Talk:The List (South Park)

Line By Line retelling of the entire episode
I think "Storyline" would be a better description, because what the title said was a bit specific and I'm sure I detected sarcasm in it. 86.162.29.210 (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not pleased to see that the entire page was screwed up by some self-righteous person who made it too vague and boring to read. The page needs to have more detail than that, or people won't want to visit it. I understand that you want it easy to read and understand, but all you're doing is making it boring and repelling visitors to the page. Please do not delete my hard work in repairing it, as it is now a bit less boring to read and took me a long time to finish. Grieferhate (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not pleased that my earlier statement was not taken into account - people want to come onto the page to read up about the basic plot line and some other things they didn't know about. Can't anyone take a hint? Grieferhate (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The editor recently removed a lot of plot based on our policies of WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOT and guidelines of WP:WAF, WP:PLOT etc. What type of community consensus policies/guidelines are you basing your "hint" on? --  The Red Pen of Doom  18:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, If truth be told, I do not base my "hint" on anything. It was strange for me to call it a "hint." What my point is is that, if there are guidelines over the length of the plot sypnosis, why have all these individual pages for each episode? Why not just have a simple episode guide of the type they have for Curb Your Enthusiasm or My Name is Earl? If you have all these individual pages for each and every episode, you can expect a detailed plot sypnosis. If you don't expect one, don't waste space with all these individual pages. If you feel that it spoils the plot, don't visit the page. Grieferhate (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Original Research Debate
I do realize that the reference to the incident that occurred two years ago is mostly original research, yet I feel that it is important enough to the overall presentation of the article to be included. Ks7 02:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No it's not. Why don't you wait a few hours and see exactly what's in the episode before adding it. Right now, this is totally irrelevant original research. vineetcoolguy 03:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen a leaked copy of the epsiode, and it is most certainly a ripoff of the incident. In my opinion this is not original research; it is common knowledge

Ks7 03:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you've seen a leaked copy of this episode, and if you have that is not a viable reference. This "fact" only belongs in the article if on, say, South Park Studios Matt and Trey say that this is what they're parodying.  Just because a similar event happened, that does not mean that is what they are doing.  Maybe something similar happened to Matt or Trey in their younger days, and that's the inspiration.  Wait until there is a real reference. Professor Chaos 08:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What about the article on "Best Friends Forvever"? There is a section which discusses the fact that it was based off of Terry Schaivo, yet no one ever confirmed that it was. Ks7 11:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's original research. That event happened a long time ago, whereas the "Best Friends Forever" episode aired shortly after the Terri Schiavo incident.  Therefore there is no basis for the idea that the episode's plot was based on it.  Also, neither Matt nor Trey has said that it was anything more than an idea that they came up with themselves.  And I am writing this having seen the episode on TV, so whether you have seen a leaked copy of the episode or not, it has no consequence.  You are supposing things when they are in fact pretty far-fetched.  71.251.40.161 01:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Writer's Strike having no effect on South Park?
I assume not, because this is a new episode, and aren't all the South Park episodes written within the previous week? Maybe because the only writer is Trey Parker so he doesn't need the WGA?Joe 15:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it will not effect the episode. They are all completed before the season even starts. Ks7 19:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, no the episodes are completed in a one-week process. See the South Park article for more details. And South Park is NON-union people. The show is not effected.--Swellman 21:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Man Ks7, how long have you been watching? The short turnaround is common knowledge amongst fans of the show. Also, the South Park Studios Blog hasn't mentioned anything regarding the strike.-Shane

