Talk:List of South Park episodes/Archive 2

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.  D r e a m 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 Wikipedia, 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,  MICHAEL Q. 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,  MICHAEL Q. 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,  MICHAEL Q. 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.    D r e a m Focus  21:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A compromise. Excellent suggestion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 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)
 * There is no dichotomy between season pages and episode articles. Since Wikipedia is not paper, we can have both. If your intent is to cut information from the episode articles, this is not really a "merge" suggestion. Making season pages that nobody wants in order to offer them up as a false compromise is a waste of your time, as well as everyone else's here. --Pixelface (talk) 05:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a look at WP:EPISODE. This oversees the guidelines for articles of TV episodes, which most of the South Park episode articles don't seem to meet.  Keep in mind that according to WP:NOTPLOT, Wikipedia is not a list of plot summaries, which most of the articles currently are.  I have since added TVreview1 (below) to this page for review.  – Dream out loud  (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:EPISODE's status as a guideline rests on the shoulders of one editor, Radiant! There is no evidence that WP:EPISODE represents community-wide consensus, and it's not a notability guideline anyway. And WP:NOT is also disputed. That policy has been contentious ever since it was added to WP:NOT after there was no consensus to add it. There is no consensus that articles that are simply plot summaries do not belong on Wikipedia, but most South Park episode articles are more than mere plot summary anyway. --Pixelface (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, as I wrote on WP:EPISODE talk page today:
 * ...as my research above shows Wikipedia talk:Television episodes Wikipedia talk:Television episodes, this page was illegitametly made into a guideline, despite 2 to 1 against it becoming a guideline, and it has only remained a guideline because a handful of editors remove any tags which question its viability as a guideline.
 * Bignole wrote on WP:EPISODE:
 * "What I find funny is that WP:FICT is just about complete, and it will take the place of this guideline anyway." and
 * "As for FICT, yes there is bickering over petty wording, but trust me..the bickering will end and FICT will be officially made a guideline for fictional articles."
 * Well, WP:FICT failed miserably to be promoted as a guideline, for the third time.
 * there has never been consensus for WP:FICT, WP:EPISODES, or merging south park episodes. Ikip (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What I suggest is that those asserting a problem here get a new canned "vandalism" note added to their respective Talk pages about "wasting other editors time about that which was settled long ago". I would follow that by classifying that note with qualifier "im".  Perhaps something based on .  As an inclusionist, I find discussions like this really tiring.
 * Tempest noted. Teapot noted.  The former is clearly contained in the latter.  Don't y'all have something better to do?  Get involved in real politics, maybe? - Denimadept (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's such a non-problem, why hang about? Why not just quote a few policies, give a few examples of it in action and we can be on our way? Why not work on the articles yourself? Alastairward (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone asked for participation, so I came here and contributed to the general discussion. If you look, you'll likely find I have worked on the articles myself.  At the very least, I've undone some vandalism.  With stuff I have no particular contribution for yet have an interest in, I often watch for that.  And I love requesting bans on vandals.  I imagine the little fuckers being sent to detention for getting a blackmark on their school.  I can dream, anyway.  South Park is the only TV show I actually bother watching on any regular basis, so I have an interest. - Denimadept (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Request away then! :) Alastairward (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That wasn't a threat; I was just explaining one way I participate in the South Park episode articles. I don't see you as a vandal, just as someone I disagree with.  Come to Inclusionism!  Join us.  Join us.  We're laid back.  - Denimadept (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's not easy dealing with intelligent stealthy vandals, who are wisely disguised as "contributing editors"... I just try and preserve my personal energies for real life. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist be, I simply seek a third path to tread between you :) Alastairward (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't you mean "tread on me?" ;) NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitratition enforcement
Pixelface is being singled out for his comments against merging on this page:
 * Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement
 * comments are welcome. Ikip (talk) 05:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Alternate route to move forward
(This was buried above, but I would like to bring it out as an idea).

I propose the following "test" instead of pushing for a merge at the present. The idea is that if a handful of episodes that currently lack notability and are lackluster episodes (middling ratings from fans) can be shown to be expanded to show notability, then likely the rest can be as well, and we should not merge these at this time - though we need assurance from the South Park project that they will strive to establish notability of other episodes.

The process (which I think can be replicable without calling for fait accompli) is the following:
 * Four episodes from the overall series are picked. For purposes of being impartial, I would not use any first season episode (when the show had shock value), the seasons that bookend the movie, and any established-notability episode like "Trapped in the Closet".  Episodes should be picked randomly (maybe as a non-involved admin to pick from a list) of those episodes that have average ratings from some SP fan site - that is, we're not looking at SP's best or worst, just an average episode.  We will also only pick episodes out on DVD so if there's any Stone/Parker commentary to draw from, that's possible.
 * We give the SP editors (and anyone else that wants to get involved, I'd consider inviting the ARS) to improve those four articles in the course of a month.
 * After a month (or sooner if they are successful), we evaluate the differences:
 * If all four clearly pass notability guidelines (and for purposes of this, we will assume WP:N, but this doesn't mean we cannot consider an alternative bar if this helps with defining WP:FICT or WP:EPISODE), then we should presume that all other SP episodes can also meet that bar, and we will not merge.
 * It will then be tasked on the SP WikiProject to make a good faith effort to improve the other episode articles in a reasonable amount of time. Exactly what is "reasonable" is broad, but if this is the situation, I'd like to see what happens after 3 or 6 months.  If it turns out that no improvements are being made, a merge of non-notable episodes should not be contested.  (that's part of this compromise).  I don't expect that all SP episodes by the end of this period to be notable, but coordinate project efforts or season-by-season improvements are the types of signs I'm looking towards.
 * If some or none of the episodes cannot should notability, then we have to agree to merge all non-notable episodes, still leaving the possibility of re-creation from the redirect if notability can be later shown.

