Talk:South Park/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}

To put the correct production softwares.[1]--MacEmp (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

 Not done per template. Please put the request as "Please change X to Y," not "Please change X." Leujohn ^(talk) 13:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

New Edit request

Please change the current production softwars with the correct ones, found here[2]EmpMac (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Read the template. You have to specify the exact change. Change from what to what? - kollision (talk) 12:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok.

cartman tribute - "screw you guys im going home. ill kick you in the nitz." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.118.21.97 (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

From this:

""Subsequent episodes have been produced by computer animation providing a similar look to the originals. CorelDRAW is used to create the characters, which are animated using modern computer animation tools: first PowerAnimator and then Maya, which Parker and Stone described as "building a sandcastle with a bulldozer.""

To this:

""Subsequent episodes have been produced by computer animation providing a similar look to the originals. Cut pieces of paper imported with a Scanner or Adobe Photoshop are used to create the characters, which are animated using Autodesk Maya, and with added special effects with programs such as Motion from Final Cut Studio, as stated in an interview with the South Park Studios directors from Apple."" --EmpMac (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is quite right. South Park is definitely not made using paper cutouts anymore and characters are definitely made using CorelDRAW. I've added the information about Motion. kollision (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Dude, CorelDraw is NOT available for mac (and they use only macs) and is not cited in the interview. What makes you think that those have been made with CorelDraw? Nowadays they only use Photoshop for the characters.EmpMac (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! CorelDraw IS available for Mac and has been for years. I've personally used it on an OSX machine. What the hell are you talking about?

205.219.133.1 (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

CorelDraw is actually no longer available for mac, doesn't mean they don't use it though. [3] --Tm1000 (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The boys' names being mentioned long before their proper intro in Characters section

Doesn't this seem a bit awkward? Perhaps their full names can go into the lead while cutting repetitions. Uthanc (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I added the boys names to the lead section. Swellman (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Please add Jay Leno short http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozm3H8rg6PU in the "Shorts" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.244.165.132 (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Writing credits

Is there any info available on the fact that Parker is sole writer of the show these days? It seems ignored in this article, and just about every article I've read on the subject... I find it weird that Stone gets equal credit when it seems he simply does voices and that's about it. 98.224.64.222 (talk)

Got a reference for that? - Denimadept (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Parker writes the actual scripts, while Stone and the other writers pitch in with ideas. I know this to be true, but don't have any sources.--Swellman (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Parker takes sole writing credits on every episode I've seen over the last several years, so it stands to reason that Stone has a limited role. Curious if anyone had any solid source info in this area of how Stone/Parker address this fact. 98.224.64.222 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC).

In the FAQs of "Southparkstudios.com" it says that Matt Stone deals with the network, joins writer meetings and co-writes songs [4], so it's not like Trey Parker does all the work while Matt Stone just puts his name on it. Six words (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That's true. I've seen televised interviews explaining the process of how they make an episode in under a week (one which was particularly informative was an interview they did on 60 Minutes). They have a staff of writers (which includes Matt) who all have a meeting and pitch ideas, and Trey finalizes it in the form of a script. Matt had to direct a few episodes while Trey was busy directing the movie, and Matt later said that it was too stressful for him, so he's perfectly happy letting Trey direct all the episodes. Matt is still an integral part of the show, and I think the Terrance and Phillip: Behind the Blow episode was a spoof on the perception that Matt doesn't do an equal share of the work. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

South Park goes HD

Will be broadcasted in HD from season 13. http://www.southparkstudios.com/news/3581/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eerik89 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This could be added to the distribution section.--Swellman (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

But it is a cartoon... What is the POINT? It will hardly make any difference...Celtic Muffin&Co. (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

HD shows more detail, so they will be able to display more detailed animations and effects. You aren't implying that cartoons can magically show more detail without HD than filmed shows? Try comparing computer graphics at 640x480 to modern times. 24.21.10.30 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It actually makes a HUGE difference, I walked in on an episode in HD and you can clearly see the edges of everything. Plus now it's in 16:9 format which means it fits newer TVs. --Tm1000 (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

List of songs in South Park

I'm new to the SP pages on wikipedia, so I was looking around a bit and was surprised to see no article specifically about music in SP. I'm preaching to the choir here, but music is a big part of the show with so many original songs composed by Trey, and they even made a musical film. Not to mention all the existing songs used and parodied.

So I decided to start a new page List of songs in South Park with 2 main sections 1) Original songs and 2) Existing songs. But when I went to create it I was surprised to see that there used to be a page with that exact name that was deleted in July 2007. Here's the link to the debate and decision to delete it.

So rather than forge ahead with the possibility that it'd be deleted again, I'm writing here to see what people around here think of it. As I stated before, I think it definitely merits to be its own page, and I have some suggestions on incorporating it into the template. But first things first. What are SP editor's thoughts on the matter? --Armchair info guy (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a music section on the main South Park article. I do agree that music is very important to the show, but I don't think that making a list of every song ever on the show is neccasary.--Swellman (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in, Swellman. Just looked at your contrib history and see many SP edits. Thanks for making all those.

The current music section is pretty weak right now, so I suppose I can start there. But I still think the sheer amount of original music, from both the show and movie, plus all the covers and parodies warrants its own article. -Armchair info guy (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: a kind admin gave me a copy of the newest "List of songs in SP" before the page was deleted. Check it out at my user space. I have several things say about it after browsing it:

1. It's incredibly comprehensive. I honestly had no idea there are so many original tunes. Granted most are brief but still so many.
2. The top-level organization is exactly like the way I thought of and proposed in my first comment (split into original and existing). But if we do choose to restore it then the sub-sections could use some more order - organize by episode with list of songs in each or something like that. And perhaps more importantly, it could use some more meat on its bones, like explanation of the context of each song and other relevant info so it won't look like a long list of trivia like many said in the deletion vote (see my OP above).
3. The intro is ridiculously short. It needs a useful explanatory intro similar to the "List of episodes" page.
4. This page gets ~10K hits a day, so it's incredibly popular and I definitely think that a good percentage of visitors would be people like the original "List of songs" editors and myself who want to see lists like this. More useful info to complement the wealth of SP info already here.

--Armchair info guy (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Recently south park released a new song called "Gay Fish" a parody of the song heartless by Kanye West. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewatermonkey (talk • contribs) 02:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

south park colorado is a real town

There really is a town in the mts. of colorado named south park. l lived there for 30 yrs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.174.93.48 (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I lived in Castle Rock for a few years. There is no town nearby called South Park. People would commonly refer to the southern portion of Park County as "South Park", but there is actually no town of the same name. I'm guessing the intention of the town within the show is meant to be a generalization of the small towns in the general area of southern Park County. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have lived in CO for the past 18 years. There is a small community in Park County named South Park, however I am not sure that it is leagally a town. There is real estate sold in South Park. One of the creators, maybe Trey, grew up in Conifer and probably knew about the real South Park, however I cannot state for certain that he named the show after it or, as you said, meant for it to be a generalization of the local towns. But South Park definitely is real, I've been there. Perhaps a new section should be added to the page regarding the origins of the name.--Mwilliamd2 (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is inspired by both Fairplay, Colorado and South Park CitySynchronism (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The real town of South Park is recieving royalties from the show. I dont think they would be able to do that if it wasnt actually a town. it is a very small town within the larger park county, but a town none the less. this should be changed on the page. --Euphoria320 (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Got a verifiable source for that claim? DP76764 (Talk) 06:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

So people do the South Park town really exists or not? 79.114.69.172 (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No. As I stated in this post, and as stated in the article, there is a region in Colorado referred to as South Park. There is no town or city by this name. If there is, how hard should it be to verify? No one has been able to do so. South Park is apparently harder to locate than Atlantis. All we have are people claiming to live there. Not one editor providing a map, White Pages listing, or verifiable source from the web to indicate that such a town exists.

In all likelihood, the name of the town (for the show) was chosen to indicate that the town is intended to be generalization of towns in the South Park region (such as Fairplay). Just read the source that is used as a reference to the section of that article that says this: "South Park" is, in reality, the name of an area not a town, but Parker and Stone would probably have been accused of implausible wackiness had they called their creation after its original, the county seat Fairplay.

The above statement that there is a town called South Park which receives royalties from the show is ridiculous. Even if there were such a town with the same name, a town is not an intellectual property created as a work of art. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Different versions of episodes

As my last talk entry here was removed by User:Kollision for reasons not quite clear to me [5], here another try. I've been doing some edits as an IP before, and I've never noticed that talk pages are "policed" like that - I don't think it's appropriate at all, my edit was clearly article-related and neither vandalism nor gibberish. Who has the right to say "ah, this entry is okay, but that one is slightliy off-topic, so I simply remove it"? I find that quite disturbing!

Back to topic: There exist different versions of e.g. the Mecha-Streisand espisode. Originaly, the Streisand character had as a head an actual portrait photo of Barbara Streisand. Now in the streaming version on southparkstudios.com, it had a cartoon head. Another example for the use of celebrity photos is the episode Tom's Rhinoplasty, where Mr. Garrison sports the head of David Hasselhof. I think the use of these heads should be introduced in the article, along with the mentioning that in some cases it had to be removed, and maybe the reasons for this removal can be found. -- Seelefant (talk) 10:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for this? I've been a South Park fan for years and i've never heard anything about a different version. Maybe you're thinking of the original airing of the episode "Spooky Fish", in which they used actual photos of Barbara Streisand that were taken out in re-airings.--Swellman (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course you're right, forget the whole thing. -- Seelefant (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Opinions on character templates requested

I've made a post on the discussion page for the character templates regarding a character's first appearance. Any posts of thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. Thanks. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 07:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe change the opening section

...To reflect the fact that the new season will start on the 11th of March 2009:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/news/3581 77.102.214.158 (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Aliens

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the gray aliens from Cartman gets an Anal Probe appear at least once in every episode, I've seen them time and time again for brief moments in many episodes, both new and old, leading me to believe they're a recurring 'easter egg'. In Bloody Mary, for example, they appear in the car window when Randy is talking to Stan about going to the Mary statue. In Cow Days, they appear at the very end as the limo driver. In Cartman's Mom is a Dirty Slut, they appear at one point in the large crowd of potential fathers. So on and so forth, does anybody have a source stating that this reoccurance is intentional, because, I can't *prove* the reoccurances, only list the ones I know of. Xanofar (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about those aliens - at southparkstudios.com they call them "hidden visitors"[6]. Six words (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've read several times that they stopped including the "hidden visitors" several years ago. Stone even mentions it in a 2004 interview, but then again he jokes about the animators still doing it, but so well that no one can spot them in recent episodes (although, like the OP says, there is an obvious appearance in 2005's "Bloody Mary"). I've rarely spotted them myself. Maybe the "Have you seen me?" poster in the cafeteria is a nod to the "hidden visitors". Who knows. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

South Park Wikia

I'm aware that wikipedia doesn't go into article topics into great detail so can we add the www.southpark.wikia.com link to the external links section which has a more concise and indepth look about characters, plot and has trivia and goof sections.

Cheers! Jpanzerj (talk) 08:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"Concise"? No. Unencyclopedic? Yes. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair to call Butters the "fifth main character"?

