Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:16, 17 March 2009

Animation: South Park Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the South Park task force.

Comedy List‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy List This article has been rated as List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

	List of South Park episodes is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 16, 2005 Featured list candidate Not promoted November 3, 2005 Featured list candidate Not promoted January 26, 2006 Featured list candidate Promoted March 22, 2008 Featured list removal candidate Demoted Current status: Former featured list

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Merger proposal

A number of the season one episodes appear to lack notability, I propose merging them into this list of episodes. This was originally discussed here. Alastairward (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(and again) Per WP:V merging seems to be the appropriate action: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it." The series has significant coverage, individual seasons may have significant coverage, important episodes have significant coverage, but many/most individual episodes dont. Without significant third party coverage, the episode article merely become restatements of the plot. And while retelling of plot MAY be important in covering a topic enclopedicily (is that even a word???) an article that is solely a repetition of the plot is not encyclopedic. The chart layout can be modified to easily include Neilson ratings which are frequently the only 3rd party material related to the episodes. -- -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of the articles seemed to be relatively unnotable ,going by the notability test and a related discussion on the talk pages for the list of Farscape and Lexx episodes (bit of a disclaimer here, I love those two shows but completely support the merges).

None of the merges were prejudicial to the essential information each individual article contained. As I said, the pilot and Mecha-Streisand are notable. One as the pilot episode of the entire series, the other since it drew attention from a third party source (if the cite I provided in the article is verifiable), showing it had attention outside of the simple fact that it was an episode of the show.

A lot of what I could say is actually repeated in the links I provided above to the Farscape and Lexx discussions, please have a little look at those too. Alastairward (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I support a merge of all episodes that fail notability (the assertion of such), but I also (if it doesn't already exist), I would suggest creating individual season lists (like Lost (season 2) as this show has been around for 12 seasons and that's a bit much to have plot summaries for all that on just this page. You can cut all of that out, which would neaten it up and allow it to become a featured list, while at the same time creating an aggregate page that could flesh out the plots a little better than this page could.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

No. All episodes should have their own page. And I'm not just saying this for South Park, but for all shows. One of the things that make Misplaced Pages so great was all the crazy facts about such a wide variety of subjects, and this whole "notability" thing seems to be ruining this whole site. Bring back the old Misplaced Pages. 71.182.229.224 (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The changes that have already occured on the site are awful. A long list with short summaries is a pain to the eye and offers little information. The current way, with separate sites for each episode looks fine... --95.33.106.254 (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your opinion is not shared by the Wiki community, which has notability guidelines set up because not every subject under the Sun is exactly note worthy. That includes South Park. Though many episodes ARE, a lot (probably most) are not that notable because they're just run of the mill episodes for the show. Since "I like it the way it was" is not a viable argument for keeping a page, I implore you to find some reliable sources covering non-trivial content about the episodes and add it so that at least some of the meet the notability guideline and are not merged.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You aren't the first to suggest they be merged, but trust me. They aren't getting merged. Notability on wiki is second to popularity. Everytime this gets proposed, the merger is opposed 20 to 1. Besides, if you're going to have individual pages for almost every episode, why leave out pages for a few?

Because the growing trend is that "popularity without a viable argument is not enough". There must be a valid argument presented to ignore the notability guideline nowadays. As for why merge some and not all, I think that if we were to go through every page we'd probably be merging all but a few (maybe an episode here or there). I doubt it would be that the majority are notable and only a handful are not.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a 12 season list may be reaching (or already be past) the end of easily navigatable length and that seperate lists for each season may be in order- provided that the consesus shown so far for redirects of non-notable episodes into season lists reaches its logical conclusion. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge all individual articles, except for Trapped in the Closet episode and other episode articles that have good amount of other information, than just the plot. After the merge, create Season pages instead. And perhaps then it could be made like the Simpsons page, who have the episode summary on the season page rather than the main episode list page. --Gman124 16:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, is the merge being disscussed here or at the Wikiproject page because it seems that this disscusion was moved here on the 4th, but it is now being disscussed on this and here. Shouldn't there be just one place for this disscusion. --Gman124 16:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Added message at Wikiproject South Park to discuss merger here not there. --Gman124 16:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the season pages were already created they were just merged with the list because they didn't have enough stuff in them. --Gman124 16:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So take a trimmed plot, as I had started to provide for on the main list of episodes page, and move that to a restored season page instead. I could go for that. Alastairward (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Going by WP:MOSTV, the season page would allow for a larger plot (somewhere close to 200-300 words) which would be a pretty generous compromise between this page and the individual pages that are nothing but plot. If any (or the majority) episode pages have the Nielsen ratings listed, then we can add a section to the episode table (like I did at Smallville (season 8)) that would allow us to put them on the page in an organized fashion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If we redesign the table as part of this change, we can incorporate the initial viewership ratings as well. (and perhaps the "TV-MA" etc. rating) Although tables in wikiformat are a pain in the butt.-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to the table on this page? If so, then I was say that unless you can get them for every single episode, it's best not to do that. You'll never pass FLC if you have scattered episode ratings. If you can get them for all the episodes, awesome, because it's a great addition to have.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the approach that we should not add the information that we can verify because we cant verify information for everything. Without ratings information how could this article ever achieve Feature List status anyway? Notnotkenny (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The same way that List of Smallville episodes did. Nielsen ratings could only reliably be found for that past two seasons (7 and 8), that left 6 seasons with scattered ratings here and there. If you cannot complete the information, then you need to find another way of presenting it. One could try just listing the average rating for the entire season if you cannot find every individual episode rating. It is not going to look good to have scattered numbers across the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I am all for articles looking pretty, but in a choice between having perfect layout and having sourced content- Sourced on-topic content will always win in my book. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it's about presentation, not ignoring sourced content. If the information can only be half complete, there has to be a way of presenting it in a more satisfactory manner. A season average (which is typically easier to find than 20+ individual numbers for each season) is one of those possibilities. If you find one for 15 out of 22 episodes, then it's going to be hard to pass an FLC because the discussion will be "why can't you find the others?". But, if you have all of the season averages, that's just as good for an article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to agree to disagree since it is essentially a moot point - i dont think we have any data to include anyway. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Reading the discussions, I repeatedly see "A number of the season one episodes appear to lack notability", which must then imply that some of the episodes do indeed have individual notability, and that the ones that "appear" not to, may just actually be so. So... per Misplaced Pages:Television episodes:

Note: Stubs are allowed on Misplaced Pages and many articles are stubs. It may be inappropriate to merge or redirect an article about a television episode just because it is a stub. Before executing a merge, ask yourself:

• Will the merge reduce the quality or coherence of the target article?
• Are more sources available? (Do some basic looking for additional source material that could be used to improve the article.)

