Talk:Make Love, Not Warcraft/Archive 1

Too Much Irrelev55yant Detail

Proposal: Remove the table of characters, most of the game-inaccuracies stuff and so forth. Prune it down to a standard episode article for South Park, with a few lines of trivia tops. Reason: Episode is light hearted satire, and since it is not intended to be canonical warcraft material, most of it is crap that can be removed.

-SteveGray

I agree, this really isn't needed. If everyone thinks it should stay, perhaps it should just be shortened to the profiles for the main characters?

-Mat

I can't believe there's so much excessive detail on this page that people adamantly defend that a character, who is supposed to be a complete, lifeless slob has an apartment that 'resembles the main character of GTA's and it has a palm tree too!' really should be in this article, and demand on changing it back when I delete it.

- K —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.152.196 (talk • contribs) 20:14, October 6, 2006

Maybe you should try using edit summaries and your deletions might not be immediately reverted. Gdo01 00:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The length of the list is really quite obnoxious. When the incongruities become longer than the summary itself, one has to wonder how necessary they are. At the very least just give a few examples if you're not going to allow the deletion of it.

-MHH90

"Throughout the episode, references made to locations and player activities in World of Warcraft are accurate to their in-game counterparts, including the "plains of Elwynn Forest near Westfall", the Arathi Highlands, the starting quests for human characters and the presence of large numbers of boars near starting zones. Cartman correctly references an actual map from the game to plan the attack on the ganker, and the final battle takes place in the area of Goldshire. This can be explained both by quotes from the press release stating that a large number of the South Park Studios team plays the game, and the collaborative effort between South Park and Blizzard to provide the in-game rendered portions of the episode."

Those line can be shortened as "References made to locations accurate to their in-game counterparts". the player activities is removed because it is not entirely true and rest of the sentences is irrelevant.

I have deleted the "All of the World of Warcraft players in Southpark are male." under Trivia because it is already repeated under Incongruities WAWOWP

-erison

Devout or Netherwind?

Devout or Netherwind as Ike's item set?

Devout with the exception of the helm (likely the Lieutenant Commander's Satin Hood or Field Marshall's Headdress) --Ted 05:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto reference

Regarding the deletion of the following trivia item:

• When Randy is rushing to find a computer he can use to deliver the Sword of a Thousand Truths to Stan, he commits a carjacking in a manner very similar to those seen in the Grand Theft Auto series of video games; this scene appears likely to be an homage to the Grand Theft Auto.

I feel that given the context and theme of the episode, the near-identical choreographing of Randy's carjacking to those seen in the Grand Theft Auto, and the numerous allusions to popular video games other than World of Warcraft throughout the episode, it is reasonable to assume that it at least "appears likely" to be an homage and thus would be a relevant trivia item. I won't just add it back in since it was immediately deleted the first time, but I would appreciate the thoughts of other users on this possible bit of trivia. --G-my

It seems like a possible allusion. The Grand Theft Auto was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the episode, so it's very likely that's what Trey and Matt intended to do. I want to see what others think as well before adding it in th\o the article, as many people have yet to see the episode. Monkeypillow 03:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, at this point I'm editing it into the page. --Nutschig 07:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This had to be a GTA/Saint's Row homage. Even though the guy got out of his car with no struggle Randy punched him in the face. So funny.

I'm the one that originally submitted it, so I'm glad it's been improved on and kept:) --Dilcoe

Quotes?

I'm going to go over the episode and get a few good quotes. I'm not at all suprised that a "Too Much Trivia" tag got added. It only took 1/2 hr. Anyways, this artice needs a few good edits... --Zrulli 03:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

What did you expect? Every geek who plays Warcraft had to opine about where this graphic or that scene came from. Man, I liked this episode.

I changed the Kenny's Death to say "You bastard", since they actually had said it in the singular sense, as opposed to the trademark plural (even when one thing kills him, normally other things are involved in some way). In this episode, it was simply the guy, and they in fact said "bastard". --I forgot my password so I have to have it sent to my e-mail but this is Tabris (check logs)

sword of 1000 truths

i dont play wow, is that sword real?

- no. the sword's model is 'the hungering cold', which does exist.

West Coast

When (if it will) does this air west coast (mountain rocky time)?

It aired last night at 10:00/9:00 P.M. all over country. It will appear on itunes soon. Pacman 16:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Rocky mountain and west coast time are diffrent. California has pacific time.

Actually, there are two possibilities of the episodes air time in the Rocky Mountain time zone and it will depend on your cable system. Some cities in this time zone receive the East Coast feed of the Comedy Channel and for them it airs at 8 pm. Other cities will get the West Coast feed and then it airs at 11 pm. So check your local listings online to be sure. Here in Denver the show aired at 8 for several years. However, due to the wonderfully raunchy nature of the show, many parental groups protested this. So our cable system changed over to the west coast feed and it now airs at the later time. This difference applies to many cable networks and one always has to be aware of this when looking for certain shows. MarnetteD | Talk 04:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Blizzard Executives

Can we positively identify any of the others in the Blizzard board room? Based on photos, it seems pretty obvious that the two lead roles are Mike Morhaime and Rob Pardo, but I can't tell about any of the others.

Theme song

Did anyone other than me notice that Kenny's muffled quote in the theme song has changed? I only noticed it the second time I heard it (the first time I was too thrown off by the song itself changing), so I haven't figured out what he's saying yet. I'm not usually all that amazing at figuring out what he's saying, anyways (I never would have realized what he was saying in the past theme songs unless I had read it online) so I'll leave it up to other people, I just thought I'd point it out. Shivers _talk 07:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to change slightly every time a new season or continuation of a season begins...that's just my opinion though. Jmlk17 08:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Kenny has had three phrases if I remember correctly... each one lasted a few seasons, and then it changed. Each time he is saying something really naughty, because, well, he's Kenny. Somehow people figured out what he was saying in the past (and once I read what it was, I realized they were right... not just power of suggestion either) and I noticed that he's not saying the same thing anymore, it's something completely new. Shivers _talk 16:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

My friend from deviantART had this to say on the matter:

"OK... my friend Corbin figured out what Kenny says. Matt 'n' Trey tried to pull a fast one on us and gave us a subliminal message. I'm 99.9% sure it's "suck my -----" played backwards four times."

I just chopped the sound and reversed it and it definately sounds like "suck my ----" repeated 4 times in Kenny's slightly muffled voice.

I haven't had a chance to listen to it and figure out if that's it myself, but if I ever do get around to it, I'll confirm it. Others are (obviously) welcome to try figuring it out, too. Shivers _talk 17:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

no

"the entire premise of the episode centers around a violation of the game's limits, because it would not be possible for a character of the same faction to attack another character without consent."

no, it was mentioned twice in the episode that the 'evil' player leveled up so much so he could do it even though the game doesnt allow it. fictional yes, "violation of the game" no, this is a tv show.

When I first started watching it I noticed this until they stated that like the above user said the player had leveled up too much and became powerful which is how he was able to do whatever he wanted and kill people without initiating a duel

The Blizzard characters themselves stated that it was was a game violation. Nightscream 06:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Splooge vs. Spooge

It seems to me that Stan's name is not a misspelling of splooge, but a correct spelling for spooge. Wikipedia redirects spooge to a noun, but I've heard it used many times as a verb. Hoof Hearted 16:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've heard "spooge" used, too, and that is most definetely what they said when they said his screen name aloud. Shivers _talk 16:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thirded - 66.93.144.171 19:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fourthed. wikipediatrix 20:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fifthed. It is spooge. It is the same word they use in the JLo-Ben Affleck South Park, 65.11.201.83 15:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC) CK

I think it's "spooge" as well, but if you watch the closed captions, it leaves out a few characters in the spelling of his name. I'm not sure if this can be considered real evidence, though. --72.200.64.230 23:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

*9 months to a year to level*

Someone put that grinding world mobs makes leveling slower. They stated it takes 9 months to a year to hit 60. I can personally attest this isn't true, since it only took me 5 months to hit 60 (I didn't run an instance till lvl 60), and I have a friend that played it pretty much every day (like the south park kids do) and hit 60 in just two months of grinding. 9 months to a year is how long a casual WoW player takes to hit 60.

Grinding mobs straight IS the fastest way to level (thats why the power-levelers do it that way), you just don't get any gear from instances. Roffler 17:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to add, there's some inconsistence with what level they're attempting to achieve in the episode. When Cartman first brings up the idea of grinding boars, Kyle suggests they'll only be grinding 30 levels. Later though, the Blizzard execs mention that the boys had gained 50 levels in 3 weeks. Because the episode suggests level 60 isn't the maximum limit, there's no effective way to compare this to the time it would take in the real game. SlvrEagle23 17:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Because the kids aren't "newbs" like Randy is, we assume they have gained several levels. Perhaps they each had achieved 30th level, and thus only needed 30 more levels each to reach 60. Also, perhaps the "they've gained 50 levels in 3 weeks" line refers not to "50 levels each" but rather "50 levels altogether". -- DesireCampbell 140.184.32.65 22:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Incongruities with actual World of Warcraft play