Recent additions to the articles of the "main four" states them as "sharing the stage" as such with Butters now, and I happen to agree (he certainly gets significantly more focus now than Kenny). In this article (and character-related articles) is it fair to state him alongside the other four boys as one of the show's main characters? If so, what's the best way? Input, por favor. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I was reading an interview with Matt Stone (here) where he considers that, for the most part, Kenny is mostly a "prop" character, but an important character nevertheless. He then emphasizes that the show "will always be at its heart a show about FOUR boys". Whether or not he means that no one will ever supplant Kenny, or that even a character as prominent as Butters will never be considered a new addition to the core group of main characters (Stan, Kyle, Cartman, and Kenny), I don't know. The interview is also from 2005, and can the word of the show's co-creator overrule a consensus of what Wikipedia editors might say otherwise? To me, raised questions such as this made me re-think about what I asked above, so for now I'm withdrawing the slight proposal I made in the earlier post, and I guess all other entries (stating Butters as the "fifth main character") on related articles should be removed (at least temporarily until whatever resolution might come from this). - SoSaysChappy (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If you man the four main boys I'd say the opening credits are a fair guide (to which boys are consistently grouped together). I do not see what is wrong ith calling attention to the core four and then immediately going on to other notable characters like Butters. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess my real question is essentially this... In the opening of this article, would you have it say 1) the show revolves around four boys - Stan, Kyle, Kenny, and Cartman; 2) the show revolves around five boys - Stan, Kyle, Kenny, Cartman, and Butters; or 3) the show revolves around four boys - Stan, Kyle, Kenny, and Cartman; and then, as you mentioned, add something a sentence or so later about how Butters has essentially become the "fifth" major child protagonist? I'm thinking either 1 (which is already how the opening is at the time of this post) or 3 (on account of all the factors I've already mentioned on this particular topic). - SoSaysChappy (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I also like option 3. I say add the sentence "During the 5th season Butters Stotch also became a main character." to the intro. Or it could be "the show revolves around 5 boys - ..., and Butters, who became a main character in the 5th season - ..." --Armchair info guy (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm liking 3 now, too. Give the discussion a few more days and then I'll make edits if necessary. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I had forgotten about this discussion and checked back on it before I made an edit. When reading the article, I feel the mention of Butters being a primary character in the "Premise" section is sufficient, and the lead is fine the way it is. I'll leave it up to someone else to make an edit in regard to this discussion if they feel like they need to, as I am stumped as to how and why it can be re-worded when it's already well detailed in its present form. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Butters is no longer mentioned in the "Premise" section.Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This is as it should be. Butters is a supporting character, not a main character. - Denimadept (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I used to feel that Butters deserved mention as one of the main protags, but I gradually began to feel differently after observing that there is a lot less real-world info about Butters than there is about the "main 4". Overall, they've gotten the bulk of the coverage, and there could be some problems with undue weight if you include Butters in the description of the show's central main characters. In "Wikipedia terms", I would have to agree that he is major supporting character, but should not receive focus as a member of the "core group" that includes Stan, Kyle, Kenny, and Cartman. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Not banned in Russia

The show is not banned in Russia. And never was. Otherwise citation is needed. The channel that aired South Park was criticized and was about to be shut down. But South Park was not the main reason for that. Refer to this article: 2x2_(TV_channel), "Controversies and cryticism" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotmax (talk • contribs) 20:13, March 7, 2009

One month and no cite, can someone remove it? 24.21.10.30 (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. The link used as a source in the article mentioned above is written in Russian, so I have no idea as to the specifics of what it says, but one can gather that the show has actually aired there. Either way, there is already some good info on this issue in the South Park controversies article, although now that I'm looking at that, I'm wondering if that article should be merged into this one. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

South Park merge discussion

Please see Talk:List_of_South_Park_episodes#Merger_proposal. Cirt (talk) 05:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Robert Smith voices himself in the 12th episode of season 1 (Mecha Streisand). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rochstar (talk • contribs) 15:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

emmy

In season 11 - more crap at the end, an emmmy witch has appeard several times on the screen is jammed into the huge crap randy makes at the end of the episode.

øyvind —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.49.120.151 (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

People keep adding and removing the "emmy award nominated". Check the latest three revisions:

07:53, 2 April 2009 Vanishdoom (talk | contribs) (39,111 bytes) (Undid revision 281250445 by Redskies08 (talk))
07:51, 2 April 2009 Redskies08 (talk | contribs) (39,131 bytes)
03:28, 2 April 2009 Guinea pig warrior (talk | contribs) (39,111 bytes)

for example.

The thing is, southpark did win several emmy awards. http://animatedtv.about.com/cs/news/a/awards_2.htm -auzi, talk

The Manual of Style for films and television and other articles about fiction discourages noting what awards the subject of the article has won, "as it provides insufficient context to the reader", and instead suggests that "a short overview of any significant awards and honors" should be provided later in the lead section. This is exactly how this article is in this regard, and should remain that way. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

South Park Featured topic drive

WikiProject South Park participants have started a page at WP:SOUTHPARK/TOPIC to organize featured topic drive collaborations. The primary goal is to improve the quality of articles about South Park episodes, with the ultimate end goal of getting sets of episodes by season to Good Topic or even Featured Topic status. We are starting off by focusing on Season 1, to get it to Good Topic status, see Wikipedia:WikiProject South Park/Featured topic Drive/season 1. Any help is appreciated, and feel free to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Park/Featured topic Drive. Cirt (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

HBC‽

HBC states it's a fictional television network in the South Park universe Capitals. In the episode It Hits the Fan, Cartman wears a Shit-shirt with a small HBC logo on its side. However, the term does not appear in “South Park”. Is it a spoof on HBO? Maybe it should be added to the article. -- Gohnarch^░░░░ 06:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Without a source, this would all be speculation. DP76764 (Talk) 16:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Continuity

In the derby episode they mention first landing, it's not their first landing, aliens have been in south park many times. I think there's been 4 or 5 different aliens, marklar, future people, first episode ect. seems like, in recent seasons they're not having older episodes apply. Wiggl3sLimited (talk) 05:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I guess it could be their first contact with that specific race of aliens...but, more importantly, "future people" were humans from the future, not aliens. In the episode "Cartman Gets An Anal Probe" only the kids and Chef were really aware of the aliens, and as for the Marklar, the parents were hardly involved. Rafajs77 (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

SPS Streaming video viability

Well in Scandinavia we can't watch these from there. I think it should be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V v p (talk • contribs) 16:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there a list of countries where episodes from South Park Studios can be viewed? If such a list is unavailable what countries can not watch episodes on SPS? Darabo (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Summary of major edit

While this edit was rather extensive, I mostly just expanded the article and incorporated what was already in place. The article is fairly clear of bad prose, OR, POV, etc., and I only made a few alterations:

• In the "Premise" section, removed examples of the topics covered. There must be over 100 topics that have been addressed during the series, and not really fitting to give undue weight to only a handful of examples. Links to the main "theme" and "subject matter" articles are there.
• Removed sentence using imdb as source. Moved "Fairplay" info to another section and used another source. Couldn't find any specific info stating that the town is also based on Littleton.
• Kind of reworded a small portion of the "Animation" subsection so that it wouldn't consist of technical jargon that would dumbfound those of us who haven't mastered an understanding of complex computer animating software after a casual read-through.
  
• John Hansen is still working for the show, and is potentially available to voice Mr. Slave. Why was he described as a "former" voice cast member?

This is a work in progress; I'll probably finish with the lead and the second half sometime this weekend. Meanwhile, please post gripes, thoughts, disagreements, suggestions, etc. Thanks. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Second major edit

First off, when I finished a complete overhaul, it was almost 140kb, so I had to trim a lot of the secondary details I had from the edit described above and my work-in-progress. The "controversy" section I had as a work-in-progress was waaaay long. Try not to expand too much as it is now because I can incorporate the extra info into the other main articles that are linked within this one (particularly the "controversy" article). Okay...on to the alterations and comments

• Tweaked billing order of voice cast in infobox (moved John Hansen below Jennifer Hwell and Adrien Beard as they have bee voicing their respective characters since before Hansen began voicing his) Also removed flag icon.
• Removed some OR from the "Music" section.
• Added more context to "Ratings" subsection, as previous entry seemed to generally repeat "season x had a rating of x.x" over and over. Also added more sources to same subsection to relieve it of its excessive dependence on one source.
• Most sources I found say Chicago Hope was the original "shit" episode, while I a couple say it was NYPD Blue. I put Chicago Hope in the article. Hope it's right.
• Removed "A diminished level of creativity caused by the stress of making the film has also been cited as a reason for the drop in ratings in the third season" I've never liked this ...it's sourced but reflects the opinion of only one person. If other sources can be used to clarify "lack of creativity", its relation to the making of the film, and other sources substantiating that viewers or studies indicated a relative lack of interest in the 3rd season because of a lower level of creativity would greatly improve this little portion. Not trying to sound biased or disapproving of a marginally "negative" comment towards the show or series, just simply have issues with the lack of context.
• DMX is not in the "Chef Aid" episode (fix if I'm wrong!)
• Portion detailing international carriers of the show in the "Distribution" subsection needs sources!
• Pinball and action figure info in "Merchandise" section needs sources.
• Guinness Record for most swearing in a film needs source.
• Added images.
• Added "Further reading".

Happy Memorial Day. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice job, Chappy! Big improvement in the article as a whole. Definitely worthy of GA status IMO. --Armchair info guy (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's already awaiting a review. Even if it doesn't pass, it's at least in much better shape than it was during its previous nomination. Only thing left to do, I think, would be to maybe add a short paragraph about the business side of the production (hopefully to better explain how Parker handles the directing, while Stone handles the majority of the executive producer duties) while trimming a few more of the descriptive prose — it's not critical but I think it's best to leave it under the magic number of 100kb. Anyways, thanks for the encouraging feedback, and thanks for some of your follow-up copyediting! - SoSaysChappy (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo

Not Terry. 122.167.74.49 (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference, please? - Denimadept (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. Found Terri Schiavo case. - Denimadept (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Already fixed too :) DP76764 (Talk) 18:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Corel Draw

As illustrated here:

South Park is still made in Corel Draw. Only the storyboard is made in Photoshop. They run it virtualized, as there's no Mac version. --ISEETRUTH (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell in the video, we're only shown the process that leads up to the actual animation (the storyboarding and importing of stock images, using CorelDraw). This doesn't contradict the article and the sources already in place, which state that Maya is then used in the final phase of animation. This would be an excellent source to use to elaborate on the earlier phases of animation, though. I'll try to get to it soon. As far as the Mac thing, there's already a discussion raging about that on this talk page (above), and until some hard sources can be produced (in addition to the ones already being used in the article) I'm not touching it with a 20-, 40-, or 60-foot pole. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What needs to be changed is this part:

"Beginning with season five, the animators employed the same method, instead using Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Illustrator to design new characters and objects, and Maya to animate them." In the video I posted above, the Animator specifically says: "We design characters in Corel Draw. We design background, characters, props and also special poses..."

You can clearly see in the video that they're running Windows virtualized. Look at this image:

http://img87.imageshack.us/i/53828826.png/

It's pretty much undeniable.

