Talk:Super Fun Time

Follow that Egg! recreation?

Isn't Butters' final line "Teacher...My partner is back on the bus," before passing out similar to that scene in Follow that Egg!, where Stan says to Mrs. Garrison "Teacher... Our Egg is... Ok," before collapsing? Grieferhate (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's similar but not noteworthy. - Redmess (talk) 22

42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Trivia sections

Wow, this South Park articles without the "Trivia" category are terrible... why would I want to read a page long plot outline??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.21.233.130 (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. I keep trying to post a "trivia" section but someone keeps deleting it... So can someone explain to me what and why this is happening? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dude7324 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

While I generally agree with the Wikipedia guideline to not include Trivia in the articles, I feel South Park represents an important exception to the rule. In short, the pop-culture references are one of the most appealing things about the show. I often look up episodes because I recognize a reference but can't recall from where. They represent a valuable part of the wiki and I'll ask that other editors respect that and not delete the whole section...or better yet for those who are sticklers to form, propose an alternative section for this kind of content and then update it if you take issue with it. The Sigue Sigue Sputnik song 'Love Missile F1-11' is definitely the song parodied during the montage, and the head terrorist is clearly a caricature of Hans Gruber from Die Hard so I'm adding them back (User:snafu7x7 (talk) 2:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC))