If the answer to either of these questions is "yes", it is probably better to avoid merging or redirecting. Instead, consider improving it, or offer suggestions for its improvement on the talk page

So, my thoughts...

1. Has anyone created a list of stubs proposed for merge?
2. Have these stubs been tagged for Notability or Sources and allowed to grow?
3. How diligent was/were efforts to expand these stubs before proposing a merge?

I respectfully opine no merge until it is shown that the current guideline for such has been fully addressed. Schmidt, 02:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between being a stub and being an article consisting solely of a plot. Since the onus is not on people to prove something does NOT exist, but that it DOES, someone should really be showing that they can be improved. What you see in EPISODE is a suggestion, not a mandate. I just randomly picked one of the episode articles, and here is what I found. (there is apparently a block on this link, so just follow the link from here and use, in quotes, "Tom's Rhinoplasty") and Google News (for providing reliable sources), and you'll see that there is nothing there. "Tom's Rhinoplasty" appears 17 times in the Google News search, but you'll find if you visit each link that in each case they are merely talking about South Park in general and mentioning various episode titles. Even a general Google Web search (which are typically not used, because they pick up every trashy website under the Sun) just turns up hits on people listing the title of the episode, and maybe giving a brief synopsis of what happens. That was just a random episode. I'm sure most are the same way. There are 180 episodes, the fact that you are suggesting that we do this for all of them says to me that most probably DO fail both EPISODE and NOTE, and this is just a way to prolong the inevitable. If something does exist, then it can be added later. Remember, WP:DEADLINE works both ways. Just for the sake of argument, I just grabbed another episode from last season (given the theory that the longer the show runs the more in the public eye it is). I randomly chose "Eek, A Penis!". Here is the (same issue as before, just use "Eek, A Penis!", Google News, and Google Web results. The only viable page I found was an IGN review, which does not meet the "significant coverage from reliable secondary sources" criteria. Hell, even using TV Squad, which is the bottom feeder of TV reviews as they generally never say anything insightful about the episode beyond "I like it" (thus making most of what they say unusable) doesn't help, as only 2 sources (with no other real world information) is not enough. A season article would be best for the vast majority. If no real world information can be found, then make it a season list. If a few things can be found, but not enough to warrant a separate page, then make it a season article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I searched the newspapers for all of these episodes and zip. Checking wikibooks now (and then on to wikischolar). When those come up empty, then the onus will REALLY be on those wishing to include to supply the material that meets WP:N / WP:V "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it." -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC) UPDATE: "Death" has been the subject of 3rd party analysis and therefore meets WP:N and has been removed from the list. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone readded it. I saw only one source added to the article, which is probably why someone re-added it. WP:NOTE requires "significant coverage" which is defined as more than a single source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"Significant coverage" is more than passing mention in a single source, "Death" is the focal subject of the article. It also appears that Tom's Rhinoplasty has been the subject of a number of scholarly analysis and would appear to meet WP:N -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I see a single sentence in that "Death" article. That is not "significant" coverage. It clearly says at WP:NOTE: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." - NOTE says "sources", not "source(s)". Later on the page it says: "Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article." - "Sufficient detail for a comprehensive article" can generally never be covered by a single source. What search engine are you using. I just did a quick Google Scholar on "Tom's Rinoplasty" and got only 4 hits, 2 or which just cite the episode title, the other two come from the same source which is a South Park book. Here is the Google Book search, and out of all of them I could only find one that actually discussed the episode, but since we cannot see the follow up page unless we buy the book (stupid Google books), all we know is that it recounts the plot of the episode. Since only a couple pages later it doesn't mention the episode, I'm not thinking that it covers it too comprehensively. The thing that everyone needs to remember is "is there enough information to warrant a separate article". Meeting the bare minimum requirements of the GNG is not enough, especially when 4/5 of the article is plot. If you have a bunch of episodes that have a couple of sentences about themes they exhibit, it's quite easy to create a section on a season page chronicling the themes present in that given season, and making note of specific episodes that stood out. That's how you have a comprehensive article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It is entirely possible for a single article to provide "Sufficient detail for a comprehensive article" about a single TV episode.

Re Tom's Rhinoplasty: On the first page there are like 4 gay studies books that come up. -- The Red Pen of Doom 06:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a long shot to think one source will provide enough detail for "comprehensive" coverage. As for the books, I covered that above. I told you that most only have the episode listed (, , , , , , , and ), and the one source that starts to talk about it doesn't have the follow up page to show us what it was saying. Look at those books closely. A good portion of them are talking about Ellen doing a voice-over for South Park's "Tom's Rineplasty". The LGBT aspect of it is because of Ellen. Then look at the other sources, Google Book let's you know how many pages that term hits on, and several of them only appear on one page and it is part of a list of LGBT media. That's "passing mention".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

In response to MichaelQSchmidt, "yes a due diligence search for sources was conducted and no evidence was found that 8 of the 10 articles proposed for merger would be able to meet would be able to meet our notability guideline of significant 3 party coverage in a reliable source." The evidence of whether the 2 other articles, namely Tom's Rhinoplasty and Death meet our guidelines for stand alone articles is contested. Given that the overwhelming consensus of policy based reasoning, I would suggest that in a few days if no more evidence appears supporting stand alone articles 1) that the 8 be merged into a Season One article, 2) that the remainder of this article be broken into stand-alone Season articles, and 3) that merger discussions for Tom's Rhinoplasty and Death continue on their individual article pages (unless some type of consensus appears here on whether or not the evidence for stand alone status has been met) Does this sound like a plan? Notnotkenny (talk) (AKA - The Red Pen of Doom 13:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to give a little note, there are thousands of article with no sources in Misplaced Pages that aren't merged. These articles are good ones, and their only external link can serve as reference. They can be greatly improved, however merging is just going the other way round. So Strong Oppose. --Fixman 19:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because other people do it, doesn't mean we should. Also, there a difference between your personal preference of what a good article is, and what Misplaced Pages considers to be a good article. The fact remains that they fail WP:NOTE, WP:PLOT, and I'd include WP:V and WP:RS, but since they have no sources and no information beyond a plot it's hard to say they fail them in a technical way. Unless you have a viable argument for why these South Park articles warrant their own articles, then just because you like it the way it is doesn't mean that it is the correct way to be.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I recall the "there are other articles that you haven't deleted" on other merge proposals or AfDs. Why should that stand as an argument? Does an editor have to "prove" themselves by submitting every article worth merging simultaneously? It's a lazy argument at best. Alastairward (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I'm against the merging. Strong Oppose. Nightscream (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you actually have a reason, because these are discussions, not voting polls. There are several policies and guidelines in place that say that these articles should not exist (given their current state). In addition, I just noticed your comments on the South Park WikiProject about "film has their own notability guideline, so should TV, and if so all episodes would have their own articles". Um, we DO have our own notability guideline, we just often use the WP:GNG in favor of it. But, if you'd like to take a look, here is the link. You may be surprised to find out that it doesn't allow for episode articles to exist all willy-nilly. No notability guideline, not FILM, not NOVEL, not MUSIC, is allowed to contradict WP:NOTE. That's just the way that it is. It can expand on what NOTE says, and clarify points, but it isn't allowed to contradict it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, guideline supports such lists. His simple opinion is as valid as all those who have expounded at length and so must be respected. Schmidt, 18:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

