Talk:South Park season 1

Current source contradicts airdates
Volcano and Weight Gain 4000 have their air-dates mixed up. I have sources, and I humbly ask that you take a second look:

THIS is a current source cited on the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park_(season_1)#cite_note-tvguide_s01-1 if you click through you will see that it lists Volcano with an August 20th 1997 air date, and Weight Gain 4000 with an August 27th 1997 air date. This is currently not reflected on the wikipedia page.

THIS is a current source cited on Volcano (South Park): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano_(South_Park)#cite_note-20 it's of a newsgroup post dated August 21st, 1997, referring to Volcano as having aired "last night" which would be August 20th, 1997.

The problem isn't a lack of sources, it's that the current sources are being ignored and contradicted.
 * Newsgroups are not reliable sources. The main leading reliable source is Comedy Central themselves, and this article reflects that information. Multiple other cited sources also reflect this information. Your argument is going to get you nowhere fast. I suggest you drop the subject. - SanAnMan (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * @SanAnMan The official website states Weight Gain 4000 to be the 2nd episode of the season and aired on August 20, 1997; Volcano was listed to be the 3rd episode of the season and aired on August 27, 1997. Should we change this according to the official website? STB (talk) 07:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC) STB (talk) 07:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

How about the Library of Congress publishing dates?

https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=South+Park+no.+103&Search_Code=TALL&PID=PUY9MI5DCQaoBvJGKIID7NQjH_smQs&SEQ=20210806185457&CNT=25&HIST=1

https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=Weight+Gain+4000&Search_Code=TALL&PID=4iZ10QfFBRKMJH7LF4IEUD3VoDXvT5&SEQ=20210806190238&CNT=25&HIST=1

todo
You should have a cast section. Who voiced the four main characters? Do they provide voices for other background characters (like in The Simpsons)? Did any big names guest star? Etc etc
 * Do you really think a cast section is necessary? I mean, Matt and Trey provided the voices of most characters..  The Le ft orium  12:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For GA no, but if this is going to go at FA it probably will. Nergaal (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? Like I said, Matt and Trey provided the voices of most characters. That could just be mentioned in one sentence in the development section. You can also add the guest stars there.  The Le ft orium  14:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There were two others I think. Chef is voiced by somebody else(Isaac Hayes I believe) and many of the female characters, who have a genuine non-stereotypical female voice, are voiced by a female voice actor. But just about every other character is voiced by Parker and Stone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobberpooper (talk • contribs) 06:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless
What's with the random "Nevertheless" at the end of the lead. Does a sentence belong after that, or should that word just be deleted? --Philpill691 (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone has fixed it. --Philpill691 (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

DVD Re-Release
The South Park DVD's have since been re-released in new box sets since they were originally released - this page and all of the others make no mention of this, or of the differences between the old and new box sets, which is a great shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.54.76 (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Colour contrast problems
It seems that this article is using colours in the infobox which don't satisfy Wikipedia's accessibility guidelines. The contrast between the foreground colour and the background colour is low, which means that it may be difficult or impossible for people with visual impairments to read it.

To correct this problem, a group of editors have decided to remove support for invalid colours from Template:Infobox television season and other television season templates after 1 September 2015. If you would still like to use custom colours for the infobox and episode list in this article after that date, please ensure that the colours meet the WCAG AAA standard.

To test whether a colour combination is AAA-compliant you can use Snook's colour contrast tool. If your background colour is dark, then please test it against a foreground colour of "FFFFFF" (white). If it is light, please test it against a foreground colour of "000000" (black). The tool needs to say "YES" in the box for "WCAG 2 AAA Compliant" when you input the foreground and the background colour. You can generally make your colour compliant by adjusting the "Value (%)" fader in the middle box.

Please be sure to change the invalid colour in every place that it appears, including the infobox, the episode list, and the series overview table. If you have any questions about this, please ask on Template talk:Infobox television season. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on South Park (season 1). 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080330155318/http://www.southparkstudios.com/news/?id=3405 to http://www.southparkstudios.com/news/?id=3405

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on South Park (season 1). 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221120516/http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/ to http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Citing episode air dates
There has been a major disagreement between contributors as to whether cites are needed in the lede and in the episode table, or only in one of these places. Here's my take.

Since the lede only mentions the beginning and the ending dates, any citation here would not be understood by readers to necessarily cover all of the other episodes in the season when they're listed in the body of the article, so the table needs to cite all of the dates given in that table (there are eleven more original air dates involved). Since there is conveniently a single reliable source, TV Guide, where one linked page covers all of the episodes in the season, it seems best to place the citation in the column header, so it automatically covers all of the entries. I think it would be overkill to cite each episode date individually.

I do wonder whether a citation for the starting and ending episodes (beginning and end of the season) is needed in the lede at all. If the season start and end dates could be considered controversial information or open to challenge, then by all means cite it in the lede. If not, the citation in the episode table in the body of the article is probably sufficient to cover the matter, per MOS:LEADCITE.