Whatever people may feel about trivia and South Park, if its not verified, it can be removed Alastairward (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So, I posted a similar comment on a Futurama episode talk page, therefore I'm sorry if people have read this before, but I'm going to go into it here, too. Verifiability, as a general idea, is absolutely necessary in certain contexts of wikipedia articles; this is a result of the ability of nearly anyone to edit a page. However, the concept of verifiability takes on a different meaning with regards to cultural references in a TV show episodes. There exists a group of shows that use cultural references as a central part of their humor; South Park, The Simpsons, and Futurama all come to mind. As such, a "Cultural References" section of an episode's page is absolutely an integral part. User:snafu7x7 made this same point above, where he/she talks about how visitors to episode pages are frequently trying to figure out what a certain part of the episode was referencing. However, there are two kinds of cultural references that exist within these shows: blatant ones, and subtle ones. It's my opinion that the two should be treated differently. Fortunately, this episode provides solid examples of both types. Blatant cultural references are those that can be verified by simple observation. They are unambiguous, and not subject to interpretation; they will be immediately clear to anyone who is familiar with both the episode and the original material. In fact, if they weren't a specific reference to the source material, they'd almost certainly qualify as plagiarism. With this episode specifically, I'm referring to the song Love Missile F1-11 and Cartman's "Life Moves Pretty Fast" line. The Love Missile reference is empirically true; the non-vocal parts of the real song and the one in the episode are nearly identical. Anyone with the ability to hear tones and pitches can match one to the other. Similarly, the fact that Cartman and Ferris use the exact same words (except for Cartman's addition) make it observable to anyone. These types of references should not require sources to verify them. Typically, the sources used (when they are used) are website reviews of the episode. However, in these types of cases, the writer of the review is exactlyas qualified as the casual observer to make the connection between the two; this hinges on the fact that no interpretation is necessary to get the reference.Contrastingly, Subtle cultural references are those that are either not immediately obvious or are subject to interpretation. In this episode, Cartman and Butters leaping over the fence in slow motion is a perfect example. I personally interpreted this scene as part of an overall homage to Ferris Bueller; many others saw similarities to action movies (specifically Die Hard, which correlates to other in-show references as well). Since it's not easily clear to everyone what the reference is, and since there are differing viewpoints, this sort of reference requires a source with more authority on the subject than I or any other poster here has. This is the sort of information that would most ideally be sourced to statements made by the creators, whether in the form of DVD commentary or interviews given to reporters. The reference being made is not easily determined by simple observation, and so necessitates a source.Do people agree with what I'm trying to say here?Choiniej (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Frivolous trivia belongs on a fansite. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Major influences are appropriate, but belong in the intro or plot summary, and do not merit their own section. There are times when there is enough to make a whole section for a reference or references, for example the internet memes for "Canada on Strike," reaction to "In the Closet" or "Bloody Mary," or what the deal was with Mohammad in "Cartoon Wars." A list consisting of "Kenny wasn't in the episode," or "Cartman didn't wear a hat" is not encyclopedic and should be left to fansites. It's not just a question of verifiability. Professor Chaos (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Choiniej you summed it up very well, thank you::::User:Professor Chaos, it would seem that you do not take issue with the inclusion of these pop-culture references in the articles provided they are valid and 'non-frivolous' in nature, you're just adamantly against them having their own section? Why is this notion so offensive to you? You should really ask yourself what the true value of an online encyclopedia is. For myself and most others, its the ability to find exactly what I want quickly without having to sift thru pages of content, this is why subsections like this are invaluable. You're so hung up on 'form' you can't appreciate the value of function and usability. I completely agree that crap like "Cartman didn't wear a hat" have no place in the article because they add no value, but that doesn't imply that all trivia is 'trivial'. If you don't agree with having a Trivia section thats fine, propose another taxonomy for the content but don't just delete it as a matter of course. In my opinion that's incredibly shortsighted and it does a disservice to the users of the site.::::That all said, I agree with Alastairward that references must be verifiable, its just somewhat unclear how to accomplish this to the satisfaction of all. Lets use the initial reference I added to this article Love Missile F1-11 as an example. When I first added it, I cross-linked it to the Wikipedia articles for the song and its original artist Sigue Sigue Sputnik. This seems to be all that is required for other references in the article and Wikipedia as a whole...take for example the part in the article that reads "In a parody of The Defiant Ones..." I've personally never seen that movie so I have no means of determining whether that reference is accurate or not, but its cross-linked to the wiki page...should I remove it because I'm ignorant? More importantly to the case of Love Missile F1-11, what more can I do to establish its veracity? Would linking to the actual track on YouTube suffice or do I need more? I still have the record, and I have the South Park episode tivo'd perhaps I could invite detractors over to listen to both? lol Snafu7x7 (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Trivia is by definition trivial. The main thing is that there's not enough notable stuff to merit a whole new section, so something like that (which is probably true, just like Cartman's advice to Butters) should be worked into the plot synopsis. People will complain "but I come to Wikipedia for trivia!" They can go to a fansite, which Wikipedia is not. Or they can take two seconds to skim the plot synopsis, and find the link. As far as verifiability, sometimes it's really very blatant, but even so (and especially if it's more subtle, which South Park isn't these days) it is best to verify it with a link to a comment from one of the creators that yes, that was actually their intent. Professor Chaos (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you completely missed the point...I'm not arguing FOR trivia, my argument is that alot of the content that people post to the 'Trivia' section is not trivial at all, its actually valid, interesting and relevant to the article. So don't throw the baby out with the bath water, propose an alternative to calling it 'trivia'...call it "Cultural References" or "Extras" or whatever. Granted not every episode has dozens of allusions or references but I guarantee every episode has at least a few so how you can argue that a part of the show as intrinsic as this is not worth documenting?. If you wanna delete fluff entries, speculation or unverified sources knock yourself out, I fully support you but don't delete the whole section by default just to be a dick, thats incredibly childish and is at odds with the goal of this wiki Snafu7x7 (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Please take a closer look at my edits. Typically if I delete a whole section it's because 80% is fluff like "Kenny didn't die," 10% is redundant, and the rest is unsourced. I'll do this a few times with a new article, and each time it reappears better than it was before. Then I go and work whatever is likely to stick into the main article. Sometimes there's something that actually merits its own section; for example, it was partly my efforts that resulted in a list of similarities/differences to "Heavy Metal" in the "Major Boobage" article, much cleaner and more relevant that what used to be there. The goal of this wiki is not to be a fansite overloaded with trivia. Also, calling it "Cultural References" or anything else doesn't change the content of the section, it's still trivia. If there's a single source that the entire episode is obviously a parody of, the best place to put it is in the intro to the article, in my opinion. Professor Chaos (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