I am not sure if the content on this particular section of the article is encyclopedic (or relevant to an encyclopedia) --Ted 19:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There is way too much information about Warcraft on this article, and most of it is WP:OR anyway. The article about Cartman Joins NAMBLA doesn't tell us more than we want to know about NAMBLA, and the article for Trapped in the Closet (South Park episode) doesn't go on and on about Scientology. wikipediatrix 20:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The other articles you cite gave information on the subject as it related to the episode - which I feel is absolutely relevant. The incongruities section was exactly what I was looking for when I searched for this article. I also fail to see where original research comes in to play regarding screen name limitations, impossible character combinations, and game play anomalies. I'll grant that several of the incongruity points are trivial, and would add to an already lengthy trivia section. So I'm not reverting your edit, but I'd like to see them returned. Hoof Hearted 20:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Detailed unsourced comparisons are inherently original research - you're comparing the real-world Warcraft with how it was portrayed in the show, and making observations about things that were flawed, wrong, and/or different. This is WP:OR by definition. Wikipedia articles are simply supposed to state what verifiable sources have stated, not make its own statements and especially not supposed to analyze things. wikipediatrix 20:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This is preposterous. Wikipedia is full of lists of facts published elsewhere but collected uniquely within a Wikipedia entry. Why should this list be original "research" and others aren't? What other source would be valid? If message boards/fansites/blogs listing this material aren't citable, and a diligent list of links back to the original rules aren't citable, must we wait until some professor commissions a study before we can link to this information? Jameson 16:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The presence of this section is not intended to convey the opinion that South Park's portrayal of World of Warcraft was "wrong"; by contrast, it wasn't intended to convey any opinion at all. The fact exists that Blizzard assisted the South Park team by providing them with a sandbox environment in which to film their show. Thus, to note the ways in which the South Park team manipulated the engine they were given is not introducing a new idea or pursuing an agenda that isn't objectively known. Furthermore, because of the heavily publicized collaborative effort between Blizzard and South Park Studios to produce the episode, content describing the world created for the show is undoubtedly encyclopedic. This is the way in which this episode differs from those listed above: Trapped in the Closet was purely satire and involved no input from Scientology, and the same can be said for Cartman Joins NAMBLA. On the other hand, this was the joint effort of two groups to create a single show in which their two creations could co-exist. This episode centers as much around World of Warcraft as it does on the South Park residents themselves. For this reason, the large portion of the show spent in the rendered world of Azeroth deserves equal consideration. SlvrEagle23 21:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether Blizzard was involved or not has nothing to do with Wikipedia policies regarding WP:OR. Take it to a higher power if you believe I am in error. wikipediatrix 21:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Am I right in assuming, then, that you would consider the Trivia sections of all prior South Park episodes to be synthesis of two sources with the uncited assumption that they were linked? In most cases, South Park Studios has made no explicit note that they intended for a portion of the show to be connected in any way to other productions, but this is done anyway for the sake of documenting what may otherwise seem like obvious points to some. At the very least, the content previously held in this section deserves a sub-heading within Trivia, as its merit is no less than that which resides there. No higher power required. SlvrEagle23 21:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever it is you're trying to say, it has nothing to do with the bottom line, which is WP:OR. What is this, the Chewbacca Defense? wikipediatrix 21:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If the bottom line is WP:OR, then almost all trivia falls under this category as well. Add the deleted content to the Trivia section or allow it where it previously was. Or head back to all South Park episode pages and delete all content that would be defined as WP:OR if this is. Either way, don't pick and choose your irrational moderation tactics. SlvrEagle23 22:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, almost all trivia does fall under the category as well. Feel free to delete any of it that's unsourced, I've already deleted a bunch of it today. wikipediatrix 22:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Tell you what, why don't we just put that section back and list it as uncited? The information merits existence on this page and I'm still fairly certain of your slanted bias in the application of WP:OR policy. Just because you don't care personally doesn't make the content irrelevant or subject to policy violation. SlvrEagle23 22:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless you can find a reputable independent third-party source (i.e., not a fansite, not a blog, not a message board) that echoes every bit of this information, there's no way it can ever be properly sourced. And if you think my interpretation of WP:OR is slanted, I repeat, feel free to take the matter to a higher power. wikipediatrix 22:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I will continue to fail to see what good you've done to this article and the community at large with such editing procedures, I'm done dealing with this. Your extended tenure here at Wikipedia has rendered you all but unable to comprehend the value of the site from the end-user's perspective, leaving you only capable of seeing it from the administrators' points of view. So long as you see yourself as a self-appointed vigilante enforcer of the strictest tenets of administrative policy, there's no use in attempting to create content with the best interests of the everyday web surfer in mind. So, I give up. SlvrEagle23 22:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I get it now... are you guys acting out a Wikipedia version of the episode, with one deranged user too powerful to be challenged going around eradicating the hard work of others? I love it! Where are the Wikipedia boars I have to slaughter to topple this meanie? Jameson 16:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reinserted this section into the article with proper references according to WP:CITE. There are a few items that still need verification and more sources would be appreciated. Thanks. Pixelface 23:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think a section detailing differences between the episode and the game is entirely appropriate. I also think the Wikipedia rule against WP:OR here is being entirely misapplied. It's meant from crackpots using Wikipedia as publicity and validation for their own theories, not from the majority being able to say that two plus two equals four or that the sky is blue without having to find a citation for it first. I also note it seems to be just one person here raising the objection to it. - 66.93.144.171 02:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Surely WP:OR is entirely appropriate to this. Here two plus two equals four only for those who know WoW. The vast majority who do not know WoW inside out and read this article need verifiable sources. Which brings me to the second point which is relevance - even if sourcing is fixed I do not understand the need for the information. Some inconsistencies may be relevant if they are of general interest. Much of this is not of general interest and only serves to complicate and confuse the entry. Johan Aruba 19:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That's like saying something is WP:OR if I don't have the book they cite. Everything in the disputed sections is either from the episode or the now properly cited game World of Warcraft. And that's a fundamental misunderstanding of what WP:OR is. Original Research means we are citing OURSELVES. Given that, to our best knowledge, none of us MADE the game World of Warcraft, we are not committing it. The source is verifiable. Are there certain financial barriers to verifying it? Sure. But that's the case with other sources on Wikipedia as well. Now, is there a *need* for this information? No. But frankly, there's not a *need* for this entire article either. It's fun. And I disagree with you as to it being in the general interest. Once again, we see one user assume that because it is not in HIS interest, it must not be in the general interest. - 66.93.144.171 22:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparantly, Scott Thomas [1] decided to delete all the Warcraft related sections without even discussing the deletions here. Gdo01 04:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

And I reverted it back. - 66.93.144.171 04:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The amount of WoW information on here is unnecessary. This is a page on a South park episode with a plot based around world of warcraft written in a humorous fashion. Therefore it should not be taken seriously and the conflicts between this episode and the actual game are not needed for general readers. Scott Thomas 04:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

A good many general readers may very well be interested in that information. I find it helpful and appropriate, and I am obviously far from the only one. - 66.93.144.171 04:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It is completely irrelevant to the episode! What everyday web surfer needs to know that Cartmans online name is actually not allowed in the actual game? Only WoW players would find that remotely useful and therefore the article is biased to what they want. There are more users of Wikipedia who do not have anything to do with that game than those users who do play it. Keep the article simple and to the point. Details of characters and differences between the game and the episodes take on the game are not needed. Scott Thomas 04:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

YOU think it irrelevant. But it is relevant to an audience beyond those who play World of Warcraft (of which there are 7 million people by the way, hardly a small audience). This information would be quite helpful, for example, to those who saw the episode and have begun to become interested in the game. You are simply projecting your own opinions onto the majority and are taking it upon yourself to unilaterally delete entire sections and that's not what Wikipedia is about. You tread dangerously close to vandalism if you continue. - 66.93.144.171 04:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You are a hypocrite. Completely biased towards the WoW viewers of this site. Something remotely WoW pops up and you spam it with your unnecessary information which is completely irrelevant to anyone looking for South Park episodes info. There might be 7 million WoW players but they arent the majority in my eyes on Wikipedia (I'm sure most people who come to this page won't give a hoot about 90% of the WoW info here therefore it is a waste of space). Unfortunately I cannot touch it as you are now most likely going to cite it as vandalism to get your way. Go back to your MMORPG and talk to your '1337' freinds about how 'ub3r' it is to have south park promoting WoW. I'm pretty sure they are actually poking fun at how much people take WoW too seriously and waste their lives spending rediculous amounts of time on something so trivial. I dont know why I bother when I cannot reason with you people. Scott Thomas 04:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Treading on personal attack there. Gdo01 04:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

What am I saying? It is a personal attack on two grounds:

1. Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life."
2. Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.

Consider yourself warned. Gdo01 05:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for my comments, when I cannot get my opinion across I feel annoyed. There is way to much World of Warcraft information on this page! Some would be fine and I wouldnt have complained if it had been kept small, but please let us cut it down! Scott Thomas 05:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
How about replacing the entire section with something like a "Many of the details of World Of Warcraft are incorrect, although this can be disregarded as the episode parodies the game." entry in trivia? I don't think a detailed analysis of every tiny little facet of the episode really counts as notable information.. it's a cartoon.¬rehevkor¬ 05:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Given the amount of work a lot of people put into that section, they obviously feel it IS noteworthy information and that it does not need to be cut down. I, for one, find wholesale deletion of the sections in question or replacement of them with a one or two line blurb unacceptable. If the sections offend you so much, do not read them. As to Mr. Thomas, you did get your opinion across. We simply disagree, and you did not get your way. With all due respect, there is a difference. - 66.93.144.171 06:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

We understand that alot of work has been put into it but that doesnt warrant why it should be there. There is waaaay to much information on World of Warcraft on this, a 'South Park' episode page. I feel it may of been an over enthusiastic WoW fan going a bit over the top. Dont get rid of all of it, but there is such a thing as too much information.Scott Thomas 06:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

As pointed out above, there is legitimate reason that an audience besides World of Warcraft players (who already constitute a fairly large base on Wikipedia as it stands) would be interested in this information. Plus, in a textual encyclopedia, I would very much expect to find comparisons and contrasts to similar events and phenomenon under certain entries. There is no apparent reason why having this information would hurt you or Wikipedia in general. Indeed, there seems to be no reason to even worry about it other than your *apparent* issues and prejudices with WoW players as revealed by your attack above. (No attack on my part intended, I can only go by what you say, and it's clear you have a number of views about WoW and its players coming into this debate and that that has a role in your wanting to remove as much about WoW as possible from this entry.) It's not like the sections in question are a complete annotated guide to the episode. They are quite appropriate. - 66.93.144.171 06:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No I dont want to have as much information about WoW as possible removed from the page, I want the page to be kept to the point as much as possible. At the moment it seems to be more focused on WoW than South Park. Which is my main argument to have the WoW information trimmed to a smaller amount. I am not prejudice againts WoW players, I was simply frustrated cause it seemed from my viewpoint that my opinion was simply discarded. I have apologised for my "attack" so can we please move on. Scott Thomas 06:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

And it seems the majority here feel the information on the page IS to the point as much as possible and that trimming is not needed. That doesn't mean your opinion is discarded so much as disagreed with. It happens. - 66.93.144.171 07:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If length is the issue, split it off to a separate page (the way episode lists are split from entries describing the original show). I think the information is valuable, and it deserves to be seen. Jameson 16:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It honestly seems the issue is more that the people in question assume that because they find no use for the information, and that in fact its presence is somehow so offensive to them as to deserve a crusade for its deletion, that everybody thinks so (the number 90% has been thrown around as a figure who would find the information completely useless, and I would really like to see their research data on that.) Arguments have been made as to how the information is useful and encyclopedic and they've been ignored. - 66.93.144.171 18:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Guys this is exactly what Matt and Trey want you to think about. They most likely put all the wrong stuff in there just so you can argue and then see how stupid it is. Besides its just a cartoon show.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.198.23.63 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible Compromise on Incongruities & Warcraft Data Sections

Just as a possible idea to end what could become a long feud/edit war, could it be feasible to move the two sections in question over to a sub page? That way, the sections would still be there, but they would just be links, which should make the people bothered so much by these sections happy. I'm not sure if I'm backing this proposal yet myself because I worry that those against Warcraft content on Wikipedia might then try to get the subpages deleted, which would kind of shove this compromise attempt in our face. Any comments? - 66.93.144.171 07:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have no problem with that. If all of the information in the page is absolutely necessary it should be given a sub page for those who need it. Scott Thomas 07:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is too long. It must be the longest south park article ever. Someone please remove useless information

