the legendary Simpson's episodes Who Shot Mr. Burns. They are are continuing storylines kept separate in two articles Who Shot Mr. Burns? (Part One) and Who Shot Mr. Burns? (Part Two) the first one is even a GA. -- UKPhoenix79 22:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    I don't see why that shouldn't be merged either. In fact, I'll propose it as soon as this one ends. Will (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    I've heard of delitionists and inclusionists.... but never a mergist!!!! You should make a page detailing that phenomenon.... but if you do, you might just merge it with all the other wiki personalities, and knowing the state of wikipedia today it would most likely be deleted hehehehe-- UKPhoenix79 22:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, it's mergism is quite common. Will (talk) 11:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    No, they really don't have anything beyond plot summaries and trivia. The sections of each article are "Plot", "Allusions" and the character section. The only vaguely worthwhile thing is the section on the reception of the episode. Even that's only contained on the first episode page, not on any of the other parts. And no, these episodes were not created individually. The trilogy was created at the same time, starting over a month ago. It was broken down as necessary to fit into the allotted time. Tweeks Coffee 15:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  32. Oppose. Keep them Seperate. they deserve their own articles Philbuck222 11:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  33. Against, they're seperate episodes, they should stay seperate. Remember Wikipedia is not Paper? 76.208.49.70 23:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments

please leave general or non specific comments here

Star Wars is a trilogy, should we merge them? Seeing as no one is specifically FOR merging in this poll, can we give it up? You lose.--Cartman005 18:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Read my comment again. There's quite a difference between this trilogy and Star Wars. If I'm not mistaken, Cartoon Wars was merged, both parts into one article, and that sets a good precedent, I think. This is one episode, just too long for a single half-hour tv slot. All three together are shorter than any one of the Star Wars movies. Professor Chaos 22:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I still think each episode should have its own page, otherwise, the article becomes less detailed. --Cartman005 01:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I removed the merge tags because I find the argument for merging very thin and there seems to be an abundant vote against merging. Cburnett 14:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I've re-added the merge template. It's obviously still in discussion. Merge as per Cartoon Wars and Go God Go. The plot sections can easily be merged together, and so can the list of character references. Alot of the names are mentioned in all three articles. Their's no point in listing the exact same information in three seperate articles.--Swellman 20:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, I'm the french guy who made french South Park's articles for Wikipedia (Sorry for my poor english). And if you made a fourth article who merged the three others ? This is what I do for the french case. Good luck to found a way out. 90.3.99.1 22:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • With regards to the "They're three episodes, thus warrant three articles" argument, it's a load of crap. If we went like that, we'd have 144 24 plot summaries which are hard to follow, 65+ Kim Possible episode pages, etc. Quite a lot of shows don't even have episode articles. Will (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    In addition, South Park Studios treats the episodes as one, or at the very least, is advertising episode 3 on the "This Week" section simply as "Imaginationland". If no other valid points in opposition to merging are given within 24 hours, I will merge. While it is against a 3:1 majority, the anti-merge points rest on, with no exaggeration, "What about article X" or "they're three seperate episodes", the latter being proven otherwise. Will (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, go ahead and merge them so we can undo it.--Cartman005 22:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't be a dick, get off your high horse and listen to consensus. We win. ~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 16:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. As nearly all thirty of the opposing arguments are very weak, there's more of a consensus to merge. In fact, discounting any weak "votes" (such as WAX and "3 seperate episodes"), there are only two or three opposes worth. Will (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
From what I've seen as far as commentary on this episode, it was done as a singular episode. In a change of pace for Matt and Trey, this series has actually been in the works for months. The fact alone that it was a trilogy should show that this is much different than any previous episodes of the show. Take it how you will, but I see it as singular plot spread across three episodes. Tweeks Coffee 04:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment - the only issue here should be what has been done with previous multi-part South Park episodes. Will's right - What about article X shouldn't come into it. StuartDD contributions 10:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
If previous South Park multi-parters have been merged, merge this. If not, keep them separate. StuartDD contributions 11:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The poll in 3:1 in favor of keeping it separate... this is an ongoing debate and no actions should be done until the poll is closed. It is simple Wiki Etiquette of Working towards an agreement, so while the issue is being discussed please use the talk page :-) -- UKPhoenix79 22:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Consensus isn't based on a poll. It's based on the weight of arguments. You were given enough time to support your argument with sources. Will (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree but it is intended to show you where the opinions of the editors lie. It is clear that the vast majority think that this is not a good idea. You also must know that wikipedia is not a legal body. It is called a talk page not an evidence page. There are many arguments for and against and one can list them until the chickens come home and in the end both would still be right. Please the whole idea of the talk page is so that people can communicate and figure out what is right for the page at hand. -- UKPhoenix79 00:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Yep. Whoever keeps revering the merge needs to read Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Majority vote means nothing if the arguments aren't valid.--Swellman 00:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • AGAIN. Majority vote means nothing. None of the arguments are valid anyway. About half of them are people just saying "seperate episodes deserve seperate articles". Tell me where in any wikipedia guiedline does it even hint at that? And also, people who compare this to Star Wars or The Lord of the Rings, do I even have to tell you how silly it is comparing the notability of these three episodes to those films? Seriously, stop reverting the merge.--Swellman 00:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    If the vote means nothing then why did you do it? Its just that since you are on the losing side, you claim that it doesn't count.--Cartman005 01:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    No they are right it is not a vote but for lack of a better definition an opinion poll. I have been through many and it generally has two outcomes.
    • 1) A Conclusive outcome. There is a clear decision and one that will be respected by the editors at hand.
    • 2) There is no conclusion. While one side might have had more "votes" there is no decisive outcome and the debate must continue until a good conclusion is reached.
    a straw poll is not a vote but a way of figuring out what the other editors are thinking. This one is STILL ONGOING and the discussion should still be continuing. This is no replacement for discussion but editors should respect that this is an ongoing debate and should respect the opinions of others and discuss this situation further. But while being bold is a great thing the general ignoring of the talk page and the obvious opinions of its editors should be enough for people to be brought back to discussing the talk page at hand. Don't forget that we are ALL here for the betterment of the articles and we ALL have valid opinions and should be treated as equals since we are just trying to do what is best :-) I hope that helps -- UKPhoenix79 01:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    It's a friggin' cartoon. Look, the arguement over merging is about as silly as the arguement over Kenny's role in the series and if he's technically alive or not. At this point there's so much bickering over merging that the idea of the episode itself has been lost in what mockingly poses as the discussion. The entire idea of the episode was to poke fun at reality, to have a good laugh and to reminisce about times past. How can you expect to do that when you're so busy focusing on the semantics? This would be like watching a Bugs Bunny cartoon and arguing that Bugs is technically a crossdresser even though he only did it to fool Elmer Fudd. I say don't merge, keep them as they are. Wikipedia servers (now THERE'S a joke) have enough memory to hold a measly three articles plus talk page down, each episode IS by its own right an individual one (otherwise they would have made this episode a direct-to-DVD release or possibly made it a 'special' episode that boils to an hour and a half), and what you've basically got here is something that has significant plot changes in each episode, so merging would not only face the possibility of losing those changes via rewrites in the plot synopsis or by scrunching the three plots together, but merging would also lose the impact of the episode. It's unique for a reason; this is no different than a two-part episode (several of which have aired on SP before) and frankly it's my opinion that if Matt or Trey were reading this, they'd be laughing their asses off right now at all the mayhem that the idea of merging has created. That's IF they haven't gone anonymous and created accounts of their own on Wikipedia; which, given the laughable reputation that Wikipedia has in cyberspace (and besides I could swear I remember at least one Wikipedia reference in past SP episodes), I wouldn't doubt. So M&T if you're reading this, congratulations. Seems as if that month and a half of work has paid off more than you expected.--Iwriteu 05:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    LOL hahahaha oh this is a great comment :-) Everybody wave to Matt or Trey <waves>. Thanks for that! -- UKPhoenix79 06:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this poll is set to end on 11/9, nobody should be merging the article before the discussion is actually over. Also; the people who are saying that the merged article will be too long don't have a valid argument. A) Wikipedia isn't limited by space, articles can be as long or as short as we want. Should the article on, say, World War II be cut down because it's too long? B) Considering that most of the articles' content at the moment is just a plot summary, much of that can be trimmed out. Articles shouldn't just be a retelling of the plot, leave that for the South Park sites. Tweeks Coffee 14:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Yet another good reason to merge is the fact that they are releasing the trilogy on DVD as if it were a movie.[1] It basically IS a movie. If anyone remembers, there was originally a leak of info online by one of the editors at south park saying that during the prodction of the trilogy, there were thoughts of actually making a theatrical-release film. (If you scroll up towards the top of the of the talk page, you'll see my original comment linking to the blog. The links have been removed however, because they didn't want the info online.) So, what's the purpose of splitting up ONE storyline, intended to be a film, into three articles? I'll be shocked if anyone gives me a valid response (under Wikipedia:Notability) to that.--Swellman 00:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The best analogy would be Ghost in the Shell SAC. There was a persistent and continuous story line running through the series (the laughing man) and the story line was so successful that they released a 2½ hour movie called Ghost in the Shell: S.A.C. - The Laughing Man which was a compilation of all the episodes onto one disk. Now from what you said this adds greater credence to creating an Imagionationland (trilogy) page. Since there are many examples of episodes that are released together (Simpson's Tree house of horrors are released on DVD's together & by season) I see no reason to lump the episodes into one page unless it is one trilogy page that can have the plot trimmed down and each episode has there own page that is more detailed with character references. -- UKPhoenix79 00:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I really fail to see what having a trilogy page AND individual episode pages would accomplish. What would possibly be included on a central page that wouldn't be mentioned in the individual articles? Tweeks Coffee 15:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Other Comments