While this invokes WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in terms of using an episode that is notable to presume notability for another episode, I think the effort to take a handful of current articles on average episodes that are non-notable to notable ones is evidence that notability can be presumed for the rest. --M ASEM (t) 00:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with that, you are free to bring back the pages if they get merged. It's not like they will be deleted completely. If you can get a few episode up to notability standards then great. but There are just too many and until an article meets notability standards it should be merged. Gman 124 talk 00:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If there wasn't a clear opposition to merging the pages to start, I'd agree that we merge, and split off when notability is shown. I'm trying to extend a good faith assumption to progress forward instead of in-fighting indefinitely. --M ASEM (t) 00:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be more than willing to help out with this idea, Masem; if we go forward with it, I'd like to be involved in improving the randomly chosen articles. And I commend you for coming up with an alternative idea, rather than just getting caught up what seems to be becoming a pretty emotional debate. However, as you might see from above, I've tried improving each of the Season 1 episodes that are in question (so far have done Weight Gain 4000, Starvin' Marvin and Pinkeye) and I do plan to continue improving each of those articles. I don't think it would be a problem to do both... —  Hunter  Kahn  ( contribs )  05:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be against it, since it's been evidenced that at least one user has dug out some notability and intends to look for more. My original aim was for a more concise presentation of the information to hand, which seemed to lend itself to a season page alone. If an article is significantly more than just plot, then of course it's own page would be suitable. Alastairward (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, has already done some great work in this area (case study Weight Gain 4000), and I think this idea by  is a positive and constructive one. Cirt (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hunter Kahn (and anyone else) should feel free to continue efforts on any episodes they want, that's great and what's shown so far makes sense. But they are Season 1 episodes, when the show still had shock value and thus was watched far and wide by the media. (I remember quoting lines weeks and weeks after the premier).  The substance of this value will be the demonstration of shows in latter seasons that aren't already clearly notable. --M ASEM  (t) 12:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought above someone said that the Season 1 episodes had the least coverage and that is why they should be the test case, not the other way around? Whichever way it is, the collaboration work currently being done certainly is excellent, but we shouldn't be changing the criteria for this little mini-project midstep, IMO. (In other words, saying yeah the test case is Season 1, oh wait no it is Season 2 now... etc.) Pick a model test case and run with it. Cirt (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * @ - perhaps you could name four episodes which you think could be the test cases? Cirt (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Being involved, I would not want to be accused to deliberately selecting episodes that will be difficult, which is why I suggested a random selection of middle-rated episodes based on (unreliable for sourcing purposes, but fine for this) fan sites. Alternatively, if people want to show that a fair number (four or so) episodes from separate seasons beyond the first are notable considering their present form, that could work as well.  Basically, the core argument is here: will those pushing for merging be satisified of the "by example" notability demonstration and allow time for the SP WP to work towards a more completed approach? --M ASEM  (t) 15:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with it (so long as, like you pointed out, the episodes selected aren't ones that were clearly notable in the news and are just in poor condition right now). As long as it is clear that that is not a free pass for all articles, just proof that with some hard work and a little more time they can get more episode pages up to snuff with the criteria, while admitting that should some fail to make it there is a willingness to let those be merged.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is a silly proposition - for the articles that dont currently meet WP:V "significant coverage in thrid party sources" they should be merged to a "list of" article. At any time anyone has access to WP:RS that actually indicate WP:N, THEN there is nothing stopping anyone from creating a stand alone article for that episode and there will be no question that it meets our WP:V and WP:N guidelines. -- The Red Pen of Doom  15:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We're trying to create a compromise Red. Nothing ever gets accomplished on Wikipedia effectively if people hold to their guns on subjective actions (the subjectivity comes in from "if these are notable then it needs to show"), and basically stay on the "it's my way or the highway" argument. This is a pretty fair compromise that Masem drew up. It doesn't give leeway to let articles stay forever without asserting notability. It basically says, "if, in a month, you can assert the notability of four, random, average popularity articles then we'll be will to give you another 6 or so months to get as many other articles as you can to assert notability. Whichever articles after that time don't show notability, you agree to merge them into a larger article until they can show notability (again, nothing is permanent) " <--Masem explains the second part better.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I missed the "what happens after 3 or 6 months. If it turns out that no improvements are being made, a merge of non-notable episodes should not be contested. " Objection withdrawn.--  The Red Pen of Doom  18:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to be clear that my suggestion was that if the four selected episodes were shown to clearly be notable, then we'd hold off anything else on SP episode notability, but presume that the SP project was working (considering no WP:DEADLINE) in good faith to improve the rest with coordinate projects and the like. Even after 6 months, if they've only managed to get, say, a season's worth of articles to notability, but are still actively working in good faith, we don't touch them.  But say they coordinate and get a season's worth of articles in a month, and then sit idle for 5, that's not good faith, and the merge suggestion goes forward.  Basically, let's give the SP the benefit of the doubt and show us what can be done with a small sample of articles, in return, they need to show that trust wasn't misplaced and show progress on the rest.  It avoids a fait accompli approach while still encouraging improvement.  (and no, we're not expecting 4 FA-quality articles, just enough in terms of references to assert notability, though certainly this gets the articles part of the way tehre). --M ASEM  (t) 05:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What about other episodes that are notable. Is this an everything or nothing? I didn't understand well from the explanation above. Would episodes like Weight gain be merged?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. I think that we cleared Weight Gain from the merge proposal. This isn't an "everything or nothing" proposal. This is more of a, "if in the end, X episodes have failed to assert notability after X amount of time" then everyone agrees to merge just those episodes. Now, the time to determine that will vary based on the good faith efforts of those seeking to establish the notability of all the episodes. In other words, if in the next two months everyone is continually working to establish notability then there is no reason to merge anything at the moment...unless there is some consensus among the SP members that some episodes just don't have any information.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Four episodes for case study?
It would be nice to agree on the list of the four episodes that will make up the case study sooner, rather than later, so we can begin working on them. :) Cirt (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I consider myself an uninvolved admin-editor (uninvolved in the sense that I've only watched about 5 SP episodes in my life, I don't remember their names, and I am unable to determine the true protential for their articles). As many other editors above, I support Masem's suggestion as the best way of course, to determine the best presentation and future improvement of SP ep articles, no matter if it's merged or as stand-alone articles. I have done some blind scrolling and clicking, and have come up with the following random episodes: Gnomes (South Park), Butt Out, Terrance and Phillip in Not Without My Anus and Spontaneous Combustion (South Park). (I have no problem if I, these episodes or Masem's proposal get rejected.) – sgeureka t•c 23:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would almost go against Gnomes (only because of the three step plan becoming a minor internet meme), but I realize that would be a strength to being able to source about that, something that is not an uncommon occurence in other SP episodes. T&P in NWMA is related to the movie so also might be good if that digs up connections. --M ASEM  (t) 00:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know Masem. I just ran through my university database with "Terrance and Phillip in Not Without My Anus" and I got absolutely nothing (mind you, it doesn't include LexisNexis). I did a google scholar search and got nothing, the same goes for Google news. I did find 2 books that list the title, but from reading the passages at Google Books it appears to be more of a mentioning of the episode in relation to the two characters that appear on South Park (i.e. it's really talking about the show and mentioning in passing the episode). Now, I'm not saying there isn't anything out there, just that with some quick searches it certainly wasn't easy to turn up anything.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well again, that's why I proposed this test, and I think sgeureka's suggestins are perfectly fine for it; none of the episodes immediately come to my mind as instantly passing notability, but some seem to have a chance. Let's give them time to work it and see what results. --M ASEM  (t) 05:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Other than being weighted a little bit toward the early seasons, it seems a representative sample with a major "storyline" episode in "Not Without My Anus" and typical social commentary episode in "Butt Out" (smoking) and "Gnomes" (national corporation vs. local businesses). If there is not material for those, well.... -- The Red Pen of Doom  14:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Season 2 doesn't have any commentaries so I'd suggest removing the episodes from season 2 (Gnomes (South Park),Terrance and Phillip in Not Without My Anus), because notability can't be esatblished in such a short time, or probably ever. It would be more fair if u choose Episodes outside of Season 2. Will work on Season one for now to expand it's production information to be better articles and notable.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability doesn't just come from director commentary. Reception from third-party sources is actually more important than commentary for these. --M ASEM  (t) 16:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "notability can't be esatblished in such a short time, or probably ever" ... well if that is the truth, then we shouldnt have stand alone articles for them. But I disagree with your premise- all it takes is to find a couple of secondary sources discussing the episode in a meaningful way (i.e. other than just regurgitating the plot) to establish notability. And even if currently no one has done such an analysis, there is no reason to believe that such a cultural icon as south park will never have someone do a scholarly analysis of an episode that would lead to an episode that is not currently notable to becoming notable. -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) These four proposed by sound fine to me. Cirt (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Too late to object or support now, but I think they represent a broad spectrum of episodes from social commentary (as Redpen noted above) to general silliness. Sounds ok to me. Alastairward (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Good model
Here is a good model: List of The Simpsons episodes. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are aware that they use the exact same format right? The only difference is that they don't put any sources next to their information (I really hate that), but put them all at the end of the page. That page also does not cite any of the release dates for Regions 2 and 4 (that I can see), or include the writer/director of each episode.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The quality of sources used at List of The Simpsons episodes is a bit better, but yes the format is similar. Cirt (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources for what? Their DVD info comes from TVShowsonDVD (just like mine). They don't source Region 2 or 4, I think mine wins by default in that category. They cite FoxFlash for their episode titles, I cite MSN (not really a problem between either). In theory, that page actually does not completely meet the FL requirements, because it failing the style guideline regarding sourcing formatting (all must be formatted consistently), and the verifiability policy with regard to the DVDs of Region 2 and 4 (the page cites this one when claiming that 11 seasons are o DVD in all the regions, but that source says nothing about Regions 2 and 4).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * They don't use www.jbhifionline.com.au or www.amazon.co.uk. Cirt (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing that perference over secondary sourcing is more important than verifiability?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, just that preference of secondary sourcing is in general, preferred. Cirt (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Then, I stick to my original assessment that by default I automatically win because The Simpsons episode list does not cite region 2 or 4. Plus, that list was promoted back in 2006, and a lot has changed since then - even its FL review was only in 2007. Anyway, what other special DVDs do you want listed. I was going through the DVD release page and there are a lot, and it got me to thinking, "If we include all of these, exactly why would we need this DVD release page?"  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Which DVD release page? Cirt (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was creating a section in the sandbox based on this page: South Park DVDs. It lists a bunch of those "special releases" you were requesting. I thought, as I was looking at them, if I'm listing them all on the "List of" page, why even have the South Park DVDs page? I mean, you were worried about using venders as sources, but this page is one big "Look what you can get if you buy this" page.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I didn't realize they were already listed at South Park DVDs. Just like at List of The Simpsons episodes, the list of episodes page can simply be the episodes/seasons. Cirt (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Soo...lol, are you saying drop the "Special releases" section?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the brief paragraph you have there looks appropriate. Just have a link or something like that in that section. Cirt (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's already at the top, just below the section header for "Home video release".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I re-added all of the episode titles (and move several that were not at the correct location...i.e. "South Park episode" instead of "South Park"). The page is basically done. I don't see a real reason to not put it in place. Any source preferences can be swapped as time goes.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah okay thanks for adding the links back in. Cirt (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability (season 2)
All episodes except Chef Aid need expansion to meet notability. This is a list for collaboration on these topics to hinder future merger proposals.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hinder? I think you mean help. Alastairward (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To help establish notability and make Wikipedia an extensive encyclopedia, with just any topic one could ask about. To hinder the merge of easily expandable episodes and merge not so notable episodes. This is just an overview of all stub articles that would be in a future merger proposal. Creating a season page would solve our problems as each season is certainly notable and has enough info to have a standalone list with lots of info.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly recommend providing your input on the [#Alternate route to move forward above thread] on avoiding a fait accompli approach here. There's 150-odd episodes here, and to force editors to show them all to be standalone-worthy in a short time is not very helpful, so I've proposed a solution that tests the waters to see if random episodes can be shown to be notable such that we can assume all of them can be (in exchange for encouraging SP editors to work on getting the rest of the articles to include sourcing for notability, not perfection). --M ASEM  (t) 16:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the list after I read the above. Will focus on the suggested episodes.