What guideline? I'm pretty sure that the notability guideline doesn't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep the various articles. Oppose merger. There is nothing wrong with episode articles. Dream Focus 19:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• • ALL articles must meet the notability guidelines. These articles fail that guideline, as well as the policy on not being solely a plot summary. There is no inhereted notability.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    • With respects, the pages meet the requirements of WP:Policy and fall within the content guidelines of Misplaced Pages:Television episodes. There is no WP:DEADLINE for their improvement, and guideline instructs that they should be allowed to improve. And in quoting WP:PLOT it must be remembered that if proper inclusion of the information would overburden the parent article, a sub-article is bot encouraged and allowed. The reducing of the sub-articles to one-liners to then merge back into the parent acts to diminish a paperless encyclopdia. Schmidt, 19:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd like to point out that WP:NOTE is often ignored in AFD. Otherwise articles for bestselling novels and clearly popular mangas would be deleted far more often, since they can't meet the requirement of getting reviewed in a major news source. The policies are just suggestions, it all coming down to the consensus of people discussing it at the time. See common sense and ignore_all_rules. Dream Focus 00:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
      • To Michael, I'm not sure what you're reading at either WP:POLICY or WP:EPISODE, as these articles do not meet any guideline or policy (except the ones on what Misplaced Pages is not). I've said this before, WP:DEADLINE swings both ways, read it carefully and it explain that. Yes, there is no deadline for improvement, but that is for articles that have established notability. DEADLINE is referring to when articles just look shitty, but meet all of the basic criteria for existence. DEADLINE does say, "We can afford to take our time, to consider matters, to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established."
      • To Dream, there are quite a few articles deleted every day that fail notability. NOTE is NOT often ignored. If it was then we would have tagged it as a historical document long ago. Don't misinterpret a few subjects that are guarded by extreme fans in great numbers as being "the community". You might want to read WP:IAR a little closer, because it is not a get off free pass for whenever a policy or guideline exists that you don't like. IAR is only when the guideline or policy prevents the betterment of Misplaced Pages. An individual episode article with nothing but a plot does not hurt Misplaced Pages should that plot be moved to a central location. When you have multiple policies and guidelines saying "this isn't correct", you'd be hard pressed to prove that ignoring all of them betters Misplaced Pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merger, in other words keep individual articles. In all honesty, it seems to me that Misplaced Pages:Television episodes should end this argument right away; it clearly states that articles about television episodes are acceptable as long as they meet notability guidelines. But since we're discussing this further...my feeling is not every episode will necessarily be notable, but may will be. Rather than getting rid of all the articles in one foul swoop, the burden should fall on editors to prove with each individual episode article that it meets notability guidelines. If the editor fails to prove that article is notable, than it should be deleted. If the editor proves it, then it shouldn't. But to simply get rid of them all, frankly, seems a horrible solution to me. — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 19:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think that was what this discussion was doing. Currently, we are only talking about the first season of the show (as far as I know/knew). As such, all of those articles in question were individually tagged. If you look above, the only "foul swoop" action was against 8 articles that our editors could not find anything for at all (though all of the various Google options - scholar, news, books, etc.), and that there were two that would warrant further discussion on their individual talk pages. The purpose here is because you need a centralized discussion area.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmmm...you may be right in that I think I initially misunderstood the discussion, but I also wouldn't rush to simply merge these into a list just like that. Granted, these eight articles in question are in bad shape now (mostly nothing but episode descriptions, even in the cases where some other info is included it's badly out of balance), but I find it very hard to believe there are no sources for them (or, indeed, any of the Season 1 eps) that once applied would make these articles satisfy the notable standards. I mean, I obviously can't speak for how much research has been done yet, but take Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo for example. Even a regular Google News Search going using "All Dates" produces a number of what (at first glance) appears to be credible sources (here and here.) I would bet that with some library visits and Lexis Nexus searches, we could find enough such info for all these articles. (Hell, even a look at the special features and commentaries on the South Park Season 1 DVD would help, if there are any.) I think it would be a real shame to just merge them all and be done with it without giving people the opportunity to improve them. I would propose holding off on the merge for at least a month or two and forming a task force under WikiProject South Park who would be dedicated specifically to improving the Season One episodes. If after a certain amount of time, the articles are still in bad shape, then we can talk about the merge, or about shutting down those individual articles. If they're in good shape, then we're all the better for it. I'd definitely be happy to participate in such a task force, and I doubt I'd be the only one... — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 20:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
      • This is the problem that we've always had, and it's what makes it difficult to assess at a glance. Going through the Google stuff, the TIME article is about the show in general (Mr. Hanky the character is discussed), IOL mentioned a girl wanting a CD title "Mr. Hanky...", another one note mention not related to the actual episode, announcement of a DVD including the episode, and none of the others really even mention the episode either. It's case of false appearance. As for the DVD stuff, I haven't the slightest. There are no commentaries on the DVDs. They apparently made a special CD you could order (have no idea of it's still in print). But, it always comes back down to the question of, "even meeting the bare criteria, does it still warrant a separate page?". Unless the audio commentary covers a substantial amount of real world information (non-trivial), then you still have to address the lack of "secondary sources" in the artical. That was why there was the proposal of re-establishing the season pages. There have been good things done with season pages lately (see Lost (season 2) and Smallville (season 1)), which allow for limited resourced information to still be presented in a manner that is befitting to the subject, and still complies with our policies and guidelines.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I hear you, but as of right now, I still fall on the side of opposing the merger. Misplaced Pages:Television episodes is a guideline which specifically states television episode articles are acceptable so long as they meet notability standards, so yes, if there are secondary sources or episode reviews or anything of the like out there, I feel they do warrant separate articles, even with the "bare minimum" criteria. (Even some of the examples you point out, like Lost and Smallville, have individual episode articles in addition to season pages.) As I said, I'd like to do some further research, do some Lexis Nexus searching (the fact Google News produces few results doesn't mean there's no more news sources out there), look at the DVD (for more than just trivia), check out some of the books written about South Park (there are several), etc. I think the task force idea is still valid, although I'd be happy to do this research on my own too. Until them I'd lean heavily toward erring on the side of caution and keeping the articles... — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 21:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Wouldn't erring on the side of caution actually be merging the articles? Say you leave them, but never find enough to actually warrant separation (remember, EPISODE points to NOTE, which says "significant coverage"). That means that all the while the pages act as an influence, with people saying "well, they were left alone and no one is merging them." How many times do people point to other articles in the same shape as justification (I think someone did that just above actually). I've said this before to others, WP:DEADLINE works both ways, and if the information cannot be found reasonably soon, then the best avenue is to salvage what you can into a merge and then create a taskforce to go through each episode one by one and see which ones warrant separating. That was how it was handled on Smallville (the season page was created first, and then the two episodes there were split off after). Otherwise, you've not made any actual progress in cleaning up the pages, because (and I have seen this before), eventually people just leave them as they were until the next "fight", in which case it's the same old "let's leave them, and see what we can find in the mean time". It's one circular event, as I don't think this was the first time South Park was put on the "chopping block", so to speak, either.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
          • to Hunter_Kahn: no one is asying that individual episodes that meet WP:N cannot have their stand alone articles. What we are saying is that at least 8 of these articles (if not all 10) have no evidence that they actually meet WP:N "significant coverage by 3rd party sources" and therefore do not meet our standard guidelines for stand alone articles and following policy, should be merged. For those who so adamantly claim notability, please conduct your own reseach and provide the 3rd party sourcing to significant coverage. Remember the burden rests on those who wish to keep or add material.-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
            • Good point, but it must be noted that WP:BURDEN also advises that such be tagged and allowed a sufficient time for sources to be added... and editors may come forward to do their own due diligence searches to find what others have not. Schmidt, 22:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
              • And indeed for most of a month the articles have been tagged for this merger and many have been tagged as being inadequately sourced for much longer. And ineed, once the merger is complete, editors will have all the time they wish to research reliable sources and re-create the new article that actually meets our guideline. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
                • "For those who so adamantly claim notability, please conduct your own reseach and provide the 3rd party sourcing to significant coverage." That's what I plan to do. I'll be able to use my Lexis account tomorrow, so that's where my research will start. It's my hope that if this merger happens, it won't happen for at least a week, which should give me some time. But yes, I think you're absolutely right, for those of us opposed to this merger, the best solution is not to simply argue about it here, but to get working on improving those articles and proving that they're notable (if, that is, it turns out that they are.) — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 02:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Having read the above discussion, it is becoming evident that these episodes do not have the notability that people wished they had. Some editors may find that a bitter pill to swallow at first (I've had the same experience with two of my favorite shows), but the intent is to improve wikipedia, not to hurt anyone's feelings. Keeping around unimprovable articles as stand-alone articles is not improving the 'pedia, quite the opposite. Relax, think about how bad articles reflect on you as fan editors, and agree to merge the articles to make them shine amidst WP:OTHERSTUFF, and help build a kick-ass encyclopedia in the process. – sgeureka 21:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Sgeureka, as I usually do. Most of these should be merged as we have done for other series. Eusebeus (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment OK, as per my comments and the discussion above, I've started a bit of work on "Weight Gain 4000", and done my best to add categories as per Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines, like "Production" and "Reception". (Cultural references isn't necessarily listed, but there is a lot of precedent for it in other episode-related articles.) These are just the first additions and I expect to make more (on Ratings, and Production, for example, among other topics), but frankly, the little bit that's there already I would argue satisfies notability standards outlined in WP:MOSTV. And it wasn't all that difficult to do. If each of the articles in question could be upgrades this way, wouldn't that satisfy the notability standards for them? (Also, on a somewhat related note, Season One commentaries got dropped from the S1 DVD and were available on a separate CD for a time, but they don't seem to be available anymore on the South Park site. Anyone know where these can be found? They'd be helpful in improving these articles...) — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 00:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, MOSTV is a style guide, not a notability guideline. Episode articles must meet notability based on WP:N, not the style guide. That said, that one episode is, so far, more on the notable side, but more reception information would be nice. Also needs the plot trimmed down to proper length per the guidelines, and removal of the extra non-free image. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice job on "Weight Gain 4000", I no longer support the merger of that article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving this article for now. You've shown that it clearly has potential to grow. The only reason I say "for now", is because of the size of the article and the information currently presented. If we find even 5 articles of similar size, I could easily see them as being potential (I emphasize "potential") larger sections in a season article. You could cover "Cultural references" on a broader scope (assuming that the episodes have similar one-two sentences about it, and not well developed paragraphs). I'm merely throwing that out there, but as it stands, the article should be left to expand.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merger. Every episode of South Park is notable. Every episode is watched by millions of people. Misplaced Pages and its readers would not benefit in any way from a merge. It's abundantly clear from attempts to delete South Park episode articles, that they belong on Misplaced Pages. Bignole, Collectonian, and other anti-episode editors should go find a new hobby. It's pretty pathetic that Bignole is here trying to diminish Misplaced Pages's coverage of South Park, when it was South Park that Arbcom mentioned in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters, which Bignole was a party to. Give it a rest. --Pixelface (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Reformatting pages