OK well I think we're going to continue to disagree on this but at least you incorporated my references into the article instead of deleting them outright. So explain to me if you will how the section you added on "Heavy Metal" in the "Major Boobage" article does not qualify as trivia and why you feel it belongs in the wiki instead of on a fansite? Is it trivia? By your definition, yes it is. Is it in its own section instead of incorporated into the article as a whole? Well damn, yeah it is. Personally I think it makes for a great addition and I commend you for adding it, but isn't this the pot calling the kettle black? None of us want to see articles overloaded with trivia but you 'deletists' continually ignore the first tenet of WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." I think your approach is unnecessarily harsh and hypocritical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snafu7x7 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Sraight-up deletion of a trivia section a couple times within a day or two of a new South Park article works well in my experience as a sifting process. It gives a feel for what's going to stick in the article whether it's notable or not. At that point I typically find a good place for it, and add tags if necessary. My thought is that even if I think it's not worth mentioning, if it's going to be there anyway, it might as well be well-written (these articles are notorious for being poorly written). There's no point to an article rewrite so soon, since they're so volatile anyway. Here's something to consider that might explain "Major Boobage:"

Not all list sections are trivia sections. In this guideline, the term "trivia section" refers to a section's content, not its name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information.

Above that it says not to categorically remove trivia, I know. Like I said, I do that a couple times to sift it, then work it into prose, as the guideline says. Also:

Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies to both stand-alone works and series. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work. (See also: Wikipedia:Television episodes, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Plot)

I'd love to see more than a plot summary for all South Park episodes, but most unfortunately don't warrant it. In some cases, such as "Major Boobage," there is an opportunity for a separate section, a "focused list" of information. The whole point of that episode was to pay homage to Heavy Metal, with everything else secondary, or a vehicle to take the audience to the next "Heavy Metal" scene. For many people such as myself who have never seen Heavy Metal, such a list is useful, and encyclopedic, not disorganized irrelevant trivia, and it is enough to be better presented as a list than in the summary. Additionally, that section will not go away, no matter who deletes it. It is a permanent fixture in that article. Therefore, I renamed the section and deleted anything not "Heavy Metal," and others filled the section. No pot, no kettle, nothing black, nothing hypocritical. Professor Chaos (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoever is deleting the Trivia sections, please stop. Sometimes I wonder where South Park gets it's references and songs from. So I go onto Wikipedia to check for more information. I'm pretty sure other people do this too. It's not like having a Trivia section is doing any harm, gosh.

Go to a fan site for trivia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Professor Chaos (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

South Park was written by people, not a bunch of chimpanzees with typewriters, if you can't provide sources from them that they've chosen to reference certain facets of popular culture, don't put it here. Otherwise, it just becomes a list of original research.Alastairward (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop bitching about the trivia section, none of it was sourced. StardustDragon 14:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Who exactly is "bitching" and what of it? Alastairward (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Professor Chaos (EDIT: rather, the user above him) Dude7324 and Snafu guy StardustDragon 17:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that all mentions of Ferris Bueller have been eliminated. While I disagree with the exclusion of a separate Cultural References list, I accept that that's what happens most of the time on episode pages. However, the Bueller references are vital for an understanding of the episode (or at least the Cartman/Butters subplot), and so should be included somehow. It takes away from the article to not have them in there. Choiniej (talk) 07:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Jumping the fence

How is jumping the fence a parody of Ferris Beuler? This seemed more of a generic action movie scene than a reference to Ferris Bueler.146.94.177.211 (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not that I'm the one who first made mention of it, but it's part of a pattern of Ferris Bueller references throughout the show (the others being Cartman's repetition of the "Life moves pretty fast" line and the inclusion of a song remarkably similar to Love Missile F1-11). I'm putting it back in.Choiniej (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No way, jumping over the fence from the truck has more to do with Die Hard, or any one of a dozen action movies then anything remotely resembling Ferris Bueller. An over the top slow motion sequence from traffic light to truck top over a giant fence onto a building roof has nothing to do with Bueller's day off. 75.85.186.70 (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree that it's not a Bueller reference, unless there's a scene in Diehard that is the same as the one in the episode, but I suppose I do agree that there's nothing definitive about it being a reference to anything specific, so I'll leave it out. I still think Cartman's behavior in the episode, as a whole, is a reference to Bueller - right down to trying to sneak out without getting caught.Choiniej (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)"#

There is a whole lot more in common with Die Hard than with FB. Are you going to say that the head terrorist wasn't a parody of Alan Rickman's Hans?!THEDOGGEDTRUTH 17:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedoggedtruth (talk • contribs)