By the way: The full series of in-the-making videos:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/news/3689

--ISEETRUTH (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. I don't think the section was ever intended to give the impression that they stopped using CorelDraw during phase 2 of the animation process (phase 3....profit!), but it really wasn't worded properly. I went ahead and moved the recent edit regarding this closer to the sentence about the storyboarding process. I simply removed the info about the Mac/Maya thing. I think the sentence was intended to state that they use Macs when operating Maya, but read as if Windows was not used for ANYTHING on the show anymore. It was a kind of irrelevant (and unsourced) tidbit anyway. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks better now. Here's a list of used machines anyway: http://www.apple.com/pro/profiles/southpark/index2.html

Now screw you guys, I'm going home --ISEETRUTH (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Refs

Four refs have died, so can someone please fix these. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 23:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

These pages have sat around for years and they suddenly die once they're used as references in this article? Go figure! I'll look into finding some replacements. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 04:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Only one needed to be replaced, the others supported sentences which also have references to other sources. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:South Park/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will begin to review this article shortly. See Talk:Abismo Negro/GA1 To find out what type of a review I will give. I hope the editor(s) that will hopefully resolve my concerns that I intend to post later on is an experienced one at that. Seeing as I am a fan of the show this should be interesting, but I am not involved in any project affiliated with it, so I have no idea which references are reliable, questionable, etc. So be prepared for questions regarding material of that nature.--WillC 08:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   Seems stable enough to pass this section of the criteria.--WillC 08:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   File:SP-s10e04-censor.jpg needs a fair-use rational. Per the wikipedia MoS, images should not be placed on the left directly below level three headers. The image under the "Characters and setting" section and the image in the "Music" section both violate this. Add a caption for the infobox image. Change the second image's caption from "The boys (in order from left to right): Eric Cartman, Kyle Broflovski, Stan Marsh, and Kenny McCormick." to "The main characters (in order from left to right): Eric Cartman, Kyle Broflovski, Stan Marsh, and Kenny McCormick" In the music image, remove "the late" from "Chef would often sing in a style reminiscent of that of his voice actor, the late Isaac Hayes." It is not important that he is dead, just that the character sung like his voice actor. Change "A censorship card from the second Cartoon Wars episode, amidst Controversy." to "A censorship card from the second Cartoon Wars episode was surrounded in controversy." Complete sentences need periods, but if the captions are referring to the image directly, they do not end with periods. That is apart of the MoS, I believe. I forget the link, it was something I learned a long time ago.--WillC 03:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

   Add alternative text as well.--WillC 04:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

   If a caption for the infobox identifies the main characters (gathered around the town sign) by name, then would the image under "Characters and settings" be redundant per WP:NFCC? Or should the infobox caption be along the lines of "Season 13 title card"? Also, is the image of the "censorship card" really needed? A screenshot of white words on a black screen...the text in the section seems to sufficiently describe it to the reader, no? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

   Remove the censorship screenshot if you wish. The less fair-use images the better. The caption for the main image I feel should be "A screenshot from the opening title sequence featuring all of the South Park characters as of ____." I don't feel it would be redundant.--WillC 02:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

   Done. Though someone may want to tweak the caption I added; I've been told I can be "too wordy". - SoSaysChappy (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Entire review

Lead Info box Add a caption for the infobox image.--WillC 03:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Even though the lead and any infoboxes are just the opening to the article and the information featured there will be or should be mentioned later on where each statement will be sourced, I feel that the information featured in the infobox right now should all have citations. So please add a ref to each section.--WillC 02:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Done. But for the life of me, I could not find a decent source (anything other than a tech forum) to support the bit about the show running in 480i for its first 12 seasons. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Then remove it.--WillC 00:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Oh...already had. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Text "South Park is an American animated sitcom, created by Trey Parker and Matt Stone for the cable channel Comedy Central." Link American, even though this is the English wikipedia we aren't the US pedia, there are other English speaking countries. Also remove the comma and change the last part of the sentence to "for the Comedy Central television network." Channel seems so unprofessional/out of place. Just to be blunt it reads badly. Hard to explain my feelings about it further. "which led to the greenlighting of the series by Comedy Central." Greenlighting is jargon, so be sure to explain it per WP:Jargon for non-fans or ones not familiar with the on-goings in TV like myself. The rest of the lead is fine.--WillC 06:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Fixed. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Characters and setting "The show mostly follows a group of four boys" Remove "mostly", it is unneeded. Around 90% of the time it follows at least one of the boys.--WillC 01:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC) All righty. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Themes "South Park was the first weekly program to be assigned the TV-MA rating, and is generally intended for adult audiences." The second part of the sentence has me wondering. Should it instead be "South Park was the first weekly program to be assigned the TV-MA rating, which is generally intended for adult audiences." or am I just breathing too much into it and I should take it just as it reads? I'm not sure I quite follow. Do you mean maybe it should read "...which is generally assigned to a show that is intended for mature audiences" to reflect what the MA rating means? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Nevermind it. I'm thinking too much.--WillC 17:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC) "During earlier seasons, this speech would commonly beginning with a variation of the phrase "You know what? I've learned something today..."." → "During earlier seasons, this speech would commonly begin with a variation of the phrase "You know what? I've learned something today...".[" Already fixed this one. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC) After reading this section, I now see that the name of the section is incorrect. When I first saw it I thought music, maybe you should rename it too "Running gags" or something more appropriate. The name at the moment does work but I feel it can be renamed to be more straight forward.--WillC 05:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Hmm. What else could you call it? A running gag is such a minor device in fiction (in the grand scheme of things), and doesn't adequately encompass everything described in this section. A "theme" in fiction is a much more broad component. How about renaming it "themes and style"? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC) That will do.--WillC 17:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Origins "Friend and Brian Graden commissioned Parker and Stone to create a second short film as a video Christmas card." → "Brian Graden, Fox network executive and a mutual friend, commissioned Parker and Stone to create a second short film as a video Christmas card." When I first read it I thought you were referring to a network called "Friend", until I finally figured out what was meant. This way it can be avoided for future reference. Agreed! Fixed - SoSaysChappy (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC) "The two then entered talks with both MTV and Comedy Central.", "enetered talks" if the main problem here. Change it to "The two then entered negotiations with both MTV and Comedy Central." Done - SoSaysChappy (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Maybe renamed the section to "Creation" to be more direct. Well, most of this section deals with events leading up to its actual creation. Re-name it "Origins and creation"? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC) That will do.--WillC 17:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC) In the image description show which is Stone and which is Parker.--WillC 06:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Makes sense. Done - SoSaysChappy (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Production Fine.--WillC 17:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Animation "which are now created using Motion" Gives a small explanation as to what Motion is to keep consistency since the other software has been explained.--WillC 18:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC) "while others will incorporate other styles of animation." → "while others has incorporated other styles of animation."--WillC 18:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Done - SoSaysChappy (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Voice cast "Mary Kay Bergman voiced the majority of the female characters until her suicide near the end of the third season (1999)." → "Mary Kay Bergman voiced the majority of the female characters until her suicide on November 11, 1999." This way it doesn't seem like she died in the show, which is what first popped in my mind when I read it and I'm a fan of the show. "performance pseudonym Blue Girl." Link "pseudonym".--WillC 18:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Done - SoSaysChappy (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Guest stars Fine, I think.--WillC 18:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Music Fine as well, possibly.--WillC 19:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Title sequence Fine, (once again I'm bored so I will leave a uncertin statement to screw with readers) interesting, but possible. Distribution "Canada on Comedy Network" → "Canada on The Comedy Network"--WillC 19:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC) "have been released by Rhino and Comedy Central," Link Rhino.--WillC 19:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC) "available for streaming from The Comedy Network's website" Delink The Comedy Network, overlinking from above.--WillC 19:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Done - SoSaysChappy (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Ratings "1.3 (980,000 viewers)" Damn that seems wrong. As you can see by my name I'm a wrestling fan, and I've dealt with a few ratings. Programs with get a 1.3 usually end up getting near double that viewership. Something must be wrong here. TNA Impact! usually gets a 1.3 and has around 1.8 million viewers normally. The same concern for "8.2 rating (6.2 million viewers)".--WillC 19:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC) A rating represents what percentage of households with televisions were watching a program. A 1.3 roughly means that 1.3% of homes (with TVs) watched that particular episode (viewership is estimated based on that). This was over ten years ago, and the number of households with TVs has increased since then, thus today there is a higher comparative number of viewers per ratings point. This site explains it better than I do. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Recognitions and awards "The same year, Rolling Stone declared it has having been the funniest show on television since its debut 10 years prior." → "The same year, Rolling Stone declared it to be the funniest show on television since its debut 10 years prior." Shorter and makes more sense. I put a WTF face on when I read it.--WillC 19:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Done - SoSaysChappy (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC) "South Park won the CableACE Award award for" Ding ding Johnny, you are correct the answer is redundancy. It sounds better just as "South Park won the CableACE Award for"--WillC 19:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC) It needs to be changed into what again? (this says to change it into exactly what it already reads...I think) - SoSaysChappy (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC) There is a double "award".--WillC 05:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Oh. Duh. Don't know how I didn't catch that even after reading it 12 times. Anyway...fixed. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Criticism and controversy This section would be better as a level three under Reception.--WillC 19:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC) "latter claiming it as "dangerous to the democracy"." → "latter claiming it is "dangerous to the democracy"." "Parker and Stone were angered by a cartoon Michael Moore included in his 2002 documentary film Bowling for Columbine. The two claim both the cartoon's resemblance to the animation style of South Park and its placement immediately following Stone's interview in the film are intended to mislead viewers into thinking the two had produced the cartoon themselves. Parker and Stone accused Moore of using similar forms of manipulation and deception in his films, and responded by spoofing him in their 2004 film Team America: World Police." What does this have to do with South Park? This would be better in Bowling for Columbine, which I must say is very interesting, or in Stone and Parker's articles.--WillC 19:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Yeah, upon reading it some more, I agree with the Michael Moore thing. I just went ahead and removed it. Fixed the other stuff as well. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Cultural impact After reading the first two paragraphs I've begun to consider it should be renamed to "Political impact" instead. Section seems fine, but take this in mind, move the political information to the end and place it under a level three header with the name I gave above.--WillC 20:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Done - SoSaysChappy (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Film ""Best Music, Original Song"." Link this.--WillC 20:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Done - SoSaysChappy (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Media and merchandise Fine, I think, this one I'm unsure of.--WillC 20:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC) References What makes the following reliable (remember not involved in this area, so some could just be dumb questions): My comments regarding the reliability of each source will follow the web addresses already typed below. Any of the edits I mention below are found here and here.- SoSaysChappy (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC) allmovie.com - Used to source the genre of the show (animated sitcom) and the date it debuted (August 13, 1997). The site specializes in providing stats such as this on movies and television shows, and unlike imdb, its staff handles this aspect, while requiring sources if users wish to correct such information. Macleans.ca. - The articles from this site are mostly used to source sentences that are also supported by other sources. When it sources a sentence by itself, it draws upon information found from interviews from the creators of the show. reason.com. - This source is an article that could be considered an opinion piece. But the only portions used in this article do not refer to any opinions of the author, but to facts about the movement that opposes the show due to its content. The sentences that it references are also further confirmed by other sources. Reason has been endorsed and praised by The Chicago Tribune, New York Times, Washington Post, among others, and had its articles re-printed in several other high profile publications. [7] collegian.psu.edu - "South Park was the first weekly program to be assigned the TV-MA rating,[20]"; The source got its information from a Comedy Central press release, and from an interview with a spokesperson for the channel. independent.co.uk - This is the website for one of the more prominent newspapers in the UK (The Independent). Four separate articles from the site are used as sources; one (written by a television and arts writer) sources info regarding the style of the show, another sources facts about the history of the show (while further verifying info with multiple refs), the third is an interview with a guest voice of the show which refs his appearance in an episode, and the last refs the Seinfeld/Turkey bit, on which the info on such was received through an interview with the creators. browardpalmbeach.com. - This source contains information from interviews with the creators and uses info published by the Nielsen Ratings. It was written by Robert Wilonsky, who is the current pop culture editor for The Dallas Observer, while having his columns published in numerous other publications, as well as filling in for Roger Ebert on his movie review show. spscriptorium.com. - This one is indeed unreliable. It's a fansite. While it sourced info that isn't all that disputable (that two "precursor" shorts were created in 1992 and 1995) I went ahead and replaced it with better source anyway (CNN/Fortune magazine article). deadlinehollywooddaily.com - This one was used to ref Debbie Liebling's role in the show. The site does seem kind of blig-ish, so I replaced it with another article from variety.com (see below) variety.com. - This is the web version for Variety, which is one of the two most widely-circulated entertainment insider publications, specializing in entertainment news and intended for people in the entertainment business. Digizine - Reliable within context: it's used to source the sound engineering . The site specializes in articles intending to be of interest to people who work with digital technology, and the source article gets its info from interviews with the show's own sound engineers. doghouseboxing.com - It's a site dedicated to boxing and sources the bit about ring announcer Michael Buffer being a guest voice for an episode. I'll add another source (from the New York Daily News) for further verification. marinij.com. - It sources Brent Musburger's guest appearance for an episode. Other sources to verify this are hard to find, since running a news search on Musburger and South Park returns a slew of articles on celebrity birthdays (he and Matt Stone share the same birthday). On a little side note, Musburger's name does appear in the episode's closing credits. This is the online version of The Marin Independent Journal, which is the official newspaper of Marin County, just north of San Francisco. Whether or not it is reliable, I will leave to you. Here is their website. If its reliability is questionable, I would say it's best to remove the Musburger info until a better source can be found. telegraph.co.uk - Online version of a fairly prominent newspaper in the UK. Its own article on Wikipedia contains a source where it is declared the country's "other paper of record".[1] (here is that very source) animationmagazine.net - Sources Henry Winkler's guest appearance, and gets its info from an interview with Winkler himself. soundtrack.net - Sources the techniques used by former show composer Adam Berry, and gets its info from an interview with Berry himself. indianexpress.com - If you look at the site, it seems to consist of subjective coverage of news, weather, etc. It sources South Park's airing in India. Here's another article that contains interviews with Indian citizens who talk about watching the show there. I'm fairly certain this site is reliable enough to not incorrectly report that the show airs in India, so I would refer to the "common sense" defense per the overview on WP:RS here. perthsites.com - This was meant to support that the show was the most successful on Australia's SBS. Problem is, the source isn't dated, and it also doesn't really imply what it means by "successful", and who knows what other show may have surpassed it? I just removed that tidbit from the article and will leave it as sourcing the info about SP airing on SBS (for the same reason as above) tv6.ee - Well, the link in this source used to go directly to the South Park page on this station's official website. But now, it doesn't. I'll just remove the info about the show airing in Estonia until I can find another source. archives.tcm.ie - Again, I'd have to refer to the reasons I stated above. Within the context in which it is used, I would say the Irish newspaper The Sunday Business Post is reliable enough to not incorrectly report that the show airs in their country. sicradical.chilltime.com. - Sources that SP airs in Portugal on SIC. The link goes to the SP page on SIC's official website. c21media.net - This one, I'm not so sure. They claim to be "The world's leading programming newsfeed". A news search seems to indicate that The New York Post and CBS uses C21 posts in their reports. I went to the English-language version of B92's official website and couldn't figure out how to navigate my way to anything within the site that would indicate that SP airs on their channel, so again, I'll leave this up to your judgment and will remove the bit about SP airing on this channel in Serbia until (if) I can find a more suitable source. snta.com - This one is definitely reliable, as it is the official site of a conglomerate of six of the country's largest television syndicators used to provide information to advertisers. Here is their "about us" page. thedigitalbits.com - Yeah, this one is iffy at best. I replaced with a better source (The Seattle Times) wired.com - This is the online site for Wired. The source uses info from the Nielsen Ratings in its own article, and is used as a source about SP's ratings in this article. Internet Movie Database - Bad source. Already replaced (see below) WorldNetDaily.com - Removed this one, too. Consensus on noticeboard deemed this site unreliable. capalert.com - Reliable within the context: "Several other activist groups have protested the show's parodies of Christianity and portrayal of Jesus Christ.[18][145][146]" This source is the very site of one of those activist groups. miamipoetryreview.com - This one is probably not the best one to use for what it sources (an opinion piece from a poetry review site used to source info on South Park). I removed it from one sentence which has multiple sources, and replaced it with a better source (reason.com, see above, plus this reason article gets its info from an interview with the show's creators) at the end of the one sentence it sourced by itself. IslamOnline.net - Removed this one already. It is blog-ish, and sentence had multiple other sources anyway. independent.ie - This is the online site for the Irish version of The Independent (see above) TeenHollywood.com - Removed this one already (see below) theadvocates.org - This source got its information from an interview with show co-creator Trey Parker. Buzzle.com - Already removed (see below) BuddyTV - After reading this site's "about us" page, I wouldn't consider them all too reliable. I went ahead and removed this one, as it was part of a multiple reference. boxofficemojo.com - Very reliable. It's used on the majority of film articles for sourcing box office figures (which it is being used to source in this article) and is endorsed by the Films Wikiproject. ew.com - Online version of Entertainment Weekly, one of the more prominent magazines that covers arts and entertainment. Definitely reliable if they're reporting on an issue of the Guinness Book of World Records. iol.co.za - Replaced this one with an article from salon.com, an online magazine which is certainly reliable enough considering the context under which it's used as a source (stating that an animated short appears in the Monty Python anniversary special) discogs.com - Yikes. I just realized that this one shares imdb's main flaw (any schmo can submit info without the site's staff verifying it thoroughly). I replaced it with info from the online site of The San Francisco Chronicle. actionfigureinsider.com? - Removed this one. Was part of a multiple reference. Based on reviews for articles about the characters on this show, I removed/replaced a handful of these from those articles, and meant to do the same here (which I just did...IslamOnline, Buzzle and WorldNetDaily). These just had to be removed because there are already other sources in place for the info they referenced. I replaced the spscriptorium refs (spscriptorium is a fan page) and I went ahead and removed the imdb ref (I'll be the first to admit that imdb can be an awful source). I couldn't find any other source to back up Isaac Hayes's 1999 Image Award nomination, so in the meantime I just removed it entirely. As for the rest, I would consider fairly reliable, since they are not used out of context, and are used to ref mostly uncontroversial material. allmovie, boxofficemojo, and discogs are considered reliable for statistics (they are not user-edited). Macleans reliability was brought into question once, but the article used from that site is an interview with the creators of the show (same with TeenHollywood, which was removed along with the Michael Moore material anyway). Whether or not some of these reference disputable material and are not considered reliable, I will leave to your judgment, and will find suitable replacements. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC) I must be honest, one big paragraph on why they are reliable has only left me confused. Could you instead just write the reason why under each of them, so this could be a bit more simple.--WillC 05:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Sure thing. I'll get to the specifics within two days or so. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Well if you can get to it now, this is the only thing holding me from passing the article.--WillC 05:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC) After reading the explanations for reliability of each, I've determined that I will take the rest in good faith, considering you seem like a person who knows enough on reliability of sites. Usually I re-read an article before I pass or fail it, but since this one didn't have many problems, I'm just going to go ahead and pass it.--WillC 18:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Ref 48 has no publisher. Ref 88 has coding problem(s). jam.canoe.ca. should be Canadian Online Explorer as the publisher and "jam! Showbiz: Music" as the work.--WillC 20:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC) All fixed, and I just removed the #88 ref, as other refs support the same statement it did. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Further reading Fine.--WillC 03:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC) External links Fine.--WillC 03:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew language sources