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. Gman 124 talk 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 SOCK. ~ mazca  t 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,  MICHAEL Q. 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,  MICHAEL Q. 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 Wikipedia 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)


 * Wikipedia is not paper. Articles for individual episodes of notable shows have over seven years of precedent behind them. There's your policy-based argument against the merger. What's your policy-based argument for the merger? WP:ATA is a mere essay. There's no consensus to delete South Park episode articles. Now please stop trolling at South Park articles on Wikipedia, which I first noticed at Talk:The Ungroundable. --Pixelface (talk) 05:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for at least attempting to find policy/guidelines/etc. to back your position before dropping into your personal attacks. However, the arguments you provide are not at all convincing.
 * 1) WP:NOTPAPER: " 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. However, there is an important distinction between what technically can be done, and what reasonably should be done . . . This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must still abide by the appropriate content policies" which leads to the WP:BURDEN section of the WP:V Policy: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
 * 2) Your "jimbo sez"/ "precedent" arguement has been debunked above, but in addition there is WP:CCC, even if 7 yers ago the majority of people did not oppose unverifed seperate articles for individual TV episodes, it appears that (along with jimbo) the consensus of the community has also changed.
 * 3) The basis for the merger is not the "mere essay" WP:ATA:arguements to avoid in deletion discussions - it is based on Policy WP:V and guideline WP:N and other policies.
 * 4) While there was no consensus to delete a particular South Park article several months ago, that article is not part of this merger proposal at all. -- The Red Pen of Doom  00:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTPAPER is not a free pass for inclusion, that's true. But episode articles are explicitly mentioned on Wikipedia is not paper on meta. It makes no logical sense to say that South Park is notable, yet the episodes that comprise South Park are not notable. And that line in WP:V is disputed. It was added so an editor could win an editwar over the UGOPlayer article, which they had nominated for deletion. I have never said that all episode articles get a free pass because "Jimbo sez." And the precedent argument absolutely has not been "debunked", since the arbitration committee themselves mentioned it. That line in WP:V and the seed of the WP:GNG in WP:N both came from one editor. Wikipedia is not a dictatorship.
 * And where is your evidence that consensus has changed? You have none. I, on the other hand, have plenty. In addition to that: An article about an episode of South Park nominated for deletion. Kept. An article about an episode of X-Files nominated for deletion. Kept. An article about an episode of Frasier nominated for deletion. Kept. There is absolutely no reason to have articles about some episodes of South Park and not the others. Now please stop trolling, please stick to one account, and have a nice day. --Pixelface (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:DEADHORSE-- The Red Pen of Doom  04:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * @ NoNoNotKenny AKA The Red Pen of Doom...Since this specific thread is about multiple accounts, I would have thought you would sign it with both monikers. It would seem to be the most obvious place in all of WikiPedia to convince fellow editors of your stewardship. Maybe it should convince them of something else.--Buster7 (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Episode notability
Many or all of the existing individual episode pages for South Park appear to fail the notability guidelines for television episodes, and have been tagged accordingly. These articles can be improved through the inclusion of real-world information from reliable sources to assert notability. Overly long plot summaries should be edited, to a maximum length of approximately ten words per minute of screen time. Trivia should be integrated into the body of the article, or removed if it is not directly relevant. Quotes and images should only be used as part of a critical analysis of the episode. You might also consider merging any notable information onto the South Park "List of episodes" or season pages. Otherwise, when these pages come up for review, they may be redirected or merged. If you want any help or further information, then come to WikiProject Television/Episode coverage. Thanks. Most of the articles have not been tagged at this moment, however the majority of the article should/will be tagged in the near future for review. – Dream out loud (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you believe since they lack the requirements for notability, more than a hundred South Park articles should be deleted? Since some people don't like trivia, is it possible that some would want to go through and erase every bit of trivia there is, as has happened in other articles?  I'm hoping the South Park fans are numerous enough so that when the time comes that someone does attempt such a thing, they'll be enough of us to revert it, and form a consensus to keep the articles, if nominated for deletion.  Normally though, its only the less popular series that suffer wide spread destruction at the hands of deletionists, so they should be safe.

 D r e a m Focus  05:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there is no way to meet the requirement for notability for most article pages, what should be done with those articles?
 * Delete them all, because of the current rules.
 * Keep them anyway, ignoring the rules.
 * Go to where rules are at, and try to have them changed, so that episode lists, and trivia are allowed.
 * None one is calling for deletion. Merging will retain the article page and its history but replace the text with a redirect, so that if an episode is later shown to be notable, it can be easily recreated at an episode article. Trivia of the type most SP episodes are is not acceptable (it violates WP:OR for one), so a solution involving that is not going to be possible. --M ASEM  (t) 06:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Every South Park episode is notable Masem. And there is no policy against trivia. You're assertion that trivia about South Park episodes "violates WP:OR" is false. --Pixelface (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But not every article passes the threshold of notability that we required (please see my attempt on WT:N to restate WP:N in terms of a threshold instead of just notable/non-notable). And trivia sections are strongly discouraged - yes, this doesn't mean trivia isn't allowed, but it needs to meet all normal content guidelines, and the average trivia bit for South Park tends to be "X is a parody of Y"; unless that's backed by a source, that's original research and not appropriate, even if it is glaringly obvious. --M ASEM  (t) 13:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no "required" threshold of notability Masem. Nevertheless, every episode of South Park is notable. And Trivia sections has always been a poor guideline. A few editors don't like trivia sections, and they guard Trivia sections as if their lives depended on it, in order to justify removing everything they personally deem "trivia." And describing obvious parodies is not original research at all. Editors are allowed to made descriptions of primary sources, and doing so does not qualify as original research. Pandemic (South Park) is a source and the film Cloverfield is also a source. You don't need South Park Studios to write that that episode parodies that film when that is glaringly obvious to anyone who is familiar with both sources. It's not synthesis either to note it. --Pixelface (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