I tried but I didnt realise I have to discuss it first. I dont see a need for the "Characters' Warcraft data" or the "Incongruities with actual World of Warcraft play" sections, as the average South Park watcher/Wikipedia browser will most likely find no use for that information. As I said before, I suspect it was an overzealous Warcraft fan who has gone a touch too far on the information. It should be cut down or if it must remain, should have a sub page. Although there will most likely be further dispute over the need for that page. This page has become more the focus of World of Warcraft than South Park. Scott Thomas 11:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This sounds completely like a subjective opinion to me. The bottom line is, there's a huge amount of information available for this episode since it splits its display time between the simplicity of South Park and the complexity of the World of Warcraft. Much of the info about other South Park episodes I would find "useless" but I respect its right to exist on the page. Whether or not you personally find that useful doesn't warrant your complete deletion of the section. I would support the idea of creating a sub-page with the information, just as long as it exists for the huge shared demographic between the two. SlvrEagle23 17:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

My one fear with the subpage though is that certain, but not all, of those trying to delete this content from this page now might then try to turn around and move to delete the subpages on the basis that they're not strong enough to be pages of their own. So an attempt to compromise could be shoved back in our face. - 66.93.144.171 18:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This discussion would really be a lot more civil and productive if you (in the plural sense) could realize that simply because you find the information "useless" or "only focused on World of Warcraft rather than South Park", it doesn't mean *everybody* does. Or that even a majority does. Based on the number of people who worked on the sections in question vs. the number of people who are trying to get them deleted, it would seem it's the vast MINORITY who has the issue with the content. - 66.93.144.171 17:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, folks, it would be no different than if the article about Cartman Joins NAMBLA devoted a lengthy and obsessive Original Research analysis contrasting the difference between the real NAMBLA and NAMBLA as portrayed in the episode. Not only is such information WP:OR, it's completely irrelevant to the article. I know of no other South Park article that devotes such effort to comparing something from the real world to the way it was portrayed on South Park. (And if one does exist, let me know so I can edit that one too.) wikipediatrix 18:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Aaaalright, then. So far, you've slammed the WP:OR label on this content despite the fact that we scoured the web finding cited sources for the information. You've claimed that information regarding the South Park character's WoW equivalents in an episode where half of the show is IN the game is irrelevant. You've insultingly paralleled World of Warcraft to NAMBLA on several occasions, as if there were pages of data pouring out of the Cartman Joins NAMBLA episode for us to post. This is, in several ways, comparing apples to oranges: the NAMBLA episode was not filmed 50% in "NAMBLAland", NAMBLA themselves took no efforts to create a wealth of data about themselves in the episode, and the cross-section of boy-loving men / south park fans is, at best, 2. Since you have so diligently taken it upon yourself to ensure content that deserves a right to exist doesn't, let me ask you: have you seen this episode? SlvrEagle23 18:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

See, I don't think the NAMBLA example is such a good one. (By the way -- she's comparing the episodes, not trying to conflate membership in WoW with membership in NAMBLA.) This added information about how Warcraft is portrayed in the episode talks about filmmaking decisions made by the producers. Information about how they worked with Blizzard to get access to things they couldn't normally do in the game, and how the game's rules and history (and, further, social communities and aesthetic motifs) contributed to the design and plot of the episode. NAMBLA background would just be further information about a topic from the show (information best consigned to a NAMBLA entry). This background is actually "making-of" information that illuminates the creative decisions that went into the episode. I think it's of interest to South Park fans, WoW fans, and casual viewers of the episode. I knew very little of WoW when I saw the episode, but after reading the now-removed section of this article, I was interested to learn just how much work the South Park creators had done in creating their world. Someone who might otherwise have thought they just churned out a few quickie machinima scenes could learn a lot about the choices Trey & Matt made by reading this information. Bottom line: it contributes to the appreciation of the episode, which is what an article about the episode should do. User:Jameson 18:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, you are wrong. WP:OR was intended to stop crackpots from using Wikipedia as a basis to promote their own theories as truth, not to stop people from posting easily observable information. By this definition of WP:OR, two plus two equals four and the sky is blue also qualifies, and that's a ludicrous extreme. - 66.93.144.171 18:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Further, I submit that the interpretation of the section in question as Original Research was flawed from the beginning. If you consult the page on WP:OR, and go to the "What is Excluded?" section, you will see it specifies that "An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments." This section does not. It only recounts observations. THEREFORE, the section is not OR and should not be deleted under those terms. - 66.93.144.171 18:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there's a whole lot more to WP:OR than the one bit you just selectively focused on. Furthermore, the article is filled with things like "this is most likely due...", "he appears to...", "could most likely not be...", "he may simply have been...", "The episode also appears to ignore the concept of...", "it is not so much an incongruity as...", "His character's armor suggests he is...", "presumably he would...", "this may not be an incongruity so much as...", "should be noted that this incongruity is intended", "seems to suggest that...", etc., etc. Sourced or not, the whole thing is still Original Research. wikipediatrix 19:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

So if someone culls through the list and removes the subjective phrases like those mentioned, it wouldn't be a wasted effort? You'd leave it in? Jameson 19:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I sourced what I said. You seem to be going off "Because I said so." As I said, it is NOT Original Research because it is NOT presenting an idea or an argument. It is merely recounting observations. It *may* be using Weasel Words, but that's another different subject. The section does not deserve deletion. I am politely asking you on behalf of everybody who has worked on it and knows it deserves to be here: PLEASE STOP. - 66.93.144.171 19:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I could rewrite it myself and condense it into a tighter, far less crufty, version that would pass WP:OR, but you probably won't like that either. If your intentions are sincere about the article and you're not just so in love with your own writing that you can't bear to have any of it deleted, then let's whittle it down to a simple paragraph. It's enough to acknowledge that there are many incongruities between the real Warcraft and the way South Park portrayed it. There is no reason to list every single incongruity in massively fannish detail because that is not the subject of the article. wikipediatrix 19:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you feel the need to be insulting? I didn't write all of that section. No one person did. Look at the edit history. A *lot* of people did. It's not loose, it's not crufty, it's not OR. And it doesn't need to be slashed down to a paragraph. You cannot continue to use OR as your basis because I pulled the definition of OR from WP:OR and demonstrated why it is NOT APPLICABLE HERE. The section deserves to be there. There is no problem with it nor good reason to delete it. Please stop doing so. - 66.93.144.171 19:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood: I was giving you benefit of the doubt that you didn't fit that description. So, I take it my compromise suggestion is being rejected? wikipediatrix 19:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Your joke was rejected as unfunny would be more appropriate. May I take it that you are rejecting repeated polite requests to stop deleting the content after it was determined that it was NOT OR by citing the definition of OR according to Wikipedia? That could be helpful if we do go to arbitration, which wouldn't be my first choice, but you seem dead set on continuing to vandalize this article until you either get your way or that happens. - 66.93.144.171 19:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't making a joke. I was deadly serious. And if you're going to call removing WP:OR vandalism, then we are done talking. wikipediatrix 19:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right, we are. This issue will be settled by administrators. Your hijacking of this page subject to your own personal opinions has to stop, and if we can't stop you, we know of someone who will. SlvrEagle23 19:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean someone has initiated arbitration proceedings? I was hoping it wouldn't come to that. Choose words carefully people! Jameson 20:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't know how to, but I'm hoping one of the other readers here has. I was hoping it wouldn't come to that either, but when you're dealing with someone absolutely dead set on not listening to reason and threatening that they will just keep removing the section over and over and over again UNTIL an arbitrator is involved (and she basically brought in that threat almost from the first rather than even attempt to have a reasonable discussion), it limits your options to give in and let her have her way, or go ahead and bring in arbitration. Right now, the section is gone and I'm hoping someone puts it back. I can't because of 3RR. - 66.93.144.171 20:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems like if it gets put back, it'll be taken out again. Sadly, an accord must be reached in order to stop going in circles. I think a paragraph may be a reasonable compromise, as long as it offers substantial detail to make it clear it's not a fan list of "goofs" but actually making-of info. (But I fear that paragraph may still be open to criticism for lacking adequate citation.) Jameson 20:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you sound like a reasonable soul, why don't you take a crack at reintroducing it in the way you just described? Sounds good to me. wikipediatrix 20:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to give it a try. May take me some time, though; I've never played WoW. Jameson 20:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a paragraph is a reasonable compromise at all. There is a lot of good information that was taken out. Obviously, the paragraph idea would only satisfy the deleters if it was relatively short, meaning there would still be a lot of good information left out for no good reason. I vote no for the reason that it sounds less a compromise and more a conditional surrender. - 66.93.144.171 20:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hee! I'm no Lindsey Graham! ;-) I think it's worth trying a long paragraph. Let's at least give that a try before we abandon hope. Jameson 20:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I still vote for arbitration over conditional surrender. I just don't see ANY way a simple paragraph can make up for all that information that deserves to be there and had no good reason to be deleted. This isn't any dispersion on you, Jameson, and I hope you don't take it as such. And I see that your heart is in the right place. - 66.93.144.171 20:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

None taken; I'm just interested in exhausting all diplomatic options. I firmly believe that the list belongs, too, but if adding it will only be met with reversing it, we'll be locked in an endless cycle until the article's history crashes the database server. I'll try to post a paragraph (here on the discussion page) later this evening, and I welcome the feedback of everyone. Jameson 20:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I am considering the repeated reversion of this page with the associated threat that administrators will have to stop said edits to be vandalism, and have reported it as such. If our only option is to take this to arbitration, I'm more than happy to do so for the sake of the content's right to exist on the page. SlvrEagle23 20:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Good. Especially since I disproved the removing OR argument. Jameson, I would thus hold off on the paragraph until this complaint is resolved.