The sentence about the show M.K. 22 and its Hebrew language sources were removed. There is no source in English about this, aren't there enough Hebrew readers here to confirm the sources? I think it's notable and also contributes to the article. Kakun (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I found one site so far, but it really doesn't have anything concrete. The article's author is not a television critic, but does write about culture. However, she merely states that the show is the country's "answer to South Park". I would think more than this would be needed to substantiate the show being a large influence in Israel. I'll keep looking for more. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I think the M.K. 22 article clearly shows that South Park is the main influence on the show. The only problem is the fact that all the sources are in Hebrew, which is to be expected since articles in English about non-English language TV programs are pretty rare. Kakun (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

WGN America now airing old episodes of South Park

someone should mention that WGN America is now airing the old episodes of South Park, making them the first Non-Viacom owned Cable channel to air South Park reruns, and they air it on late night Fridays at Midnight Eastern (making it early Saturdays)/11 PM Central. i don't know if they are airing the Comedy Central original TV-MA version or the Syndication Broadcast TV edited TV-14 version of the episodes.--Boutitbenza 69 9 (talk) 00:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

follow up, it is the syndication version and not the TV-MA version that airs on Comedy Central--Boutitbenza 69 9 (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Distribution

The distribution section needs updating, the south park studios website launched on 6th October 2009, but can only show 5 random episodes at a time.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Simmer1234 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to the launch of the website in a country outside the United States? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Episode Links

What if, rather than having links to info about the episodes on South Park Studios, we add links for to watch the episode instead? Would I be allowed to do that? I know the exact external links. Could I make this a project? C-Son-L Sweaters (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the episode guide is more helpful to the reader because, in addition to already containing a link to the actual episode, it contains other material related to the episode such as FAQs, news releases, and discussion threads. Some other minor issues to consider: the streaming episodes contain more ads than the guide, most internet users are without a high-speed connection, and some may not have the plugin required to view them. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've wondered about these before but at the time didn't know about projects to bring it to further attention. The streaming works for all viewers in the USA at least (legally speaking), but not elsewhere in the world. It's only recently that a new site with streaming episodes has been available for the UK and Ireland and so far only a handful of episodes are available. I'm not sure how other editors feel about that, I just wanted to make sure everyone was aware of it. Alastairward (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Emmy-winning

Is there a problem introducing the series as "Emmy-winning", or "Emmy-Award winning"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.186.63 (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

From MOS:TV: It is not recommended that the phrase "award-winning" be used in the first sentence of the lead: it provides insufficient context to the reader, and subsequent paragraphs in the lead can detail the major awards or nominations received by the television show. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Braniff

Just throwing this out there... In the "music" section it is mentioned that the theme from "Shpadoinkle" is used as the these for Braniff. Lately, this section has ballooned to detail the story behind this few-second clip, which really has nothing to do with music at all. It seems unnecessary, especially in addition to the fact that "Braniff" as a production company doesn't exist. Is any of this section really needed? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 07:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think so. The story is that Stone and Parker needed a vanity card at the end of the show to establish the fact they needed a production company logo on which they can identify with, and they chose "Braniff". We all know how the story ends too...their contract (as a result of brief litigation with the owners of the Braniff trademark) states the logo cannot be used outside of Comedy Central broadcasts. So the Braniff Productions credit will be hereby restored to the article. Now will you "believe it", SoSaysChappy?Hiphats (talk) 04:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Quotes in "Political Impact" subsection

As per Wikipedia:Quote#When not to use quotations, are these really necessary? They also don't seem to shed any further light on what's already written as prose in the section, and the "cat" one seems like it's there just as an excuse to inject a humorous statement into the article. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 09:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Went ahead and removed per the Summary/paraphrase bit in the aforementioned guideline; The quotes don't seem to further enhance any understanding of what is already stated in the section ("Parker and Stone downplay the show's alignment with any particular political affiliation, and deny having a political agenda when creating an episode"). - SoSaysChappy (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Music

Another random thought: Take the "music" subsections from the Production and Media & merchandise sections and merge them to create their own independent section. Good idea or no? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The real South Park

The article makes notice of The Real South Park. Did the contributer who added this look at the date when it's supposedly premiering? April first... They had april fools like that for the past couple of years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.170.18 (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I have contacted SoSaysChappy since he is the one who continuously removes this proof. It has therefore, been removed! Thanks for your input Dwigs (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Easter egg link?