Fine, let me rephrase that; 90% of the episodes are done at least months in advance. If there is something major in the news that is worthy of an episode, then they WILL do one at that time. And I have been watching the show like crazy since season three, and I have seen every single episode. Ks7 00:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me correct you; in the month before the first episode of the second half of the season airs the writers (Trey isn't the only one--they have a full writers staff) get together and come up with ideas for the season. The scrips aren't all, nor mostly, done, but they usually make one bank episode in advance just in case they need more time to work on an episode. All other episodes get written in the week before airing; usually being written the same time it's being produced (voice acting, animation, etc.). So to sum up, a vast majority of the episodes are written during the week of production, one a season is done beforehand. Mac   OS X  04:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Matt and Trey aren't lame enough to go with a stupid writer's strike; they're not that full of themselves. I wish they'd just fire all the striking writers; that would put an end to strikes.  There are plenty struggling talented writers out there who would take their place.  Oh, but this is off topic. Professor Chaos 03:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * When you think about it, Trey and Matt are probably quite happy to be the only show in town still making episodes, especially given their slant on free markets. That may be next week's episode... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.229.120 (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This was the season finale actually.--Swellman 04:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was the season finale, but even if the strike continues for many months, "South Park" will return for tis 12th season on time in March because the writers of South Park are not part of the WGA union. 71.251.40.161


 * South Park has writers? Who would have known.

-G
 * Are you serious? 71.251.40.161 01:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The show is currently airing and The List
Just out of curiosity, why in hell is it necessary to edit that into the article? How long is that relevant? When it re-runs, can I say in the article "a re-run is airing this minute" or can I say "the episode on DVD is playing in my DVD player as we speak?" Just wondering if that's encyclopedic content, or if I put that in if someone would remove it, that's all. Professor Chaos 03:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC) yes. xyz 16:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's just a little wiki fun, it's not that big of a deal. Dannysk89 04:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)dannysk89

1:Token

2:Stan

3:Kyle

4:Jason

5:Leroy

6:Kenny

7:Tweek

8:Bradley

9:Jimmy

10:Clyde

11:Kevin

12:Butters

13:Craig

14:Timmy

15:Fancis

16:Cartman

The "Corrupt" List
In my opinion, this list is totally irrelevent and really shouldn't be included in the article. It's false, and the only accurate information we got from the episode regarding the order of the list is that Clyde isn't number one. Dannysk89 04:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)dannysk89


 * I think it should stay, people who haven't seen the episode obviously want to know what the list contents are seeing as the entire plot is based around it. I would. Jeff24 13:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If for the Imaginationland trilogy we have lists of what character references are present, then we can just as well have the fake list of the boys' cuteness rating. - Bella

Kennys Death Possible Reference
Kenny Gets shot and killed, and then a toaster with poptarts springs up. Is this a reference to Vegas death in Pulp Fiction, where Bruce Willis's charactor shoots him, and then the pop tarts fly up? 68.106.107.192 (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably not. It's original research at this point, so don't put it in the article.  71.255.94.129 (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Uncensored Curse Word
I just finished watching the first airing of this episode in California at 10:00 pm and the scene where Cartman gives Nelly the fingure and uses the "F" has the word uncensored however the second time they use the word in the it is censored. Shouldn't something about this be posted? Baruch88 23:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I sorta agree. However, if we don't use it here, a note whould be on the characters' articles stating their placement on the corrupt list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.62.185 (talk) 04:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That must be a local thing, they censored it when I watched it. Professor Chaos 07:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was censored when I watched it too, so I don't know what you're talking about. 71.251.40.161 22:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it depends on the region you're in. Comedy Network airs the new South Park episodes uncensored. CuffX 04:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think they should just say it uncensored. It's ridiculous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.64.130 (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln
Shouldn't there be some mention of the bit with Lincoln guiding Kyle? That was an important part of the plot. I would add it myself but I forgot how most of it went exactly to be suitable for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.85.151.37 (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What was this a parody of?
I'm sure it was of something, or maybe many things, but I don't know what. Discuss! Professor Chaos 07:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's based on something that happened in a Pittsburgh suburb last year. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06116/685098-55.stm It made national news too. I am one of the girls on the list and it is a very troubling topic but this helps the healing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.149.71 (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It is most likely not based on any news event. When I was like ten, the girls made a list of the 20 cutest boys. I know of males and females who know of such lists; it isn't all that uncommon, and seems to many to be a common experience. So, to say that it is based off of a particular incident has little merit unless we hear something on the site's official FAQs or something like that. Until that time, I will eliminate all references to Mt. Lebanon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.62.185 (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I mean the scenes where the girls are making lists like it's congress or something with all the childish girly language, and the conspiracy thing. Professor Chaos 15:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