I don't have any right to say that the head terrorist was a parody of his character. I didn't write South Park. StardustDragon 17:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You do if any lines were copied. If it's an interpretation of mannerisms and behavior, then it requires a knowledgeable source. If it's an observation of identical dialogue, then you should only need a source that states the dialogue.Choiniej (talk) 06:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

007 Reference

While inside "Super Phun Thyme", Butters and Cartman get on a motorcycle ride where they sit in positions similar to those Pierce Brosnan and Michelle Yeoh used when handcuffed together in Tomorrow Never Dies."I noticed the 007 reference as well. I don't know if there are any other movies where the driver flips his passenger over to the front of the bike because they can't release hands (in Tomorrow Never Dies, they are handcuffed). I think it should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.72.225.222 (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it really alludes a situation involving handcuffed runaways.--Spectatorbot13 (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Find a source, cause what you think or i think it looks like doesn't matter.-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If we could create a trivia section and use the movie mentioned by 64.72.225.222 as a source, noting the scene this particular episode parodies, would that meet the standards of Wikipedia? I notice there is already a discussion about issues with adding a trivia on the talk page but I don't feel like reading up on all that right now.

Also, why did you un-wikify "breaking character?" How is it not up to par with WP:MOS?--Spectatorbot13 (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA sections are discouraged as they are generally non-encyclopedic and tend to attract lots of unsourced original research. I unlinked the second appearance of "breaking character" because it was already linked a few sentances above WP:OVERLINK. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Garrison

Don't confuse personal opinion with fact.I think they still don't actually know what to call Garrison, as the children constantly called him Teacher, rather than address him/her by name. (Warpsoapstone (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

Maybe it just means the kids have given up on what to call Garrison. I don't blame them. - Redmess (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

References

Nice to see the references have been cleaned up! Xkingoftheworldx (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Two different names

Don't know if this is big enough to merit mention, but the Blacksmith character is given two different names in the episode. When confronted about his digital watch, Pioneer Paul calls him Chad, but while being interrogated by the robbers his name is given as David Palmer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.180.234 (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

David Palmer is the name of the first President on 24. Seems like a 24 spoof to me (in addition to Die Hard.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiveinNightCity (talk • contribs) 07:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference to 24 or not it seems straightforward to me that Chad is his real name, and David Palmer is his character's name.88.66.17.191 (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Palmer is his real name, and Chad is his character's name if Pioneer Paul calls him that. StardustDragon 18:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Continuity

I'm not sure where this would go, or who to point it out to, but right before the bartender gets shot in the gut, he gives the first one or two numbers of the cypherlock. But instead of starting with 18 he says 5(something) then is shot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.239.149 (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm listening to my brother watch the episode. One of the employees breaks character and says the code starts with 5-2- *shot in the chest*. However at the end of the episode the code is 1864. I know wikipedia frowns upon trivia, so just wanted to put it here Piepants (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

piepantsI have been really confused by that to.But I guess that’s just an honest mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NannaKP (talk • contribs) 22:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm watching the Friday night rerun and they've bugfixed it. Now the guy just says "1" before being shot. For posterity: I noticed the discrepancy on Wednesday too. We may never hear that "52" again. --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 04:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There may be a way to put the discrepancy into the article. It's not enough to warrant a whole section, though, so I don't know. Professor Chaos (talk) 07:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If something was changed, then i guess we can put it in the article. Moccamonster Talk 18:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a copy of the video with the original "52" dialogue.71.37.20.250 (talk) 06:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, ok. Professor Chaos (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't think this is necessarily an error. It's completely possible that different employees have different access codes so management can track who's used the door. TheUncleBob (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

except these are not HP employees, they are south park characters StardustDragon 18:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Stuff like this has happened in South Park before, I believe that in Lice Capades (I think it was that episode) they accidentally gave Clyde the last name 'Harris' and it's been changed to his real last name, Donovan, ever since. It was probably just a small error, no big deal.Voltair3 (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The moral

what's the morale? Rules are bullshit? Mallerd (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