Why the link to television in the United States, piped to look like a link to the United States? What does this do for our readers exactly? Or does it flagrantly breach WP:EGG? I removed it once and was reverted so now I am discussing it here. Reasons to keep it, please. --John (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this a common formatting element of articles like this? Since it's an article about a US TV show? DP76764 (Talk) 19:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it? I don't know. Do you mean this should better be discussed in project talk rather than here? In any case I was hoping that someone could explain why this is a good link for the infobox. Any takers? --John (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking more MOS-ish, actually. If it's not commonly used it should be pulled. The Simpsons article is just text, no link. DP76764 (Talk) 19:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say the discussion would be better suited for WikiProject Television because I, too, have seen a lot of TV-related articles that use this in the infobox, and assumed it was the norm. Although the television series infobox parameters don't specify what to use. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. --John (talk) 06:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

WP LGBT

Hi all, Does anyone know why there is an WP:LGBT banner here? South Park really has little or nothing more to do with homosexuality than any other conceivable subject. Best,--Ktlynch (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ktlynch. Fancy bumping into you here. Although I don't know for certain, I suspect that the banner was placed here because of the seasons where Mr Garrison was openly gay - first as a man then as woman :-). Big Gay Al and Mr Slave might be other reasons. As I think about it the show has dealt with gay themes in other areas, often rudely though. I would lean, slightly, to leaving it - though if consensus was to remove it that would be okay too. I don't know how many other responses you will get here. You might bring the subject up on the talk page for either or both the South Park and LGBT wikiprojects to get a broader range of opinions. MarnetteD | Talk 16:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The show has dealt with LGBT-related topics a bunch of times. Sometimes met with criticism, sometimes set with praise. "Big Gay Al's Big Gay Boat Ride", "Follow That Egg", "The F Word (South Park", are episodes just off the top of my head. I assume that is why the banner is here, but as the post above states, it might be a good idea to ask around in other places for an opinion as to whether or not it's enough coverage for it to be part of the LGBT WikiProject. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi MarnetteD, Good to see you are well! My point is that the series deals with many topics. It's a long-running satirical cartoon; most subjects and themes that occur, well, in life have been treated. Continuing your logic, South Park is also part of WP:Atheism, WP:Religion, WP:Education, WP:Economics, etc. I would agree that it would come under the LGBT WP banner if gay themes were the sole, or even the main, theme of the show, but they're not. Comedy and Television would seem to be the appropiate main categories (and WP South Park, I don't know if it's active or not). I had a look at WP:LGBT and couldn't find any sort of criteria which define the their scope. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I just had a look at the episodes you mentioned Sosayschappy: they examples that clearly fall under WP:LGBT. If that's what the project is interesed in, those articles should be covered, but not the main article. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I see your point Kt. I see that the article has been rated GA by the LGBT wikiproject so I would still be inclined to ask them about this before removing the banner. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 16:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, a GA review is independent of any certain WikiProject. However, collaborative WikiProjects do their own assessment of an article's importance to their group. I agree with Ktlych; certain episodes would clearly be of interest to the LGBT WP, but whether they feel the main article is of at least "low importance" to their own group should be up to them. Do keep in mind that I'm not too familiar with the standard guideline (if any) on who decides when a WikiProject is deemed to be a candidate for having possible interest in an article. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Times Square car bomb: police investigate South Park link

• Allen, Nick (May 2, 2010). "Times Square car bomb: police investigate South Park link - Police in New York are investigating whether a car bomb in Times Square was targeted at the makers of South Park over a controversial depiction of the Prophet Mohammed". The Daily Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group Limited. Retrieved 2010-05-03. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Source, for use in this article. -- Cirt (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Something to be added in the "shorts" section at the bottom

On their 2009 "Snakes and Arrows" tour, Rush used a short of South Park as a video intro to the song Tom Sawyer (for verification, please see either the Snakes and Arrows DVD or any video on Youtube from the tour showing the song Tom Sawyer). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.37.180.16 (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Edits

Re: [8]

Seeing as how this is a basic overview of the premise of the show, is it not best to give a simple one-to-two sentence description of how each character fulfills his role in the series? Going into detail about the history of the timeline of when Kenny started to not die in each episode is a give-or-take area as far as whether or not it needs to be elaborated upon here. There is already a wikilink in the same paragraph that leads the reader to a subsection on his character page that already does this. The previous version until recently states that he only died in each episode during the first five seasons, so saying that he doesn't from season 6 onwards kind of goes without saying. But if this is to be included, the wording can be trimmed to avoid lending undue weight to Kenny in a section meant to describe each main character in equal fashion. I don't see how doing this reflects opinionated ownership of an article.

But calling Kyle the "deep thinker" of the show can be easily challenged, and can be construed as a reflection of a personal editor opinion. It's original research that needs clarification and a source. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm sure someone could find a reference that would clearly point to Stan as the deep thinker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.168.242 (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Censorship

Can we get a sub section in there about censorship - specifically self censorship by Parker and Stone, and Comedy Central, and others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ycherk04 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

200 won´t be shown in Sweden

This after a decision from comedy central. Swedish source: http://www.aftonbladet.se/nojesbladet/article7041610.ab Anyone knows if they are stopping the episodes in other countries? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Naaagh! Why?!! 95.109.102.252 (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The Netherlands did not show 200 & 201 either. They went from 199 to 202. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 09:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Martin.

Add Link

Can we add a link that sends you to the "Episodes List" on this page? At one time I thought it may have been on here, but now it doesn't seem to be on here.

I found this page here on wikipedia and suggest it be the one added. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_South_Park_episodes Kgreg10 (talk) 02:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice catch Kgreg10. Not sure when this was removed but several months ago I couldn't find any link to the page for the film. Might have gotten removed in error or through something more nefarious but I have put it back in. If someone want to add a little info that would be nice and thanks ahead of time for doing so. MarnetteD | Talk 03:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Larsme, 20 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Broken link in note #1

The link in note #1 is broken - current link is http://tv.msn.com/controversial-south-park-episodes/. The article in question can now be found at http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=355548.

Larsme (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No longer making episodes in under a week?

I noticed in a lot of the television promos before Season 14 started showed quick clips (such as Sharon vomiting while reading Boogerballs, Randy being informed he had cancer, and a disheveled Towelie walking the streets) weeks before those respective episodes aired. This leads me to believe that production of an episode might now be started prior to the Thursday before the air date that the "Production" section relays is still the current case. Anyone notice any sources that states the crew is no longer implementing their self-imposed "one-week" window? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• They sometimes start making "banked shows" ahead of time, so they can take a day off at some point and then finish the half episode they started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neocarleen (talk • contribs) 02:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: Lessen A Linked Text

Currently, "legal streaming" links to Streaming media. I suggest to only link "streaming" to it. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, it says "A total of 207 episodes have been broadcast", but Crème Fraiche was the 209th. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

South Park Colorado is not a fictional town

South Park Colorado is a real place. 76.120.68.14 (talk)7o62x39 —Preceding undated comment added 02:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC).

South Park is a fictional town, based on Conifer. See also: South Park, Colorado, South Park (Colorado basin), Archive 2 and Archive 3. Edenc1 • Talk 10:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Geographically it is based on Fairplay (see the Lord of the Rings parody from several season ago where they are going from SP to Conifer). The size of the town does fit more with what Conifer has become. MarnetteD | Talk 22:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Very Confusing Wording.

from the lead: "The ongoing narrative revolves around five children—Stan Marsh, Kyle Broflovski, Eric Cartman and Kenny McCormick(with the exception of Butters Stotch)"

I dont understand why it says "With the exception" part. Id change it but i cant figure out what was trying to be said. Chardansearavitriol (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, as Butters isn't a main character. He's a supporting character. I've removed the wording. Again. Butters seems to have some real fans around here. - Denimadept (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"Issac Hayes" correction

Please correct the infobox (and anywhere else in the article that needs it) to reflect the correct spelling of Isaac Hayes' name. And as a public service announcement: except perhaps for a very few, extremely rare anomalous instances, the name is always spelled Isaac, not Issac. Yes, I know the two a's are scary, but you can get used to them if you just try. 63.104.174.146 (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - this is now corrected. I found only one instance of this spelling error. Issac is a village in Dordogne as it happens! Mezigue (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Butters rowl

B4 Some sorta argument gets out, I would like to add butters as a main character because I have sources, According to the Sp website and South Park Wikia he is one of the 5 main characters. He is also seen with plots featuring him more times than any other character. He also became a main character in season 6 and they never said he unbecame a main character. He also has his own Wikipedia page. (67.168.153.41 (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC))

Fine, if you've got real sources feel free. - Denimadept (talk) 06:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I shall add it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.153.41 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 20 March 2011

Note: the addition requires reliable sources; referencing this talk page is not a reliable source, nor would a wiki page qualify in itself as a reliable source, although such a page might be a location to help you track down such sources. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)The south park website may be a good source (you'd have to link to a specific page so others can assess it), but the south park wikia isn't. --Six words (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You'd also need to override the previous consensus, see Talk:South Park#Butters. Rehevkor ✉ 17:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, way to ignore what I said, anonymous. I said, if you've got sources. You apparently don't have 'em. You made the change with no sources. No donut for you. - Denimadept (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW, to further clarify, I do not agree. I wanted to see your sources. "Permission" isn't needed, consensus is. Butters is not a main character. If he was, he's appear with the four main characters in the title sequence, but he doesn't. Maybe that'll change in the future, but so far it has not. - Denimadept (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

City map of South Park

I copied the city map of South Park from S07E10, maybe it should be implemented into the wiki article? It's the only picture there is where you can see how South Park looks as a city. http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/2295/southparkcity.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.72.227.98 (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Through 2013?

Is this so? In every other case I've seen, I've heard through 2011. Is there a better source than an interview for this? Zazaban (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A concrete source is a must. The creators have been quite good throughout the run of the show of announcing and putting out press releases to clarify news. Jmlk17 22:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I can't seem to find anything. If nothing is found soon, and I don't think it will, it should be changed to 2011. Zazaban (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No source has 2013 as the end date. Sources from tv.com, reuters, cnn, etc. have 2011 as the current end date. The NYT site is a blogsite with an interview. Perhaps it was transcribed incorrectly, but either way, 2011 seems to be the current end date. Jmlk17 21:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the article List of South Park episodes has two solid, concrete sources stating a 2011 date. The show is entering the 15th season in 2011, also stated to be the final season currently under contract. If there was a show through 2013, 17 seasons would be ordered. But there is no mention of 17 anywhere. Jmlk17 21:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe that the source stating South Park has been renewed through 2013 is reliable. All mentions of the show going until 2013 have been made by third party web sites that have not cited where their information came from and all official sources (Comedy Central, South Park Studios) say 2011. If the show had been renewed through 2013 a press release from Comedy Central would have been made by now. I'd suggest keeping the 2013 stuff out until when or if Comedy Central makes an official announcement about the shows renewal. 72.200.71.7 (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

2013 was not confirmed by anyone and that article has no source please remove that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.237.247 (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Influence of South Park in modern comedy.

First time watcher of South Park can be easily offended not just by the explicit sex scenes, the vulgar language, the discriminative orientation of some chapters against minorities or races, and the stereotypes.

However, after several times of watching it, makes perfect sense. It is a comedy not for adults, but in general for people of any age who is smart. It is the newest and smartest type of comedy invented so far.

It is the best way to put people in autoreflexion mode, make them think and laugh "I must be very stupid if I am like that boy Cartman." It is a type of comedy that is moving around the world, but maybe not fast enough. As an example, I remembered the infamous cover of The New Yorker magazine of July 2008 showing the presidential couple, and the explanation from the editors to point at, ridiculize, and even make fun of the absurd way of thinking of some americans against an african-american with muslim name running for president.

- E. Jimenez S. (PhD and lecturer in Kyushu University - Japan). Aug 26, 2011.