About 50% of all conspiracy/political movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.62.185 (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought there was a parody/reference to the Child Abduction Is Not Funny episode with the ghost and the car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.156.173 (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There was definately a similarity to the child abduction episode, the whole Ghost of Christmas Present thing, but I think it's just because both episode parodied the same idea, not each other. The conspiracy bit with the gun looked like all conspiracy movie showdowns, but there was a certain feel to the list committee bit that made me think it was directly lifted out of a movie.  But if no one has added it in a s a trivia, maybe not.  It sure was weird, though. Professor Chaos 04:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_and_Roll_Hall_of_Fame#2007_voting_scandal_allegations this is more recent and seems to follow the episode more closely —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.47.77.74 (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Extra footage in the teaser?
The [teaser] shows Kenny hitting Cartman; that's not in the [episode] itself, is it? --62.194.194.24 18:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Episodes of South Park are produced in one week. So, alot of stuff is last minute. They most likely cut it out, because the scene flowed smoother without it, or possibly because of running time issues.--Swellman 21:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed that too. If you look on the Wikiquote page for South Park/Season 11, the teaser is the only quote currently under the list, and it includes the extra footage.  THat probably should be changed.  71.251.40.161 22:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * People used to put that in as a trivia in every episode article, until it was clear that the previews (partly because of the short production time) are never exactly like the episode. It would only be notable if it happened once or twice. Professor Chaos 04:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Stan barfing in front of wendy
Is it worth noting that, along with kennys death, they brought back the nostalgic scene of Stan throwing up over wendy at the end, which hasn't been seen for atleast a few seasons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turtleboy267 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that both of these throwbacks to the early seasons of South Park are worthy of note. 71.251.40.161 22:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

So are they back together now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.37.71.137 (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe; they seem to be heading in that direction at least. We'll just have to wait and see. 71.251.40.161 01:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Kenny's Lines
Does anyone know what Kenny says in the opening scene where the boys first learn of the list? It sounds to me like "They wouldn't put me at the bottom! ...Would they?" Any other theories? (This is probably not going to be included in the article, but I'm curious.) Incidentally, this is also Kenny's first lines in this half of the season. 71.251.40.161 22:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

-Yeah, that's what he said. I just watched it with the Closed Captions on, and that's what they said. NiGHTS into Dreams... 03:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Kenny's last Line is (My name is Kenny.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.130.68.230 (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Butters not grounded
In "trivia" there is something like this right now: "This is the first time that Butter's parents claim that they don't have to ground their son." That is not true, it has happend before in the "Butter's very own episode". --83.6.3.118 14:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been removed. It's hardly a notable fact anyway.--Swellman 14:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Wendy/Cartman
Shouldnt there be some comment on how wendy feels Cartman is the ugliest, as compared to Chef Goes Nanners when Wendy starts having feelings for Cartman.

I agree - perhaps she's trying to convince herself of not having feelings of him, by putting him at the bottom of the list. (She did say in the episode it was "completely out of her system", but I don't believe that.) - Bella.

Croc
 * Before you add that, I think you should take a look at WP:OR. Swellman (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Bebe/Kyle
Does anyone remember when Bebe had a crush on Kyle in "Clubhouses" season 2? Wouldn't that prompt Kyle to re-think that maybe he wasn't the ugliest boy in class (according to the fake list) if one of the main girls who created the list once had a crush on him? - Bella


 * Possibly, but mentioning it on the article would be Original Research. ≈  The Haunted Angel  Review Me! 01:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Alt. ending?
Frankly, who added a "deleted ending"? How do the adder know about it? -- Patrickov (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know who added it, but it is up on the south park website. Someone should add a reference, I would but don't know how. Here's the link: http://www.southparkstudios.com/downloads/preview/?id=7607 128.220.59.88 (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Kito