or maybe that rules cannot replace judgement? 04:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry, in Dutch moral is same as morale. Anyway, didn't you notice that anyone who lived by the rules had a really hard time? Butters dragged Cartman into that life, the actors of that camp even got shot. Mallerd (talk) 08:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, just noticed your comment here. I see what you're saying. I think (opinion here) that it's just a coincidence. Butters was just being butters, Cartman was just being Cartman, and also they were making fun of annoying people at places like that who won't break character. Butters did his best, and did have a hard time, but I think was happy with himself in the end. Cartman got away with it, but also got beat up. The actors were just idiots, following a stupid rule at the wrong time. I don't think there was a moral to this one, just a parody. Interesting insight, though. Professor Chaos (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Use your head. Rules are not set in stone. That is it.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.112.35 (talk) 06:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Use your head... why should there be any morals in the story. One of the things about South Park is that it is often completely absurd and doesn't intend to display any sort of message e.g. the rainforest episode. Jjw19 (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Police

Did anyone else see that the policeman is the same guy that was evil and died in “Lil' Crime Stoppers”? It is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by NannaKP (talk • contribs) 17:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It's just a generic South Park style police officer. Professor Chaos (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Real-Life Counterparts

I believe Pioneer Village in the episode is a stand in for Harold Warp's Pioneer Village in Minden, Nebraska. I was editing video for a school project and noticed that several shots and elements throughout the episode mimic closely shots and elements in the Pioneer Village promotional DVD (including living history re-enactors with modern watches!), and the layout of the two sites is similar as well. "Super Phun Thyme" is a stand-in for Fun-Plex in Colorado, which is now called Fat City. If anyone wants to verify and include in the article feel free. 76.25.245.5 (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Good call. My suspicion is that all pioneer village type places look the same. Most likely it's a parody of an actual place in Colorado, just like Casa Bonita (I've been there, they did an amazing job re-creating it). If we can find that place, great. I bet you're right about Fun-Plex, though. I'd be curious to see, but I don't know how to verify it. Professor Chaos (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that is for sure Fun Plex, they say its off of Kipling in the show, and so is Fun Plex (Fat City). I think the Pioneer Village is either 9-mile Park in Denver or the Littleton Historical Museum. Oh, I am new at contributing to Wikipedia, I am sorry if I committed a faux-pas.Damnedcracken (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Professor Chaos; I think all these Pioneer Village places look the same, and it is fairly irrelevant to the plot whether "Super Phun Thyme" was based on a real place. 71.255.92.6 (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If there's a possible spot within Colorado, then it's likely a deliberate reference by Matt and Trey. They love to put real Colorado references in there, like the College Know-It-All Hippies from University of Colorado, Boulder (I used to live in Boulder, and the whole place is like that). It's irrelevant to the plot, but if there's a way to work in the real life counterpart (with a legitimate reference, of course) without it being a trivia section, then Damnedcracken is probably right on the money. Professor Chaos (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought it might be at least partially inspired by South Park City. I mean, what with the names being the same and all, it seems like sort of a weird coincidence, but I guess it could just be a...well, yeah, a coincidence. VolatileChemical (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, I didn't even know about that place, but I would bet money that's exactly what they intended. Too bad that's not enough for a reference. I'll see if I can verify it. Thanks for that find. Professor Chaos (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's 4 Mile Park in Denver. Why would there be a Nebraska reference in a Colorado show? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.127.182 (talk) 23:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Kyle = Butters ??

did anyone else notice on the way to 'super phun' cartman refers to butters as kyle, to be specific he says come on kyle, this is gonna be so awesome, but then in the very next seen cartman refers to butters by his actual name again, to be specific he says butters if you dont let go of my hand, everybodies gonna think we're gay,

I know what you mean but to me it sounds more like "come on man" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoneintraining (talk • contribs) 19:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it seems to me like it was "come on Kyle," because I recently watched a re-run where they'd bug-fixed it just as they did with the numbers (he now says "come on Butters"). 71.251.42.70 (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well now we're getting somewhere. That's very possible, as they've been getting sloppy lately, but yours is the first compelling argument. This is now worth looking into. I will check stansdad.com, to see if they have the original version. Professor Chaos (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like "AWWW MAN" which as any Trey Parker fan would know is his... well.. standard line.... but there is definitely a hard C sound before... cawww man, so it could very well be a bug-fix.. but that doesn't make much sense considering it's an animation and they could re-record this line over and over...

