Talk:Whale Whores

Miami Dolphins
I clearly saw the Miami Dolphins, Joey Porter specifically, being killed by the Japanese. It's pretty notable if a sports franchise, especially if they had the only ever perfect season including the postseason. The 1989 Denver Broncos were in Cartman's Mom is a Dirty Slut and Cartman's Mom is Still a Dirty Slut as possible fathers to Eric Cartman. So I'd consider the Miami Dolphins pretty notable.
 * One can edit the plot summary to explain how the Japanese took their dolphin hunting to the extent of even killing the Miami Dolphins football team. Easy enough. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 09:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability?
Where is the reviews, real-world data, and sources which establish notability? Cheers! Scapler (talk) 05:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (I restored my comments vandalized by an anonymous user. Gods forbid someone suggest that episode guide is redundant and should be moved to it's own wiki.  Star Wars and Pokemon trivia was forced to it's own wiki by an angry mob of deletionists sick to death of continuous, unnotable fanboy article creations.)
 * You mean should this article even exist? Every episode of South Park has an article, TMK. As for notability of the creators, read some of the references in the South Park article where college thesis have been required about the show and the social commentary of Trey and Parker are taken seriously by media sources. Alatari (talk) 07:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong; I can see a legitimate case for removing ALL episode guides from Wikipedia as being not notable enough and redundant. Guides for South Park episodes can be found on tvguide.com, tv.com, imdb,com, dedicated wikis, maybe Hulu and on comedycentral.com. Maybe only very notable episodes that seriously impact culture can be allowed as in the case of the final Seinfeld episode for it's ratings record. The fight to remove all episode articles... hmmm... I'm not trying that task. Alatari (talk) 07:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked back through the earlier episodes of this season and each has a 'Reception' 'Production' and 'Cultural References' sections. Should we eliminate those for standardization? Alatari (talk) 08:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This episode literally just aired. I'm sensing some sarcasm, so what's really trying to be said here? :) - SoSaysChappy (talk) 09:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the Alatari missed my point. Those Reception, etc. sections are what establishes notability. As it is now, this article fails WP:PLOT and just because the article is new means nothing. WP:NOTE states "Notability is not predictable: although a topic that does not meet this guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive substantial coverage in the future." I would merge or nominate every South Park episode without real-world data and sourcing for deletion, but I'm almost positive that a bunch of fanboys would come out and defend them without any policy rational. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My first response in this thread was to answer your question, which I read without realizing the implications you were making. I, myself, am guilty of creating articles for episodes within the same night the episode is officially announced (usually about 3-4 days before they air). Recently, when I noticed that there was no template for "upcoming episodes" (similar to the one for "current events" and "upcoming films"), I read this guideline and realized my mistakes in creating them so early. You are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, countless other users will simply continue to create (and re-create) an article for an upcoming episode in the days leading up to its airing and in the subsequent days where not enough secondary material may not still be available. To prevent this from happening would be a daunting task, even for a watchful collective (that is, assuming such an article were being deleted and re-created repeatedly via the speedy deletion process and not the week-long AfD process).