<-----

Sounds fine. I'll have it ready. I think it's important to be clear that we're reasonable people (and not necessarily even WoW enthusiasts), and willing to work toward a fair solution. Best of luck with the arbitration/complaint - if that process incorporates feedback from the community at large, I hope to add to that discussion as well. Jameson 20:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And I think we have been trying to be reasonable. But that on the other hand, wikipediatrix took the attitude of "I'm right and doing whatever I want regardless of what you say and your only option is to take it to a higher power." as early as her SECOND COMMENT on this issue. Even after I disproved her rationale of OR - 66.93.144.171 20:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Right on. Wasn't disparaging anyone's behavior so far; just reviewing key points going into the arbitration process, for our best chance at success. Most important part of the dispute resolution process? Take a long-term view. (And a deep breath.) Jameson 21:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You are not removing WP:OR. I already cited the definition from that page and the section you are removing does not qualify, as it is only observation, not ideas or arguments. Your counter for this basically boiled down to "Yes it is, because I say so." with NO citation. You are simply removing a whole section you don't like and threatening to keep doing so until others get tired and you get your way. What else would you call it? - 66.93.144.171 20:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Didn't intend to suggest it should be your homework to rewrite the passage, just curious to know that if someone did it they wouldn't be wasting their time creating more reversion fodder. I think "massively fannish detail" is subjective: presenting the information in list form is probably not the most effective method, but it still serves as factual "making-of" information about how the game was altered by Blizzard/South Park in order to create the episode. For those uninitiated in WoW, more detail means more understanding of some of the episode's less obvious material and jokes. Jameson 19:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Almost that entire ingongruities can be left out. Almost every one follows the formula: "Character is seen performing such action, or equiping this item. This is not possible in the actual game." IT IS A CARTOON SHOW! Who cares? Take it out. It's all irrelevant. Professor Chaos 02:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It is irrelevant to you. That does not make it irrelevant to others. The "It is a cartoon" argument could be used to justify removal of the entire article, and thus becomes irrational here. - 66.93.144.171 03:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This edit-warring subject to the opinion of a single editor that the content violates WP:OR guidelines has degraded into pure vandalism. To threaten not to stop the editing until administrators are involved is to claim that you are above the entire democratic process of editing pages and above your own fellow users. If the will of the populace at large isn't enough to bring an end to this obvious vandalism, I can only hope the administrators will deal with the situation in a swift fashion. SlvrEagle23 18:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The page was momentarily protected last night... and then unprotected when the sysop in question saw how new the episode was. The sysop apparently figured that when the episode aged a bit, it would calm down naturally. So hopefully, there's more ways in which the admins have been alerted here. - 66.93.144.171 18:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition to vandalism, Wikipediatrix was reported for violation of 3RR, a pretty open and shut case. She blanked the portion of the article she's after at Oct 6 19:08, Oct 7 15:32, 17:34 and 17:54. - 66.93.144.171 18:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

May I ask what it is that is so important about the ingongruities and character details? I am not on a "crusade" to remove the information. I am not "offended" by the information, a questionable accusation by some of the people so enthused on keeping the information on the page. I simply happened to see the article after seeing the episode and noticed the information was largely to do with World of Warcraft rather than South Park. eg: "While fighting the Renegade, Cartman uses Mocking Blow. This special attack meant to draw a hostile NPC's attention has little effect on a human controlled enemy. Dialogue hints that Cartman is a warrior, although when his screen is show it is clear that he is actually a Rogue; which would make his weilding of a two-handed mace impossible." This is a direct example of too much information. It is something so trivial it should not warrant a spot on the page or be a worry to any WoW fan who has seen the episode. After all, its a cartoon made in a humorous fashin, not intended to be taken seriously. A small amount of information on the players characters I would see no problem with but I fail to see the necessity for the large amount of detail which seems to have a restriced use only by largely enthusiastic WoW fans. Scott Thomas 04:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

YOU do not find it helpful. You have made this very clear. You then proceed to project this onto everybody who is not a WoW fan and then proceed to dismiss this as a negligible base of the readership of the article. Both are very subjective opinions. A number of people put a lot of work into the page. Deletion of huge sections of that work is a pretty big matter and should not be done out of hand. They obviously think there was a need for it to be there. Perhaps SOME of the information is unnecessary, and if a line or two was deleted, there'd be much less of a fight over it. But there is no need to delete entire sections and it's a huge slap in the face to everyone who worked on them. And continual deletion is even worse. - 66.93.144.171 04:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You are clearly oblivious to the fact that not everyone plays WoW. Think about it logically, the majority of people who come to this page will not be WoW fans. Its a fact, and you are completely biased if you think otherwise. Someone with nothing to do with WoW would have absoloutely no use whatsoever for that information. Stop assuming its just me who finds this information irrelivant. I understand that alot of people (mainly WoW fans) find the information interesting, yes, but the surely can find another place for the information rather than to clutter this article up. You are accusing me of being one sided and only seeing my point of view but you are exactly the same. I would be compeltely happy with the articles WoW information trimmed down, I have said before that my problem with it is there is too much information and I feel it is taking the focus of the article off South Park and shifting it onto WoW. Scott Thomas 09:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It has already been established above that the sections in question will be helpful to more than just WoW fans. I have never said they would be helpful to everybody. Nothing in this article is helpful to everybody. However, taking out the sections hurts those who would find the information useful and interesting. Leaving them in causes no harm whatsoever because those not interested in the information could merely *ignore* the sections in question (and have given no good reason why they are not). Again, because you find the sections clutter does not mean that everybody does or even that everybody but WoW fans does. The last charge is ridiculous as WoW is never discuss outside of the context of the episode and the South Park characters. - 66.93.144.171 10:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not rediculous, I made the comment in relation to my previous statement, that it is unnecessary. TOO MUCH INFORMATION FOR WHAT IS REALLY NECESSARY IN THE ARTICLE. The article is about SOUTH PARK and I feel the focus is diverted more on Warcraft because of the amount of information divulged into the crossover WoW into the show and the errors made in the process of this COMEDIC programs depiction of warcraft. What general Wikipedia viewer needs to know that "The Renegade seems to be a Mage, but wears a Plate helm. Mages are restricted to cloth armor", I'm sorry but it seems so rediculously trivial in my opinion to include this information. And just because you dont see how the sections are relevant doesnt mean that the majority of this articles viewers dont. The door swings both ways mate and it looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. I'll leave this how it is and let the admins deal with it cause its obvious we cannot come to any terms. Scott Thomas 11:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, who made you supreme arbiter of what is necessary and what is not? The article is about an episode of South Park that heavily involves the game World of Warcraft. A listing of the boys' game characters, and a comparison and contrast with the real game is not really all that out of place at all. Bound encyclopedias often include comparisons and contrasts with related ideas. You have often thrown around the idea that the sections were made by a single WoW fan who went out of control. A look at the edit logs will disprove this, as many people worked on them. And Jameson, who has been as vocal defending them as anyone else, has said he is not a fan but still finds the sections interesting (which does kill your theory that no one but WoW fans would). I will also point out there have been good faith efforts to work with the people that were bothered by the length, such as my conversion of the Incongruities section into a table which lowered its page real estate by 50%. However, it's obvious we cannot come to any terms because your side will only settle for one of two unreasonable solutions, either outright killing the sections, or gutting them to nothing. There is proof that plenty of other people find the sections interesting. There is none that all that many other people are as bothered by you by their presence. You are simply assuming this by projecting your own feelings onto others. - 66.93.144.171 18:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Who made me supreme arbiter of what is necessary and what is not? You're over reacting here dude, calm down. What I'm saying about whats necessary is just common sense in my eyes, but obviously it differs to others. Keep the damn information cause I'm done arguing, if its going to make you that much happier to have it there fine, but im not wasting more of my time trying to get a simple opinion across when i'm just repeating it to no effect. When I said the article should be cut down can you cite a specific time where I said we should gut it down to nothing? I want some of the more trivial information removed but I dont mind if the sections have to stay. But I suppose it's crucial the millions of Wikipedia readers and WoW fans who will be reading this section of Wikipedia on South Park know that "Kyle's character has an Arcane/Fire spec." Such important and useful information. I bet they'll sleep better knowing that. Anyways good luck with your maintaining the "Make love, not Warcraft" article quest, I'm sure it will get even more exciting in time. Scott Thomas 02:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm perfectly calm. And your OPINION did get across. It is simply disagreed with by the majority. You have been confusing getting your opinion across with getting your way. I, and others, have simply been defending people's rights to not have their work unilaterally cut simply because certain people assume that since THEY don't see a reason for the information to be there, no one does. And repeating your opinion over and over again in more condescending and angry tone each time doesn't help. If you've ever added the slightest bit of trivia to any Wiki article yourself, someone could go in there and call it totally unnecessary too. That doesn't mean they're entitled to just rip out your hard work or insult you for including it in the first place. If you're going to leave, leave. Otherwise, you're making it clear you're the one with the obsession with getting it removed without any good reason other than YOU think it's unnecessary. - 66.93.144.171 03:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Condescending? Speak for yourself. I'm not so much angry as I'm speaking in a frustrated way. And you single me out despite the fact that several others are making the same point as me. I am going to leave but I'm not going to leave myself open from insult at the same time by yours truly. Several people have made the exact same point as me without influence just like several people have made the exact same point as you. People putting alot of work into the article does NOT warrant its existance OR relevance and you saying that there IS alot of people who would find the information useful doesnt make that true either. I am not biased against WoW its the principal of the thing. This article has TOO MUCH info about warcraft. I have even asked WoW playing freinds of mine just to get an opinion from the other side, and they agree that there is too much WoW info. You say the same about my comment that the information is useless. Just cause I say it isnt useful doesnt make it true. However common sense to the average person would know the fact that "Stan's character is wearing a Frostwolf Battle Tabard, an item available to buy only for Horde players." is trivial and unnecessary information. Scott Thomas 03:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You are the one being insulting. You have been since you showed up into this article. You first attempted to unilaterally delete the sections twice without even attempting to discuss the situation. When you were warned such tactics could be seen as vandalism, you started being insulting, and have not let up since. You justified this by saying you were frustrated that your opinion wasn't getting across, but it was. It was simply disagreed with. You FEEL the article has too much information about Warcraft. You automatically assume nearly everyone else feels the same way. I'd like to see your research data. I feel what's there is just fine. A greater number of people disagree with me and the edit logs bear that out. You need to stop assuming everyone agrees with you. You need to stop using terms like "common sense" for people agreeing with you. It isn't. There has been good faith efforts to work with you and others who had issues with the content, including the converstion of the Incongruities section into a table, which lowered its page real estate by 50%. This did not placate you in the slightest, and lends itself to the idea that you do not intend to be reasonable about this and see yours as the only valid viewpoint. - 66.93.144.171 04:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

