Talk:T.M.I. (South Park)

Please read this before adding pop cultural references and continuity notes
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 of Verifiability, No Original Research, and WP:SYNTH.

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 an analytic, evaluative or interpretative claims, such as cultural references in works of satire or parody, because in such cases, such claims are being made on the part of the editor. This is called synthesis, which is a form of original research, and is strictly forbidden 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:TRIVIA, and this includes the plot summary. 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. Nightscream (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Selecting the Lead Image for this Article
Due to the fact that this article was completely lacking a lead image, I decided to add a snapshot (which I created from a clip on southparkstudios.com and I think I can justify under the policy of fair use) of Randy teaching the boys how to mathematically determine their T.M.I.'s. However, since this the very first time that I have ever uploaded an image onto Wikipedia, I fully understand that I might be inadventantly violating some sort of obscure image-related guideline or that this particular snapshot may not be the best choice for a lead image. Therefore, I have also uploaded three more snapshots from this episode onto Wikipedia and I would like to reach a general concensus on which of these image(s) is the best for this article. Here are the links to the three other image files that I created (since I spent several hours putting together these image files, I would greatly appreciate it if one of these pictures or a slightly-modified variation of them could be selected for this article); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cartman_Measures_Butters%27_Genitalia.png, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cartman_and_the_Pissed_Off_and_Angry_Party.png, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Butters_Calculates_His_T.M.I..png --Kaiser Taylor (talk) 07:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, articles don't "need" images just for the sake of consistency. There is no blanket allowance, let alone a requirement, for having one image per episode article. Non-free images are subject to the WP:NFCC. They must only be used on a case-by-case basis, if and when an image is necessary to make a substantial, sourced, non-trivial point of explicit analytical commentary in the article understood, in a way that text alone couldn't. None of the images you suggested come even remotely close to this criterion. Just because many other articles for this and some other TV series have routinely been violating the rule doesn't mean that we should do it here too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Even though I can understand some of your arguments regarding non-free use images, I still believe that my snapshots are entirely relevant to this article and that they are not a violation of WP:NFCC. In addition, I have to respectfully disagree with your claim that "articles don't "need" images just for the sake of consistency." To put it simply, if the article for every other South Park episode includes a lead image at the top (which, in my opinion, are rarely any more beneficial for their corresponding article than my pictures are), then from the perspective of common sense, it would be completely illogical for the article on the episode "T.M.I." to NOT possess a lead image (even if this rule-of-thumb isn't explicitly mentioned in Wikipedia's guidelines). Nevertheless, as a civil wikipedian and a gentleman, I do not wish to engage in a messy edit war with you. Therefore, I would like to politely request that you refrain from deleting the lead image of this article for at least 48 hours. This way, we can allow other Wikipedians to weigh-in on this contentious issue and hopefully the Wikipedia community can arrive at some sort of a consensus on whether or not the current lead image or any of my snapshots are appropriate for this article. After all, although Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is certainly not meant to be an autocracy where one editor can dominate over an entire page and constantly remove potentially legitimate material (i.e. content that is not blatant vandalism) before other editors even have a chance to judge the content for themselves. --Kaiser Taylor (talk) 10:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as you insist on the "every episode article needs an image" line, there is no basis for discussion. This is simply wrong and will remain wrong no matter how much we talk. WP:NFCC is policy, period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I am starting to get a tad bit annoyed at your attitude regarding this image dispute. For one thing, it seems to me that you may be going kind of overboard with repeatedly removing images that you personally declare to be unsuitable for this article (since you apparently seem to be very passionate about official Wikipedia policy, I would like to remind you about the articles WP:Overzealous deletion, WP:Wikipedia is not about winning, and WP:Certainty). In addition, your claim that "there is no basis for discussion" if I try to put forth a particular argument that you disagree with not only comes across as (whether intentionally or not) an attempt to suppress dissenting opinions on the talk page, but also as a potential violation of the guidelines for resolving disputes that are stipulated in the articles WP:Negotiation and WP:Dispute resolution.


