Talk:Dead Kids (South Park)

Please do not add mention of pop cultural references, continuity notes, trivia, or who the targets of a given episode's parody are, without accompanying such material with an inline citation of a reliable, published, secondary source. Adding such material without such sources violates Wikipedia's policies pertaining to Verifiability, No Original Research, and Synthesis.

While a primary source (such as the episode itself, or a screencap or clip from it at South Park Studios) is acceptable for material that is merely descriptive, such as the synopsis, it is not enough to cite a primary source for material that constitutes analytic, evaluative or interpretative claims, such as cultural references in works of satire or parody, because in such cases, such claims are being made by the editor. This is called synthesis, which is a form of original research, and is not permitted on Wikipedia, regardless of whether one thinks the meaning of the reference is "obvious". Sources for such claims must be secondary sources in which reliable persons, such as TV critics or reviewers, explicitly mention the reference.

In addition, trivial information that is not salient or relevant enough to be incorporated into the major sections of an article should not be included, per WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE and WP:TRIVIA, and this includes the plot summary. As indicated by WP:TVPLOT, the plot summary is an overview of a work's main events, so avoid any minutiae that is not needed for a reader's understanding of the story's three fundamental elements: plot, characterization and theme. This includes such minutiae as scene-by-scene breakdowns, technical information or detailed explanations of individual gags or lines of dialogue.

If you're new to Wikipedia, please click on the wikilinked policy pages above to familiarize yourself with this site's policies and guidelines.

We Should Not Erase How The Episode Was Received
I find the statistical ratings decline to be quite fascinating. Also, IGN is just one of many reviews that can be added.2601:447:4101:41F9:2000:DDE7:28C9:A3C2 (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The reviews are already referenced in the External Links section. And better cited. So you are repeating information already in the article. That’s why the section is extraneous. - SanAnMan (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Every episode article I've seen for South Park a "Reception" section, so it's only fitting that there's one here too. These ratings statistics are also fascinating.2601:447:4101:41F9:2000:DDE7:28C9:A3C2 (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The format is now changing. Get used to it. The ratings statistics are not relevant to the episode summary. You are now edit warring and need to stop. Also you can’t properly cite things, adding just the link is sloppy. I did move the A.V. Club review to where all the other reviews are now. Stop edit warring. - SanAnMan (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Was The Episode A Parody of Jessica Jones?
If so, that section that was erased should be restored.2601:447:4101:41F9:2000:DDE7:28C9:A3C2 (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

"the entire Glee club has died" - reference to Julie Brown song "The Home-Coming Queen's got a Gun".

I Don't See Why A Notice Should Be Issued
My edits were reverted first and are backed by reliable resources. I also felt the fact that South Park did that low and also shaved off a large .59 in the Nielsen ratings for its season premiere was intriguing, which is why I included that edit. Other South Park episode pages have "Reception" sections too.2601:447:4101:41F9:2000:DDE7:28C9:A3C2 (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Edits
Nightscream, you really ought to have more respect for other editors. A simple "uncited material" is more than enough to get your point across. Claiming "fraudulent citing" is the same as claiming "bad faith" which goes against one of wikipedia's most fundamental policies of "assume good faith" (WP:GF)). I included the theme song and character in the text because anyone who had ever watched Jessica Jones would have immediately recognised the music and her leather jacket and voice-overs. It's not some vague riddle or subjective interpretation. Providing a source for  some material does not always mean you claim that source covers everything in a whole paragraph. If non-contentious text improves the article there's no reason to revert it. I've looked through your talkpage and contribution history and there consistently appears confrontational and aggressive arguments, insulting or demeaning edit summaries, using insults and profanity when responding to editors comments and an uncompromising reverting of material that doesn't absolutely match the source to the letter. Please try to show some respect for other editors so that wikipedians don't face an unpleasant environment as they try to participate in the wikipedia project. Shabidoo | Talk 03:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)