Imaginatioland + Imaginationland Episode II

Why did you merge that two episodes? At first, we don't know title of third trilogy episode, and, if it isn't "Imaginationland Episode III", we will have two pages for three episodes. More: the trivia sections for first and second part, especially the "Imaginationland inhabitants" section, will be very tangled without any sense. Every section, as "Production", "Reception", we now have to divide for two or more parts. I think that's better to have two pages for two "Imaginationland" episodes. Fleutist 19:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Aren't merges supposed to be discussed before they take place? This was also done with the Cartoon Wars episodes. I think their should be some type of discussion before a major change like this...--Swellman 21:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't merge these pages, they are two separate episodes. I don't think they should have done it with Cartoon Wars either, because every episode should have its own page. In the past South Park two-parters have not been put on one page (Do the Handicapped Go TO Hell/Probably, Go God Go/Go God Go XII) were not put on the same page, right? -- 71.255.82.50 23 October 2007

Why not? If they have the same plot and the same title - why not? Can't see any negative in that. I am for that only when they share the same title. Which they do. That's why I am for that. Cartoon Wars is the same case.

Regards: Painbearer 15:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
That's absurdity to merge pages for trilogy episodes, when only one of it aired for that moment. There are a lot of variants for second and third episode, in which we can't merge this articles. Please, don't do it without any discussion and without consent with other wiki members. (Actually, they can be marged only like "Kyle Sucks Cartman's Balls" - it's name of thilogy, not "Imaginationland"). Fleutist 15:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Because each is a separate episode. That's the way Wikipedia maintains that episodes for shows are to be written, when enough information is available. And if indeed there is a third part (which there is), the pure length of one article would be too long and would eventually be split into individual articles again. This merger should NOT take place without discussion, which it appears to have, and has been undone. If need be, a vote can be held, but as consensus is showing as of now, there is one vote to merge the pages and six to keep them separate. Zchris87v 23:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the pages should NOT be merged together. Each of the two episodes (and soon to be three) already have a lot of info for each, and merging them would make it into a big confusing article. I also apply this to Cartoon Wars as well. The Chronic 05:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Three separate articles + disambig page