 * Thanks, and as a personal note I'm kind of glad having this ending deleted. Cartman wasn't bad enough (in this episode) to deserve that and seems the directors switched roles for him and Butters -- Patrickov (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Token being 2nd in the "corrupt" list.
Could this be an inside joke from the writers based on the episode More Crap? I hate to make this sound like original research, but I found it interesting that he was picked "number 2" by the writers probably due to his skin color (no offense). Vic729 15:40 (UTC), November 17th, 2007
 * Wha... wha... *walks away*Lukesed (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Jim Morrison
The way Clyde was all "posing" in the mirror was similar to the way Jim Morrison appeared for photos. That should be added on cultural references


 * It's complete original reasearch, and so would be against Wikipedia guidelines to add. ≈  The Haunted Angel  Review Me! 20:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I am right about that. Haunted Angel if you got The Doors(movie) on dvd there is a scene were Jim Morrison makes poses for a photo that are similiar to of that of Clyde.


 * Again, it's Original Research to claim that it's similar to one thing from a film or something. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes ( ~ ) ≈  The Haunted Angel  Review Me! 23:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A reference to Jim Morrison belongs only if there's an official source that says that's it. There are many times in South Park and other shows and movies where people make poses like that, they're generic.  If South Park Studios or Comedy Central or a DVD commentary say so, then it's true.  Until then, it's not. Professor Chaos (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Debbie's boyfriends
1:Kenny 2:Stan 3:Clyde 4:Kevin 5:Jason 6:Craig

7:Timmy 8:Bradley 9:Token 10:Jimmy 11:Leroy 12:Tweek 13:Fancis 14:Kyle 15:Butters 16:Cartman

Continuity error regarding Clyde's Dad
Wasn't it in the episode Terrance and Phillip: Behind the Blow that Clyde mentioned that his Dad is a geologist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.161.88 (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, in that episode Clyde states that his dad is a geologist. (Stan's dad, Randy, is also a geologist, as revealed back in Season 1.)  Then, in this episode, it is stated that his dad is a shoe salesman.  That seems like a pretty notable continuity error.  Is there anyone who thinks that it should not be mentioned in the article?  (It should also be added to the Clyde Donovan article as well.)  71.251.40.161 (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've created a new section "Continuity" which includes the error regarding Clyde's father's occupation, and I've also modified the Donovans' section of the List of South Park families article appropriately. 71.255.94.129 (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not a continuity error. Continuity in South Park is not set, they mess with it whenever it suits their purposes.  A continuity section only belongs in an episode article if there is an internal error within the episode, or if the episode is supposed to work off of another episode. Professor Chaos (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd just figure that at some point during the two episodes, Clyde's dad left his career as a geologist for some unknown reason and now works at the shoe store. Problem solved. 70.230.254.12 (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Promotional Image
What keeps happening to the promotional image that is at the top of the box, it keeps being taken down and put back up. Why?71.255.94.129 (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Plot and Storyline
Is there any reason why both of these items exist in the article?

Ugly Kids
I have added a small description and fair-use image of the Ugly kids. There is no plot discussion or gag descriptions in their descriptions. I have simply added a textual description for those who read the article that cannot see images. See Alternative text for images. Please do not undo these pictures and simply say that they and their text violates WP:PLOT.-- 20 08 Ol ymp ian chitchat 07:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition to our writing about fiction bloat/plot issues, there are issues about fair use/copyright content and your interpretations about the descriptions of characters. -- The Red Pen of Doom  15:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, you cite a bunch of wikipedia guidelines, but do not state how they violate those sections so I can edit them to your satisfaction. I will address them in detail, however.
 * 1. WP:WAF: The descriptions are written from an "out-of-universe" perspective.  The descriptions and the captions add all of 390 words to this article, nowhere near the article size limit.  WP:WAF expressly considers that characters will have to be described in a plot summary provided they do not rise to the level of a biography.  These 1-3 sentence physical descriptions do not come close to that level.
 * 2. WP:FAIR: The images are fine as far as fair use. If you feel that they are in violation, then nominate them for deletion. There is no group shot if these characters available, and they are main characters for this episode, and that is the consensus as for image use in list articles, and this isn't even a list article.
 * 3. WP:OR: Feel free to edit the descriptions to remove whatever you feel is original research, I don't care. Just don't delete the whole section.  I have tried to remove all subjective portions of the descriptions, feel free to edit them down some more. But do not remove them, they are in the episode, and their physical characteristics are essentially the essence of the characters.  They do not do much besides provide their appearances, that is the whole point of the characters, so a short description and a picture is what is required to adequately portray the characters.-- 20 08 Ol ymp ian chitchat 17:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the the more relevant portion of WAF - what our articles should contain:

''Examples of useful information typically provided by secondary sources about the original work, or primary and secondary sources about information external to the work:


 * the author or creator
 * other key figures of the creation process, e.g., the cinematographer for films or notable translators for novels
 * the film or software company or publishing house
 * the design
 * the development, both before its first appearance and over the course of the narrative
 * real-world factors that have influenced the work or fictional element
 * for a fictional character in a dramatic production, the actor who portrayed the role and their approach to playing that character
 * foreign translations
 * its popularity among the public
 * its sales figures (for commercial offerings)
 * its reception by critics
 * a critical analysis of the subject
 * the influence of the work on later creators and their projects ''


 * Wikipedia editor's descriptions of "the ugly kids" provides nothing to any of these factors. -- The Red Pen of Doom  22:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ugly Kids descriptions are primary not secondary information
First, these descriptions are written from the proper perspective: Problems associated with an in-universe perspective include:...
 * A fictional character article or section written like a biography. Therefore, it comprehends a fictional-character section, provided it is not written like a biography. There is no way that five simple physical descriptions written in less than 400 words could be considered five biographies.

Second, I agree that the descriptions do not fit into the secondary information category you quote above. Of course they do not fit into the above category, they derive from the primary source. Secondary elements are not the only elements included in an article about a fictional work. In the section preceding the one you quoted:

2.1 Primary information: The term primary information describes information that originates from primary sources about the fictional universe, i.e., the original work of fiction ... Even with strict adherence to the real-world perspective, writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source.

Examples of information available in primary sources include:
 * background information on fictional creatures - which is what these simple physical descriptions are.
 * and, of course, the plot itself - they also fit in here to a lesser degree after I edited them to try to fit your preferences.