I think he was just saying that to refer to Kyle as he is never fun (in Cartman's eyes), and before that point Butters didn't want to go into Super Phun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kool Kid 761 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced trivia

Please reference the trivia below before adding to the main article;

• When the parks intercom system comes on with an announcement, the opening jingle is the popular 3 toned jingle from NBC.
• The 911 operator that Stan calls is the same woman, along with the same setting, that work at the Blizzard hotline in Make Love, Not Warcraft. As well, one of the Blizzard executives is seen on the bumper cars when Cartman is at Super Phun Thyme.
• When Cartman tells Butters he has to chill, he is referring to one of the most popular quotations from the 1986 hit movie Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Also, the "Super Phun Thyme" theme Cartman sings during the montage uses the tune Love Missile F1-11 by new wave band Sigue Sigue Sputnik which was prominently used in Ferris Bueller's Day Off.
• Butters' final line to Mr. Garrison mimics Stan's line in Follow that Egg! when presenting his egg to Mrs. Garrison.
• Cartman and Butters' motorcycle ride in "Super Phun Thyme" mimics the handcuffed motorcycle ride by Pierce Brosnan and Michelle Yeoh in Tomorrow Never Dies.

Trivia or not, if it's not referenced, it shouldn't sit in the article. Alastairward (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You need a reference to tell you that the opening jingle is the same one that NBC uses? StardustDragon 15:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As a BBC license payer... yes Alastairward (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've repeatedly re-added the Ferris Bueller stuff, with sources. Please stop removing it. Choiniej (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources for what exactly? You've linked to some quotes from the film "Ferris Bueller's Day Off", do you have sources that reference the South Park episode? Alastairward (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've now made the sources more thorough. Choiniej (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a great bit of referencing though, is there nothing more definitive? Alastairward (talk) 08:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fair, I can understand youtube and amazon not being reliable sources. I'm really not trying to be belligerent here, I just think it's important information to include, so I'm trying to add it within the existing guidelines. It's becoming unclear to me, however, what source exactly I could use. Is, for example, a more definitive source likely to exist that tells you the quote from Ferris Bueller? In the film, Bueller says "Life goes by pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it." In the episodes, Cartman changes the last sentence to say "If you don't stop and look around once in a while, and do whatever you want all the time, you could miss it." I referenced two sources; the video of that clip from southparkstudios.com, and the list of famous quotes from IMDb. What other source could I use? Actual movie scripts are not generally published, so that's out of the question. I should just be able to cite the film, as that's what I'd do in an academic setting, but I get the feeling that that wouldn't be acceptable here (for unknown reasons).

In the meantime, I'll let up on this for a few days, but I will be coming back to it on Saturday to see what people say about it. Also, incidentally, it would seem that the edits removing my additions are at least somewhat personally motivated, as this entire time an uncited passage about Tomorrow Never Dies has been left untouched. Anyway. I'll be back on Saturday. Choiniej (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is personally motivated, you just drew a lot of attention to the fact that you added them and they were then removed. I've removed a lot of other OR that other editors added, there's nothing special about you. BTW, well spotted, I'll remove that reference to Tomorrow Never Dies now.Alastairward (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Re-posing the question: I would think that a thorough enough source to state that Cartman's little speech, which I wrote out above, is a parody of Ferris Bueller's Day Off would just be a citation of the film itself. This would look something like this: Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Dir. John Hughes. Paramount Pictures, 1986. However, I feel pretty confident that someone would shoot that down. So, what I'm asking is, what source could I find? What type of source do people think is necessary before this information could be included? Choiniej (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty straight forward, creators of shows like South Park give interviews, have press releases, DVD commentaries etc that can be cited as their own opinion. Other South Park articles have such cites, if you can't find one for your claim above, it must remain on the talk page or better still not in the article at all. I've seen enough counterclaims when it comes to references on other articles to know that an editor's "I say so" is not enough. Alastairward (talk) 07:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the "or better still not in the article at all" part, which we both already know we disagree on and is a separate discussion entirely, I guess I don't understand why a comment by someone involved with the show is a necessary citation for a direct reference like the Bueller quote. If it's more of an homage, where there isn't anything explicitly in both, if it's a matter of interpretation, then I absolutely agree that no wikipedia editor is qualified to say where the writer took his or her inspiration from. But, if it's word-for-word in both the show and the thing the show is referencing, why must we wait for the DVD commentary to say so? That's not sarcastic or rhetorical, I really want to know what you think about this. My opinion, worth no more or no less than anyone else's on here, is that if a reference would be outright plagiarism if it wasn't parody, it shouldn't need this kind of source; it should just take a citation of the original work. What do you think, Alastair? Also, does anyone else want to weigh in on this, if they're reading it? Choiniej (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you inadvertently hit the nail on the head there. Is it homage, parody or plagiarism? Is it the work of the show's creators or co-writers? Is it intentional? So much to know before adding it to the article. Like Strongsauce said in the edit history "the fact needs to be sourced for the relationship between the scene and the movie". Even if you prove that the words are like for like, is it intentional? I've seen far too many arguments over what the references are actually referencing to take the word of random editors as fact. If you can't find a cite, your problem, not mine.Alastairward (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I still disagree (I think it the writers' honesty can be taken for granted), but it's not like I can't understand your point. So, what do we do about this? It doesn't really seem reasonable that just we two decide, especially since we haven't come to any sort of consensus about it. Choiniej (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems remarkably straight forward to me, cite it or leave it out.Alastairward (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)`