Now that this discussion has opened, per WP:BRD, further changes in this arena should wait for a consensus to develop here. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you for taking the time to start this discussion. I'd like to suggest a possible compromise: in South Park (season 13), an episode guide link contenting air dates is provided in the external links section, why don't we just do the same with TV Guide and Zap2it in seasons 1-6? That way, it will be clear to the reader, citations won't be needed in the tables, and the lede won't have unnecessary citations, per WP:CITELEAD. Also, since season 13 is the only South Park season that is a featured article, it should be used as an example for writing the other articles, per WP:FA. QuestFour (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Since Template:Episode table includes a field for references of air dates in the column header, logic would dictate that the reference should belong in the header of the episode table. In addition, there are plenty of other episode tables that do include such a reference in the column header, such as MasterChef (American season 10) for example. There's also been this discussion, this discussion, and this really long discussion that all indicate that the column header cite is the proper method to use. - SanAnMan (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * thanks for this, I completely forgot that I removed the citations there, however, point still stands. Is there a need for citations in the lede or tables if a link to the source is provided clearly in the external links section? QuestFour (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * QuestFour, external links are not references, nor are they meant to be. As SanAnMan notes, the Episode table template was designed to include a source citation for the original air date column, a clear indication that including such a citation is a considered a useful thing to do. Referenced sources in the article are expected to be reliable (they certainly should not be used unless they are); external links do not necessarily have that imprimatur. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * QuestFour, I took a look at South Park (season 13), and it completely undercuts your argument. At the time the article was made an FA, the episode table had a reference just like the one you've been removing from the first season, and such a reference appears to have persisted (though the episode source changed the following year) up until this past Monday, when you removed it in this edit. (I have just restored it there; if it was there for the FA review, it should not have been removed after eight years, especially when doing so is clearly a controversial removal; it can wait for consensus as well.) With the one FA article for South Park seasons having an in-table-header reference for air dates at the time the article was made an FA—if the reference had been inappropriate, it would have been removed during the very stringent review process—the presumption should be that all the season articles ought to include such referencing, not the reverse as you're arguing. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Please see my reply above. Numerous similar featured articles provide the source for air dates in the external links section, thus eliminating the need for citations in the lede or tables. See The Simpsons seasons 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, and Family Guy seasons 1, 4, 5, 8. Both of these shows' list of episodes articles are featured as well. QuestFour (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * External links are never supposed to be citations supporting facts in the article body. In your examples ostensibly showing that dates have the citation down in external links, the actual situation is that better sources are cited in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Can you please provide a policy or guideline which states that? As for the examples, the few articles that have sources for air dates in the body only cite the premiere episode, the finale or both, and that has been explained above as not clear or easily understood by readers to cover the rest of the episodes. QuestFour (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * After looking at WP:EL, the guideline does in fact state that external links do not apply to citations. However, I came across WP:GENREF, which states that general references are citations to reliable sources that support the content but are not linked to any particular text in the article through an inline citation. The examples listed above all use general references, and not external links as I previously thought. Therefore, I will rephrase my suggestion to the compromise: the similar featured articles listed above use general references as the source for air dates, thus eliminating the need for citations in the lede or tables. Do we have a consensus to use general references? QuestFour (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * General refs are a problem waiting to be fixed. They don't give the reader text–source integrity, which is desirable. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems to be opinion rather than fact, and I highly doubt that text–source integrity is an issue here, especially when the content is air dates and the articles are short. QuestFour (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I quoted a Wikipedia content guideline, which describes project-wide consensus. Your "opinion rather than fact" comment is trying but failing to diminish the authority of the content guideline. It's still true that a general reference listed at the bottom does not show the reader which parts of the article are supported by the reference. Footnotes cited in the article are superior. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

