Talk:Unfulfilled

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.

Inappropriate content blanking by SanAnMan
This discussion has been moved to WP:ANI at WP:Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents. Discussion of editor behavior belongs at ANI. The talkpages of articles are for discussing improving the article. Softlavender (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 11 December 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved - consensus appears to be that as "unfulfilled" in the non-South Park sense is more of a dictionary definition, assuming it is the primary topic and redirecting it to the parent article Fulfillment would not be preferable. The oppose !votes have cited titling policy with regards to disambiguation parentheses and while I see the nominator's rationale, it appears that naming policy is currently to keep it where it is. : as with Talk:Unfulfillment|this similar discussion]] it appears there is no clear policy about the role of interwiki links such as dictionary definitions being the primary topic of entered search terms, but an RFC is probably better suited for that. (closed by non-admin page mover)  SITH   (talk)   16:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Unfulfilled → Unfulfilled (South Park) – Unlikely that this episode title is the long-term primary topic for such a common English vocabulary word. Moving will allow us to redirect to Fulfillment for now. This is similar to other episodes named for forms of everyday words like Rehash (South Park), Cancelled (South Park), Probably (South Park). -- Netoholic @ 07:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 12:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - agree with nom's rational here. --Gonnym (talk) 08:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - per nom In ictu oculi (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as article creator redirect page author and one of the editors of the page. TBH, I almost added the disambig when I created the redirect page in the first place for these same reasons. - SanAnMan (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose striking my above vote and changing to oppose based on discussions from other editors below. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * You are not the article creator. The first version of the article was created by another editor with this edit, and after you reverted it for false reasons, it was recreated by another editor here. You started a redirect page. Not the article. Nor are you "the editor" of the article, since there is no such as "the editor" of any article. The article has many editors, as all articles on Wikipedia do, as seen in the edit history.
 * Whether one is the creator of the article, or even its primary editor is irrelevant, since such matters are not determined by editor authority, which you should know by now. They are determined by way of reference to policies, guidelines, and what consensus indicates best improves the encyclopedia. Nightscream (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not say I was the editor of the article, just editor. Clarified in statement. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You are not "editor" of the article. You are an editor of it. Indefinite articles not your thing? Or just proper grammar? Nice try. Nightscream (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you not see that I clarified my grammar when, correctly, the issue was pointed out to me? - SanAnMan (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. Per WP:NOTDICT, and whatever guideline tells us not to redirect a base name to a disambiguated name, which I can't find right now. We don't even have a disambiguation page here. There is zero reason to add an unnecessary disambiguator at the basename. Redirecting to fulfillment as a primaryredirect is no good, as that is a borderline AfD dab page with only partial title matches. Sending folks there when we have actual encyclopedic content at Unfulfilled would be a disservice to our readers. Adding a link to Wiktionary should solve this issue. Dohn joe (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * NOTDICT doesn't mean what you think it means in this case, we aren't trying to put a dictionary entry at unfulfilled. In fact, NOTDICT supports this move in that it tells us that - "Other inflections, if they exist at all, are redirects". -- Netoholic @ 16:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose The parentheticals we see used in some article titles are used solely for disambiguation. Nothing else. They are not like curtains, to be used for decorative purposes. Per WP:DAB, disambiguation is needed solely when a potential article title is ambiguous, most often because it refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia. The three prescribed aspects to disambiguation are:
 * Naming articles in such a way that each has a unique title.
 * Making the links for ambiguous terms point to the correct article title.
 * Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be.
 * None of these requirements prescribed by our disambiguation practices calls for the suggested parenthetical for this article. Whether using it will make it "similar" to articles for other episodes is irrelevant, since that isn't the reason we use disambiguation parentheticals in titles. The reason the articles for the episodes "Rehash", "Cancelled", and "Probably" have them is because there are other Wikipedia articles with titles using those words, or derivatives of those words. But when the title of an article subject is not also the title of another article subject, then the parentheticals are simply not used. Nightscream (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Unfulfilled" is an inflection (negated, past-tense) of "fulfill" - which is one of a number of topics subject covered by Wikipedia and listed at "fulfillment". By your logic, any otherwise unused plurals, past-tense, negated, etc. inflections of all words would be cause to not use parentheticals, but the exact opposite is true.  We WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT inflections of words to their associated main topics or, as in this case, to a disambiguation page if there are multiple topics to which a word could refer. Your objection has no basis in common practice or policy. -- Netoholic @  19:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * What one perceives to be "common practice" may harbor an element of subjectivity to it. You and I have both been here for a long time, with substantial edit histories, so I guess our mileage may vary on that point. :-)


 * However, what is more objectively measurable (though sometimes also fraught with interpretation) is what a namespace page says, and I don't see anything on that page you linked to would lead to what you suggest about inflections. If you could clarify, that'd be great. If you don't want to continue this on my talk page, and you prefer to speak on my tp, that's fine too. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Wikipedia is not a dictionary but an encyclopedia. Mezigue (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Show the existence of another primary topic for the word. Or are you going to suggest moving Unforgiven and countless other articles as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by tronvillain (talk • contribs) 23:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I don't think the term should be redirected to Fulfillment, as I don't foresee any need or scenario to use "unfulfilled" as a wikilink referring to that; plus NOTDICT. Also, I checked every South Park episode, at List of South Park episodes, and they literally are only dismbiguated when there is a conflicting article with the exact same title. Even fairly commonly named titles such as "Butt Out", "Oh, Jeez", "Not Funny", and "Dead Kids" are not disambiguated. Softlavender (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose – Nothing else on this wiki called "Unfulfilled". JE98 (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose not needed when there is nothing else under this title that warrants an article. Wikipedia also isn't supposed to be a dictionary. People can view its definition through the wiktionary referral if desired. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – if no other page on Wikipedia is titled "Unfulfilled", I'd say leave it. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I am not convinced every variant of "fulfillment" needs to redirect to its page. If someone really needs to know what "unfulfilled" is, there is always Wiktionary. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. See similar discussion ongoing at Talk:Unfulfillment. Dohn joe (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.