@Dream out loud - Regarding: Many or all of the existing individual episode pages for South Park appear to fail the notability guidelines for television episodes, and have been tagged accordingly. - what is backing up this assertion? Cirt (talk) 06:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether the page is deleted, or simply "merged", it doesn't matter. The only difference is that it is easier to undelete later on, if somehow that episode becomes notable, which you know wouldn't happen.  The only way to make sure the episodes are safe, is to vote to change policy.  So I suggested it be done here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Voting_time.___Any_television_series_that_has_at_least_a_million_viewers.2C_may_have_an_article_for_every_episode  If enough people vote to Support it, then policy will be changed, and the episodes are fine.   D r e a m Focus  06:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems a tad WP:POINTy. Cirt (talk) 06:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Dream Focus, I think your best bet would be to create Notability (television episodes) as a proposal and write there that a million viewers is evidence of notability. Notability is not a policy. Episode articles are already supported by policy, Wikipedia is not paper, going as far back as seven years. --Pixelface (talk) 10:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:EPISODE is not a notability guideline. It is a content guideline. Your first sentence completely invalidates everything that follows. --Pixelface (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I was told at WP:EPISODE that it didn't matter what was changed there, it was WP:NOTABILITY that was all that mattered. When an article doesn't pass notability, more often than not, it is deleted in the AFD.  If you want to save this, and other episodes, then you have to change the Notability policy, which can only be done by consensus.  Discussion doesn't matter, it all having been said before, and people just argue back and forth filling page after page with the same thing.  Been there, done that, nothing changes.  But it says a strawpoll is a good way to establish consensus.  So, everyone go vote in the strawpoll, and if enough people support this, it gets changed.  Otherwise, people will just keep trying to find a way to delete the episode list.   D r e a m Focus  10:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's because Bignole doesn't know what he's talking about. Notability is not a policy. But WP:NOT is. Episode articles have over seven years of precedent, according to the policy Wikipedia is not paper. Notability is a guideline, and it's status as a guideline is muddled. Articles about topics that editors feel are non-notable are often deleted, but it's apparent from attempts to delete South Park episode articles that editors think episodes of South Park are notable. When you say discussion doesn't matter, you're wrong. --Pixelface (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What I meant was, I'm active on the AFD and I see a lot of people voting based on the rules of notability alone. If there are enough fans around to defend an article, then it is saved, otherwise it is deleted.  That is how it works.  Those who vote only on WP:NOTABILITY rules, do not care what you say, or how good your point is, they just determined to delete anything that doesn't have third party media reviews of it.  We have to change WP:NOTABILITY to stop the people from deleting every article they can.   D r e a m Focus  10:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Many people seem to think that lack of third-party coverage != non-notable, but that is simply untrue. And Notability doesn't say as much anyway. I agree that Notability needs to be changed, and there's a current RFC on it as a whole, as well as several threads on the talkpage about doing so. --Pixelface (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Cirt, "what is backing up this assertion?", perhaps it would be more useful to look at it from the point of view of an inclusionist and say why it should stay? It seems pretty clear why a series may be notable and individual episodes aren't. Why is an organisation notable but not every member, why is a city or town notable but not every street or building etc etc. Alastairward (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What I mean is people are asserting individual episodes are not notable, and talking about them all in one big pile, when the above case study with Weight Gain 4000 shows proper research has not yet been done about each one individually. So the people making these claims about lack of notability are not backing them up with research on the individual episodes and trying to find which reliable sources discuss them. Cirt (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And to counter it, there's a whole lot of talk of notability but few editors supplying it. The articles have been in existance for months if not years, very little has been done for them in that time. It's something of a shame that it's only action such as this that seems to spur other editors on. Alastairward (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because the articles are not in a high state of quality at present, does not mean that the individual episodes are not notable. Cirt (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nor does it mean they are notable either. We need evidence for that.
 * But I'll state my suggested path forward that avoids a merge: if you can show that 2-3 "average" episodes from Season 2 onward that are presently not notable can be made notable through sourcing, I would be reasonably convinced that every episode can be made notable. (By "average", find some fan site that allows user voting on SP and find those with middle-of-the-road summary rankings, eg we don't cherry pick ones that clearly are notable like Trapped in the Closet or ImaginationLand).  Or, if you can show me two separate reliable sources that provides episode reviews for each episode except for maybe the latest ones, I'd consider that acceptable. Given what I've seen and know of the show, I don't believe either of these can be met, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. --M ASEM  (t) 21:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * @ - that sounds like a great idea! Course, we'd need a bit of time to work on it. Cirt (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if others pushing for a merge would allow for this "test" of random episode notability to be made, to select the test cases, and then see what results after (lets say 4 episodes) a month, that they would agree to the same. Mind you, there's validity in their argument that they all may be notable but because there's neither no deadline but no required work, it may be better to still merge if it's going to take years to complete them all.  I assume that the SP WikiProject is watching this, and they may want to work on a coordinated effort, season by season, to establish the notability of each episode in a reasonably short period of time, presuming the handful of examples I suggest can be show and the merge avoided. --M ASEM  (t) 21:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Episode reviews don't really show notability though do they, just that the episode was broadcast. Alastairward (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Episode reviews from reliable, non-self published sources are exactly the type of sources we want to establish notability; they're third-party and secondary, and as long as not done in a self-publishing interest, shows there's some aspect of notability to the episodes. There's other things but this is the easiest to start with. --M ASEM  (t) 22:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really, they don't dicuss any sort of notability other than existing as a television programme. If they themselves included a note regarding some sort of further notability, then that would be great. Otherwise, it's not much better than the production studio saying "We've made this." Alastairward (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Critical reviews of a work is a long-standard consideration of notability. The only criteria is that the source needs to be more than an average blog. Sure, there may be more than reviews (particularly for South Park, as some episodes generate controversy), but a first pass accepted level of notability for episodes is critical reviews.  --M ASEM  (t) 00:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm with Masem on this. Reviews are essential. But, IMO, it should be made sure of that the reviews are actually analyzing the episode, and aren't just a basic "I liked this episode", with no real reason behind it. I say this only because that type of stuff provides no actual context to a reader, as one might as well have had any random editor provide that opinion (I've once not included Roger Ebert in a film review because he actually said absolutely nothing about the film, but ranted about other things loosely associated with it).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that wasn't Andy Rooney stepping in for Ebert on that? :) --M ASEM (t) 00:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think episode reviews are evidence of notability, but I would like you, Masem, to explain to me in your own words why you think episode reviews establish notability. --Pixelface (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A profession review (one that meets WP:RS) of an episode will do two things. The first is usually to help supply details for a plot summary - not usually a complete one but allows for better sourcing beyond the primary work; this is not necessarily needed (the plot can be sourced from the primary but if you start working on FAs, they dont like to see unsourced plots), and this facet doesn't affect notability.  But the other facet is that a professional review will generally establish how significant the epsisode is within the show's history as well as to the rest of television, establish context for suggested influences and references (rather common for a show like SP), and otherwise summarize why the show is more than just random images moving about for 22 minutes. Additionally, if someone is professionally being paid by a RS to review the show, then that RS must still consider the show a significant influence, thus demonstrating that it is more notable than episodes that don't get reviews. --M ASEM  (t) 13:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Masem, I see what you're trying to say, but it just doesn't suggest how that makes an episode notable. For example; if someone is professionally being paid by a RS to review the show, then that RS must still consider the show a significant influence, thus demonstrating that it is more notable than episodes that don't get reviews". I think we looked over that argument above, each episode doesn't have to be notable for the whole series to be. If someone drills down and looks into an episode more closely, it's still just looking at the episode. If they note how the episode has had an influence other than to merely exist, fine. But if it's just a matter of saying, "Parker and Stone were influenced by book a, film b and person c when writing the episode" it's not really showing notability. Each review would need to be taken on it's own merits. Alastairward (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The point of the review is to establish the context of the episode outside of the episode itself (the plot section is what's there to establish the episode). Whether that's comparing to other episodes of the same series or to other shows entirely, or to affirm what may be obvious parodies to present events (something SP often does). That needs to be done by an "expert" (someone who's profession is to review television episodes).  It's the same concept that, if discussing a scientific principle, we don't take the original scientists' word on it that wrote the paper, it's the experts down the line that establish the context of the principle that are important in terms of establishing the topic for an encyclopedia. --M ASEM  (t) 13:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Formatting for this article.
I have finished reformatting this article, so everyone can take a look at it. This is not based on the idea that the season articles will all be split back out (if so great, if not then just remove the links to them), but the fact that this series is too long to be able to handle all of the plot summaries, no matter how brief. Plus, it was not well sourced. Other than aesthetics, and the fact that I sourced all of the DVDs, the only real change was the removal of the "Best of" stuff. I wanted to keep this, but looking at the sources suggested that it would be best to remove it. One source was a dead link. The others did not actually list the episodes in question, so I assume that they were placed their as Comedy Central was airing them (which we cannot verify without a source). Two of the sources looked like they came from some fansite, I couldn't even tell what they were. Oh, and I only included links to episodes that I came across that had already been well established as notable episodes. Links to the others can be added as need be (just like how the links to the season pages can be removed if need be).  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * These www.jbhifionline.com.au, /www.tvshowsondvd.com, and www.amazon.co.uk, are not proper sources, but rather just sites selling DVDs. Best to stick to secondary sources, this seems too much like a violation of WP:NOR. Cirt (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * TVShowsonDVD.com is not a vendor, and they are considered reliable for DVD release info (They've been bought by TV Guide as well, adding to their reliability). Vendor sites like Amazon are fine for past releases of DVD, though often a press release can be found to replace it. --M ASEM  (t) 21:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * They're considered valid sources when it comes to identifying the original release date of a box set. There is no requirement that ALL sources must be secondary, nor that sources identifying a non-controversial date must be secondary. Plus, OR is "original thought", and there is no "thought" here. As stated, "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." - There is no position to advance when stating when something was released.