Would it be possible to split all three episodes into three separate articles (being "Episode I", "Episode II" and "Episode III")? The original Imaginationland page would be a disambig page for the three (similiar to Who Shot Mr. Burns?). The Chronic 05:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, because, actually, first episode named "Imaginationland", not "Imaginationland Episode I". But that's better than merge pages. Fleutist 08:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It should not be merged. They are a trilogy of separate episodes. It wouldn't be right merger the Star Wars trilogy into one article would it?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.81.121 (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the three separate articles and one disambig page.--Cartman005 16:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Merged

OK, you guys merged it, the article looks like complete shit now but whatever. Now can we at least create a separate article for the characters so we can get rid of the ugly list that is in the article now?--Cartman005

Nope. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inhabitants of Imaginationland. Will (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
And.... your point?--Cartman005 —Preceding comment was added at 21:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Do it then. I won't stop you. Other people might, though. Will (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that it is a good idea to create a separate article for the list?--Cartman005 21:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The decision was to delete it. You can create it again, but it will just be deleted again, and will possibly earn you a block (so I wouldn't reccomend it). As for the article, I've trimmed down the plot a bit, but it still needs some shortening. And also, the three seperate lists need to be made into one.--Swellman 22:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The length of the plot summary

I'll set aside for a moment the question of whether the merger of the other episodes into this one is valid. My point here is solely about the edits to the episode one plot summary.

I've undone a reversion of this edit to the plot summary. Philbuck222 has reverted, with the edit summary "too brief".

Now even with my edits, the plot summary is nearly 500 words in length (before I edited, it had been closer to 700 words). This is a ridiculous length for a plot description, written per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) (WP:WAF), of a TV episode lasting about 25 minutes.

I really do think we need to trim this. Complaining that 487 words is "too brief" a plot summary is really not in keeping with our well established principles for writing about fiction. --Tony Sidaway 00:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post Poll Merge Debate

Just remember now that the poll is closed it does not mean that the debate is closed. We know that the majority of editors want them separate, but what should be the course of action now? -- UKPhoenix79 06:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The course of action should be that the articles are worked on independently of each other, as editors try to make them the best written articles they can possibly be, and that the small handful of editors who are urging merger accept that the majority of editors feel that the separate episodes are deserving of separate articles and assist in the effort to make the articles better. Captain Infinity 14:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Just put the superhero costume down and back away

I don't understand any of you guys - all of the South Park episode pages are filled with trivia, original research, unsourced and unreferenced statements, and a whole load of information that fails notability - pretty much they're all in a poor state - and nobody can bother their hole to do anything about it; and something as relatively irrelevant as this merger has gotten everyone's knickers in a twist. If the page is merged or if it isn't merged it won't make an awful lot of difference to anything if the content remains the same. And pro-merge people seem to think that anything but a merge will be a DISASTER, and anti-merge people seem to think that a merge would be a DISASTER, where as quite frankly neither is the case. If it stays as three articles or is merged they should still be articles with roughly the same content relaying the same information for pretty much the same purpose. Neither outcome would result in a breakdown of Wikipedia as we know it- in fact everything will be just fine either way once the content is up to scratch.

In this spirit I'm calling for people to 1) refocus their energies onto the CONTENT over the format, which quite frankly is a much more pressing issue here; 2) to back down slightly from their high horses (on both sides) to see that unless they gain some objective perspective on this whole thing (which means acknowledging the rights of the opposing opinion) a consensus will never be reached and this will go on in a never-ending circle (or at least until a new episode comes along that shifts everybody's focus); and finally, 3) for the love of god do NOT climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. peaceWarchef 13:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Very good points, the only reason I like to keep them separate is because I don't want the content to be shortened, which typically happens when pages are merged (as was suggested to be done when they were briefly merged). Aside from that I am only very weakly opposing the merge. But its always good to have users out there trying to give people a reality check, Thanks! -- UKPhoenix79 06:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

South park wiki project

I think something needs to be decided at the South park wiki project on how to deal with south-park multi parters with regard to merging. It should be kept consistant inside a particular series, and should in no way whatsoever be affected by other articles that are not South Park. StuartDD contributions 22:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That actually sounds like a good idea. If the debate starts please post a link to is here :-) thanks -- UKPhoenix79 06:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imaginationland_Episode_I/Merge_debate&oldid=1136814396"