Well, no, what I mean is that you (and probably others, such as Strongsauce from above) believe a citation needs to be found that shows that the writers intended there to be a connection between the show and the film, while I (and probably others, such as Roger from your talk page) believe that only a citation of the film is more than adequate. Right now only you and I have said anything about it, and individual opinions don't seem sufficient to decide on what the policy should be. Surely there must exist a better way to settle it. Choiniej (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been reading this and it's a sad thing to watch. To the inclusionist: why is explaining the jokes in a South Park episode important enough to justify all this arguing? To the deletionist: why is it so important to uphold your strict interpretation of wikipedia policies that you must suppress a completely obvious observation of similarity between 2 readily available sources... just because it hasn't be written down somewhere else before? Could one of you please realize that this just doesn't matter, and let the other one have his way, before you end up on WP:Lamest edit wars? (Hey, there are already a couple of South Park "reference" wars listed there!) --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 21:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"... cite it or leave it out"

Alastairward, like I mentioned on your talk page, that doesn't seem to be the Wikipedia policy. If you have a problem with an uncited statement then you're supposed to flag it and discuss it on the talk page before deleting it. Also keep in mind citing isn't always necessary [1].

Personally I don't think there's any issue with most of the trivia items. If it regards a quote or picture/movie from the episode then the episode title alone is probably enough of a cite (maybe also the timecode?). -Roger (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: tcsetattr's comment, just for the record, I think we stopped arguing a while ago (while moving on to simply discussing), and there certainly hasn't been any edit warring; I'm not planning on changing anything until we clear this up. I know I'm not getting worked up about this, and I certainly don't feel any animosity towards anyone disagreeing with me. In response to the comment, certainly it's not all that important, but it does have wide applicability - all the reference-dependent cartoons have at least one editor, if not multiple, who systematically eliminate all cultural references if the sources don't meet their standards. Maybe whatever we settle on here could be used across the board, eliminating pointless fights later on? Also, as other users have said other places, this sort of information is *exactly* what draws some users to the wikipedia episode pages - trying to ID something from the show that they've seen before but can't quite place. Plot summaries are available much more widely, so they add little value, but CRs aren't very easily found, therefore I think they add a lot of value to the page. Choiniej (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

To Rogerbrent above, as I already said before, some of the fact tags sit on articles for months without being addressed, which is why I removed them to the talk page for citing. And to tcsetattr I would say that most trivia is usually better labelled trivial, something small from the plot blown out of proportion and doesn't warrant inclusion even if it is (however unlikely it is to happen) cited later. And as to why bother with a strict interpretation of wikipedia policies? Well, why bother with Wikipedia at all, if we're going to add anything as we please, why not try a fanbased wiki instead? And Choiniej, I think we've discussed this before, but as I'm sure I've said before, a lot of the contributions to "cultural references" are argued over by random editors who don't actually add anything other than opinion, how are we supposed to know if what they say really was the joke or really was what went through the writer's mind when they put pen to page?