Just to let you all know, I'm in the process of reformatting the "List of" page, so that it will already be ready to go. If someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll probably do a quick season structure for all the season pages as well (something to get them started). One thing I'm noticing (which I noticed while I did season 1), is that the episodes are not listed in airdate order, but in what I assume to be continuity order. This is not the correct way to publish this information on an encyclopedia. They should be listed in their airdate order, and if a reliable source can show that they were filmed earlier (not IMDb, or TV.com, and something more than a simple production code, which the average reader does not understand anyway), then it should be noted in each instance it occurs (e.g. an asterick, or footnote). It took me forever (exaggeration) to figure out why my MSN listings were not matching up with the episode pages I was getting the writer/director info from.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully ask that you discontinue and rollback as there is no consensus for your actions, and will result in BRD to either attain such consensus or show lack of. At the very most, I see 4 editors (one by 2 names) agreeing and 4 not agreeing. This is not consensus. Schmidt, 18:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Rollback? First, you have no authority to tell me what I can and cannot do on MY sandbox. Second, I have not touched this page. I am working on a new format on my own time, in my own space, and would only put it here should it be agreed upon. Given that this page is so damn large, and the new format will take up about half as much space, there is no reason to assume that there could not be consensus to at least revamped this page so that it can become a featured list (regardless of whether the episode articles are merged). Why is it that every time our paths cross I always feel like I eventually have to go on the defensive with you because it seems like you become really aggressive during disagreements (P.S. I see 4 individual people who agree that the season pages would be a good idea, and that most of the episode articles should be merged. I see 3 individuals that don't want anything changed, and two of them hold the basic argument of WP:ILIKEIT). But for all fairness, I think this wasn't a very widespread discussion and will be notifying more projects so that we can have better consensus.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no more authority here than you. And remain respectful and not at all "agressive". If your works remain in your sandbox, I am mollified. Your statement above made it seem like you were actively reformatting the pages. I apologize for my first miss-impression, since I should have looked before spoken. And I very much appreciate that there is an understanding that this dicsussion needs more input rather than the 4 support and 6 oppose. Schmidt, 19:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Because this is not a vote, the actual reviewal of the comments on this page reveals much different result than your 6:4. The correct analysis is "Merge" - supported by policy, "No Merge" - not supported by policy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You're correct, it is not a vote... nor is it an "I think my interpretation of guideline is better than yours". SInce a handful of editors cannot possibly reflect a consensus that affects the other thousands that edit wikipedi, the correct analysis is "no change" so as tp to reflect lack of concensus in interpretation of p9olicy and guideline, as supported by policy and guideline. Thank you. Schmidt, 23:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael, relax, a link was quite clearly given to Bignole's sandbox page (thanks to him for that, I did a little work on the a possible season 1 page myself any advice welcome]]. I'm not sure I understand your remark about "the other thousands that edit wikipedi" though, are you asking us for a consensus amongst thousands? Also, when quoting policy, please link to the relevant one. Alastairward (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