 * As for other not-so-recent episode articles that lack asserted notability...these types of articles have been nominated as AfD before, and most were saved by last-minute rescue efforts to improve them by adding the necessary "real world" coverage. Plus, to touch upon what you said, any neutral admin should (...should) disregard irrational "keep" arguments when deciding an article's fate. I suppose someone could give a reasonable defense of keeping the "new" episode articles through their interpretation of the stub guidelines. This issue is bigger than this article alone, and would certainly pertain to all TV episode articles. I'll start small and run it by the South Park WikiProject discussion pages soon, even though it's been quiet there lately. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As soon as I saw the photograph in the cartoon I checked on Wikipedia to see what the real world correlation was as I'd never heard of Whale Wars. South Park, as a commentary on current events made in the moment and then shelved for posterity, establishes the Notability of the events they parody. I'm not sure Whale Wars is notable enough to have its own page until it is exploited by South Park. As South Park establishes notability, every episode is inherently notable and a page should be made as soon as one has any facts about the show. IMO to have entries for some episodes and not others, or to do in any way otherwise, is to do the shared zeitgeist a disservice. Trst (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at the Whale Wars article (though it needs cleanup), the show has reception and multiple references which established its notability before this episode. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, sources added now. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said before, I don't think there's really anything anyone can do to prevent these kinds of articles from being created before any sort of notability can be established on the episode themselves. But, SP episode articles usually receive good contributions rather quickly. There was a topic drive during the first half of this current season that got articles to GA and FA status exceptionally fast. All it takes is a little nudge, I suppose. :) - SoSaysChappy (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Music
Until there is enough secondary material on the use of the Lady Gaga song, there is no need to simply list that it appears in the episode. I know that Cartman uses the music to sing lyrics relevant to the plot, but until there is enough verifiable information to include a "production" or substantial "music" section, it will have to wait per MOS:TV. Have patience..."Wikipedia isn't going anywhere". As for the Smashing Pumpkins song...naturally it would appear in this episode as it directly spoofs a show with the same song as its theme. Again, this can be included once there is relevant content. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 09:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * MOS:TV Fail. "Lists of featured music or song lyrics". Two songs is hardly a list, and only two notable songs are mentioned in the episode so it's not like the page is going to to be overcrowded with music references. "Original song lyrics" does not apply.  "References to featured music should be supported by reliable sources" Lady Gaga is referenced in the Entertainment Weekly article.
 * "[P]rovide context as to why these songs were used for the show" and to readers unfamiliar with Whale Wars the choice of the song Bullet with Butterfly Wings is incongruous and it is better to explain in this article that it was used as the theme tune for that show rather than expect user to go off and read that whole article just to get enough context for this article to make sense. A draconian application of MOS:TV in this case is like saying article can never have a WP:Trivia section, when in fact they are only discouraged but can be appropriate. -- Horkana (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's still being presented in "list" format. Just because they are only two of them does not exempt them from being part of a "list". A ref to the EW article you mentioned was not attributed to the Lady Gaga sentence, but I'll look into it and try to work it in the article in the proper way. And yes, they are only "discouraged", which is why we try our best to incorporate such items into the article in a better fashion. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 03:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, just as I was typing this, this edit occurred. This is on the right track. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 03:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Bullet with Butterfly Wings has been added and readded many times by many different users over the past few days (the week after the episode airs). At what point does consensus trump the claim that this isn't something worth noting? That Whale Wars uses the song as it's theme is useful context information that helps explain an aspect of the episode that sticks out. Even WP:Trivia says trivia is only discouraged, rather than needing to be deleted, does similar logic not apply to just formatting this information in the best way possible and leaving it there rather than constantly deleting something many editors wish to have included? -- Horkana (talk) 05:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That several editors merely keep adding this info does not translate into a "consensus". Consensus is better reached through discussion and observation of guidelines. What keeps getting added is just a sentence or two in the "cultural references" section along the lines of "The Smashing Pumpkins song 'Bullet With Butterfly Wings' appears in this episode. It is also the theme song to Whale Wars." This article is about the episode, but the emphasis of a short bit like this is on the song.