Note that this type of comedy is actually quite old. For example, in All in the Family, Archie Bunker was always saying racist things, just like Cartman, to ridicule those positions. StuRat (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Any reliable sources covering this theory or is it all just personal observation? DP76764 (Talk) 18:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

What they said. Without reliable sources this is just some kind of opinion piece and a violation of WP:NOTFORUM. Яehevkor ✉ 18:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, and that would be a justification for removing this from the article. However, on a talk page, you need to leave the section here to see if reliable sources are developed. If so, then it can be added to the main article. If not, no harm done. That's a major purpose of an article talk page, to "sandbox" things until it is determined if they are appropriate for the article or not. To expect such material to be fully sourced on the initial post is unreasonable. StuRat (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem with the initial post is that it doesn't really recommend anything in terms of how/what/where to add to the article, let alone suggest any sourcing. It just seems like a random observation of someone. Granted it could be a good starting point for a discussion on a new section though; the show's been around long enough that surely someone has made cultural impact studies about it. DP76764 (Talk) 20:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I would gladly put money on the OP never coming back, never mind with reliable sources. I stand my by assessment that this is not a legitimate use of a talk page. Яehevkor ✉ 20:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Cheesy Poofs

The name of the fictional snack Cheesy Poofs appears to be a joke (poof is a widely used slang term for a male homosexual in British English, roughly analogous to the American term faggot). If Parker or Stone have ever commented on this it would make a useful addition to the article. It's amazing that they actually managed to persuade somebody to make a real snack with this name and sell it in Wal-Mart. --Ef80 (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Or, it could be a spin on 'cheese puffs', a common American snack. Either way, you'll need a good source discussing this before it warrants adding to the article. It's pretty trivial though, so I don't expect you'll find much in the way of sources. DP76764 (Talk) 22:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

the date is incorrect on the photo caption... should be Oct 5, 2011, not Oct 15, 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.183.149.81 (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

environmental influence

A South Park Character called Mr. Hankey has inspired a environmental Mascot called Mr Floatie. Mr. Floatie is six foot poo costume worn by environmental activists. The Mr. Floatie mascot started in Victoria British Columbia to protest untreated sewage being dumped into the ocean (http://www.poopreport.com/intellectual/the_noble_quest_of_mr_floatie.html). The Mr. Floatie Mascot has also been used in Rye New York to protest environmental conditions on Hen Island (http://www.myrye.com/my_weblog/2008/07/the-hen-island.html). Videos of Mr. Floatie can be seen on Youtube. Mr Floatie also has a facebook page. Msruzicka (talk) 05:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This is fantastic and should definitely be added.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Needs better sourcing (at least) first. DP76764 (Talk) 17:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Political influence

The articles states that the creators reject the conservative and republican labels because "either tag implies that one only adheres to strictly conservative or libertarian viewpoints". However, the source states that Parker rejects the notation that he can only choose between conservative and liberal. Ddnixx (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the structure of the sentence in question, the "choice" being complained about applies to this text: "... both reject the "South Park Republican" and "South Park conservative" labels as a serious notion, feeling that either tag implies ...". Also, the text in the article refers to both Parker and Stone rejecting this choice, but the first source is a dead link and the second source only quotes Parker. At this point, I think the sentence in the article is either confusing or misleading. Perhaps a rewrite of it is in order? DP76764 (Talk) 16:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph basically goes like this: "Some people labeled it a conservative show. But the creators were actually making fun of both sides (conservative and liberal). They reject the label because it implies that these two sides are the only choices." Therefore I don't think the word "libertarian" makes any sense here. Rejecting "Republican" and "conservative" labels because it suggests that you can only choose conservative and libertarian? (Libertarianism is neither Republicanism nor conservatism.) Secondly, it doesn't match the reference. But I agree it probably needs a rewrite. I did some small changes (eg. omitted the word "both"). What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddnixx (talk • contribs) 21:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

So far, so good. I think the sentence needs to be broken up actually (it's a little long anyway); that should help with the clarity. The gist is fairly obvious to anyone familiar with the show, but the current parsing of the sentence is confusing. DP76764 (Talk) 22:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

South Park Studios' website is down for maintenance since yesterday!!

Ever since yesterday, the South Park Studios website has been shut down for maintenance for so many hours while I was trying to post the news. It's now this morning and STILL the South Park Studios website is down for maintenance, without any reason why! And I STILL can't post any news there or anything! Did something bad happen to the website that caused it to get shut down? :'( Here's the shutdown website. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 15:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Question: how does this pertain to improving this article? Talk pages are not a forum for general discussion. Also, down since yesterday is the same as "DAYS"?? DP76764 (Talk) 16:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Sorry about that. I didn't know what to do or how to write, so I thought I would come here. My mistake. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 16:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

"popular culture"

is anyone else having problems with users removing south park popular culture (people/places/things) references? apparently it's "vandalism" to the article, but i think it's interesting to have things tied together by south park. Deadglamour (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Should lists of elementary school staff exist?

This is in reference to this page List_of_South_Park_Elementary_staff. Should that page exist? In its current form? What about the hilarious lack of references, and the conversational style? Should it be integrated or deleted into the single cast of characters page? Ideas welcome. It is liable to simply be gutted now because of the lack of references. I don't want to do that, but somehow since I've discovered it, I'm unwilling to simply let it exist in its current form, blithely making a mockery of all the volumes of content policy we have. Ideas for dealing with this specimen are welcome. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe merge it with one of the other such lists? - Denimadept (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that is probably what I will do. I will delete it all down to one sentence then merge it. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Prominent but apparently fictional source?

Has anyone else noticed that the supposed documentary The 100 Greatest Cartoons that is referenced in the lead section is not really sourced? The ref link leads not to anything referencing a documentary but rather "Channel 4's list of the greatest cartoon shows of all-time" an apparent run-of-the-mill local t.v. broadcaster's web gimmick. What's more, the list only runs to 72 and some of the entries aren't even cartoons! I think this reference needs to go. 67.121.238.159 (talk) 11:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Channel 4 is one of the UK's largest national TV channels. Яehevkor ✉ 12:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

But the link is invalid. The documentary is real -- apparently a 3-hour program produced by Channel 4 and similar to its other "100 Greatest" specials -- but I was unable to find a valid link, and not for want of trying. I'll remove the faux link but leave the content in. Someone might try to remove it as unsourced eventually, but I doubt it and something can be eventually found I'm sure. Snow (talk) 05:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

There reference wasn't really invalid as such, just unreliable. I have cited the episode directly with this supporting it. Яehevkor ✉ 10:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The C4 '100 Greatest' series are just clipshows masquerading as something more significant. There has been regulatory concern over the number of these shows run on C4, which is supposed to be a public service broadcaster. --Ef80 (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Old general notability tags.

...Are currently present on a lot of the South Park episode articles . I was wondering if there has been any formal decision on this? Because if there hasn't, I might just go ahead and remove them...--Τασουλα (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Which, the tags or their attached articles? - Denimadept (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Such as the one currently on Miss Teacher Bangs a Boy *Yes, I did pick my favourite episode ever as an example, but I'm not having a conflict of interest XD* --Τασουλα (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If they're on articles with few to no sources you shouldn't really remove them - as they've not proven themselves to be notable. Add sources to show how they're notable. There has been debate as to whether episodes of notable TV shows are inherently notable - as far as I know generally the consensus is that no, they are not. Яehevkor ✉ 19:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It would seem that way. A plot detail with no refs it obviously not notable. Individual season articles should have some of the material merged (Though obviously not much) and the articles about them deleted, barring ones such as Hell on Earth 2006 which is notable for all the wrong (Or right reasons in the minds of South Park fans? haha) reasons. The question is, "Whose going to do it?" --Τασουλα (talk) 09:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

And thus, no Admins have come forward, (Or any other editor who can delete pages?) Well some things never ever change! --Τασουλα (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

These articles are probably in some kinda limbo, no admin is just going to delete them, AfDs will probably end up in them being kept even though notability has not been established. Episode articles are often a point of contention - people will fight tooth and claw to keep a plot only episode article on a basis that it might or should be notable without actually doing the work of showing how it's notable (sometimes instead arguing that the notability is inherited from the show - which is clutching at straws really). Яehevkor ✉ 23:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

"Longest-running series" and # of episodes

I removed the statement "It is Comedy Central's longest running program" because it was uncited and, as an IP pointed out at Talk:The Daily Show, that article makes the same claim about The Daily Show, and TDS premiered first so it's hard to see how the South Park claim could be true. (The TDS article should be cited, though.)

I also removed the specific number of SP episodes because it's tertiary information with extremely little value (the fact it airs on Comedy Central is one of the most important pieces of information about the show, and should be in the lede; the fact that it has 231 episodes instead of 227 or 234 or 219 is not important to anybody at all in any way) that puts the article in constant danger of inaccuracy if nobody bothers to manually update it as soon as a new episode airs. In other words, if it's right, it helps no one; if it's wrong, it's damaging; and it requires constant attention to make sure it's right and not wrong. That makes it a silly thing to include. I suspect it will get re-inserted, and I won't argue because I don't really care, but it's ironic that people will care enough about SP to update that number every week but not enough to mind that they're making the article dumb. Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't really care either, but you must not have noticed that people tend to rush to be the first to update the episode count. "Longest running", I can't say. - Denimadept (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Butters

Before an edit war breaks out we should come to a consensus on this. The show has, for years, revolved around the original 4 kids: Stan, Kyle, Kenny and Cartman. Over the course of the last four or five years Butters has certainly become a main character. He is a part of most episodes in some fashion (I know he isn't always in everyone but that applies to the other four too) and he has had numerous episodes where his antics feature as the main storyline. That is the reason that I did not remove this the first time that it was added. Thus, I would vote for his inclusion as a main character. Now whether this is put in the lead or mentioned later in the body of the article is something that can be debated but Trey and Matt have mentioned more than once in their mini-commentaries that he is one of their favorite characters and that is why they have brought him forward over the years. Other opinions are welcome. MarnetteD | Talk 22:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

When Kenny was killed off Butters was brought forward as the fourth friend. The Imaginationland three parter has Butters front and center as an important part of the storyline. If someone is O/C enough to time it I think that you would find that, in the last several seasons, his onscreen time pretty much equals any of the other four. These combined with the fact that Parker and Stone are on record stating that Butters has become a main character is reason enough to include him as such in the article. MarnetteD | Talk 01:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Butters features quite heavily in several episodes, but you haven't provided much in the way of strong evidence [reliable sources] that he's a "main character". Stan, Kyle, Cartman and Kenny have always featured, and still do, in nearly every episode (except when Kenny "died"), Butters has not. Rehevkor ✉ 04:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there are no sources in the opening to back up any of the characters as being a "main" one. Thus, I have reworked the section to remove the term and added a ref to cover Butters growing role. Have you not listened to the mini-commentaries? Matt and Trey have mentioned more than once that Butter's is there favorite character. As I said if someone wants to put a stopwatch to every episode you will find his time equal to the others. We have had episodes in each of the last few season that one, or more, of the "main" characters has been entirely absent "Insheeption" being a good example. MarnetteD | Talk 04:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, still no sources for Butters. Being the favorite character doesn't cut it. So for we only have the opening credits, which doesn't suggest Butters is a main character. So, can you provide some reliable sources for this for Butters being a main character? Is that a difficult request? Rehevkor ✉ 04:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You need to read the article. Things have moved on so that we do not need to haggle over the term "main". Especially since, as prviously mentioned, no source has been provided for using the term to describe anyone as main.MarnetteD | Talk 05:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:STATUSQUO you should provide some evidence, your actions suggest you have none. So I say again, sources please. Is that a difficult request? Rehevkor ✉ 05:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about. The term main has been removed from the article and no revert has occured since. Also, a source has been provided for mention Butters increasing screen time. Statusquo does not apply in this situation. MarnetteD | Talk 05:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources that Butters is a main character please. The only source provided suggesting Butters has a "larger role" does not support this. It's your responsibility to provide these sources. I have asked several times, please provide these. Still waiting. Rehevkor ✉ 05:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

And seriously? You think that no one reverting is evidence of your position? Please. Rehevkor ✉ 05:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Once again read the article. Nowhere does it say that Butters is a main character. I have replied several times that the term "main" has been removed from anything having to do with Butters. Is there some reason that you are not paying attention to this? MarnetteD | Talk 05:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The overall change [9] does not support that again I am asking for more sources to back this up. Your very first comment on this talk page is about Butters' "vote for his inclusion as a main character." Rehevkor ✉ 05:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It't 6 am here so I invite you to look for some more sources in the mean time. 78.86.152.174 (talk) 06:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC) (Rehevkor ✉)

And I am no longer voting for that. Again the term "main" is not applied to Butters anywhere in the last edit I made or anywhere in the article. What is your problem in understanding that? MarnetteD | Talk 05:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care what you used in the article, I was only responding to your comments here. You're welcome to nitpick on the terminology and provide additional sources to back that up though. You have yet to provide any so far, so good luck! 78.86.152.174 (talk) 06:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC) (Rehevkor ✉)

You are just babbling now. The term has been removed from the article. I am not advocating its return. What sources are required for that situation? MarnetteD | Talk 06:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Again I have to question your ability to read since the overall change that you linked to was not made by me. MarnetteD | Talk 06:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