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  21:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sourcing stuff to the sites that sell the DVDs is really not best practice. Has an attempt been made to try to find secondary sources for this info? Cirt (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well again, TVShowsOnDVD.com is not a vendor site even though you can clickthrough to Amazon. Plus, they generally post any press releases direct from the publisher regarding the DVD set, so in that case they're just a passthrough of direct information. (there's no need to secondary source release dates). --M ASEM  (t) 17:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So I take that to mean no one has tried to research this and source with secondary sources? Cirt (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC)It's no different than sourcing financial figures from the studios. The websites are not being used in the EL sections, which would invoke a level of NPOV violation by suggesting they buy this. They are used as sources for dates. The only issue I have ever seen brought up with citing Amazon or any other online vender with regard to release dates is the problem of personal identifiers (i.e. in the url, everything that comes after "ref", because it actually is associated with that personal account instead of a generic page on the website). If you can find another source, that's fine (I wouldn't fight you or anyone over replacing one source for a better source...there are not always official press releases to "professional" news outlets with regard to DVD releases), but I have never run into a problem with citing Amazon or any other similar website for the purposes of just the release date of a product.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay I could go with that if we could agree that it would be best practice where possible to replace with better sources in the future. Cirt (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's always best practice to fine the most neutral, third-party source avaiable. If they can be found, awesome. I'm just saying that I have never come across a page held up in any type of review because there was a source to Amazon for the release date of a product (so long as that was the only thing being used - e.g. a whole section wasn't written about a product based solely on what it says on the Amazon page).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I find that extremely hard to believe, surely there are reviews of upcoming DVD releases that mention their release date. Cirt (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It just comes across sort of like if people go down to the References subsection while reading this page, they would find 99% of the References are just links to websites selling DVDs, which does not seem too professional or encyclopedic. Like I said, generally when newspapers and secondary sources review newly released DVDs, they mention the release date. It does not appear that there has even been an attempt to try to find secondary sources in this case. Cirt (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, secondary sources are not a requirement, nor do I go out of my way to find them for something as uncontroversial as a DVD release date. I doubt most people check every single source for a release date, because it's not the same thing as quoting someone's words. It's up there with calling the Sun yellow. The only time it's an issue is with future dates (in such case there are only like 2 or 3 of those for this show). So, I say, if you want to find some, be my guest. It seems to be more of a personal issue of yours than one I have ever seen from the community.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Only two out of the 42 sources used in the References subsection at User:Bignole/Small sand are to quality secondary sources, namely BBC News and The New York Times. Now I am not saying that all the other sources are wholly unacceptable, just that it does seem odd to not have any other secondary sources such as reviews of the DVDs in newspapers, books, magazines, etc., and to have 95% of the References be websites and sites affiliated with the pushing of a product. Cirt (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Odd" is not a problem of mine. They don't push a POV, or violate any actual policy. They are used in a generic way to cite a single, uncontroversial number. And when it comes to regions 2 and 4, venders are sometimes the only thing you can find. Like I've been saying, if you have such a problem with it, be bold and find some different sources and swap them out (I don't care if you edit my sandbox).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's not make this about me please. Please comment on content, not on contributors. The community actually does set higher standards than linking to multiple different websites that push a product and use those as the vast majority of the sources on a page. For example The Simpsons (season 1), a Featured List = much better sourcing. Cirt (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, but notice what sites its using for the DVD release information - TV shows on DVD and "Simpsons Shop". Yes, there needs to be better sites for the episode information, but release date from these sources are fine, as they meet both WP:RS and the third-party nature of WP:V. --M ASEM (t) 17:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't comment on YOU. I said if you have a problem then you can edit my sandbox. Two people are saying it is fine, one person is saying that it isn't. I have not said, "don't touch this". I agreed that any secondary source would be better, but they generally are. I did not disagree with you on that. I merely stated that these are just fine as well, but if you find something else feel free to swap it. That isn't a personal attack on you, and could not be construed as one either. "Better sourcing" does not make the original source "Bad", and would not inhibit an FLC. Going back to what I said, for the third time, if you find a better source PLEASE go ahead and swap it out.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to use CAPS, let's all please stay civil, thanks. As for User:Bignole/Small sand, let's not use this until it has better sourcing. I also notice that User:Bignole/Small sand for some reason is missing other DVD releases of special selections. These should be included. Cirt (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That was not me yelling, that was me urging. A part from Cirt, does anyone else have any problems with the the information being put into place? Cirt, remember, if it's the main page then everyone can edit it to their liking, and replace sources, and add new information. It's merely a cleaned up version of what's on the page now (which, IMO, is a much worse version to have on display...at least my version has sources).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * @ - you do have a good point, the current version could use better sourcing. And I will accept that you were not yelling with the CAPS, but please try to avoid use of CAPS in that fashion in the future - as it does come across to most people as yelling. Though the sandbox version is better in some respects, in other respects it appears to omit key information from the current version, such as other DVD releases and special editions. Cirt (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (Sorry for the confusion about the caps, wasn't trying to insinuate that I was trying to get a point across by yelling). I only know of one special release, and that was Trey and Matt's "Greatest Hits" DVD. I based everything off of what this page says. If there are others I don't know about them (the movie wouldn't really be appropriate for this page, because it was not a release of the show). If there are others, come on over to the sandbox and help me create a table for "Special DVD releases" or something to that effect. I don't watch this show, so I welcome anyone's assistance that does watch it and knows about all this stuff that could be added that isn't here.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the apology - it is most appreciated. I also note that the sandbox proposal removed virtually all links to existing Wikipedia episode articles. These still exist as Wikipedia articles and they should be linked. Also, The Hits, Volume 1 was released as a DVD edition and this was removed as well. Cirt (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I mentioned the episode links at the top. They can be added back. When I was starting it I was just putting in the episode titles and not bothering with making sure I had the links in (beyond like two of them). I couldn't find anywhere to put it, that's why I removed it. I didn't remove it under the guise that it shouldn't be mentioned, just that my goal was merely to clean up the page to a suitable level and anything else can be done afterward.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The episode Wikipedia-links and the section on The Hits, Volume 1 should be included on this page. Cirt (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to go back to work, so I cannot do it right now, so please (D, sorry, couldn't resist) head over to my sandbox and take care of what you can. I'll be gone for a few hours, so my responses will be spaced and limited (not really supposed to be on Wiki while at work).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So, is there any opposition to going ahead and putting in the cleaned up version of the page?   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer better sources - but it is a much better model than the current version - no objections. Thank you for all the work you put into this. My apologies for belabouring a point too much. Cirt (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's all good. Anyone else (it's basically been Cirt and me discussing this)? I'll leave this open till the end of the day, then if there are no other objections I'll swap out the codes.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been waiting for this for a long time. Please do it. The design is much better. More prose would be better but we should collaborate on that on the mainspace. Is the color coding recommended? I thought it's not good for FL.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The only time I've ever run into a color coding problem was way back when that first started springing up. Now, the only time I've ever seen it brought up is by people who have not reviewed television related lists before. It's not a random color (it's the color of the DVD boxes), and it allows the reader to not be bored with the mundane "gray" default coloring. So long as it is readable on all browsers (which, if it is not, let me know so that we can adjust to better serve all users), then it should be fine.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok good Idea of color coding according to DVD box. There are many necessary improvements though:
 * The refs are in the air date which poses a problem in season 1,4 because they aren't clear and are difficult to be seen. It would be better having them above each table with some prose would be better ( I think).
 * Viewers count is also important and should have its own column
 * Why are the descriptions gone? Are u intending on creating Season pages?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems to only be an issue for the couple of the darker colored seasons. Plus, I don't think it's a big issue when it comes to verifying because it's already aired episodes, and the reference section below identifies the separate pages. What I could do is adjust the title for the references to indicate which seasons fall within the pages so that it is easier to navigate there. As for the viewership, that's easy to add...if you have the information. I didn't have the information for every episode, so I couldn't add it in. About the plots, if every episode has its own page we won't need them. If there are episodes that need merging then season articles will probably be the better bet. At 13 seasons, even a brief 1 to 2 sentence plot is going to bloat the page, because you're talking about 183 episodes and counting. I mean, it can be done quite easily as well, it will just make the page very large. Season pages (regardless of merging) might be the best avenue anyway, because there is some information that is strictly season related (seasonal averages, awards given to a show and not specifically to an episode during that season, the DVD release of the season, the key players for that season, etc.)   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is rubbish now! What good is just listing the title? I used to check here all the time to see what episode I wanted to watch and the one line plot summaries were very useful. Now I have to click through to each individual episode's page.122.108.12.220 (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Seasons articles
I'd like to suggest moving all seasons to standalone lists. I don't mean by that removing the Seasons sectons from the page but merely copying the Episodes information, like what was done in Season 1, to other articles with short description of each episode. This would be later expanded to included general plot of the Season, cultural references, Viewers ... etc. I find it bad removing all the description of the original list before this reformatting and am therefore suggesting just splitting the older list in several season articles.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Even without a merge, it would probably still make sense, it would match what was done for other series too. Bignole kindly pointed me in the direction of some handy coding for the episode lists that looks cleaner than what had been used before. Alastairward (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Season articles are completely appropriate and can be used to include reception information on season releases as well as for the somewhat expanded plot descriptions. Also any significant season changes (that can be sources), such as .. er, whatever season Kenny was considered dead and gone (5? 6?) can also be outlined, even though SP has minimal overarching plot. --M ASEM  (t) 22:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.  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?
 * No Bignole, Wikipedia has notability guidelines because it was common for people to vote delete and say "non-notable" in VFDs. And what in the world is a "run of the mill" episode? Third-party coverage is not the only evidence of notability, and if an article does not cite any, that means nothing whatsoever. --Pixelface (talk) 11:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