 * As far as the lead image of this article itself is concerned, other than your point that there is no "official" policy that requires every article for a TV episode to conform to certain image standards (which, although I and many other Wikipedians still consider lead pictures to be a valuable and aestetically pleasing accessory for most articles, I will concede that you're technically right about), I still strongly disagree with your assertion that my snapshots (both the one that I initially picked for this article and the alternative options that I have listed on this talk page) are an infringement of WP:NFCC. Contrary to what you may think, I actually invested a heavy amount of thought and effort into carefully picking the screenshots that I felt would best illustrate the primary subject matter (measuring penis sizes) and/or the overall theme (the types of people who stereotypically suffer from anger management problems have small genitals) of the South Park episode that is described in the article. Trust me, it was definately not an easy task and it took approximately half a day for me to create the four image files (not to mention the all of the neccessary "non-free use rationale" tables that I had to fill out for each snapshot) that you see on the article "T.M.I." and this talk page. Therefore, as I previously suggested in my second post on this thread, because we both seem to possess such sharply opposing views regarding the NFCC statuses of these pictures, I would greatly appreciate it if the lead image on this article could either be retained or promptly replaced by one of my other screenshots for at least 48 hours (the primary reason why I'm so uncomfortable about pulling the lead picture too soon is because without a snapshot present, I'm afraid that virtually no one will even realize that any images for this episode already exist on Wikipedia. Even though I fully understand that I don't "own" this article and that another editor might eventually decide to upload a lead image that is even better than mine are, I will feel greatly disappointed if nobody [other than you, of course] is even able to consider my snapshot as being suitable for this article). That way, we can determine if there are any other Wikipedia editors who feel the same way about my candidates for the lead image as you do and hopefully some sort of consensus can be quickly reached on this contentious issue. However, if you still insist that the lead image of this article must be removed, then, just for the sake of fairness and consideration towards my wasted efforts, the very least you could do is review the articles for every other South Park episode and then delete all of the screenshots that you deem to be a violation of NFCC (trust me, I know that some of the South Park-related lead images are less relevant to their corresponsing episode than mine are). Also, if you remove the lead image again within the next 48 hours and don't provide sufficient time for a concensus on this debate to be achieved, then I may have to consider the possibility of contacting the Mediation Committee or even the Arbitration Committee. --Kaiser Taylor (talk) 02:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, you have just won an edit war. Your decision to insist that it must needs be your preferred version that stays on a page while the matter is being discussed has been fruitful, since you successfully defended it through repeated reverts, which give your arguments a lot of extra weight. – Next time you try this, remember: with non-free image, the default is not to have one, until and unless there is consensus for it. Revert-warring to press non-free images into articles tends to get regarded with very little sympathy over at WP:AN3. The images are now at FFD. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your complimentery remarks ragarding my efforts in this "edit war" and for your cooperative attitude in resolving this dispute! The next time that I attempt to upload non-free use images onto Wikipedia (which, as a passionate fan of South Park, I most likely will), I will heed your advice and try to be more cautious about closely adhering to the rules that are stipulated in WP:NFCC. As I have previously stated, this is my very first foray with adding screenshots onto Wikipedia articles and I am still learning about Wikipedia's image use policies. Hopefully, by May 30th (the date that all of my snapshots are currently scheduled to be deleted), a consensus between the Wikipedia editors who are South Park fans (like myself) and administrators who are are more familiar with the site's official policies (like you) will be reached on which screenshot (whether it be one of the pictures that I created OR an even better image that was taken by another contributor) is the most appropriate option for this article's lead image.  --Kaiser Taylor (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As of May 30, I have replaced the lead image of this article with a snapshot that I believe to be considerably more valuable for the typical reader and more suitable for usage on Wikipedia in light of this site's tough fair use policies than the previous lead image was. If you are an administrator, you may now delete all of the other image files (in other words, every snapshot except for "Cartman and the Pissed Off and Angry Party.png") that I uploaded onto Wikipedia eight days ago. --Kaiser Taylor (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of formula information
I don't believe the information given about the T.M.I. Formula, all of which had been quoted directly from the episode, is necessarily WP:TRIVIA. If it is, it is a rather overzealous enforcement thereof. The "serious" plot of the episode hinges around the correct T.M.I. Formula, so it might as well be given here (especially as the Wiki markup is particularly well-suited to displaying such formulae). I'm asking User:Nightscream to hold back a little bit - the original point was well-taken, so let's try to refine what should be taken out and what shouldn't via the guideline, rather than just blanking everything. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No one has "blanked everything".


 * What was removed was the exact sort of minutiae, trivia and technical information that WP:TVPLOT and WP:TRIVIA explicitly indicate does not belong in articles:


 * "The plot summary is an overview of the episode's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes and technical detail."


 * The fact that something is quoted from episode does not meant therefore, ipso facto, it belongs in its Wikipedia article. Neither does the fact that the formulas appear as plot points in the story, or the fact that they are suited for wiki markup. The fact that they feature in the plot (which is certainly not the same thing as saying that the plot "hinges" on them) means at best, that we mention the formulas. It does not mean that we include their entire text. To fail to understand the distinction between these two things indicates a lack of proper judgment in selecting what goes into a relevant article, and to argue that that of these facts by themselves lead to inclusion in the article is to engage in non-sequitur.


 * The function of a Wikipedia article on a television episode is to summarize the episode. That means, it gives a condensed encapsulation of the most salient information about the episode. When a Wikipedia article discusses a work of fiction, it needs to do so from a Real World Perspective, and should be written from an "out-universe" perspective, and not from an in-universe perspective. This means that the article should emphasize the episode's real-world perspective and notability: Things like its production information, reception, influence and impact on real-word events, etc. Some in-universe material is only logical, specifically the plot summary. The plot summary should summarize the basic events of the episode (and its three central elements: plot, character and theme) so that the reader can understand what happens in the episode. That's it. But scene-by-scene breakdowns, excessive details of gags, jokes or lines of dialogue, and technical information like that entire formula, is fannish, and may belong in a fan encyclopedia, but not a general knowledge encyclopedia whose intent is to summarize the most notable information in a formal tone.


 * Just because South Park engages in perversity for the sake of its humor does not mean that Wikipedia should treat that perversity as encyclopedic detail, and to argue that three entire fake formulas regarding penis size from a few brief scenes in an episode of a TV show like South Park belongs in a Wikipedia article is absurd, to put it mildly, and misses the entire point of those scenes as well. The point of those scenes was to amuse the viewer, precisely because creating an entire formula that attempts to scientifically codify male preoccupation with penis size is as stupid as said preoccupation itself. To give so much credence to those "formulas" that you argue for putting them in a Wikipedia article not only violates Wikipedia standards, it shows that you're taking the formulas as serious as Randy and the two doctors did, and that therefore, you don't get that the joke is on you.


 * The policies and guidelines I have linked to here are quite clear on this. But if you feel that I've interpreted or quoted them incorrectly, please explain how. Nightscream (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I found your tone rather mean... not necessarily personally insulting, but mean-spirited. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I apologize. In the future, I will try to compose my posts to avoid that tone. Nightscream (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"T.M.I." redirect
currently redirects to this article due to a move. Should it be retargeted to the disambiguation TMI? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 03:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)