To point out, WP:CONSENSUS is formed by the strongest argument, the not side with the most number of supports (hence why the page actually says that even when a discussion has more people for something, they may not actually get what they want...i.e. the democracy amendment), or the side the refuses to "stand down" (pardon the term). To quote the CONSENSUS page: "Consensus decisions in specific cases do not automatically override consensus on a wider scale - for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. The WikiProject cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that doing so is right." Failure to agree, though in a lot of cases this can be true, is not necessarily "lack of consensus". Notability is not truly subjective, and not truly objective. The objectivity comes in the fact that it is clearly defined criteria for what is notable. The subjectivity comes in what meets the criteria. Does a single review meet it, if that review is from USA Today...what about BuddyTV? As it sits, 90% of the South Park articles (in any given season) don't even have the argument of "is this enough to warrant a page?", they have nothing but a plot and we have a policy for that. Season pages were one of the biggest compromises between the hardcore deletionists, and the hardcore inclusionists. Most articles are nothing but plot, and season pages allow for a better expansion of the plot summary than a "List of" page would allow (given a show with 12, going on 13 season). It also allows one to bypass the idea of WP:PLOT more easily because shows are more often covered from a seasonal standpoint than an individual (e.g., you'll find Nielsen Ratings for the end of a season more easily than each individual episode in most cases, and reviews of DVDs often cover the season as a whole). The season page is not a death sentence, but more like a halfway house. Some people make it out, others get sent back.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

To correct you and with respects, CONSENSUS is NOT about who has the "strongest" argument. I've read the page. Carefully. Consensus is the eventual agreement among a (large as possible) group of editors on how to apply different interpretations of guideline... not a few editor's narrow interpretations, nor a few editors more liberal interpretations. And consensus has not happened here yet, obviously. Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved, no in one side saying we're right and you're not. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality - remaining neutral in our actions in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on. And please take SPECIAL NOTE, that I have NEVER edited the articles you wish to remove, so I have no topic specific axe to grind. I trust that a few others here also have that neutrality, and rememeber that WP:IAR applies to ANYTHING that improves wikipedia, and each guideline begins with the very wise caution "Best used with common sense". Thank you. Schmidt, 09:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The only thing you've corrected me on is the current wording. You can read the page here to see that what I said was correct. I'm not sure when they removed the wording, but the apparently removed an entire section dealing with determining consensus. What you should make special note of is the fact that CONSENSUS clearly says you need to prove to the community why you should ignore all rules. Like I said, that policy is not some free pass to do what you want. You have to prove to the community why ignoring the rules is the best practice here, and you have not even attempted to do that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

comment duplicated from section below for context

Without a doubt there is a MAJOR problem here. Any attempt at consensus at any thread regardind South Park episodes is contaminated. The same editor having two accounts that comment, in any way, on the same Talk page is deceptive--whether intentional or not. The only acceptable way would be for both accounts to constantly state the relationship and then to clearly opine in opposite directions. And if so whats the point? Had the relationship (2 names/1 editor) not been revealed (this thread) the general makeup of editor response would have seemed normal. Now, of course, it is drastically skewed and any attempt to create consensus has an air of deception and falsehood. Are there any other multi-named editors taking part in this discussion and choosing? As an interested observer, I must say that this type of counterfit behavior is treachorous and threatening to a continued air of "assume good faith" that must exist between editors. Am I in a discussion with Edgar Bergen---or is it his hand puppet, Charlie McCarthy???? Who is the guy chimming in with the false nose and horn-rimmed glasses???? This duplicity is not in tune with editor fellowship. Double-toungued and two-faced---an interesting twist to the Misplaced Pages experience. My confidence in Jimbos' creation is shaken--Buster7 (talk) 05:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason you're commenting about the same thing (in great detail) in each of the sections. No offense, but we get it, you don't like the fact that someone has two accounts. What makes it worse is that you virtually copied and pasted your response in the appropriate section to this one, which is about reformatting the pages and not about merging anything. Please keep your discussion more on target.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is a reason. The same editors are involved!!!! Revelation... to make it known...to bring it out in the open so that it is not missed....to spill the beans.....to make sure all can see....to loudly proclaim a falseness....Maybe you get it. I just want to assure myself that other editors present and to come "get it"--Buster7 (talk) 05:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to calm down, and maybe stop trying to make a point. Everyone who has taken part in these discussions is aware of the two accounts the single editor was using (and no, I'm sorry, but he was not attempting to sway consensus. read his comments and it's clear of that), and if anyone confusingly assumes they are separate I'm sure someone here will point out the mistake. If you have such a problem with it, then report the user to the appropriate noticeboard. Now, let's try and get back to the topic at hand, which is (in this particular section) the reformatting of the pages (regardless of potential merging).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