So let's recap so far. As of today, the people who believe that the cite should be included in the column header of the episode table include: myself, BlueMoonset, Binksternet, EvergrenFir (based on his restoration of the content on multiple season articles), the people who created the Episode Table template, and all of the other editors involved in the three discussion threads I linked earlier in this conversation. The only person who thinks it shouldn't be there is QuestFour. Seems like a pretty large consensus to me. - SanAnMan (talk) 13:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Other than Binksternet, no one has commented on the use of WP:GENREF, and that includes EvergreenFir, who you conjectured their opinion yourself. Also, please don't include editors who are not involved in this dispute or discussion just to prove a point. I will be consulting a few admins and experts on this, so the discussion is not over yet. QuestFour (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I can include any editors that have already commented on this exact same discussion on other threads. Their already-existing opinions matter. And again, since EvergreenFir added the material back in to the tables which you again reverted, I believe it's a fairly safe assumption that he believes they belong also. In the future, don't tell me what I can and cannot do. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Except it's not the exact same discussion; none of the threads you linked above mention WP:GENREF. As for EvergreenFir, their edits were before my proposal for using general references, and 'assuming' other editors' stances is not consensus. QuestFour (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It really amazes me how you've tried constantly to turn this. This discussion was originally about citing the source in the column header of the episode table. Now you've gone and changed it into a discussion about GENREF. You just don't seem to want to accept that your way may not be the right way. I can see why you have so many edit-war notices against you. To quote Binksternet, footnotes cited in the article are superior. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:GENREF is quite clear that general references are inferior to inline ones: General reference sections are most likely to be found in underdeveloped articles, especially when all article content is supported by a single source. The disadvantage of general references is that text–source integrity is lost, unless the article is very short. They are frequently reworked by later editors into inline citations. Given this, a suggestion that general references are a good compromise between inline citations and external links does not hold up; indeed, it would be moving backward to go from inline citation to general reference. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe at this point it is clear that there is consensus among involved editors to include the citation in the column header, as has been done in the past. There is absolutely no support from anyone else in putting the link anywhere else, including external links and/or general references. Only one editor is objecting to having the cite anywhere other than in the column header. Unless there is further discussion on this, I think it's time to start re-adding the sources. If no one else (besides the one lone voice) raises an objection in the next 7 days from this, I will begin doing so. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the consensus is clear that the inline citations belong, and that a general reference is not an adequate alternative. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The in-line citation has been added/restored to the column headers of all seasons based on this discussion. I mainly used TV Guide as the RS, except for a few seasons where the air dates on TVG were just completely wrong. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello again, everyone! After consulting an admin, it appears that there's no issue whatsoever on using general references, and, unlike what has stated, they are an adequate alternative; being that how citations are shown is "simply cosmetic". I will go ahead and insert the references for now based on this, editors should feel free to revert and discuss if any other concerns (besides that inline citations are "better" or gen refs are "inferior") are raised. QuestFour (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that is not how this process works. Multiple concerned editors have reached consensus to keep the citation as written in the column headings. Any edits you make to these articles from now on would be against this consensus reached and would be subject to immediate report to admins. Leave things alone. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * An admin has already stated that using WP:GENREF is acceptable; proving that the arguments and consensus against general references in this discussion are baseless. If no other rationale is provided, per administrative input, there is absolutely no reason for me to "leave things alone". QuestFour (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, consensus has been reached by the other editors involved. Your opinion was considered and rejected by everyone else. Per Method for consensus building you must abide by the consensus. The majority has spoken on this. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change, especially when input from administrations or experienced editors has been given. QuestFour (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have pinged User:Oshwah for his input on this, since you obviously did not clearly state on his talk page your intention to remove existing cited sources and replace them with a genref, especially now that consensus has been reached against this. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Replacing would be the right term here; nevertheless, his opinion would be appreciated. QuestFour (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * QuestFour, it is most unfortunate that you did not reference this discussion when posting to Oshwah's talk page; among other things, it puts them in the invidious position of having been unaware of a long discussion and the consensus that arose from it when they commented to you. I commend WP:FORUMSHOP to your attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will admit that I should have mentioned this discussion; however, I did not ask multiple editors or raise this issue on multiple noticeboards as stated in WP:FORUMSHOP; Oshwah is the only editor that I asked input from and his talk page is the only page other than this talk page that I raised this issue on. I did that since he is an experienced editor, and figured that his opinion would be valuable. QuestFour (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Per Oshwah's response, it appears that in line citations are preferred over other methods. I sincerely apologize for wasting everyone's time, and should have researched more into the policies and guidelines. Regards, QuestFour (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Volcano/Weight Gain 4000 mix-up
There has been a massive misinformation problem with the airdates of Volcano (prod. #103; aired August 20th, 1997) and Weight Gain 4000 (prod. #102; aired August 27th, 1997). Currently I have just fixed this on this page, but I'm afraid somebody will change it back because this is a problem ALL OVER THE WEB. South Park's official site even has the incorrect airdates, as does IMDB and others (though I am trying to fix them there, too). Long story short: The first DVD set listed the wrong airdates on the package and when the show was made available for streaming those incorrect dates carried over. In fact, the SOURCE for the airdates that is currently cited on the page lists them correctly (with Volcano on the 20th and Weight Gain 4000 on the 27th), but they are still shown incorrectly on this wiki page. I have written about this extensively in a twitter thread: https://twitter.com/jixbyphillips/status/1423524075889065989

BOTTOM LINE: Volcano aired on August 20th Weight Gain 4000 aired on August 27th

This is actually true. Please don't let meaningless consensus cloud this fact.


 * Unless you can provide reliable cited sources to back this up, your opinion is just that, opinion. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * @SanAnMan Should we list it according to production order? Moral Orel also had this problem; the show’s season 1 had its episode airtimes mixed up due to censorship and scheduling problems yet they are still listed according to production order; We should name Weight Gain 4000 episode 2 and Volcano episode 3, albeit with noting of their different airtimes. STB (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Multiple shows air their episodes out of production order. Production order and airdate order are not necessarily one and the same. We list the episodes in airdate order in all seasons. Keep it the same. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)