Third, these criticisms could be leveled against the entire article, yet you single out 390 words that I included. Try editing them instead of deleting.-- 20 08 Ol ymp ian chitchat 01:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that WP:OTHERCRAP exists is a poor defence for keeping even more crap in the article. No one is claiming that the information you are adding is from secondary sources - in fact the major issue is that it is MORE "stuff" from the primary source and that the article has practically ZERO material from other sources .... therefore the bar is extremely high to add more primary source material. You have not in any way shown that this increase in primary source material is essential for the understanding of the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom  02:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your initial criticism was that none of this was from secondary sources, so I addressed that it was from primary sources. And you are correct, the fact that WP:OTHERCRAP is in this article is not a reason to get rid of this material.  What was there is not the end all be all of primary source material.  Edit the other stuff if you think it is too much.  You can't say that just because some primary source info is already in the article, nothing else can be added.  This is the only episode that those characters are in, so they deserve some individual mention in this article.  This section can't really be edited down much more although I and another editor already has done so.  If you think that the rest of the article is too long and has too much plot in it, edit it out.  But these characters deserve a blurb in this article.  This article isn't that long anyway.  If you just don't like these type articles, go edit some ones you are interested in.  It's just a fact that there isn't going to be much secondary sources about an episode of a cartoon comedy episode.-- 20 08 Ol ymp ian chitchat 05:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And without material from secondary sources, we dont have large articles: WP:OR; WP:N; WP:V etc. If you want to write articles without providing secondary sources to back up your claims, you should not be editing Wikipedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom  05:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude, read the guideline. "Even with strict adherence to the real-world perspective, writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source." If you can't follow the guidelines, maybe you shouldn't be editing.-- 20 08 Ol ymp ian chitchat 09:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And still you havent and the article doesnt demonstrate why your physical descriptions of the ugly kids is necessary to understand the episode. The burden is on the editor wishing to include material to 1) provide proper third party sourcing and 2) show that the material is important / substantial to the meaning and understanding of the topic. And thats where the second party sources come in - when an independant source goes into the descriptions of the ugly kids and makes the analysis that such a description is important, then it is not just your opinion. (and it is my opinion that the plot summary section itself is too long for the article - feel free to condense it further)-- The Red Pen of Doom  13:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There isn't any sourcing beyond the episode for anything in the entire article, except the list itself. So under your logic the whole plot summary should be deleted except for the list itself.-- 20 08 Ol ymp ian chitchat 07:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If there are no secondary sources regarding the content of this article, it's likely the article shouldn't even exist. Have a look at No_original_research. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Prot?
I'm confused: 2008-12-08T03:50:06 PhilKnight (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected The List (South Park): Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 03:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 03:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)))) (undo) says this is a content dispute. Over at WP:AN3 its adding invalid images. If it really is a content dispute, then prot is fine. If the problem is invalid images, then unprotect the page and block/threaten whoever is adding the images William M. Connolley (talk) 10:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If you, or any other admin, wants to remove or modify the protection, that's fine with me. The reason should be "according to one party this is a content dispute, and according to the other, it's a non-free policy issue. I think it's probably a non-free content issue but I could be wrong", however that didn't fit in the box. PhilKnight (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. In that case I'm unprotecting and warning O (here) not to reinsert the image until any problems have been sorted out no talk William M. Connolley (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As I mentioned on WP:AN3, the image fairly clearly fails WP:NFCC because the text "He has a slightly squashed face, black hair and big ears." says everything the image does, not to mention the failure of WP:NFCC as well. As I also said, given that this was explained clearly numerous times to User:2008Olympian, I regard reporting me to that noticeboard as trolling, and have removed the notice on my talkpage thus. Black Kite 15:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the image is fine, it satisfies both criteria. I directly addressed both of them on your talk page;you just happened to disagree. The point of reporting you is that you decided upon yourself to remove it without getting any other input from anyone else. BRD, my man.  -- 20 08 Ol ymp ian chitchat 18:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You've already trolled WP:AN3 and been warned there not to do it again, and it's been made very clear how the image fails at least two parts of WP:NFCC. I removed it because it's very clear that it fails them and the job of administrators at Wikipedia is to ensure that policy is followed.  If there was a possibility that the image might possibly pass NFCC, then yes, a discussion would've ensued.  There isn't such a possibility, therefore there wasn't a discussion.  You can claim all you want that the image passes both criteria, but it just doesn't.  To claim it does just shows that you haven't read the policy page properly. Black Kite 18:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're so sure that it would have failed, you wouldn't have had a problem with it being discussed. And I haven't trolled, I've only made the same point I'm making here.  Disagreeing with your interpretation of the guideline isn't trolling.  The admin took what you said at face value without any analysis, but he didn't warn that the image was in violation, he warned not to insert until the "problems have been sorted out on talk."  That assumes that the editors involved get consensus, something you failed to do.  But I'm not going to fight with an admin, I can tell you're itching to block, the article is yours.  So like I said, I'm out, I won't edit it anymore.-- 20 08 Ol ymp ian chitchat 07:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to block you, though if you carry on using edit summaries like that, there won't be a shortage of people waiting to do it. That isn't a good idea at all. Black Kite 10:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2008Olympian, several editors told you that you are in the wrong. I even specifically told you you would be disappointed if you continued to maintain your position vis-a-vis fair use images. Nevertheless, you plowed ahead with the resulting disappointment as I predicted. As for gaining consensus, some classes of usage have already achieved consensus in practice. We do not and will not rehash debates each time a particular use of a particular type that has already been deprecated is removed. You are in the wrong. You were told you were in the wrong.
 * There are other issues with respect to fair use that you seem to be lacking understanding in. This is not the only one. I suggest you take a step back, and read and understand our policies, guidelines, and how things are actually handled on this project before continuing to insert fair use content. A little education goes a long way. If you have questions, ask. We'll be happy to answer. Edit warring to get to your preferred version is not going to be productive. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)