I think this page answers some questions too.Alastairward (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"And as to why bother with a strict interpretation of wikipedia policies? Well, why bother with Wikipedia at all, if we're going to add anything as we please, why not try a fanbased wiki instead?"

Why do you even care so much about this man? No one here likes what you're doing, and everyone here would prefer the stuff you edit out on the front page. I really don't know what you problem is with all this.

Also, this part

• The 911 operator that Stan calls is the same woman, along with the same setting, that work at the Blizzard hotline in Make Love, Not Warcraft. As well, one of the Blizzard executives is seen on the bumper cars when Cartman is at Super Phun Thyme.

Was mentioned by the animators themselves in the release "6 Days to South Park" on southparkstudios.com. You Happy?

AznWarlord (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hate to ask an obvious question, but why haven't you added it? I might also ask though, if it's sufficiently notable to bother with? Alastairward (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not the point - the point is, instead of making the article itself better, all you do is remove stuff. You can argue that removing stuff is "helping" the article, but no one else is bothered by this "useless" information as much as you. Like in the episode Two Guys Naked in a Hot Tub, you removed information that part of the episode was a reference to the Waco Siege, despite that being mentioned in the episode itself. Rather than just getting rid of the "Cultural References", or "Trivia" or whatever the hell anyone wants to call it, why didn't you actually add the part about Waco to the plot summary itself? Don't worry though, I already did. In the best way I saw fit, which then prompted me to revise the rest of the section so that I thought it would sound right. The point is, I'm sure someone's gonna read my revisions and be utterly confused since I'm probably the only person who understands what I'm trying to say. Sometimes, a "Cultural Reference" or "Trivia" or whatever is the best way for information to be added into the article - Wikipedia is about providing information, not removing it. AznWarlord (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

References

What is Alastairward's problem?

This guy is on his own little personal crusade to mutilate (vandalize is more like it) each and every article related to the episodes of South Park.

South Park is an adult satire which borrows heavily from pop culture and many other cultural references in modern society. The inclusion of material in each article that breaks down where the material was satirized from is of high value to anyone who wants to look at any episode of South Park and research what is being satirized.

This whole mutilation of South Park episodes is ridiculous. I am only left wondering what TV show which utilizes cultural references is next on his list. He seems to be a Star Trek fan. I think people who are offended by what he is doing should head on over to the Star Trek thread and delete ALL cultural sections which EVERY EPISODE has. Or maybe this clown can do it himself since he is so dedicated to destroying articles in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.205.246.175 (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear anonymous, do not fear, as I said on your talk page, the Star Trek articles are next! Alastairward (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, he wants to remove all the stuff, anyone undo them. I don't know about you, but every time I edit a South Park article, I watch the episode as I go. So all the info I put in is 100% straight from the source. It takes a lot of time for me to edit the articles, and it often takes me more time trying to get the sentences I add to fit with the rest. I really feel sorry for all the other people who spend their time editing those episodes just to have this guy remove their input. I actually learn something from the info he deletes, like what a certain scene is a reference to. But apparently, he doesn't think its helpful. Always going around, justifying himself with links to what to do with "uncited" material. Might as well delete every South Park wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AznWarlord (talk • contribs) 22:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Cry me a river! I have as much right to edit wikipedia as you do remember. If you're so concerned about accuracy of info, why don't you bother digging up some cites? Alastairward (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're so concerned about whether or not material is cited on Wikipedia, why don't you stop targeting South Park articles and go hound Star Trek articles for "Uncited" material. It's impossible to find one single citation for an article on a South Park episode to exist, other than "I saw the episode". How do you think these articles were even created? People saw it, people wrote about it, and people like it. AznWarlord (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If we followed Alastairward's advice, we could just get rid of the plot summary that isn't in the press release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.211.219 (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The plot summary doesn't have to be in a press release because it's already aired in the episode itself, which is THE source. Cultural references, however, can be interpreted multiple ways which is why it should be cited for accuracy. I'm not taking sides, just saying.--Spectatorbot13 (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

6 Days To South Park

The season 12 DVD contains a 82 minute commentary by Trey and Matt about the making of Super Fun Time, called "6 Days To South Park". This is something unique, maybe information about it should/could be added to the article. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Parody?

It seems like they were spoofing some sort of amish movie with the characters. Anyone know? Jparks13 (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Jparks13