Template:RFCmedia

• My impression is that most or all of these episodes are notable, and also that that will be ignored and the merge will still take place. I saw above something about two episodes from the first two seasons being the only notable episodes: pilot and streisand. I did some searching for the second episode, and it looks pretty notable. It's too much work (fait accompli?) to say "establish notability on every article now". What I recommend is that the results of google news, books, and scholar searches be check for each episode, and ones that appear notable have the links added to their talk pages (I'll do that for Weight Gain 4000 now). Then merge the ones that don't have sources, and keep the ones that do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peregrine Fisher (talk • contribs)

Going through all of the Google book search (I used parantheses so that Google didn't catch a hit on each individual word), there are only 7 books that mention the title, and only 1 out of those seven that actually discuss it beyond what the plot is. What they talk about is based on a single line of dialogue from the episode, and they only mention it for two sentences. As an aside, here is the Google scholar search. Only two sources look like potential material. One of them appears to just be the author mentioning the episode's plot bearing resemblence to a story he knows (maybe he talks about the episode, maybe that's it), and the other...well unless you have access to the site we cannot tell exactly what is being said.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Curious thing is, I only suggested merging them into a season list, rather than delete them permanently, which is the impression that others are giving. It seems better to present the information in a manner that is more beneficial to the reader of wikipedia, than to benefit a perception of an editor that somewhere out there exists notability for an episode. A merge to a list of episodes gives every opportunity for an editor to come back later and expand on what exist while providing superior presentation of information for readers (of whom there must be more than editors). Alastairward (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I fully support merging the episode articles into season articles. The majority of South Park articles I've seen consist of plot summaries and trivia sections, and we don't need individual articles for that. A season article can cover each episodes' plot quite sufficianty, while also including whatever production/reception information can be found. The in-depth plot summaries could be transwikied to the South Park Wikia, if they're not already there in some form. I'm sure, given the often controversial nature of South Park, that a select few episodes will warrant their own Misplaced Pages pages, but not all of them.  Paul  730 01:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• I also full support the merging of the episodes articles into season articles, with the plot summaries trimmed down to the actual allowed lengths (150-350 characters) per the MoS. The bulk of the episodes are simply not notable per actual notability guidelines. While there may be some minor production information on some episodes, and Nielsen ratings on all, there isn't enough to call it "significant" and it can be covered in a season article as noted by Paul730. Also second his recommendation of transwiking the longer ep pages to South Park's wikia, where they are more likely to be appropriate. Only the very few actually notable episodes, such as pilot and others that were controversial enough to receive extensive coverage, criticism, etc should have their own articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

  Merge all episode except the one episode article that is a featured article. --Gman124 02:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Gman, normally the RfC is reserved for people who have not yet commented. Not saying that you cannot discuss someone else's points, just that it doesn't need yours, mine, Alastairward's, Hunter's, Mike's, etc. because we've already given our stance in the above section. Cheers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok, slashed out my comment from here. --Gman124 15:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• Merge. This particular attempt at consensus is contaminated. There are editors that should disqualify themselves from any futher attempt to sway concensus thru convincing debate. Why?? Consider---An editor makes a persuasive argument that begins to turn the tide. The same editor, under the masquerade that he is a different editor, gives additional and supportive comment and the tide turns even more. It's like having two quarterbacks in the game at the same time. One editor gets to use a double-edged sword while the rest of us have a little pen knife!--Buster7 (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Just to point out, as far as this particular debate goes, the editor in question did not attempt to make any additional point with the second account (even identified themselve as being the new editor), or cast a "new" opinion in an attempt to sway consensus (not that I'm condoning their actions). I also highly doubt they would attempt such thing (at least on this page) in the future, given the particular section basically chastising them for even bringing the second account to this page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    • The attempt at deception is obvious.--Buster7 (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Clearly it isn't. He made three comments with the second account, none of which was attempting to make a "new" point with a "new" editor (the third edit was him identifying himself as the new name). Your obsession about this is a little disturbing itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll make that article a GA if you will then leave the others un-deleted/smerged. It seems like a fair test to me. You say it's not notable. I provide sources. You say they're not good enough. What do we do then? How about, I spend the many hours that a single article takes to get to GA on that article as a test subject, and if I succeed, you leave the rest alone? When you reply with a "no", how is that not a "fait accompli". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Peregrine, nobody is stopping you from going right ahead and doing so. I'm not sure what would be the point of leaving the other articles alone if you do so though (I take it you're referring to Weight Gain 4000)? The problem here has been with notability, which the other articles don't seem to have. Alastairward (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, do what you want, but all articles are based on their own merit. You provide sources that I assume you didn't really look at (not a testiment to your editing, just stating that I'm sure you just did a quick scan and grabbed what you could), and I looked more detailed at them and found that they all pretty much did a passing mention. If you can turn the page into an actual GA, awesome. But why stop at GA? Any ol' editor can pass an article to GA. Why not FA? If I said, "if you cannot turn it to FA then you have to agree to merge every South Park article that isn't already GA or FA", would you actually agree to that? Probably not.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand and support the thinking behind this proposal. However, it is perhaps too general; or perhaps, simply the wrong target. An approach in which each season is discussed in a single article seems a good solution - South Park (season 1) was a standalone article until merged into List of South Park episodes in March 2007. I would suggest restoring that article (renaming it South Park season 1) and building on it. Then follow the process described in Misplaced Pages:Television episodes with the aim of discovering individually which of the articles can be built on as standalone articles because they have sufficient reliable information written about them, and which would be more appropriate redirected into the appropriate section in South Park season 1. As the crop of articles in this merge proposal are very poor, and don't meet our notability guidelines as written (they mostly consist of plot, and with few exceptions make no attempt to assert or explain their notability; and they are already tagged showing notability concerns), most of them could be legitimately taken to AfD; however, deleting would not be helpful, as what we would want to do is make use of popular material, not simply remove it. BIGNOLE has identified an appropriate issue here - and we do need to discover the best way forward. SilkTork * 22:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have restored and started to tidy South Park season 1. I suggest that each episode is now individually considered for merging into the relevant section rather than a mass proposal. So - Weight Gain 4000 can be considered for merging to South_Park_season_1#Weight_Gain_4000. And at the same time sort out the actual broadcast date - some sources I've looked at say August 20, while others say August 27! SilkTork * 22:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what Bignole had suggested. I've merged in the table with some expanded plot entries already to the restored season page. Alastairward (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, naming conventions say it needs to be "(season 1)", and not "season 1". The show was not called "South Park season 1", it was simply "South Park". So, that should be redirected to the appropriate title.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose merge as all South Park episodes are inherently notable due to verifiability and popularity. Sincerely, --A Nobody 01:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited, sorry. Otherwise, one could argue that the pull over that Kenny wears should have its own article, or Superman's chest shield should have its own article because that is probably universally recognized around the world (and Superman also has 70 years of popularity...that's 60 more than South Park). All articles must meet the notability requirements on a case-by-case basis.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's be honest for a moment and admit that people are not exactly proposing to merge the articles. In order to merge the articles you to take a part of one article and put it in another. This proposal just wants to redirect the articles without doing any real work.. I can't support such actions.