How long have you been fighting to keep this page from a cleanup? Just out of curiosity. And are you a WoW player? And by the way, I find myself being equally insulted by you, maybe from now on we can just keep it cool. I didnt discuss my edit in the first place because I didnt realise we had to discuss it. Newbie mistake by myself. The only reason I'm here is I was under the impression that we could edit the page to a standard we consider suitable for the article. Thus why I am still debating the WoW informations place, I want the article to be as relevent and efficient to the wiki readers as possible. Scott Thomas 04:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Not that I see the relevance of this, other than to invite ad hominem attacks, but yes, I play WoW from time to time. I haven't been fighting to keep the page from a cleanup, I've been fighting to keep it from pointless slashing of other people's good work without good reason. "I don't think it's relevant and everybody must agree with me." is not good reason. Several people have told you that's a subjective opinion. I'm not sure any kind of joint standard is still possible. All you're doing is pulling out random bits of the trivia and mocking it which you could do with every piece of trivia on the page, WoW related or not. There was a good faith effort which reduced the page real estate of the section which didn't placate you. I, and others, feel the section is fine, relevant and efficient as it is and see no good reason why you cannot simply ignore it if you disagree. - 66.93.144.171 04:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to bait you to insult you, I said in my last post here that I would like to cool things off, I asked simply out of curiosity. "I don't think it's relevant and everybody must agree with me." You're putting words in my mouth dude, I never said that or implied that. I never said everyone should agree with me but I do feel its irrelevant and several other people HAVE said the same on their own accord. "All you're doing is pulling out random bits of the trivia and mocking it" Ok I mocked it once but still, it is an example of the information I dont see has a place here. "I, and others, feel the section is fine, relevant and efficient as it is and see no good reason why you cannot simply ignore it if you disagree." I, and others, feel the section is not relevant to the page or at least contains too many pointless facts. We see no good reason why it should be on the page in the first place. I dont know any other South Park episode page that has this much trivial information on the subject of the episode. Which incedentally will most likely be the subject of humor. The episode isnt too be taken seriously, yet again showing why its a bit too far to include so much information. I appreciate that people have taken the time to write up this information but maybe they should have thought twice before they decided on the amount of info to include. Scott Thomas 05:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You certainly have said on many times that the sections would be useless to "90%" of Wikipedians, or that "common sense" dictated the information would be useless, and you just don't know that. You assume that based on your own feelings. A relative few people have agreed with you. Not enough to justify removing the content. The content should be on the page because it does appeal to, as justified by the large number of people who have worked on it, a large audience. This is the good reason to keep it. There has still been given no good reason to remove it, and if it is removed then the people who do find it useful lose out at the hands of the relative few who simply could not ignore it. - 66.93.144.171 05:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What I can't see is how that apparent abundance of people looking for this information couldnt find it elsewhere. I would say that due to the small amount of people who are posting on this article anyway, we both cannot claim the larger number of people who concur with our points of view. I'll withdraw my statement implying that most people would hold the same opinion as myself, because you are correct, I dont know. However we dont know that people coming to this article would see nothing but a clutter of unnecessary information as well. Who does know? What I think is needed is to cut down, NOT GUT, the information to whats really needed by the average wiki reader. The characters WoW players, and some of the Incongruities. I realise it can be ignored but im not sure that all of it is really needed. Scott Thomas 05:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe there is anything wrong with the amount of information on WoW incongruities in the article. Numerous articles on fictional stories, such as movies, TV episodes, etc., have sections on plot holes, goofs, etc. Thi is no different. It is not OR, because the game itself serves as documentation of the aspects of the game that are being violated. Not every fact stated in a WP article has to be documented, but merely those that are not self-evident. If a character can do this or cannot do that, then what documentation would exist to chronicle it? Sure, the fac that there are 100 WoW servers is an example of something that may need documentation, but what documentation exists that say, the Sword of 1000 Truths is based on a sword from another game? Should an editor cite a rule book, or something, in order to insert a given passage? I also do not feel that comparing this to the articles on "Cartman Joins NAMBLA" or "Trapped in the Closet" is tenable, because those episodes did not contain so much inaccurate information on NAMBLA or Scientology. It is for that reason that the articles about them do not go on and on about them. And for the record, I'm not a gamer, and have never played an online game, RPG, or MMPORG, or anything. I don't even own a video game console. Nightscream 06:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Just some thoughts

I know this episode was done in conjuction with Blizzard but a couple of things are still puzzeling me.

1: The guy who kept killing people at any point without a duel, did Blizzard alter the code for them to allow this? or did they create a character and give him the Orb of Deception? (Orb of Deception allows your avatar to turn into a race on the opposite faction, allowing you to go into enemy territory without being attacked by players or guards) 2: I noticed other people walking around in Goldshire in the beginning (right before the uber character appeared) did they actually film this on an actual server? or did Blizzard create a private server specifically for this? (i also noticed that there was coversations in the general chat when they showed them in town, shortly before Cartman made the comment about how most of the people in game were Koreans)

but overall I thought the epsiode was very well done, I'm not a huge fan of South Park but this is definently one of my favorite episodes.

Please read about the simulacrum theory of Jean Baudrillard; I think the sort of sarcasm in which this episode deals with the fact that many people can't tell the difference anymore between 'real' and 'unreal' , can be found in Baudrillard's theory and maybe therefore should be added?

Perhaps your comment was made while the "Incongruities with World of Warcraft" section was wrongfully deleted, but yes, the plot of the episode would be impossible in the game for several reasons. - 66.93.144.171 18:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Converted Incongruities Section

I converted it into a table to help clean it up, shorten it and work with those who took issue with it. Hopefully it helps. Comments? - 66.93.144.171 05:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I like it. It's nice! I cleaned up a little more to make it blend with the table above it in style. SlvrEagle23 08:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

well you realize that what they did wa sprobably get the drawers/artists from world of warcraft or

Suggestions by Pixelface

I appreciate your efforts 66.93.144.171, but you also removed nearly all of the references from the article.

I think to understand where Wikipediatrix is coming from, everyone should read No original research, Verifiability, list of policies, and reliable sources.

WP:NOR is policy (I've bolded some parts)

Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material (such as arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements) that serves to advance a position.

WP:V is policy.

Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

I think Wikipediatrix is deleting the sections Characters' Warcraft data and Incongruities with actual World of Warcraft play because that information hasn't been published elsewhere. Earlier I provided links to WorldofWarcraft.com and Blizzard.com and they were removed by Wikipediatrix -- I suppose because Blizzard could be considered a primary source. I think removal of entire sections is reckless, although some parts of the sections have no citations. I think continued removal of the sections is being seen as harassment.

Although, from WP:V:

The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic.

For example, this line is currently in the article:

Stan's character is wearing a Frostwolf Battle Tabard, an item available to buy only for Horde players.

How is a reader able to verify the information is correct? By buying World of Warcraft, playing to level 60, and then watching the episode? I think those sections would not be deleted if a citation was provided. Basically, it would be helpful if an editor found a website (not a blog) that contains that sentence, and puts the URL in brackets after the statement in the article.

A hyperlink to the game manual that says that item is only available for Horde players could be found, but that would only verify the second half of the statement. Earlier the article had a link to a site that talks ABOUT a Frostwolf Battle Tabard, but no site has been found that claims "Stan's character is wearing a Frostwolf Battle Tabard." Perhaps a screenshot from the episode alongside a screenshot from the videogame would satisfy Wikipediatrix?

I'm trying to see things from both sides here. I think the sections are quite informative and improve the article, they just need to follow the rules on no original research and verifiability.

The article on sky actually DOES have a citation to an article on why the sky is blue, not just a statement written by an editor.

I think the article could be improved if an editor can find a reliable and reputable source that has published a list of goofs, and then cite it. I think information that is obvious to one person, may not be so obvious to others. Wikipediatrix has described the material as "crufty" but WP:CRUFT is not policy (or even a guideline). One man's "cruft" is another man's details. I see this episode as a multi-owner fictional crossover and I believe the material is informational to people interested in buying the game (and who think they'll be able to do what they've seen in the episode). It also provides background information on creative decisions by producers.

After citations are provided, there may still be disagreements on whether or not the sources provided are reliable or not. Hopefully a gaming/entertainment site like Gamespot or IGN or UGO will publish a list and then it can be cited.

While Wikipediatrix's edits may help keep Wikipedia verifiable and factual in the short term, I feel they are short-sighted and don't take a long view. If an expert know something about a topic, I feel they should be allowed to contribute to an article. I'm not going to remove the sections and I'm also not going to re-insert them. Though I can help find references if you like.

I hope my suggestions are seen in good faith. Perhaps I am "that which has no life", LOL. --Pixelface 02:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are bolding the wrong parts here. I would say these are merely observations, not ideas or arguments or any of the terms above. Hence, by Wikipediatrix's definition, "2+2=4", and "The sky is blue." as well as about 95% of the unfootnoted sentences on Wikipedia would comprise OR and that's just silly. In my view, this is pushing the WP:OR policy to a ridiculous legal extreme, hence Wikilawyering, while completely ignoring it's spirit.

Unfortunately, in the conversion, I was unable to keep the references, as I did the table as an HTML table and converted it. It was my first table. I considered this an acceptable loss as Wikipediatrix was not appeased by the references and still attempted to continually delete the sections anyway due to her flawed interpretation of WP:OR.

It certainly wouldn't hurt to add references back. However, it seems this is a case of a Wikipedian who is less interested in a consensus improving of the page and more of forcing her way, hence the threats of continuing to outright delete the sections until they are not restored or meet her criteria of a "simple paragraph" (which many find unacceptable).

Frankly, I would think referencing the entire Incongruities section to worldofwarcraft.com should be sufficient reference. The Character Data could be referenced to worldofwarcraft.com and the episode itself should that be necessary. - 66.93.144.171 02:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Plus, everything in the game is verifiable via two sources. The South Park episode the game is about... and the game itself. Where precisely does Wikipedia say that the game cannot be a reference? It might be easier to get a character to level 60 to check something than find some out of print tome to verify something. - 66.93.144.171 03:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Making Everyone Happy

I believe that if the article included more pictures of monkeys sword-fighting while riding mules, we could make everyone satisfied with the content of this article. I'd love to hear everyone else's opinions. --68.195.25.63 01:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is: that's not a very helpful suggestion. WillD 19:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That sounds absolutely insane... And I don't see how that will improve satisfaction in anyone... -Emhilradim 05:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a funny suggestion Muhahahahaha! yeah, but its ridiculous I have to agree with WillD on that one. Ace Fighter 21:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

LMFAO!! XD... too bad these other guys can't take jokes. >;/ wikipedia contributors are unhealthily serious, I find. - Halfrush

As it must be. For stupid jokes, go to Uncyclopedia. 200.71.186.109 01:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

FINALLY! I've found an entry that's not absolutely serious and spoken through the point of view of a robot! Reformeduchiha (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Screen time

According to my calcuations (excluding the time for intro credits and end credits):

Videogame footage appears onscreen for 590 seconds/1270 seconds, or 46% of the time (374 seconds are pure videogame footage, 216 seconds are when the videogame is shown smaller and scaled to a computer screen). Footage with just animation appears onscreen for 680 seconds/1270 seconds, or 54% of the time. And much of that is people at their computers, or people at Blizzard.

So it seems silly to me to complain the article is "too much about the videogame." The whole episode is about the videogame -- it's a crossover. The airtime is split nearly 50/50 between the videogame and the cartoon.

And the very definition of "trivia" is "unimportant or trivial pieces of information." Removing a piece of trivia because it's TRIVIAL is ludicrous. WP:CRUFT is NOT an actual policy or guideline, besides the fact that "cruft" is POV.

Many pages on South Park episodes have huge trivia sections, most without sources. To those who keep removing the sections, I'm sure there are many other pages that that can be improved. The {{fact}} and {{verify source}} tags were made for a reason. --Pixelface 01:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Highly agreed. In fact, it occurs to me that should those who keep deleting the sections be allowed to win out here, the article should be deleted. Now, this isn't any kind of threat or anything, mind you. It's just that with this strict a standard on what is allowed and what isn't, all the trivia should be removed from the page.