MarnetteD, removing the word "main" does not resolve the question. The issue is not whether or not Butters is identifid as a "main" character, the question is whether Butters is given the sam prominence as Stan, Kyle, Cartman, and Kenny. When these characters were identified as main, you added "main" to Butters. When you removed "main" from Butters, you removed it for the other four. The effec is identical - so who do you think you are fooling (except possibly yourself) when you protest that "main" does not appear? South prk revolves around the relationshps among Stan, Kyle, Cartman and Kenny, sometimes through their separate adventures. The show has a large supporting cast of characters some of whom become more or less prominent depending on the episode - and we can through in the eight parents, and Ike, while we are at it. I would not put Cartman's mom in the same class of characters as SKCK, even though she has often had as much screen-time as any one of thm and is sometimes central to the plot. Ditto Chef, in th past at least. No one questions the importance of the supporting characters to the show, they are essential. I do not know why you single out Butters. Be that as it may, th principal characters are Stan, kyle, Cartman, and Kenny. The article ought to make this clear. Calling thm th "main" characters was one way, or we could use the word "principal" - but it isn't the word that matters, it is the distinction that matters. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

[ec]That sounds a little too much like a personal attack to me, please try to assume some good faith. At the time I wrote my comments Butters was listed as one of the main characters in the lead (I don't care who put him there), something you were advocating in this talk page, and asked for opinions, I did so, asking for sources to advance your stance, which you didn't provide instead taking a u-turn, quibbling about the use of the word "main", claiming I'm "babbling" and questioning my "ability to read". Please. Either way, I'm happy with the way the article is currently worded. Rehevkor ✉ 14:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Pip has been in lots of episodes. He had his own ep well before Butters as well. Butters is a supporting character. Emphasizing him in this article is inappropriate. - Denimadept (talk) 06:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Get a grip. Pip had one feature episodes please point us to where he has even been in the background in the last five years. Butters has had numerous examples and he has had the sourced comments from the makers of the show about his importance. In response to other nonsense about personal attacks please report them to the appropriate section of wikipedia. Since you never once responded to the way that article was at the time of your posts it will be interesting to hear other opinions about this thread. MarnetteD | Talk

He was squished by MechStreisand recently. Pay attention. - Denimadept (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

In the new season it seems Kenny isn't even important anymore... even Stan's importance has declined. Somehow the main characters are basically Kyle, Cartman, Randy Marsh, and Butters... So he obviously needs an article. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Chris 'Crispy' Brion

Maybe the article could/should mention Chris 'Crispy' Brion. Feargus Urquhart, CEO and co-founder of Obsidian Entertainment, says in this video: "With South Park it's very different, because it /is/ Matt and Trey. You know, it /is/ Crispy, who is the art director on the show for ten years." If Brion really is /that/ important to the show - may require other/additional sources - then I think Brion could/should be mentioned. In a fan interview with Brion that can be found here, Brion says: "I've been there since the pilot, I've been there since the start." Brion's IMDb profile is here. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 January 2013

The show is now also produced by Important Studios (a company founded by the creators). 86.45.15.239 (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That does not appear to be an accurate statement. [10] DP76764 (Talk) 19:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: per above comment. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on April 2, 2013

The section "Distribution" is out of date. It claims the first fourteen seasons are available on DVD. This is true, but it should be update to include the fifteenth season. Beerest355 (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Good call, I just corrected it.Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 22:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Please put this in the Episodes title

Season		Episodes	Originally aired
			Season premiere	Season finale
	1	13	August 13, 1997 (1997-08-13)	February 25, 1998 (1998-02-25)
	2	18	April 1, 1998 (1998-04-01)	January 20, 1999 (1999-01-20)
	3	17	April 7, 1999 (1999-04-07)	January 12, 2000 (2000-01-12)
	4	17	April 5, 2000 (2000-04-05)	December 20, 2000 (2000-12-20)
	5	14	June 20, 2001 (2001-06-20)	December 12, 2001 (2001-12-12)
	6	17	March 6, 2002 (2002-03-06)	December 11, 2002 (2002-12-11)
	7	15	March 19, 2003 (2003-03-19)	December 17, 2003 (2003-12-17)
	8	14	March 17, 2004 (2004-03-17)	December 15, 2004 (2004-12-15)
	9	14	March 9, 2005 (2005-03-09)	December 7, 2005 (2005-12-07)
	10	14	March 22, 2006 (2006-03-22)	November 15, 2006 (2006-11-15)
	11	14	March 7, 2007 (2007-03-07)	November 14, 2007 (2007-11-14)
	12	14	March 12, 2008 (2008-03-12)	November 19, 2008 (2008-11-19)
	13	14	March 11, 2009 (2009-03-11)	November 18, 2009 (2009-11-18)
	14	14	March 17, 2010 (2010-03-17)	November 17, 2010 (2010-11-17)
	15	14	April 27, 2011 (2011-04-27)	—

booya.

Why? It's already in List of South Park episodes, doesn't really fit here anyway. Rehevkor ✉ 15:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Because every other series wiki page has a link to the list of episodes. 18:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.15.220 (talk)

Bias

Article should indicate how redneck the show is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.201.107 (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"Redneck" is not an apt description for an encyclopedia. If there is a documented bias and you can produce multiple reliable sources for it, you may add it to the article – but I highly doubt it. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Muhammad, controversy?

With regards to this edit:

I planned to simply trim it and then put the bulk of it in the South Park controversies Then I realized it was copied word-for word from the source, and was wondering if a few vague threats from a handful of users on the website mentioned in the source was really notable enough to be deemed a "controversy" yet. So I reverted for now. Is RevolutionIslam.com notable enough to be given coverage in this article? Every time I try to open it I get an internal server error (edit: turns out the site got swamped as news of this got out, so that should be taken into consideration). Thoughts? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Eh, this story is picking up plenty of steam in secondary sources, so I'll re-word and re-instate it. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

no need to even mention it considering they wussed out, most likely will be forgotten in a week 69.244.125.35 (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Marek

- Very clever Marek, obviously you've paid no attention to this or last time whatsoever.

--The person above my previous comment asked whether others thought the event and people involved were notable enough for this encyclopedia. My interpretation of the situation is that " a few vague threats from a handful of users on the website" are not notable enough to meet the guidelines for inclusion due to being a recent event. As I understand those topics are best contributed to Wikinews. 69.244.125.35 (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Marek

Ok, so they say the censorship was from comedy central. Does anyone know why they censored Tom Cruise? Did he transform into Muhammad? Or was that black censored bar already part of the story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.161.174 (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidently Comedy Central did the censoring. DP76764 (Talk) 02:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Trey and Matt did the censor bars. Muhammad and Tom cruise were censored to serve as a plot device. They wouldn't dream of trying to push Muhammad through again. It didn't work in cartoon wars; there's no reason it would work here, especially after the threats. Comedy central did the audio bleeping. It was completely unnecessary, hugely ironic, and hilarious in how nonsensical it was - but alas, it was real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.168.242 (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that in episode 4 of season 5 depicted Muhammad and the episode aired with not a single threat or statement that I could find. I have a screen shot of the prophet as depicted inside the hall of the Super Best Friends. SouthParkStudios.com no longer streams the episode in question or clips from that episode. I think this point should be included as part of the controversy surrounding the more recent episodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.236.119.174 (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Best to find a source discussing this before adding it. DP76764 (Talk) 17:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

tangengentally, episode 15, season 3 shows Garrison throwing away a copy of the Koran but has received no attention from anyone82.93.130.119 (talk) 07:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)sean 20 June 2013

Emmy nominations

The section "Recognitions and awards" is outdated. It says South Park has been nominated for the Emmy Award for Outstanding Animated Program nine times, however since 2010 it was nominated two more times, in 2011 and 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.233.75 (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 July 2013

Please remove the Quebec flag from the Canada entry - Quebec is not a country. Listing its network separately would then require that you list 3 other regional networks covering other provinces hence it is completely inapropriate in multiple ways. 99.241.168.84 (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

 Declined Quebec is notable for being the primary location for French language broadcast stations, more so than in any other province. Are there TV stations in the remaining provinces that are as notable and outstanding for being from those places as the Quebecois ones? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Pilot

Does the unaired pilot belong in the infobox, under "number of episodes"? It's no more pertinent than, say, "The Spirit of Christmas", as all of these are unaired submissions by Parker and Stone and neither is an actual television episode. Pilots usually count if they aired on the original network as part of the series' regular airing. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The Christmas shorts were just made as a side project initially, but the pilot episode was made with the intention of becoming a series. Even though it didn't air it dose exist. Its not counted as a general episode, in most cases on Wikipedia when a series has a pilot that is not counted as an episode it is customary to mention it regardless even if it never aired. Grapesoda22 (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have examples? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I seen the practice done on The Venture Bros. and a few other shows I can't recall and I continued it. Grapesoda22 (talk) 04:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

What you are describing falls under WP:OSE, rather than a standard practice. Unless you can come up with a better reasoning, the pilot should not be mentioned under the "episodes" umbrella in the infobox – that's just clumsy and forced. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Its fine just leave it. Grapesoda22 (talk) 04:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

In other words, you have no real rationale. Therefore, I'm removing it until one can be found. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey you watch that tone! I don't like being talked down to! I explained my self already. Grapesoda22 (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You are being increasingly incivil, and this comment is a borderline personal attack. Replies like "Its [sic] fine just leave it" are not valid responses either. As previously explained, your only reasoning is "I saw it somewhere", and that is not how Wikipedia works. I strongly suggest you cool down before winding up on the WP:ANI board. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Look man I'm sorry alright... I really didn't think it was that big a deal with all this and was sick of debating. And I sensed a negative tone from your last response and I don't appreciate that. Grapesoda22 (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Bill Hader

I saw that Bill Hader was only mentioned as a creative consultant and co-producer for seasons 12 and 13, but he was also still on the staff in season 15 where he can be seen in the 6 days to air special. He is also still a writer in season 17. Has Hader never left? Or is he working on the show whenever he's available? Any thoughts anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.5.226 (talk) 13:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

List of broadcasting countries: Flanders?

I've noticed that in the list of countries both 'The Netherlands' and 'Flanders' are grouped. Why is that? Flanders is not a country, only a region. The 'Flemish' (actually Dutch language) broadcasting networks of the series should, IMHO, go with 'Belgium', perhaps with a similar distinction like with the different Canadian broadcasting networks ('French'/'English'). Like it is, the subdivision seems arbitrary, or indeed (and more probable) politically motivated (Flemish separatism). 87.66.189.45 (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Ostrevant

Indeed, I noticed the same thing. Explanations would be hypothetical and unnecessary. For example, this could be linked to the program The Voice, which is called "The Voice of Belgium" in Wallonia (promoting more unity?) and "The Voice of Flanders" in Flanders, but this is not a good reason to change the article. The real reason however is that it is very illogical: one cannot divide the whole (Belgium) into itself (Belgium) and one of its constituents (Flanders). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.20.10.146 (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2014

Action

70.54.34.208 (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

production pipeline duration

"each episode is typically written and produced during the week preceding its broadcast"

This claim is incredible, I would like to request a citation if available. Kelly F Thomas (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, covered in further detail in the appropriate section. Kelly F Thomas (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2014

Edit request for "Streaming", 1st Paragraph

Old: In April 2010 the season five episode "Super Best Friends" and the season fourteen episodes "200", and "201" were removed from the site, additionally these episodes no longer air in reruns and are only available exclusively on DVD.

This is factually incorrect! 2 more episodes are being blocked: Cartoon Wars 1 & 2.

New: In April 2010 the season five episode "Super Best Friends", the season fourteen episodes "200", and "201" and later on season ten episodes "Cartoon Wars Part I", and "Cartoon Wars Part II" were removed from the site, additionally these episodes no longer air in reruns and are only available exclusively on DVD.

Edit request for "Streaming", 2nd Paragraph

Old: Legal issues prevent the U.S. content from being accessible outside the U.S.,[140] so local servers have been set up in other countries.[141]

This is factually incorrect! The site can be very well accessed from any country that does not have its own local South Park site.

New: The site is generally accessible internationally, but in some instances local sites have been set up to account for local licensing regulations.[141]

Edit request for "Streaming", New 3rd Paragraph On March 6, 2014 and May 27, 2014 respectively an official South Park app has been released to iOS and Android users in Germany, Switzerland and Austria, that mirrors the full-length episodes of the local website.