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. -- Gman 124 talk 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. -- Gman 124 talk 16:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Added message at Wikiproject South Park to discuss merger here not there. -- Gman 124 talk 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. --  Gman 124 talk 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 Television episodes:
 * Note: Stubs are allowed on Wikipedia 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...
 * Has anyone created a list of stubs proposed for merge?
 * Have these stubs been tagged for Notability or Sources and allowed to grow?
 * 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,  MICHAEL Q. 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. [the new Google Wiki search results] (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 [Google Wiki] (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, Wikipedia 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 Parks "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 Wikipedia 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. --FixmanPraise me 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 Wikipedia 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)


 * Please don't cite that worthless essay Bignole. And the only way to "fail" WP:NOTE is to be non-notable. And it's just a guideline anyway. Lack of third-party coverage != non-notable. That's a simple fact. WP:NOT has been disputed ever since it was added to WP:NOT and it's routinely ignored by editors. It does not reflect consensus. WP:NOT, that line in WP:V, and the first summary of the subject-specific notability guidelines which grew into the WP:GNG, all came from one single editor. Wikipedia is not a dictatorship. Policies and guidelines must have consensus in order to be policies and guidelines. You're welcome to try and argue that South Park is notable yet the episodes that comprise the show are somehow not-notable. Good luck with your cognitive dissonance. --Pixelface (talk) 11:21, 18 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,  MICHAEL Q. 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.   D r e a m 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 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,  MICHAEL Q. 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.   D r e a m 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. An individual episode article with nothing but a plot does not hurt Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you agree that South Park is notable? Then how can you say with a straight face that South Park episodes are non-notable? WP:NOTE should never have been tagged a guideline by Radiant! Articles about topics that editors feel are non-notable are often deleted, but that does not therefore mean that articles that are not deleted are about notable topics. Why do you say that South Park episode articles are guarded by "extreme fans" and then ignore the possibility that WP:NOTE is guarded by "extreme fans"? You might want to read WP:IAR?. If a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it. You're taking about removing all but three or so lines from these plot summaries. How does that improve Wikipedia in any way? How does having articles for some episodes of South Park but not all of them improve Wikipedia in any way? When you have multiple policies and guidelines saying "this isn't correct", and you have thousands of articles where it's accepted, you'd be hard pressed in saying that those policies and guidelines actually reflect community-wide consensus and community standards instead of the whims of a handful of bossy and domineering editors with inflated egos. --Pixelface (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet again Bignole, that is false. And these articles do not "fail" any notability guidelines because these episodes are notable. And WP:NOT is an illegitimate policy, and there is no consensus for it to be policy. And you just happen to be one of the editors who has re-added that section of policy to WP:NOT. Nevertheless, your claim that these articles are solely plot summaries is also false. And you still have not explained how South Park can be a notable show, yet the episodes that comprise the show be not notable. --Pixelface (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose merger, in other words keep individual articles. In all honesty, it seems to me that 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. 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,  MICHAEL Q. 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 t•c 21:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sgeureka, please state how South Park is a notable show, yet the episode that comprise that show are not notable. Merging these articles would not improve Wikipedia in any way whatsoever. Redirecting articles does not improve Wikipedia either. Your bias against "fan editors" is noted. Merging these articles would not "help build a kick-ass encyclopedia." Anti-episode editors need to climb off their hobby horse and burn it already. Your views may be more welcome at Britannica 2.0. --Pixelface (talk) 11:31, 18 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)
 * Oh look, all the E&C1 and E&C2 doctrinaires have come out of the woodwork to support a merge regarding articles that were explicitly mentioned in E&C1. Which makes me wonder if you're actually following the rulings of those cases. "Wikipedia is not a battleground" indeed. --Pixelface (talk) 11:25, 18 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 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. :) -- AnmaFinotera  (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)
 * "Episode articles must meet notability based on WP:N, not the style guide." That's incorrect. There's no "must" about it, Equazcion's recent edits to WP:N notwithstanding. --Pixelface (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've also just worked on Starvin' Marvin. This, too, I feel is just a start and that it can be expanded further. I feel this should satisfy the notability questions for that specific article, and I hope this and Weight Gain 4000 demonstrate what I'm talking about here. I truly feel all of these articles are perfectly notable, and that there are plenty of sources out there for them if we just put in the effort. —  Hunter  Kahn  ( contribs )  03:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Starvin' Marvin looks much better than "Weight Gain" does, as far as secondary sources covering the episode in more than a trivial manner. There isn't a deadline to notability, and given that there are 183 articles and apparently only one person with access to LexisNexis, it will most likely be better to merge the leftovers and one at a time split off whichever ones can get expanded next. "Pinkeye" has been around for 4 years, that's plenty of time to have cleaned up. WP:NOTE was established shortly after that, and there has been enough commotion and controversy over the past 2+ years that just about everyone under the TV community Sun was aware of the problem with these (referring to all, not just South Park) articles. No one said there were not notable South Park episodes.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've also now worked on Pinkeye. I chose this one because there seemed to be suggestions that the first two I did (Weight Gain 4000 and Starvin' Marvin) were more notable and controversial than the others, so I deliberately chose one that appeared to be more middle-of-the-road. I think this one, too, now satisfies the notability guidelines (although, again, I think there is still some room for expansion and improvement, and the plot summary has to be tightened). —  Hunter  Kahn  ( contribs )  04:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo, which proved to be one of the easiest episode so far to research. I think this one now also satisfies the notability standards. —  Hunter  Kahn  ( contribs )  04:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose merger. Every episode of South Park is notable. Every episode is watched by millions of people. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. Bignole, Collectonian, and other anti-episode editors should go find a new hobby. It's pretty pathetic that Bignole is here trying to diminish Wikipedia's coverage of South Park, when it was South Park that Arbcom mentioned in Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters, which Bignole was a party to. Give it a rest. --Pixelface (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose merger. I have no comment on what is or is not pathetic, but I agree with the following view: Every episode of South Park is notable. Every episode is watched by millions of people. Wikipedia and its readers would not benefit in any way from a merge . KConWiki (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support merger into individual "South Park (season X)" articles. The main list can be reformatting like what the user Bignole is drafting in sandbox if that's to happen. Wikipedia should uphold its standard beyond that of TV.com or those other websites, just as a good encyclopedia would. Of course, readers who'd like to know more about whatever season could click on the main season article and that article would have brief summaries of each episode. Whichever episodes do meet wikipedia notability guidelines would have their articles kept, while such non-notable episodes as "Volcano" and whatever's been suggested for merging could simply have the basically basic info like brief summary/credits on the season article. Yes, Pixelface brought up the good point that "every episode is watched by millions of people", but can you prove that with an article saying that South Park got whatever ratings the week a certain episode aired? Also how would "Wikipedia and its readers...not benefit in any way from a merge"? The numerous articles about TV/all that junk don't really reflect well on Wikipedia already. And that reflection would've been much much worse had it not been for WP:EPISODE.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For a good example of my point about WP and pop culture, check out this 2007 CNET analysis of certain WP articles, on historical vs. pop culture topics.


 * Andrewlp1991, television ratings and DVD sales numbers are available in many different places. Your claim that the episode "Volcano" is not notable is unsupported. This merge would be removing information and hiding it away, to the benefit of absolutely no one but Gil Penchina, Jimbo Wales, Angela Beesley, and the shareholders of the for-profit company Wikia, Inc. If someone wants to make season articles, go ahead. Season pages vs episode articles is a false choice. Your claim "The numerous articles about TV/all that junk don't really reflect well on Wikipedia already" is simply your opinion, and it reveals your true motive behind wanting to merge these articles.
 * Articles about pop culture do not reflect poorly on Wikipedia. But Wikipedia's notability guidelines do. In October 2004, Simon Waldman of The Guardian wrote an article about Wikipedia and quoted two people from Encyclopedia Britannica. Executive editor Ted Pappas criticized Wikipedia and editor-in-chief Dale Holberg said of Wikipedia, "the entry on Coronation Street is twice as long as the article on Tony Blair." (October 2004 also happens to be the month that Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley founded Wikicities, a for-profit wiki, later renamed Wikia) The media picked up on the fact that the article about Coronation Street was longer than the article about Tony Blair. After all this criticism of Wikipedia from Encyclopedia Britannica, four and a half years later, they ripped a page out of Wikipedia's book, and opened themselves up to user-generated content with Britannica 2.0. The ability for a single person to mark a page a guideline all by himself reflects on Wikipedia the worst of all. --Pixelface (talk) 11:51, 18 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,  MICHAEL Q. 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,  MICHAEL Q. 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,  MICHAEL Q. 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,  MICHAEL Q. 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)


 * No Bignole, consensus is not formed by the strongest argument. Consensus is formed when people come to a general agreement (meaning, the thing that most people in a group agree to). That's what consensus means. It's often comes about because of the most persuasive argument.


 * Regarding the text "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." First of all, it needs to be determined who wrote that and when it was added to that page. Second of all, that assumes that any given policy or guideline represents "consensus on a wider scale", but that is not always the case. Policies and guidelines are often edited by people trying to write rules they favor in order to get other people to do what they want, with a specific article in mind. Policies and guidelines often lag behind Wikipedia norms, and many do not truly represent community-wide consensus. And most WikiProjects should be abolished anyway.


 * Notability is subjective. Whether something is "worthy of notice" can only be subjective. Whether something is "well-known" (one of the synonyms of notable) is less subjective, but it depends on who you're asking. Third-party coverage is evidence of notability, but that is not the only evidence of notability. Lack of third-party coverage != non-notable. WP:NOT's status as a policy has been disputed ever since it was proposed. Your claim that season pages were a "compromise" between inclusionists and deletionists is false. You may have worked on season pages for Smallville, but don't act like season pages are any kind of agreed-to "compromise." There is no dichotomy between episode articles and season pages. The Simpsons has both. Besides, WP:NOT, if it actually did reflect consensus (which it doesn't), would apply to season pages just as much as it would to episode articles. And Nielsen Ratings are often available for individual episodes. --Pixelface (talk) 12:25, 18 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 Wikipedia 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)


 * The episode titles/writers/directors/airdates have been completed for the "List of" page. Once I clean up the "Best of" section, everything should be all done.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment
--Please note, there has been canvassing of only editors who support one view by User:Alastairward: This puts the entire validity of the RfC in question. Ikip (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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 Wikipedia pages, but not all of them.     Paul    730  01:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's spelled "sufficiently" and you're wrong about a season page covering the topic in such a manner. I absolutely oppose moving this content to Wikia so Jimbo Wales can make a profit. Wilhelmina Will already copied them to Wikia anyway, disruptively, since TTN made her mad over some other articles. There is absolutely no reason to pick and choose a few episodes to not have articles for. That makes Wikipedia incomplete, and lacking. --Pixelface (talk) 05:54, 17 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)
 * 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 Parks 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. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk ·' contribs) 01:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge all episode except the one episode article that is a featured article. -- Gman 124 talk 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. -- Gman 124 talk 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)
 * 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)
 * You ignore that classes of topics are often dealt with in a similar fashion. And who cares about the imaginary labels of "FA" and "GA" anyway? I come to Wikipedia for information. Whether some webpage has a [[Image:LinkFA-star.png|star]] picture on it or not is meaningless to me. --Pixelface (talk) 06:05, 17 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 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  *YES! 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. 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  *YES! 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 NobodyMy talk 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)


 * Every time I see you make a comment Bignole, you say something blatantly false. Why is that? First off all, there is no notability "requirement." Second of all, how can you say that South Park is notable, yet the episodes that comprise South Park are not? Thirdly, your arguments about Kenny's clothes and the Superman emblem are ridiculous. Although if Wikipedia editors wanted articles for those topics, and there was no consensus to delete them, then they belong on Wikipedia. "Notability is not inherited" is one of the stupidest statements I've ever encountered. But there is nothing for South Park episodes to "inherit" anyway, unless you think that the show is the intro, and an episode is just tacked onto it. The episodes are the show.
 * Bignole, I have to wonder whether you're abiding by the Arbcom ruling of E&C1, where this list was explicitly mentioned. You apparently don't even believe "All articles must meet the notability requirements on a case-by-case basis.", since you created the article Traitor (comics). --Pixelface (talk) 05:50, 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)


 * Pixel, I'd respond to your 6k worth of character rants, but frankly they aren't worth my time. Half the time you don't even know what you're talking about with regard to me, my edits, or my opinions - here's food for thought, i've done more good for TV related articles than you could possibly even fathom. I've written episode articles, season articles, character articles, main page articles and lists. I've gotten damn near everything I touch with regard to TV-related articles to either FA or GA status, so the next time you feel the need to challenge my personal views or actions do some homework. One more thing I will say, get a new damn argument. That BS about me creating Traitor (comic) is old news (P.S. since this seems hard for you to understand, I created the page when I first came to Wikipedia and haven't been back to it since, beyond putting a notability tag on it personally). If you don't agree with the merge, that's fine, but I'm personally tired of your aggressive attacks toward me personally and other editors that you don't agree with. Try commenting on just the topic instead of the editors next time. Have good night.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  06:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Replying to you probably isn't worth my time either, but your false claims cannot go unanswered. Otherwise, someone who doesn't know any better might actually believe what you're saying. I am tired of you making false claims, so please stop doing so. Do my homework? What? You mean like the fact that you have made more edits to WT:EPISODE than anyone on Wikipedia? Like the fact that you've been on this "season" hobby-horse since June 6, 2007? Like the fact that you were making false claims at WT:EPISODE like "And plots are copyrighted pieces of material, if we have no encyclopedic content around them, then we fail to meet fair use criteria." as far back as June 7, 2007?