I think that since South Park is a long running show, the List of South Park episodes should be made in a style similar to List of The Simpsons episodes and that season articles should be created similar to The Simpsons (season 1). The season list should have adequate plot summaries, which means they should not just consist of one or two lines and on the other hand not be to large (see The Simpsons (season 1) for an example). When this is done I will support redirecting the articles that are nothing but an infobox and a plot summary.--Maitch (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That's actually, exactly what we are proposing. I've been at steady work (steady being whenever I'm not in class or at work) creating a reformatted "List of" page, which includes links to 13 season pages (2 of which do not exist currently). Alastairward has also been working on season pages (with South Park (season 1) already back up and running). I personally hope to have the "List of" page completely finished and awaiting approval from everyone here before the end of Wednesday (hopefully before tomorrow is up). With the best of luck, I'll have it done to the point that it should instantly be ready for FLC - or at least damn close to it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Alastairward is wasting his or her time. If you think you can ram this through, you're sorely mistaken. --Pixelface (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of multiple accounts

comment duplicated from above section for context
Does this sound like a plan? Notnotkenny (talk) (AKA - The Red Pen of Doom 13:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This off topic, but I don't think one user can have two user accounts. Though I may be wrong. Gman124 14:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no problem with someone having two user accounts as long as there is a legitimate reason, as is the case here. As long as the alternate account isn't being used to mislead, stack votes, or evade scrutiny, it's not a problem - see Misplaced Pages:SOCK#Legitimate uses of alternative accounts. ~ mazca 14:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

In disagreement, there IS a MAJOR problem here, as the two accounts are editing the same pages and giving a perception of false consensus for actions which IS a violation, whether intentional to mislead or not, as they have both edited

8_Simple_Rules_for_Buying_My_Teenage_Daughter

A_Hero_Sits_Next_Door

A_Picture_Is_Worth_a_1,000_Bucks

And_the_Wiener_Is...

Baby_Not_On_Board

Barely_Legal_(Family_Guy)

Boys_Do_Cry

Brian:_Portrait_of_a_Dog

Brian_Does_Hollywood

Brian_Goes_Back_to_College

Brian_in_Love

Chick_Cancer

Chitty_Chitty_Death_Bang

Da_Boom

Dammit_Janet!

Death_Has_a_Shadow

Death_Is_a_Bitch

Death_Lives

Deep_Throats

Don't_Make_Me_Over_(Family_Guy)

E._Peterbus_Unum

Eek,_a_Penis!

Family_Gay

Fast_Times_at_Buddy_Cianci_Jr._High

Fifteen_Minutes_of_Shame

Ginger_Kids

He's_Too_Sexy_for_His_Fat

Holy_Crap

I_Never_Met_the_Dead_Man

If_I'm_Dyin',_I'm_Lyin'

Jungle_Love_(Family_Guy)

Let's_Go_to_the_Hop

Long_John_Peter

Love_Thy_Trophy

Meet_the_Quagmires

Mind_Over_Murder

Model_Misbehavior

No_Chris_Left_Behind

No_Meals_on_Wheels

North_by_North_Quahog

One_If_by_Clam,_Two_If_by_Sea

PTV_(Family_Guy)

Padre_de_Familia_(Family_Guy_episode)

Pandemic_2_-_The_Startling

Patriot_Games_(Family_Guy)

Perfect_Castaway

Peter's_Daughter

Peter's_Got_Woods

Peter's_Two_Dads

Peter,_Peter,_Caviar_Eater

Petergeist

Play_It_Again,_Brian

Running_Mates_(Family_Guy)

Saving_Private_Brian

Stewie_Griffin:_The_Untold_Story

Stewie_Kills_Lois

The_Courtship_of_Stewie's_Father

The_Fat_Guy_Strangler

The_Father,_the_Son,_and_the_Holy_Fonz

The_Former_Life_of_Brian

The_King_Is_Dead_(Family_Guy)

The_Man_with_Two_Brians

The_Passion_of_the_Jew

The_Son_Also_Draws

There's_Something_About_Paulie

Wasted_Talent

Talk:List_of_South_Park_episodes

User talk:Notnotkenny

User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom

If RedPen is editing a page, there is no valid reason for NotnotKenny to edit the exact same page. Let RedPen OR Nontnotkenny edit a page.... not both. Else it will then encourage ALL editors to declare and open multiple accounts to edit the same pages all over wiki, as you will have allowed the acceptable precedent. Schmidt, 18:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't RedPen identify themselves as also being NotnotKenny? And I don't think I saw Kenny make an opinion (beyond the one made directly to me about included Nielsen ratings), just summarize what was already being said on the page. So, I think it should be noted that, as far as this page goes (I haven't looked any other and don't care about the others), they have not actually tried to decieve consensus in any way that I can see.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. he certainly did, and I appreciate the transparency. However, in reading WP:SOCK the use of multiple accounts to edit the same article is not among the condoned uses. If one were strictly maintanenece and one strictly editing, then sure... go for it. However, in looking at the other pages, this does not seem the case. I have sought clarification. Thank you. Schmidt, 19:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Without a doubt there is a MAJOR problem here. The same editor having two accounts that comment, in any way, on the same Talk page is deceptive--whether intentional or not. The only acceptable way would be for both accounts to constantly state the relationship and then to clearly opine in opposite directions. And if so whats the point? Had the relationship (2 names/1 editor) not been revealed (this thread) the general makeup of editor response would have seemed normal. Now, of course, it is drastically skewed and any attempt to create consensus has an air of deception and falsehood. Are there any other multi-named editors taking part in this discussion and choosing?