For example, we don't KNOW the episode title is a reference to "Make Love, Not War". There isn't a link to an interview of Trey and Matt being insulted with that obvious question. The editor who added that *technically* guessed it. Now, the idea that of course he's right wouldn't matter here. It's original research. It should be deleted.

We don't KNOW that the bass guitar in Token's basement is the same one as in Christian Hard Rock. It may just be an identical one. We're assuming it is. No matter how safe the assumption and how stupid the alternative, it's original research by these standards.

And so and so forth until all we're left is a plot summary. And then, we have a problem. According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia articles should not be simply plot summaries. So the article would be deleted. Now we have a bigger problem. Of 150+ episodes of South Park, this is the only one with no article.

All because three editors want to put themselves above the community and put special standards (such as the information must somehow be verifiable without checking the cited source) on this specific article because it's tangentially about a computer game, something they've made clear THEY don't see as worthwhile and have no issue assuming no one else would either. - 66.93.144.171 12:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

From the moment I saw the first article I have been one of the ones arguing here that there was no room for the bulk of the additional content - although I must point out that I sought to make my point of view here in the discussion page and not through editing of the main article. I still maintain that much of it is inappropriate as it stands. A prime example would be "...This can be explained that a large number of the South Park Studios team plays the game. More likely this is a result of interactions between Blizzard and members of the South Park Studios or a single very knowledgeable WoW player working for the South Park Studios" which clearly is baseless speculation. Not only that but I personally cannot see how much of the trivia content could ever at any point be integrated into the main article. With a view to not leaving this article with only a plot section is it not possible to create a heading for a smaller section that specifically deals with the WoW/South Park crossover bringing in some of the ideas of the trivia section- as a body of text with proper sourcing and less (well - none ideally) speculation/opinion? I am new here so this is a question for more experienced people. Johan Aruba 19:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No one is saying there wasn't room to discuss removal of CERTAIN items that were purely speculation (or outright wrong), or fixing them to remove any hint of OR or unverifiability. What is being objected to here is certain editors coming in here and deleting the sections and otherwise gutting the article without even bothering to discuss such sweeping changes first, and then repeatedly undoing attempted reversions of people who objected to such tactics. No matter how right they were sure they were, this was the wrong way to handle the situation. - 66.93.144.171 20:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to note, that I reverted twice only. Which is hardly 'repeatedly'. You are assuming that your position is the default one when there are other editors who disagree with that. Wikipedia is made by consensus, not majority rule.-Localzuk^(talk) 20:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem taking you on your word that you personally only reverted twice. However, your position was first brought into this article by an editor who DID repeatedly revert and immediately stated she was going to continue to do so, and that the only way to stop her was to take the matter to a higher power, later confirmed to be arbitration (which is supposed to be the last step, not the first.) I also agree that Wikipedia is run by consensus, rather than majority. But that also means it is not run by one editor, regardless of how right that editor thinks he is. Unilaterally gutting the article utterly defies and derails the whole consensus process. - 66.93.144.171 21:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots

It seems to me that much of the ballyhoo about WP:OR could be resolved by showing screenshots from the episode next to screenshots from the videogame.

The fair use policy on images says that the following count as FAIR USE:

Film and television screen shots. For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television.
Screenshots from software products. For critical commentary.

For example, by going to this page, one can find a screenshot of the Frostwolf Battle Tabard. And here is a picture of Stan's character wearing it in the episode.

I'm not sure on the policy of linking to third party image sites, but the screenshots could be taken by a Wiki editor, uploaded to Wikipedia and released under fair use.

AFAIK, there has never been a videogame/cartoon crossover as notable as this episode. I feel screenshots would greatly contribute to the article. --Pixelface 01:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

LINKS to the screenshots would definitely improve the page quality if verifiability is really as much of a concern on a South Park episode's article as it is on, say, AIDS or 9/11. Including all the actual screenshots themselves would make the page far too graphics intensive, especially for dialup users.

But this is the kind of actual *progress* and *constructive edits* we could have discussed on the issue had certain editors not chosen to come in and start unilaterally gutting the article under an absolute feeling of certainty they were in the right. - 66.93.144.171 08:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

See my comment about the use of 'A + B must = C' type arguments and how they breach WP:OR.-Localzuk^(talk) 14:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That can be avoided by writing it this way:

Stan's World of Warcraft character is human and part of the Alliance faction.[2] Frostwolf Battle Tabards are only available to the Horde faction. [3][4]

No assumption is made. Only facts are presented. --Pixelface 01:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have to say, though that it reads a little funny... There is nothing wrong with presenting that information, it just doesn't quite read right to me.-Localzuk^(talk) 14:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because the first and second sentence aren't clearly connected. In that format they appear unrelated. Johan Aruba 18:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

machinima

i thought machinima was film out of the game not of the game. it's just showing them play the game. it's not like the wow characters replaced southpark characters.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.157.30.102 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Make Love, Not Warcraft uses machinima, aka using footage from the game to represent characters. While it is essentially the boys roleplaying and not actually in the game itself, it can still be considered machinima. 67.11.140.20 19:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

As a production technique, the term concerns the rendering of computer-generated imagery (CGI) using real-time, interactive (game) 3D engines, as opposed to high-end and complex 3D animation software used by professionals. -- Wikipedia, 'machinema'

I find not one shred of evidence in the article that the episode was produced in this way. It seems far more likely that the necessary models and textures were simply dropped into Maya and animated as normal. Which would be contrary to the definition wikipedia appears to hold. 80.168.197.252 20:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

More needs to be said about this, but it's possible that it's a mixture of both. That said, nothing that I can find actually disputes that it's machinima, and Paul Marino's blog for the Academy of Machinima Arts & Sciences indicates that two accomplished World of Warcraft machinima producers were involved. However, South Park's production blog indicates that they did prerecord some WoW scenes for later use. That said, lip-synching and other animations in WoW machinima are nothing new; Illegal Danish: Super Snacks! does it, and so does Rufus Cubed's The Return (which, unfortunately, we don't have an article for at the moment). — TKD::Talk 00:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Opinion on a Trivia Add

At one point during the episode, Cartman informs Kyle that the "Autolocate Macro" is Command-0. IIRC, Command is a key on Macs comparable to Ctrl or Alt on a PC. This would imply the boys are playing on Macs, which I think to be interesting trivia.

Questions:

1. Am I correct about the Command key being a Mac thing?

2. Would this trivia be OR as it stands? Would I need to find citation that the Command key is something on a Macintosh? Would it still be OR?

If this does pass muster, someone else would need to add it, due to the current semi-protection status of the article. - 66.93.144.171 21:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In response to 1, yes. Command is a mac key.

Stating that the Command key is a mac key would not be OR as it is 'stating the obvious'.

However, I would question how this would be included? How would it fit into the article as a whole? Trivia should be able to be included in a larger section of prose else it doesn't really fit.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as this article is concerned, WP:OR depends heavily on what is obvious to the editors. It's such a subjective area for such a new episode that you have no choice but to post it and see if someone doesn't take it down sooner or later.

Regarding the point, yes, it would imply at least one of the characters is playing on a Mac (the one to whom Cartman was speaking...I forget which one it was now). It could be illustrating the greater point that WoW is one of a select few mainstream games actively ported to the Mac by the company producing it. As a lot of people working in the TV production industry use Macs, this could be how so many of the South Park Studios team justified using it: it worked on their OS and nothing else did. SlvrEagle23 22:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You do have a choice whether or not to post. You can take a look at the policy and decide whether you are making any judgements based on facts without actually having a source do it for you. It is quite a simple policy to understand.-Localzuk^(talk) 13:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As with many things in South Park, it is probably showing the preference and views of the creators MAtt and Trey. Can't know for sure without asking them. Sabar 07:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and as such we can only post what third parties have published. -Localzuk^(talk) 13:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This has been out for a while so i doubt ill get a response but as i was just re-watching it i noticed that at the beginning when kyle says something like 'follow me guys to stonehaven' they begin to follow him then he turns around and jumps off in the other direction while the others are still going the other way. Trivia or Blooper or Miscellania, who cares, its in someone elses hands nowThe Ravager 01:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Publicity

It seems alot of people think the editors that added the goofs were "upset" or "complaining", but I feel the list of goofs was purely informational.

Seeing as how this Wiki page itself has generated alot of publicity, I think the information should be reinstated.

• Joystiq
• Guardian Blogs
• Digg
• Digg
• Digg
• Tech2
• Fark

MANY people are coming to this page to see the list of goofs. It makes Wikipedia more valuable. Removing information is counter to a comprehensive written compendium of knowledge. Many articles go beyond mere summaries and contain in-depth details. --Pixelface 01:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

as far as i know, wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, not a sell-out. wikipidia does not need the fame to get more people coming.60.50.168.33 13:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia's policies remain the same, even if it means removing unsourced original-research information that large amounts of people find entertaining or interesting. wikipediatrix 13:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Also agreed. The key thing here is the word 'encyclopedia' not fansite. We have to keep the article encyclopedic else it just presents a bad image of wikipedia.-Localzuk^(talk) 14:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Publicing Wikipedia is encouraged -- Wikipedia:Publicity.

And many people already have a poor image of Wikipedia -- Wikipedia:Criticisms.

An encylopedia is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge.

Is a screenshot original research? Does a screenshot not count as a source? Shall every picture on Wikipedia taken by a Wiki editor be removed because it's "original research?" --Pixelface 12:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Arguments have already been made that the removed sections were both encyclopedic and not original research, at least not so much that *every single word in both entire sections* was beyond salvation and needed to be destroyed. These arguments have been repeatedly ignored. Even though the policy demands I assume good faith on the editors involved that they believe their actions to be for the benefit of improving Wikipedia, it seems obvious that reasoning is no longer going to be a productive course of action.

The editors involved saw no problem with coming in, and rather than talking about the issue, taking unilateral action on their own and gutting the page (thus provoking the ensuing edit war, and in violation of Wikiquette), even though they demanded later editors bring the issue to the talk page before THEY made major changes to the page, namely reverting them back. With all due respect to the editors involved, I have seen absolutely no benefit of the doubt taken by the editors that they could be the ones in the wrong, and their comments on this page have been invariably lecturing us about how we were in the wrong, typically because we didn't understand "our" policies, which is both insulting, and sets the whole thing up as an "us vs. them" argument casting Wikipedia on their side.

Given this, even though they might disagree with a lot in this comment, or in my past comments, but I feel fairly certain in saying that even they'd agree with this: No amount of discussion at this point, if ever, is going to get them to allow the article to be re-posted, even if we started working in a more consensus type manner to make it more presentable (though no matter how surprised it would make me, I could be wrong). Wikipediatrix even said that from the start, that she continued to keep up her behavior unless stopped by an arbitatrator, even though arbitration is supposed to be the last step, not the first.