 * You've done more good for TV-related articles than I could possibly even fathom? I see humility isn't one of your virtues. And I have serious doubts about that. I'm well aware of your edits to List of Smallville episodes, Smallville (season 1), Smallville (season 2), Smallville (season 3), Smallville (season 4), Smallville (season 5), Smallville (season 6), Smallville (season 7), and Smallville (season 8). Smallville is a terrible show anyway, and I wouldn't be surprised in the least if nobody cared if its episode articles went away. I would only support retaining them on principle alone. I don't care how many articles you've edited that have a [[Image:LinkFA-star.png]] picture on them. Pictures of [[Image:LinkFA-star.png]]'s are meaningless to me. It's actually embarrassing that List of Smallville episodes or Smallville (season 1) could ever appear on the mainpage. Are you going to tell me that episodes of Smallville are not notable, even though the show "averages 4-5 million" viewers according to you?


 * I've commented on the topic plenty. You have failed to explain how South Park is notable, yet the episodes that comprise the show are not notable. I see that you put a notability tag on Traitor (comics) &mdash; and it only took you three years. If only these episode articles could be as lucky. That makes you look like slightly less of a hypocrite, but you're still a hypocrite. You don't even believe what you're saying, so why should anyone else? Your ownership over television articles and their respective guidelines and your hypocrisy is what's getting old.


 * It is impossible to comment on this proposed merge without noting the editors in favor of it, and their previous roles in the arbitration cases E&C1 or E&C2. This article was explicitly mentioned by Arbcom in E&C1, an arbitration case that you were an involved party of. A new request for arbitration or arbitration enforcement may be in order, since you apparently refuse to let it go. Have a nice day. --Pixelface (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You have failed to explain how South Park is notable, yet the episodes that comprise the show are not notable." Umm, no we havent failed to explain, you have aparently failed to read WP:V (subsection WP:BURDEN) "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Have 3rd party sources written about South Park? yep. Have 3rd party sources written about each episode? Not that we have been able to find. Perhaps you could spend some time looking and discover sources that eluded us rather than attacking other editors and their motives--  The Red Pen of Doom  00:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you and everyone else still have failed to explain how South Park is a notable television show yet the episodes that comprise the show are not notable. What exactly is this South Park that people wrote about? Think hard. I've read WP:V and I also know how that sentence came about. That section of policy is disputed, and was only added to WP:V in the first place because an editor wanted to win an editwar over the UGOPlayer article which they had nominated for deletion (and was deleted) &mdash; which is a horrible reason to change policy. And a sentence about topic inclusion doesn't belong in a content policy anyway. And WP:V has nothing to do with notability.


 * Why would there be newspaper articles about each and every episode? Episode reviews don't sell newspapers &mdash; especially when many newspapers are going out of business. And reviews would mostly only be written after an episode airs. People typically read reviews to find out if something is good. If they've already seen the episode, why would they read the The New York Times to tell them how to feel about it? And even if an article did appear in a newspaper about a specific episode, the probability that more people have seen the episode than read the article is very, very high. Newspaper articles are not what keep a show on the air. Viewers do. Newspaper articles do not set television network ad rates. Millions of people do. South Park is the show that put Comedy Central on the map. And please understand this: lack of third-party coverage does not = non notable.


 * Have third-party sources written about a list of South Park episodes? It doesn't matter. I know that these episodes are notable, so I'm not going to go on some wild goose chase. Ask yourself this: Have third-party sources written about notability? Then it should be easy for you to write an article about the topic. Have third-party sources written about Notability? Yes, yes they have. It's been described as "a narrow, almost grade-schoolish notion." This article was explicitly mentioned in an arbitration case, and the parties are back to fight over it again. I suggest they find something more productive to do with their time. Perhaps they could attempt to make notability a featured article. Oh, and pick one account and stick to it please. --Pixelface (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support merging to individual season pages, and to appease those worried about losing information, I would consider the allowance that each episode entry in a season page can have a reasonably concise but detailed plot section (~750 words as most individual episode articles have now) with any additional details that may be useful to have (guest voices?). The overall episode list should be limited to the 150-200 word summaries to make it easy to find an episode by description.  As Bignole and others have noted, the bulk of SP episodes do not have sources beyond the primary - not all, there are certainly ones that have caught attention like the Scientology one or the Imaginationland trilogy - but the average SP episode simply can't be expanded beyond a plot due to lack of information from the creators and from third-party sources. As the only other thing that gets lost here is the list of trivia these episodes technically gain, we're not losing anything.  Episode articles should remain as redirects in case future sources can establish them as we'll still have their histories. --M ASEM  (t) 12:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support merger of all episodes onto this list, while opposing a redirect of every episode. Certain episodes (Trapped in the Closet comes to my mind) are notable per WP:N in that they were well-commented on in the media for sparking some sort of drama. Most episodes should be redirected, but not all.  Them  From  Space  15:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