As an interested observer, I must say that this type of counterfit behavior is treachorous and threatening to a continued air of "assume good faith" that must exist between editors. Am I in a discussion with Edgar Bergen---or is it his hand puppet, Charlie McCarthy???? Who is the guy chimming in with the false nose and horn-rimmed glasses???? This duplicity is not in tune with editor fellowship. Double-toungued and two-faced---an interesting twist to the Misplaced Pages experience. My confidence in Jimbos' creation is shaken--Buster7 (talk) 04:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I find the claim of "counterfit behavior " and complete outrage on your part to be a bit disengenous when the 3 edits by my alternate account on this page come directly in a row and the final edit consists of me identifying that the account is my alt. And still there are no policy based arguements against the merger, only accusations against an editor. I had thought the politics of personal attack had been left behind and we had moved on to more rational discussions, but I may be wrong. And even if every other account supporting the merge were an alternate account of mine, the analysis of the discussion would still be the same: Merge - supported by multiple policies and guidelines, Do not merge - not supported by any policies or guidelines, just a desire to have seperate articles. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge would equal delete, wouldn't it?

Is there any information at all not already on the articles page which would be merged over? If not, just call it a delete, and if someone wants all 183 episodes deleted, then nominate them for a proper AFD discussion. Dream Focus 04:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking. As far as this page goes, if/when any merge takes place this page will became a basic episode list. It will have title, writer, director, airdate, and episode number. The reason being is because at 13 seasons, it is just too large to have plot summaries for every episode. Now, as far as the episode articles go, besides any that are GA or FA status, they are all just plot summaries. Thus, if/when a merge takes place they will be placed into their respective seasons. As it is that they only contain plot summaries anyway, the only thing that is going to change will be the location of the plot summaries. With the new format being that you can now read all of the plot summaries for a given season in one general location (as opposed to 15 locations). Nothing is ever deleted on Misplaced Pages, not even when it goes through an AfD (as all article histories are preserved in some way shape or form - e.g., if a page is deleted an Admin can restore it). Now, should an episode show that it has received significant coverage from third-party sources (i.e. the criteria for notability), it can simply be split off with a link to it being added to the "List of" and the respective season page. Merging is not deleting, especially when there is nothing to delete. Trivia sections are already a no-no, and if it is unsourced it would be "deleted" from the page itself anyway. If it is sourced information, then it can be added to the season page like any other, except not under the header of "Trivia". It should be presented in a more professional way (e.g., if Parker and Stone did something special with the character designs, it could be called "Character design", or simply "Production"). The reason we do not do an AfD on all 183 pages is because again, no one is trying to delete anything. Yes, as I said, an Admin can restore history, but it is much easier to merge and redirect a title, and then later un-redirect it (should it meet the criteria) then be forced to submit a formal request to bring back to the history of the page so that you don't have to recreate it all by hand. Also, the people that run the AfD get mighty annoyed by mass nominations like that, no matter how legitimate they may be, because most of them end up with people saying "merge", which isn't a valid response at the AfD.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes DreamFocus, no matter how it is sugar-coated, a merge here would equal delete of much salient information in this case when converting the articles to a simple list. But the talk page is where a merge discussion is supposed to tale place, rather than at 183 AfDs or one super AfD of 183 articles. Bignole quite eloquently pointed out, "an Admin can restore history, but it is much easier to merge and redirect a title, and then later un-redirect it (should it meet the criteria) then be forced to submit a formal request to bring back to the history of the page so that you don't have to recreate it all by hand." And yes, page histories are usually preserved... but it is rare that something removed is ever allowed back. With wikipredia, its slightly easier than unscrambling an egg and ony a little tougher than trying to shove it back inside the hen. But why break that egg since it is not absolutely required? Has WP:IAR been demoted to an essay? Has the caveat "best treated with common sense" been removed from each and every guideline? Schmidt, 06:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael, that is a deliberate misrepresentation. If a basic merge takes place, then at any time afterwards, if more information displaying notability is found, a more extended article can be formed. It is not a delete, else I would have performed an AfD. You are not helping this discussion with arguments like that. Alastairward (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just applying the Duck Test. Sorry if we do not agree. Schmidt, 01:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael, I also pointed out that THIS page would be the only "simple list". I clearly stated that the season pages would look virtually like the individual episode articles, in that they would contain the expanded plot summaries that appear there (with the exception that it will all appear on a single page, as opposed to 15 different ones). Any sourced information can be moved over into appropriate sections (as they all exist in "Trivia" sections right now), which I would be happy to help with.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I acknowledged that you had a work-in-progress in a sandbox and apologized for my earlier mis-impression. Schmidt, 01:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not go ahead and create these season pages, and then people can determine whether they prefer them to the separate episode articles? When I'm trying to remember every detail in an episode of Battlestar Galactica, I go to the articles for them and read through. Helps keep things straight. I edited a few last night. When you enjoy a show, you want to have as much information as possible to read through. Dream Focus 21:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A compromise. Excellent suggestion. Schmidt, 01:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The pages have already been created in sandboxes (see above). As for the idea that "When you enjoy a show, you want to have as much information as possible to read through", that would be tackled by existing guidelines on trivia and plot lengths. The episode articles would be cut down to size, as they have been already (how long does the plot for a 45 min or less TV show have to be anyway?)

And as for the assertion in the edit summary (not a place for commentaries), a deletion is effected by an AfD, this is a merge suggestion, plain English. Alastairward (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Unassessed Animation articles
• Unknown-importance Animation articles
• Unassessed Animation articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed South Park articles
• Unknown-importance South Park articles
• South Park task force articles
• WikiProject Animation articles
• List-Class Comedy articles
• Mid-importance Comedy articles
• WikiProject Comedy articles
• Misplaced Pages former featured lists