References:

• Google Play: Offiziell App for Android 4+
• iTunes: Offizielle App for iOS

Feld01 (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Please provide better references. See WP:Reliable sources --JustBerry (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Emmy

"Black Friday" was nominated for award. No table else I would have added it myself. http://www.emmys.com/sites/default/files/Downloads/66th-nominations-list.pdf EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Missing noses

ISTM that there should be a reference to the fact that the faces of South Park kids are drawn without noses whereas all the adult faces except Officer Barbrady, Ned and Jimbo (a stupid policeman and two gun nuts) are drawn with noses. Perhaps the writers are making a subliminal statement to the effect that noses signify maturity.

I notice that Jesus is also drawn without a nose, but I can't see the message, if any.

121.45.165.244 (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources which mention this observation, we could discuss inclusion. BusterD (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Parker-Stone Studios

Couple of things, First there is NO references whatsoever that shows the Parker-Stone Studios produces South Park which brings me to my second point according to the California Secretary of State and the Corporation Wiki there is NO company incorporated in the State of California or in any state for that matter called Parker-Stone Studios. I believe Trey Parker and Matt Stone still produce under the South Park Digital Studios, LLC. banner which is what is given as the copyright and trademarks for the series. To me this seems to be a fan or someone who is uninformed and put erroneous information here and on the Internet Movie Database. I am going to remove it until such time as proof of the company's existence and its connection to the production of South Park. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The "banned" episodes

I think that as one of the global pillars of free speech and anti-censorship Wikipedia should specifically mention that the episodes of "south park" that were banned, censored and made otherwise unavailable received this status because they contain depictions or references of depictions of the prophet Muhammad. Morally it is imported to note why these episodes are censored and not just mention that they are inaccessible or use other government-style euphemisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.181.182 (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC:Should TV show episode articles link to other episodes using information?

This is a general question for all articles about tv show episodes, feel free to participate in the discussion! Rayukk (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The lead and a proposed addition

Noticed the lead contained a comparison to The Simpsons in terms of this show uses a large cast of characters. Is it really necessary to make such a specific comparison to another show like that in the article at all? Also, I've read a book called Who's Who in Animated Cartoons and it contains a chapter on Matt & Trey which mentions the second Christmas short being both played by the band Tool during their live shows and distributed as Christmas gifts by George Clooney in 1996. These are rumors I've long heard about but never seemed to find a decent source to verify both statements until now. Was just wondering if anyone else thought it was worthy of inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoSaysChappy (talk • contribs)

I quit watching when the show was cowed into not showing an episode about Muhhamed, they can poke fun at all relig فons but when it's Islam they fold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.243.147.236 (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Handy tip: When you stop watching a programmer, stop consuming a product.. your opinion no longer matters. Not that I actually believe for a second you stopped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.151.204 (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on South Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060326171426/http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/sp-interview.ars/3 to http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/sp-interview.ars/3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090419013254/http://television.aol.com:80/insidetv/2008/04/01/best-tv-comedies/ to http://television.aol.com/insidetv/2008/04/01/best-tv-comedies/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100129195812/http://www.cornellamerican.com:80/article/109/print to http://www.cornellamerican.com/article/109/print/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2015

It would be interesting to add a new section on South Park and Science. For instance, in this cognitive science article (DOI 10.1007/s10516-012-9207-y), an episode of S.P. (which?) is invoked to help the author explain what a symbolic representation is. X1X2X3 (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)  Declined I don't think that's such a good idea. there are a lot of sections as it is, we don't need more. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Blaze The Movie Fan:, WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't good decline reason for a SPP edit request when the protection reason is vandalism. Discussing content inclusion on talk page is of course welcome. @X1X2X3: in order to incorporate your edit, please include exactly what you want it to say here (since the page is protected), please note anyone can revert an edit at any time - so talking about it on this page first may be helpful. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on South Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090413023726/http://aprilstewart.com:80/page6.html to http://www.aprilstewart.com/page6.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

South Park Republican

why doesn't this page have a see also section when so many things are linked to it: The following 46 pages are in this category This category has the following 10 subcategories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:South_Park — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8B80:6DB1:B00E:6B0A:769E:7DCF (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2016

The page currently states that it airs uncensored in Canada. This is not true as MUCH censors out plenty of profanity. This should be reflected in the entry. 70.26.103.251 (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a source that supports this claim? In the meantime, I moved the citation closer to the Comedy Network link, as that is what it supports (it's previous positioning may have implied that it supported both stations, which it does not). I do feel that the sentence could still be a little misleading, if read plainly. DP76764 (Talk) 19:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2016

274 episodes of South Park have aired since Wednesday's show. 2600:387:8:9:0:0:0:B2 (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The infobox says this now. RudolfRed (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 47 external links on 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/980522/kyle.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cornellamerican.com/article/109/print/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.southparkstudios.com/about/show_disclaimer.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/1997/12/12-12-97tdc/12-12-97d05-004.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.nydailynews.com/1998-04-16/entertainment/18071326_1_south-park-highest-rated-program-usa-network
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=%2Fchronicle%2Farchive%2F1998%2F01%2F26%2FDD58819.DTL
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.avrev.com/dvd-movie-disc-reviews/tv-shows/south-park-volume-2.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/1998/05/05/ent_227452.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/9519810/park_life
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/spotlight_columnists/article/0%2C2777%2CDRMN_23962_4848796%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?id=12881
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://digitalcontentproducer.com/mag/video_crappy_possible_method/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.esquire.com/features/man-at-his-best/ESQ0602-JUN_OPENER?click=main_sr
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tulsaworld.com/Scene/article.aspx?subjectid=283&articleid=20091016_283_D2_Cnrtlt351746
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.apple.com/pro/profiles/southpark/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/228729
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.avrev.com/dvd-movie-disc-reviews/tv-shows/south-park-volume-2.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.machinima.com/article/view%26id%3D459
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/1203/making_boobage/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.doghouseboxing.com/Dhb/Dhb052507.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.nydailynews.com/1998-02-04/entertainment/18064332_1_damien-new-kid-jesus
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/entertainment/1998/01/20/1998-01-20__park__won_t_mess_with_excess.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/behind/cast.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20111109035050/http://www.hindustantimes.com:80/Entertainment/Television/South-Park-in-India-shuts-runs-into-trouble-in-US-too/Article1-561421.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ctvmedia.ca/comedy/releases/release.asp?id=9735&yyyy=2007
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2007/10/07/story27183.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.c21media.net/news/detail.asp?area=1&article=49321
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.southparkstudios.com/news/?id=3405
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.salon.com/news/col/horo/1999/07/19/south_park/index2.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/G/greatest/cartoons/results.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/south_park_still_sick_still_wrong/page/2
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://archives.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/TV/07/30/cartoon.characters.list/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bravoprofiles.com/The_100_Greatest_TV_Characters/index.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.emmys.org/awards/2007pt/nominations_crtv.php?action=search_db
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://cdn.emmys.tv/downloads/2008/CTA08winners_pressrel.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205132015/https://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/entertainmentcolumn/1998/col19980211.asp to http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/entertainmentcolumn/1998/col19980211.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.nydailynews.com/1998-04-09/entertainment/18069956_1_south-park-tony-fox-comedy-central
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0%2C21985%2C20658735-661%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/9363363/inside_scientology/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://lineboil.com/2010/04/south-park-declares-jihad-on-the-handicapped/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flynome.com/cgi-bin/search?storyID=93
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/trey-parker.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://archives.cnn.com/2000/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/23/blame.canada/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.salon.com/people/col/reit/1999/10/12/np1012/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theofficialcharts.com/stats-one-hit-wonders.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://treyparker.info/video/playstation_18oct00.zip
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.southparkstudios.com/games/lgtdp/developer-diaries

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) 14:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611181531/http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/article.cfm?section=Arts&articleID=1811&month=11&day=9&year=2007 to http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/article.cfm?section=Arts&articleID=1811&month=11&day=9&year=2007
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140512231633/http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=189897 to http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=189897

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) 01:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090511145241/http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/archives.php?month=2&year=2009 to http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/archives.php?month=2&year=2009

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) 11:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101005234558/http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/characters/stan-marsh to http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/characters/stan-marsh
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308071721/http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/354077 to http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/354077
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308071258/http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/354892 to http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/354892
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131228123427/http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/353828 to http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/353828
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131228122457/http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/353927 to http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/353927
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080504055200/http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/archives.php?month=12&year=2003 to http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/archives.php?month=12&year=2003
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090328120915/http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/archives.php?month=4&year=2001 to http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/archives.php?month=4&year=2001
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514234428/http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/353438 to http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/353438
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090328120915/http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/archives.php?month=4&year=2001 to http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/archives.php?month=4&year=2001
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090410145657/http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/archives.php?month=11&year=2003 to http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/archives.php?month=11&year=2003
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090410145404/http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/archives.php?id=224 to http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/archives.php?id=224
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090410145443/http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/archives.php?month=6&year=2001 to http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/archives.php?month=6&year=2001
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091019064648/http://www.undercover.com.au/News-Story.aspx?id=7767 to http://www.undercover.com.au/News-Story.aspx?id=7767
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219073313/http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/archives.php?month=11&year=2008 to http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/archives.php?month=11&year=2008
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090328120915/http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/archives.php?month=4&year=2001 to http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/archives.php?month=4&year=2001
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090410145428/http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/archives.php?month=10&year=2001 to http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/archives.php?month=10&year=2001
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090814210126/http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/archives.php?month=9&year=2001 to http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/archives.php?month=9&year=2001
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090410145547/http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/archives.php?month=3&year=2002 to http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/archives.php?month=3&year=2002
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080913151046/http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/archives.php?id=72639 to http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/archives.php?id=72639
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206042043/http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/382114 to http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/382114
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130317120041/http://www.comedycentral.com/press/press_releases/2011/122011-2011-ratings-release.jhtml to http://www.comedycentral.com/press/press_releases/2011/122011-2011-ratings-release.jhtml

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) 00:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

controversies

...in s13e10, kenny FNALLY dies again after 5 seasons. right in this episode, cartman talks to him in the last scene & kenny answers. as far as known, this is the only case where kenny is recognizable after his death w/o being rezzed. --anonymousgermannerd

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091010133031/http://www.southparkstudios.co.uk/news/?month=9&year=2009 to http://www.southparkstudios.co.uk/news/?month=9&year=2009

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 18:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2018

Change "A sequel to The Stick of Truth has been announced and was titled South Park: The Fractured but Whole." to "The sequel to The Stick of Truth, South Park: the Fractured but Whole, was released on October 17, 2017." Mmd2634 (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Lordtobi (✉) 14:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Split suggestion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• See The Simpsons and The Simpsons (franchise) for comparison. Basically it allows the TV series article to have a smaller scope and devote more time to the TV series.--Coin945 (talk) 08:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Strong Agree. There are Console Games, Freemium Mobile Games, Toys ... The Show South Park is definitely an object inside the Franchise South Park and the both deserve separate articles. Harlequence (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Support. I think the article is getting very long and the Simpsons split model seems to work so this would seem to be a sensible way forward. Dunarc (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support split - Article is long and should be split. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support BananaBaron (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BananaBaron (talk • contribs)
• Support - A franchise with this many lines and pages should definitely be split. - Galatz^Talk 12:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have completed the split and I believe did not harm the GA in the process. I would appreciate a second set of eyes as well on both here and the new article. Thanks! - Galatz^Talk 15:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2018

Add to 4.5 Streaming On 15 July 2009, the German-language Internet portal southpark.de was launched. Just like its English counterpart, almost all episodes can be viewed free of charge and - apart from the intro - in full length. In addition, apps for iOS and Android were published in spring 2014, which essentially depict the content of the website. 31.17.253.32 (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Please provide a asource for this claim. Wording is also not very encyclopedic. Lordtobi (✉) 22:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)