Given that, our only options are this: Request arbitration, or give up. I'm anonymous, and would prefer to remain that way for the nonce, and it's probably not a good status for me to lead arbitration requests from, so someone else will have to lead that charge.

The way things stand though, we have an article which has a standard no other South Park episodes have applied to it, and if that standard is applied to its logical conclusion, ALL trivia for the episode MUST be deleted, and thus the article deleted because WP:NOT specifically bans articles that are plot summaries only.

Or, to summarize... with all due respect, if all that's been happening from one side is just that one side telling us why we're wrong... that's not really any form of negotiation or work towards consensus. It's a lecture. - 66.93.144.171 12:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Please make your proposed additions to the article and post them on this talk page. We can then go over them and specify which bits are ok and which bits aren't. I have been looking deeper into the 'popular culture' WP:OR ideas and believe that we can come to some sort of consensus on this.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion has been clear from the beginning, and it has been, I think, the majority suggestion as well. Restore all deleted content to this article (with the exception of copyrighted links) and then work from there towards consensus towards fixing any content that might be OR, and giving some benefit of the doubt if it can be explained that certain content is not OR. Deletion should be absolutely last resort. Is this acceptable? - 66.93.144.171 22:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I know what your suggestion is. My suggestion is pretty much the opposite. In order to come to some sort of compromise, we need to analyse the information specifically. That is why I am suggesting you post it here for editors to look at. Else we're just going to be at stale mate forever.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You did not deal in suggestions. You dealt in unilateral sweeps. You gutted the article despite the wishes of several of the editors here because it was YOUR opinion (and others, though still a decided minority) that *some* of the content deleted was Original Research (an argument that every single word of the deleted content was OR would be fairly ludicrous) or was too trivial (again, a completely subjective opinion). Such a unilateral and hostile approach is completely against the etiquette of Wikipedia. There is simply too much deleted information to have to go back into the archives and argue case by case for its inclusion. Arguing case by case for its dis-inclusion is far more within the spirit of Wikipedia.

But as seen, you have no interest in such an approach. Therefore, I am urging my fellow editors who do have an interest in restoring the proper content of this article to begin the process of arbitration. It's a big step, but it's obviously the only way to get the content restored, and it was pretty much made the only way when you editors who agreed with you thought it proper to gut the article and repeatedly revert people trying to change it back rather than discuss the ideas first. - 66.93.144.171 09:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Joystiq

The website Joystiq has a huge lists of goofs that can be cited [5]

You do realize that the Joystiq article you linked to got all of that information from earlier revisions of this Wikipedia page? --Billdorr 02:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I also found a review by Dan Iversion on IGN [6]

There are the third-party sources you wanted. --Pixelface 01:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Joystiq is a blog, and doesn't qualify under WP:V and WP:RS. wikipediatrix 13:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. IGN are an acceptable source though.-Localzuk^(talk) 14:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto moment (GTA)

I think the South Park creators also slipped in a GTA moment in this episode as well. Stan's dad, Randy, leaves his house to get to Cartman's house to hand him the USB thumb drive with the sword of a thousand truths. Both Blizzard executives tell Randy they came by cab. Randy notes that his car is in the shop. Randy suddenly steps into the street and a car comes to a screeching halt. Randy goes to the driver's door and opens it. Then he grabs the driver and pulls him out of the car. Then he punches the driver and throws him to the ground. Randy then gets into the car and closes the door. At that moment the Blizzard executives open their doors, on the right side of the car, get in and close their doors.

The whole sequence is almost identical to Grand Theft Auto San Andreas. I believe Trey and Matt snuck in this GTA moment on purpose. I'm surprised that nobody noticed since it wasn't mentioned in the article.

It was discussed. Have a look at the archive page. Johan Aruba 18:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Details on the creation of this episode

I think this article desperately needs more information on how it was created. How did Blizzard help with this episode? Did they give the creators a modified WoW client that let them pose and animate characters within the actual game-world, or a copy of it running on a special server? Or were actual WoW scenes combined in post-processing with machinima? There really should be at least one good paragraph describing this process and Blizzard's collaboration on this episode. CGameProgrammer 09:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a source of such information then it can be added. However I do not believe such details have been released. Timb0h 19:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be a lot of information on the official production blog. [7]. Timb0h 10:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Why cant we edit this page anymore?

Why cant we edit this page anymore?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.215.183.102 (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2006

Of course you can. It's not protected. L0b0t 17:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

'Note: This page has been protected so that only established users can edit it.'. The page is semi-protected Timb0h 19:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, there is no tag on the page. I did not know that.L0b0t 20:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I've unprotected, as the page was semiprotected for almost three weeks. The hype from the newness of the episode should have hopefully died down by now. — TKD::Talk 20:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in this case, semi-protection allowed those who have destroyed this article to win. In the vast majority of cases, all unregistered users were doing was restoring content wrongfully deleted for no real reason. As a result, a very in depth, interesting and encyclopedic article has been lost, to the detriment of Wikipedia, simply because a handful of registered users kept deleting content until the other side simply decided they had better things to do with their time and let them win. And that's a shame.

And maybe I am skirting the boundaries of WP:CIVIL, but the tactics described above absolutely shattered them. - 66.93.144.171 04:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please explain what encyclopedic material was lost. Trivia is not encyclopedic, and it is policy that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. An encyclopedia article should not overburden the reader with every single detail. This is the consensus of more than a "handful" of editors. The article used to have a large list of more or less unorganized facts. That is a list of details, not a well-written, coherent article that puts fiction into a real-world perspective. — TKD::Talk 05:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a lot more than a trivia section was lost. If you consult the archives, a section on the in game characters controlled by the South Park characters, as well a comparison and contrast were deleted because, yes, a handful of editors began deleting everything they disliked, using the excuse that it was supposedly original research. There was no attempt at repair or consensus, just a few pushing their will onto the many, which does violate at least suggestions on how to conduct oneself on Wikipedia (such as to be bold, but not reckless, and not to provoke edit wars.) Plus, simply because one person thinks something is trivial and unworthy of inclusion does not mean that person's opinion is universal or right. - 66.93.144.171 08:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

66.93.144.171, please see WP:No hyperventilating - SkipSmith 08:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The above individual is a known cyberstalker, who has followed me onto various websites to harrass me before. - 66.93.144.171 20:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice. Might want to check out WP:CIVIL when you get a chance. SkipSmith 01:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that 99% of the information was removed as original research, trivia or as unsourced. If you would care to re-add something that doesn't break any of the policies of the site then please do. Else it will be removed. Remember, we are an encyclopedia, not a random collection of factoids regarding comparisons between WoW and how it appeared in this episode.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The idea that the information removed was "original research" was merely your opinion and disagreed with by a number of editors. It did not break Wikipedia's policies. You can keep *saying* otherwise. You will remain wrong. Indeed, I and other editors were of the opinion that your edits were in violation of Wikipedia's policies. Numerous people explained how the deleted content was encyclopedic (including the idea of comparison/contrast between similar phenomenon). There is no point in trying to re-add information so long as these kind of tactics are allowed to stand. - 66.93.144.171 20:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Gynoid

I'm unsure about the trivia statement referencing Gynoid. Unsure how it can be worked into the main article, or ever if it's actually worth mentioning at all? Timb0h 20:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

whats the point of having Trivia?

Whats the point? I mean, everytime someone adds some that is of interest to both the show and WoW someone who thinks they can edit and remove things can decide to remove it?

The hole entire point of this episode is about WoW, and the affects it has on both people and in mmorpg.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripster40 (talk • contribs)

Trivia is supposed to be worked into the main article body - not stuck as a list forever. Take a look at WP:TRIVIA. Also, everything that is claimed as trivia has to comply with our policies and guidelines for neutrality, original research and citation. If it falls foul of any of these then it will simply be deleted.

Also, it is your opinion that 'the entire episode is about WoW. Personally I see it as a dig against MMORPG's in general and the people who obsess over them. However, neither of these opinions are admissable unless they have been published by a third party. (Also, please sign your posts by using ~~~~) -Localzuk^(talk) 17:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've posted some of the relevant sections of Policies and guidelines over here. Cheers. L0b0t 17:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Machinima.com interview

Just thought I'd point out an interesting interview about the creation of the episode. Might be a good source for the article. --Conti|✉ 20:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've read it and will incorporate it into the aticle when I'll have time. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Leeroy

Is the Leeroy character a nod to Leroy Jenkins? Also, how do we know his name is Leeroy? The reference in the article makes no reference to the charater name. Duke Starhopper 17:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Plot doesn't need any references by default. The fact that he was named after Leeroy Jenkins was originally mentioned here, which is already linked at reference #12. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that reference just states that he is named Jenkins. We can assume (probably without any fear of contradiction) that he is named after Leeroy, but it still needs to be marked as an assumption until complete validation occurs. I've edited the wording of Note #1. Captain Infinity 19:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's "Leeroy Jenkins".72.241.105.214 23:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Great job guys

It seems like everything a good episode article should be. I'm rather impressed. Certainly gets my vote for GA. --SeizureDog 10:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Woo! Thanks to anyone who helped, especially TKD and L0b0t. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to give you guys props, it looks great, I'm unoffically requesting this article be one of the articles which is one of the "Todays Featured Article". articles. Ace Fighter 21:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

On Youtube

I found this episode in a full length format, heres the link: I'm thinking that we can groove it into the article as an external link, there are 2 other full length ones on Youtube too. Ace Fighter 03:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Except that this is illegal and if Comedy Central cared they could sue us for putting the links. Gdo01 03:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you ever so much, but if you want the link, i have it. I had no idea about that :S, but wouldnt YouTube also become pissed off? Contact if you would like it on my Talk Page. Ace Fighter 01:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Theme Tune

Surely we should note the new theme tune (techno-remix) that appeared from this episode onwards. Mr. Garrison (talk · contribs)

That's trivia, not to mention information on the opening may already be found on South Park. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Still, most people want to know...mostly. Mr. Garrison (talk · contribs)

Question

In the last parts of the episode, specifically in the battle, the boys appear to be talking in the game. However, they don't have microphones on. Should this be listed as a goof?--Orthologist 20:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This seems as a rather minor piece of trivia. Please understand that the "Notes" section isn't supposed to contain goofs and trivia, as these aren't encyclopedic. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Hello Kitty Island Adventure"

Surely this amusing bogus video game, referenced by Butters, should be mentioned somewhere. The phrase has gotten a life of its own, especially in the MMO community, often used when players complain about something in a game being to hard, to which the standard response is something like, "Perhaps you should play 'Hello Kitty Island Adventure' instead." Also, a lot of hits come up when googling the term. Villemar 04:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It can be included if a third party analysis of it is provided as a source. We need to see a news site or such place discussing this else it would be original research.-Localzuk^(talk) 10:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello kitty is a game series though, made by saniro. Island Adventure is the only fictitious part of it. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 21:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The only reason why it's funny is because it's a real game. http://www.hellokittyonline.com/us/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.159.68 (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no it's not. That is not "Hello Kitty Island Adventure". Nice try. -- Atama^chat 14:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't this on Youtube?

