Talk:Pinkeye (South Park)

Comments

So, what's the exact title of the episode, "Pinkeye" or "Pink Eye"? If you search for it you find both of them. 212.66.81.244 01:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a season 1 DVD here which calls it "Pinkeye". I'm moving it there for now. --Moochocoogle 18:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot section repeats the phrase "much to the fury of" three times (and there is a "much to the shock and dismay of" at the end of the Production section. JmA (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Southpark ep107 2.jpg

Image:Southpark ep107 2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Uncited material

Cites please;

• Stan dresses up as Raggedy Andy and his girlfriend Wendy is supposed to dress up as Raggedy Ann but doesn't, humiliating him. The same thing happens to the character Brad Taylor on an episode of the show Home Improvement.

Referenced here: List_of_Home_Improvement_episodes#Season_2:_1992-1993 and here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0603470/plotsummary.

• Tina Yothers (who played Jennifer Keaton on Family Ties) gave out the costume awards (and was thought to be dead by everyone in South Park)
• After being bitten by a zombie, Chef turns into a dancing, singing zombie, who begins imitating Michael Jackson from the "Thriller" music video.
• When Cartman makes fun of Stan's costume, he refers to him as Howdy Doody, Holly Hobbie, & Pippi Longstocking.
• During the costume contest, Mr. Garrison mistakes Kenny's transformation into a zombie as a costume of Miami Vice star Edward James Olmos.
• In the scene where Chef is watching the news in his house, a poster of Isaac Hayes (the voice of Chef) can be seen.
• The entire Zombie aspect of this episode is an homage to the movie Return of the Living Dead. Everything from the doctors describing the zombies symptoms to the emergency hotline number on the Worcestershire sauce bottle is a throwback to the plotline of Return of the Living Dead.
• The fat man who gives the boys treats before Kenny bites him is wearing a T-shirt that reads, "Let's Get Physical," which was a 1982 song by Olivia Newton-John
• Mr. Garrison mentions that Jackie Collins is a famous horror writer. Collins actually writes fiction centering around the seedy underbelly of fame and glamor, often including lurid scenes of sex and violence.
• While decorating her house for Halloween, Ms. Cartman puts a poster of Richard Nixon on the front door.
• In the final scene, a tombstone statue of Orgazmo can be seen in the background.
• Kenny's arm popping out the grave at the end mocks cliché surprise endings such as that of Carrie.
• On the commentary for this episode, Trey & Matt say that Cartman dressing up as Hitler was based on their love of John Cleese doing it in Monty Python.

Alastairward (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't self reference, i.e. use Wikipedia as a reference, nor are user editable sites like IMDB suitable. Alastairward (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Does this article pass the notability test? Alastairward (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No, and you can't just merge an article with no discussion like you have been doing. Don't merge. The Video Game Master (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

So, no notability but I'm not allowed to merge? Alastairward (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I meant that it passes, my bad. But you're going to need more than just me. The Video Game Master (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Please state the notability and any reason why I can't set up a redirect. You don't own this or any other WP article remember. Alastairward (talk) 10:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If you no one owns it, then WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO MERGE IT? I think it's notable because it gives a great summary over a great episode over a great show. And by great show, I mean popular and famous. Many people will know what it is if you talk about it with them, so therefore it is notable. Because people know about it and like looking/hearing at things about it. Case closed. The Video Game Master (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that nobody owns it gives me that "right"! You're the one demanding that I not edit it, I'm simply exercising my right to be bold and edit it in accordance with WP Policies. Please try to provide notability that would suggest that this is an article worth keeping.

Check this article for more guidance. I'm not saying that every episode of the show should be merged, some show clear notability outside the subject of their own existance, others articles are simply plot summations. Alastairward (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge per WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we continue this discussion here. I've given my thoughts on this matter there. Nightscream (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

See This page to discuss about the merger. The disscusion has been moved to Talk:List of South Park episodes --Gman124 ^talk 16:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose merge on this one, due to great article improvements. Cirt (talk) 12:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pinkeye (South Park)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the Plot although I am very familiar with South Park those who are not might not know who "Mayor" is. Might want to add the mayor's name. Cause, the sentence seems as Mayor Barbrady. In the Production section, "the frist ones"?

   Check.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Dates aren't supposed to be linked. In the Release section, "It was included in the second volume, which also included the episodes An Elephant Makes Love to a Pig, Death and Damien [...] which included Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo, Merry Christmas, Charlie Manson!, Mr. Hankey's Christmas Classics, Korn's Groovy Pirate Ghost Mystery and Starvin' Marvin, the episodes are not supposed to be italicized.

   No, that was the only date that I saw that was linked. And, check for the episodes format.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Not that much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I think I got everything; the only linked date I found was in the infobox, which I dropped; if there are others I missed, please feel free to point them out, or drop the wikilinks yourself. Thanks again! — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 04:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thank you to Hunter K. for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference to Stephen King's IT

Chef pulls that guy's arm off and then he bleeds to death. Like in the Stepehn King book IT. IT pulled the boy's arm off and he bled to death. Coincidence? I think it's a reference. 68.39.79.161 (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it still needs to be cited. Alastairward (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)