Talk:Shots!!!

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

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

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

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

Kids described as "fourth-grader"
, I fail to see how the inclusion of the term "fourth-grader" in the description of Eric Cartman (or for that matter any of the regular South Park kids) is necessary. Per WP:TVPLOT the plot is designed to be a summary of the plot itself, not an exposition of who the characters are. The exposition of the character is done on the characters' WP site (for example, at Eric Cartman). Nowhere in WP:TVPLOT does it state that an exposition of each character is supposed to be part of the plot. Can you please cite and/or explain why you feel the use of the term "fourth-grader" is necessary here? And if it is necessary here, then why has it not been done on every single South Park episode article ever written? Thanks. - SanAnMan (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Nowhere in WP:TVPLOT does it state that you shouldn't stick a fork in your eye.


 * That's because exposition is a fundamental part of a plot summary, and doesn't need to be explicitly stated in a policy or guideline, since it is assumed that people who know how to write a plot summary understand this. Since Wikipedia is a fan encyclopedia, it is not assumed that anyone who comes upon an article knows who these characters are. Explaining to the reader that Cartman is a child helps establish with clarity who he is, in a way that helps the reader understand his relationship to the other characters, so that when a synopsis mentions things like "school", "being grounded", or how he manipulates his mother, someone not acquainted with the show understands immediately with that simple, two-word phrase.


 * Why hasn't it been done in all other articles? Why wasn't that disclaimer at the top of the talk pages added there until I started doing so several seasons ago? Why were anonymous IP editors allowed to create articles prior to the Seigenthaler biography incident? It's because Wikipedia is a constant work in progress, in which the editing community is constantly tweaking it to improve it, and this includes incorporating ideas originating with editors that other editors may not have considered. For this reason, "it hasn't been done before" is not a valid argument. The basis on which this or any other practice should be judged is in whether it makes the article more clear or less clear to a general knowledge reader who might come to the article cold, without prior knowledge of its subject, or a great command of it. That's the whole point of encyclopedias. Nightscream (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * As for the arguments you expressed in this edit summary, "‎Plot: per WP:TVPLOT the description of him as a fourth-grader is a technical detail and does not in any way, shape, or form affect the plot. If it did, we would have to include that description on every single child in every single SP article", you are wrong on both counts.
 * As for the arguments you expressed in this edit summary, "‎Plot: per WP:TVPLOT the description of him as a fourth-grader is a technical detail and does not in any way, shape, or form affect the plot. If it did, we would have to include that description on every single child in every single SP article", you are wrong on both counts.


 * First, exposition is not a "technical detail". It is, as I mentioned above, a basic, fundamental part of writing a synopsis, which requires that the essential setting, characters and premises be described to the reader. CHARACTER, after all, is one of the fundamental elements in any story, so a basic description of characters is built into that. Explaining to the reader that a character is a fourth grader is essential for the reader to understand when it is explained that that character's mother is having trouble getting that character to accept a vaccination, or when that character is grounded, just as it is essential to establish that Randy is a marijuana farmer in the beginning of the synopsis for "Let Them Eat Goo," or that Mr. Mackey is a school counselor, etc. When I helped write WP:TVPLOT, I didn't feel the need to specify this, because I felt it was implicitly understood by anyone intelligent enough and knowledgeable enough to know how a synopsis is written. To argue that any given piece of information added to a synopsis needs to be explicitly recommended in a policy or guideline —— that is a "technical" argument, and an intellectually dishonest one.


 * As for your ridiculous slippery slope fallacy that this would result in such a description "on every single child in every single SP article", it just boggles my mind that you would put forward such incoherent, clueless arguments. But fine, if you want me to "mansplain" it to you, here goes: In general, SanAnMan, exposition only needs to occur ONCE. After this, relevant information can be indicated contextually through descriptions of relationships, and/or otherwise, inferred by the reader. In the synopsis for "Band in China", for example, I described Kyle as Stan's best friend, so it's not necessary to specify what grade he's in. In other articles, I refer to the four main characters as "The fourth grade students of South Park Elementary", and if the plot involves the entire student body, then I just say, "The students of South Park Elementary".


 * Simply put, your arguments are based on logical fallacies, and involve a deceptive citation of policies or guidelines. Unless you can falsify what I've explained to you above, then please stop causing trouble with your continued tendentious editing. Nightscream (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)