Why did they remove it? And why isn't it there anymore?

Pece Kocovski 11:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the episode, yes it was. The reason why it was likely removed is copyright. The uploader and youtube wouldn't have had permission to put it there.-Localzuk^(talk) 15:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Plot needs to be edited

The last two paragraphs of the Plot section are essentially incomprehensible and need to be re-written with care taken to properly identify antecedents.207.69.137.10 02:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Level mistakes

Cartman says that the boys need to kill boars, and Kyle asks, "Boars cost 2 EXP apiece. Do you know how much it takes to go up 30 levels?" But during the "Live to Win" sequence the Blizzard manager says the boys have "gone up 50 levels. They must really have no lives at all." This mistake should be added in this article. --Angeldeb82 23:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Who says it's a mistake? They said that'd it take *seven days* to go up thirty levels (which it may or may not have - it doesn't matter and there's no way to tell), and the Blizzard employees said it'd been *three weeks* and that they went up fifty levels. Indium 18:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

stan tabard

ist it possible stan was in a guild that made that tabard?63.166.254.137 16:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Plot Wording

The wording in the plot section, "They reluctantly give Randy the sword "We can't trust the Sword of a Thousand Truths to a noob!" ", seems like it needs a rewording. 74.119.181.233 20:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Kitty Island Adventure

Is it correct to have it redirect to this article? 66.244.5.12 16:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say no. If you search the article you'll see it's not mentioned in the article at all, the reason being that (while hilarious in my opinion) it's not notable. You're not going to find it being mentioned anywhere in reliable 3rd party sources, so it's not really worth mentioning. If it's not even worth mentioning in the article about the episode it came from, it's probably not worth being in Wikipedia at all, even just to redirect to this page. I'd just remove the redirect and just say it's not worth acknowledging unless it does become notable. -- Atamasama 00:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. People watching the episode are going to wonder if such a game exists, and will come to Wikipedia for information about it. Better to have them redirect here than to give them no information at all, lost on the search page, frustrated. Captain Infinity 08:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

So instead they'll be lost on this page, frustrated... That's not any better. -- Atamasama 17:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean it isn't real?! Someone has to make this game now! --Pinkkeith 22:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

mage

WTF is a mage? Would someone care to explain in the article, or substitute a better known word. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Mage is a very well known and common word, coming from different aspects of folk lore - They usually mean the same thing, which is the same with WoW - someone who can cast magic. Like a Witch of some kind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Haunted Angel (talk • contribs) 11:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a Wikilink to "mage" so that someone curious (or confused) can read the Wikipedia article about it. -- Atamasama 17:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I found your Wikilink to be a bit indirect, so I replaced it with one I think more fitting for this context. - Denimadept (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• When/where is the 'greifer's class mentioned as a mage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timb0h (talk • contribs) 10:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point. It isn't mentioned in the show, or in the South Park FAQ. I added a citation tag to it for now. -- Atama^chat 19:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone removed my citation request, and then someone else called him "a class like a mage but with mail"... We don't know what class he is. He doesn't seem to really fit any known class in the game, so all references to his class have been deleted. He's just a "griefer". -- Atama^chat 17:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

He casts Pyroblast, but that's probably a result of him being able to defy the rules of the game, hence his summoning of the scorpions. Suigetsu 05:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (Pass)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, MASEM 05:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC) (Minor point that doesn't affect this, I would think the machinima picture might be better in the text body given the caption, possibly swapping out with the kids at the computers.--MASEM 05:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

Trivia/Gamecruft section

I'm proposing that we remove the entire "notes" section which is just nitpicking trivia about the episode, showing how what is portrayed in the show is incosistent with the game. It's not important at all, certainly not encyclopedic, and pretty much any time a video game is portrayed in other media it's not 100% faithful. If nobody objects I'm just going to delete the entire section. -- Atama^chat 17:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No objections really, most of it smells like WP:OR. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it should be removed - it's no different to the goofs section that was on every article until I got to them ≈ The Haunted Angel 17:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, done. I preserved the references for Jenkins' name, and for a human being a hunter, which previously were only in the Notes section. -- Atama^chat 18:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Live To Win

The tie-in with the song is integral to the plot, no less so than World Of Warcraft itself. Moreover, it's not trivial but encyclopedic, no less so than indicating Michael Maltese wrote the song "The Michigan Rag" for the Chuck Jones short "One Froggy Evening". "Live To Win" premiered on "South Park", making its inclusion here encyclopedic. 76.214.227.14 (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The tie-in to the song has nothing to do with the plot. It is background music for a brief montage and that's all. The fact that the song premiered on this episode is encyclopedic information for the song, and is mentioned on the song's page. That's where that information belongs. For this article, it's trivial. -- Atama^chat 05:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)\

In that case, I fully expect an edit to remove references to Hot Pockets and RockStar Energy Drink from this article, as well as all references to WoW, considering it's only "bakcground" anyway. Anyone want to clean it up? While you're at it, clean all reference to "Gonna Fly Now" from all the Rocky pages. 209.254.200.110 (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Atama, I think he's got you. - Denimadept (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The Hot Pockets and Rock Star notations might be going into a bit too much detail in the plot, I don't disagree there. That section of this article has a tag and needs improvement. Saying that references to "WoW" are just background is a facetious, ridiculous argument. As for the Rocky article, we're not discussing that here.

If we get a consensus to include the information about the song, I don't have a problem with including it. It would work best in the production section, not in the lead as the IP attempted to do. It should definitely not be in a trivia section of any kind. We'd also need to have a reference backing up the claim that this was the premiere of the song. (I know that it was the premiere, I'm not doubting the factuality of that, but Wikipedia is concerned with verifiability and not truth. My biggest problem with reinserting the information about the song was that it was previously removed after some discussion and I have a problem with someone unilaterally reinserting it without discussing it here first. -- Atama^chat 15:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to the verifiable source, the date of the entry indicates it aired 20 days, or almost three weeks, prior to the release of the album, which I would certainly believe constitutes a "premier" of sorts, at least. [[8]] Anyone want to climb on board? I do feel it's an integral part of the episode, no less so than a guest star, vis a vis Gene Simmons on Ugly Betty, for example. 76.214.199.184 (talk) 04:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

That's actually an awful link (and I know it's the same one in the Live to Win article) because it verifies nothing. All it says is that Live to Win is in that episode and says nothing about a premiere. I'm trying to find anything that confirms that the episode was prior to the album release. I have managed to find an Entertainment Weekly article about the episode that mentions the song, which is better than the KISS news page but it doesn't mention the premiere either. Honestly, this does reinforce how non-notable the song's premiere is, if no media outlets mention it (even Paul Stanley's own web page doesn't actually say that the song "premiered" on the show). I'm actually just going to slip in the bit about the montage in the plot summary, since I have a source for that, but the thing about the premiere I'm actually doubting now since not even press releases mention it. -- Atama^chat 16:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Make Love, Not Warcraft/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I don't feel like the article meets the current GA criteria, unfortunately.

For starters, the prose seems awfully simplistic (do not read "simple"). It could be improved in order to make the message clearer in a lot of places, and also there seems to have noticed some problems with the tone in the Plot section (the only section I didn't read). It also isn't very clear for people unfamiliar with the the game and /or the episode. The Reciprocation section, for example. I suppose that "/hug" emote plays a hug animation (ain't I smart), but where does the connection with the show come in (what connection does this emote have with the show). The lead could also do with a few improvements.

There are some minor style problems. Referencing is without any problems, but they are either placed before or after the punctuation mark, or worse, there are sentences that don't end with a punctuation mark. Also I'm pretty sure that external links within the main body of the article should be avoided as much as possible. Diego_pmc ^Talk 17:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but it states very clearly in the Reciprocation section that you receive a "Make Love, Not Warcraft" PvP achievement. If you can't see what having an achievement called "Make Love, Not Warcraft" has to do with an episode called "Make Love, Not Warcraft", I don't know what to tell you. On the other hand, if you're complaining that you don't know what a PvP achievement is, that's explained in the reference given. To devote space in the article to explaining World of Warcraft game mechanics is to go beyond the scope of the article, and in fact Wikipedia, and would likely be deleted as a violation of WP:NOT#GUIDE. Hence the need for the WoWWiki reference. We could put the WoWWiki link in the body of the article (perhaps linking "PvP achievement") but as you've already stated we should be avoiding doing that. So clearly there's no way to improve upon what's already there. As for the suggestion that the whole article isn't GA material, I can't argue that. It's a struggle enough to keep the cruft out from anons and others, this article still needs serious work. -- Atama^chat 18:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, a week has passed, and there doesn't seem to be anyone against delisting this article. Diego_pmc ^Talk 21:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is well written, clear and useful - which is far more than can be said for your vague, rambling objections. I disagree with the little I can understand of what you're saying. I am relatively unfamiliar with the show, and wholly unfamiliar with the game. After watching this particular episode by chance, I read this article, and found it interesting. In my opinion, deleting it would be vandalism. Rubywine (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't up for deletion, and if it was I doubt it would have a snowball's chance of being deleted. But it does need work, and while I've tried to fix things here and there I'm not skilled enough with encyclopedia content to reword it properly. -- Atama^chat 02:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you're responsible for rewording the article, well done. I think the end result is fine. There are a zillion other issues worth worrying about more than the style of this article, and AFAIAC the tag is just irritating. Rubywine (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Corrupted Blood incident reference

Does anyone think that this episode refers partly to the Corrupted Blood incident? It is clear that there is "global" problem of sorts going on in WoW, and many players are affected... would love to hear if anyone agress/disagrees, or thinks it deserves a "See also" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jherm (talk • contribs) 07:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No, not even the tiniest bit. The Corrupted Blood incident had to do with a disease spreading from character-to-character by accident. This episode is about a player causing grief by killing other player characters in combat. The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. That's like trying to link the Titanic disaster to the destruction of Pompeii because both involved a lot of people dying. -- Atama^chat 18:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

woops

i changed all refrences to newb to noob, my bad i was wrong someone plz cus i cba :P

u r-tard :-P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.130.121.228 (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Live to Win

I'm surprised there's no mention that this episode featured the title song of Paul Stanley's debut album, "Live to Win," almost three weeks before the album was released.Thatfield977 (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Make Love, Not Warcraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3161790
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090917174713/http://www.emmys.tv/awards/2007pt/nominations_crtv.php?action=search_db to http://www.emmys.tv/awards/2007pt/nominations_crtv.php?action=search_db

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)