A big problem I've noticed with South Park episode articles is the sterilisation of all information other than the plot summary from the articles. In many cases, it would improve the articles to re-add this content (see Village pump (policy)/Archive 60). Plot summaries should in general be reduced, not expanded. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 16:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sources. As was pointed out on that page, it is still original research. The reason being, just because you see a "blatant reference" doesn't mean the average reader will. What if they have never seen the thing being referenced? How would they know? What if when they saw said object they didn't feel the same way? That now becomes a challengable subject. It isn't like saying, "The Sun is yellow" (beyond the obvious that it isn't always "yellow", no one would refute that claim...at least, if they did I highly doubt anyone would take them seriously). Even if we ignore the debate about whether that is original research (to personally point out references to other media), if you don't force them to provide a source then you're actually not helping their cause. Without the sources you lack the significant coverage from third-party sources to establish notability. So, you'd potentially end up (assuming of course one successfully argued that no sources were necessary) with a section in a season article chronicling the list of references to other media. Six to one, half a dozen to another.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The sources are the two works or objects in question. You can verify that the sun is yellow because you can look at the sun (bad example) and look at something yellow and see that they are the same. The whole point is to inform the reader about the thing being referenced. If anyone challenges a claim like such as this then you can point them at the two sources.
 * This isn't a matter of notability - which would directly affect a merge decision - but of article content. I just wished to point out why many of these episode articles are entirely devoted to plot summary rather than more useful content. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 17:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Most "X references Y by..." type statements that these (SP episodes specifically) develop is a case of original research except in a few handful of exceptions. There are some that are blatantly obvious, but when you start including these without a source to confirm that the connection exists between the works, you then start begging for things not quite so obvious, and those lead to even more iffy links.  I've no problem including these if another source makes the claim first, but they cannot be claimed without secondary sources by the wikipedia authors first.  Thus, in considering these lists, most of these facts would not be appropriate and would be removed in a merge. --M ASEM  (t) 17:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The official policy of Wikiproject The Simpsons is that every cultural reference should be sourced by a reliable source no matter how obvious it is. If it is not sourced, then it will be removed. --Maitch (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Orangedog, you've pulled that link out before and it's not really backed you up on your point. The most salient point to take from that discussion I think is this; "In regards to trivia, cultural references and fan cruft-if something isn't notable and relevant enough to be mentioned by reliable sources that can be verified, is it really something worth being in an encyclopedia article?". If you had your way, you would simply swamp the articles with trivia and OR that's only there because someone decided "Hey, it must be because I say so!". Alastairward (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just so this doesn't turn into an Orangedog bashing session, in their defense there have been times when I have accepted cultural references based on the primary source. But, the only times that has occurred is when the show itself specifically says it. For example, I think that in Imaginationland (and someone correct me if I'm wrong), they specifically identify other fictional characters. To point out that Jason Voorhees (or whomever) appeared in the episode would be fine, because the episode itself specifically identifies them (again, example, and correct if I'm wrong). Now, for the opposite of that. I would not accept the episode as a source if someone said Jason Voorhees appeared because there was a guy in a hockey mask and a chainsaw (which is the most common image to appear, because the basic hockey mask and the chainsaw...which is not something associated with him...allow shows to reference him without really referencing him and thus they don't have to pay the licensing fee). I would require (if I was reviewing a page) a secondary source for that. It may be "obvious" to fans, but someone who has never see him might not understand it. So, to clarify, if the episode specifically points it out (i.e. there is not questioning it because the show acknowledges it), then I don't see a problem with citing the episode. If not, then find a secondary source. But, we are getting off topic a bit, because this is about notability, and just acknowledging a cultural reference is not enough to satisfy NOTE (not even if that acknowledgment is reliably sourced).    BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hence why a formal task force should be set up to go through each episode one by one, and split them off as they come across them. The problem is that all of these episode articles are like little row boats. Everyone set them out into the water without any oars, and now everyone's using their hands to try and paddle back to the boat before getting sucked out to sea, when they should have prepped their boat before hand. Right now, no one can legitimately deny that out of all of the episode articles, only a handful do not violate the notability guideline or the policy on plot only articles (among other guidelines and policies). The first thing that needs to be done is an immediate cleaning. If you wreck your home you don't try and repair the furniture before you clean the living room. To clean house. You start fresh, and then you can focus your efforts where they need to be.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge - Per excellent work done by on article Weight Gain 4000, as well as similar above comments prior to that work, by . Articles should individually be tested to see if they can be improved in a manner similar to Weight Gain 4000, instead of unilaterally being merged without research done on each individual episode. Cirt (talk) 05:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see holding off the first season episodes, when the show was "fresh" and still had shock value; the bulk of the notability that WG4000 asserts is the reviews (the other non-plot sections are edging on appropriate inclusion of trivia into the article body, but no single fact in those aids the episode's notability) which is fine for this, that's not a question, but I doubt much beyond the first season can necessarily show this. --M ASEM (t) 05:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagree, I bet it would be quite easy to improve a majority of the episode pages with reliable sourcing. Cirt (talk) 05:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weight Gain and Starvin' Marvin are among the first controversial (I use that term lightly), episodes in the series, of course. I would be willing to be that the majority of the really controversial episodes are going to be notable, because they often garner a lot of press. But the majority of the season is not controversial, to same the least, and I'd bet that once you get out of the "fresh" zone of the first season, maybe even season two, it will be very limited. There are 183 articles, probably about 170 of them are pure plot. They should be merged until someone can get to them and see which ones are notable. Otherwise, we'll be here for 2 years waiting to get them completed (and that's only if they are worked on every day).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * They should not be merged en masse. They should be individually researched and tested, as was suggested by, and then done successfully by . Cirt (talk) 05:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the key here is that if it can be shown that more than a couple mid- or later-season episodes that are non-controversial can be shown to be notable, or even better if there is more than one reliable source that consistently reviews every SP episode, then I'd be less hesitant to merge. As best I can tell, this isn't the case for SP, but I may be wrong. --M ASEM  (t) 05:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The onus is on the ones who want to keep them, it always has been. They have been around for years, and never complied with the notability guideline. If you want them individually researched, then I'd get to work on that, and I'd do a better job than Peregine when it comes to potential sources (i.e. actually reading them instead of assuming Google found the perfect information, since when I looked at every book he listed the episode was only listed as part of an episode listing, and nothing more). Hunter has LexisNexis, and not a lot of free time. Since there is no deadline to when these articles have to have pages of their own, there is no reason not to merge their plot summaries into one page and take ones time "individually researching" each episode to find out if it even warrants a page.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In looking over discussion on this page, there appears to be a significant amount of opposition from multiple editors against a merge en masse. Improving the list page is great, but it does not mean the pages need to be merged at the same time. Perhaps those assessing notability do not have access to all the various archival research databases. Cirt (talk) 05:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you see a lot of opposition based on WP:ILIKEIT, but there is not much opposition at all to a merge with any policy at its basis. And when those who do have access to the archival research databases do have time, then they can create articles that actually satisfy our policies such as WP:V "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."-- The Red Pen of Doom  00:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. If a redirect can be so easily undone, what do we lose right now by merging to a list of episodes? If there is (as Cirt suggests) "a significant amount of opposition" and that (again, as Cirt suggests) "it would be quite easy to improve a majority of the episode pages with reliable sourcing", then why has only one of these editors, in the many months that these articles have been around, sourced notability for them? I see nothing wrong with merging them, when it quite clearly allows (contrary to some disingenuous arguments above) for the individual articles to be improved and brought back if necessary.
 * To those who wish to keep every individual article, perhaps it might help if we knew a little more about your reasoning. Do you wish to have almost literally every scrap of information available? Is it simply an academic point, that you disagree with the WP policies quoted in favour of a merge? Alastairward (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose: 1000 versus 10 There are 2017 accounts who have edited the first season of South Park alone, 719 registered editors, and 1311 IP addresses. Take away the editors who have contributed nothing [editors who merged and deleted large sections],  vandalism, and the duplicate IP addresses, and that is still well over a thousand editors who have contributed meaningfully to these articles...versus less than 10 editors who, with respects, have contributed nothing to South Park episodes other than deletion of content. Forgive me if I say it seems a tad presumptuous less than 10 editors feel their opinion and interpretation of ever-changing guideline trumps over a thousand editors contributions over 4 years.


 * Ikip (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ikip, whatever does that have to do with notability? Alastairward (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It has to everything do with consensus. As I discussed here in other sections, there is an unwritten exception to notability for television episodes and characters. Ikip (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So arguments are broken down into sheer weight of numbers then? Alastairward (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose - do not merge. The structure for TV episodes is to have a list, and optimally an article for each episode.  The way I figure it, the issue here isn't "is the episode noteworthy", but rather "would a single large article for each season be too large".  Consider the separate episode articles as having been split off to make things consistent and of a reasonable size. - Denimadept (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that is just not correct at all, it is, in fact, the opposite of what is optimal and desirable per the Television project and WP:MOSTV. A TV series should have a series article, if necessary an episode list. If the series spans multiple seasons (generally more than 4), then splitting it into season pages might be a good idea. Individual episodes should only have an article if, and only if, notability can be proven through reliable, third-party sources. And yes, notability is the only real issue. With plots at the proper length, size is not an issue at all (even with the lengthy summaries, it really isn't as size only "might" be an issue at 400k+ per WP:SIZE. The episode articles were not split off because of size nor for consistency, so that is also not valid. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you disagree. The series is notable.  The parts of the series are therefore notable.  Understand?  - Denimadept (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Except, of coruse, that no, the parts of the series are not notable just because the series is. You are the one who does not seem to understand that no, notability is NOT inherited, no every episode is NOT automatically notable because it is a notable series. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest reading the thread before you comment. Your issue was already answered. - Denimadept (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite illogical, not every part of the series has to be notable for the whole to be. Alastairward (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. - Denimadept (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What a mess Of course I oppose the merger.  Anything seen by this many people is going to be notable.  There will be reviews and comments on each episode.  Certainly my local paper has 1 paragraph on 4-5 episodes of different shows in any given day.  I'm sure other newspapers have the same thing.  Finding them is nearly impossible, but they are there.  Someone pick a single episode that you think can't possibly be sourced.  I'm certain folks will be able to source it and get it up to Good status.  That the other episodes aren't in that good of shape is a reason to improve, not merge or otherwise remove content.  Hobit (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, first any info that might be interesting to someone who just saw the episodes is deleted (because obvious reference ist appearently not obvious enough), and now they say: "Look, the article just tells the plot, maybe we should delete that page!" It appears that some people like deleting more than adding more info (maybe because deleting is easier). I oppose the merger, because I expect information on Wikipedia, and trimming and deleting everything that could be interesting is not serving that purpose. Wikia is crap, by the way. Ads everywhere, and I dont like the design.--Treublatt (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Treblatt first of all, you don't actually seem to have read any of the merge propsal. I suggest you do so before wading in with a plea to not delete something. The information trimmed from episode articles has nothing to do with merging the articles either by the way. Alastairward (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Merge. Wikipedia's South Park articles have long been problematic, as most of them consist of nothing but plot summary with no real-world information and few or no sources. In order to meet the requirements of the Manual of Style, the best approach would be that which is proposed here: merging the inadequate ones into a list article, and keeping those for which enough sources can be found to meet the notability test. Merging is a reversible process; if an article on an episode is merged into a list and appropriate sources for it are then provided, it can always be de-merged and the article restored. Robofish (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Merge, Support continued expansion and sourcing so as ti improve Wiki.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This list of article has had a valuable and usable format for a long time; nothing is gained by the deletion of salient information, and simply dispersing this information to season pages does nothing for ease of reading, instead simply requiring more navigation. Also, South Park is a topical show, not a character driven, continuous plotline show; season pages make no sense on their face. You might as just compile the episodes based on their topic- environmentalism, war, politics, apocalyptic, etc. Seems like a few editors need to calm down and stop trying to railroad the rest of us who actually use these lists and visit them often. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.220.61 (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. And I oppose merge. In the last year this list of article and the episodies page have been so helpful to me while I was watching South Park. It provides me with so many information... don't ruin it, for Gods sake!--Sid-Vicious (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You can satart with Pib
The Pip_(South_Park_episode) episode was so unpopular that it wasn't rerun for a long time at first. If you're trying to get rid of non notable episodes for real, you could start there.

Personally, I think eliminating episode articles of any popular (statistically) series is moronic. You can't say that a think watched by millions of people is not notable. Then again, I do have a site that's suposed to cover that sort of popular culture topics, so I'd benefit from the elimination of episode articles from wikipedia.

Btw, let me know if you actually decide to eliminate any episode article, I could use the information (with the proper crediting to the right wikipedia history pages, of course).--20-dude (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The funny thing is that episodes can be notable for being unnotable. If this is the worst episode of South Park, you can probably find a lot of sources saying how bad it was. The Principal and the Pauper is cited as being the worst episode of The Simpsons and it is one of the longest Simpsons episode articles.--Maitch (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Maitch is exactly right; the fact that "Pip" wasn't aired due to how unpopular it was actually makes it more notable than many other episodes. And frankly, the fact that people seem to be crusading against specific South Park episodes even as editors on this page are proving the articles are notable strikes me as sad, and completely contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. —  Hunter  Kahn  ( contribs )  22:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)