 * What's most important to the article is to mention that it spoofs Whale Wars, which is what is driving the plot. That the song is the main theme to Whale Wars is important to the song and the band, but that the song appears in this episode is of much lesser importance to the song and band, which can both be rightfully mentioned in more deserving contexts (the album on which it appeared, music trends of the 90s, etc.). What importance does the song have to the episode, thus this article? As mentioned in this thread, it can be perceived as imperative that it be mentioned to better establish how far the episode went in creating a spoof of Whale Wars. In that case, create a "background" and/or "production" section (every good article about a TV episode has one). In describing how this episode's staff created an authentic spoof of Whale Wars, you can explain that the lengths they went to included an animated mock version of that show's opening sequence, complete with the use of the song. I'm fairly sure the secondary material needed to create such a section is out there. Happy hunting (no pun intended). - SoSaysChappy (talk) 09:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've not seen a single edit summary or argument on the talk page for the addition of the song, so I'm waiting for someone to step forward and say they want it added. Otherwise I'll just remove it as unimportant trivia/fancruft until someone asks for it to be kept. Also, its addition is likely WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, since the person adding it will want to compare the lyrics to "whale meat again" or to Whale Wars using it or something like that. And if the comparison isn't made, it isn't even trivia worth mentioning, but if it is made a citation is needed. Thus I feel it's best to leave it off. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Since my arguments are above in this same section you must have seen them and I can only assume you mean you have not seen any arguments you find compelling/convincing. I do think the song is otherwise incongruous and that to explain it is the song used by the show Whale Wars and not just a tune picked for a montage makes it informative and adds to the article. I didn't particularly want to need to read the Whale Wars article to get adequate context for this one (although more information is included now then when I read it). None of the edits have made any attempt to go into detail about the lyrics, at most the posts have explained the context of the song, most edits simply stated the song was used, it is surprising that you'd speculate like that at all. Maybe there is some way to say the spoof goes so far as to use the same music for the title credits but it seems clunky and cumbersome to try and cram that into the plot section.  -- Horkana (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Navigation Boxes
I thought navigation boxes were deprecated? The episode infobox already includes links to next and previous episodes. Not deleting it without a link to a relevant discussion or guidelines - no sense wasting time on a revert war - anyone got a suitable link? If so please delete and include link explaining why in edit summary. Too many rules, too little time, who can remember them all, and then they change. -- Horkana (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Goofs
Wikipedia doesn't do "Goofs" but if it did this might actually be worth including
 * Paul Watson is actually Canadian, but he is not depicted like all other Canadians on the show with a flapping head.
 * -- Horkana (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They have been backing away from that. The wrestler Edge in W.T.F. is Canadian.  Alatari (talk) 07:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Plot wording
I put in the line about Larry King calling Watson a media whore which is a critical line in the show as it ties the plot to the title of the episode. Are people removing it because the line is offensive? South Park is such a pleasant non-confrontational show why should we be concerned about using quotations? Alatari (talk) 07:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The photograph of Paul Watson used in this episode of South Park was made by photojournalist Jerod Harris and is represented by ZUMA Press Wire Service on October 9th, 2009 at the Surfrider Foundation's 25th Annual Gala at Exposition Park in Los Angeles, California. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.229.127 (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Stinky Butter
The diff [ here] recommends linking stinky butter to butyric acid. The show never mentions any type of acid, so I am against this linking. Also, without context, linking to butyric acid doesn't make any sense. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently it is from the show Whale Wars and the South Park guys are punning on the name to make the tactic seem even more ridiculous. It is mentioned on the Whale Wars page. -- Horkana (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is connecting dots and I don't think we should be doing that. While it is likely the same, the comparison has not been made in a verifiable source. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That's original research. If there were any indication that this was "butyric acid" then I would refer to Link and say link it. But, there's no indication of this in the episode. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Reading the wikipedia page Butyric acid is actually found in rancid butter. A bit of searching shows articles that mention butyric acid being used by the people on Whale Wars. You see it as joining the dots, I see it as well within the remit of a supposed encyclopedia to provide necessary context and explanation. -- Horkana (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To include this correlation, you would need to find some verifiable material that says, for instance, that the episode spoofed the acid throwing on Whale Wars by including a scene in which "stinky butter" is thrown, and include it in the article. You simply can't just link the two via hidden pipelink, especially without a verifiable reason. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Stinky butter seems sufficiently self-explanatory. If we wanted to explain why butter gets stinky, we could and link to the butyric acid page, but I don't think this adds to the article. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll just ask one thing to put things in perspective the best I can.... If you were writing a summary for "Dead Celebrities", and were describing a scene from the episode: "The ghost hunter urinates in his pants", would you link "urinates in his pants" to ectoplasm? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not a good example. As Horkana mentioned, Whale Wars used butyric acid, and the whole idea here which is rather obvious is that the "stinky butter" is meant to insult Whale Wars since the chemical they used is in stinky butter. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I could explain the analogy better or use better examples from older episodes, but that would be veering off-topic, eh? I see it's still linked, though. I've thrown in my two cents. I hope everyone plays nice in finally resolving this issue. :) - SoSaysChappy (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record another editor added the explanation as part of the plot text, it was deleted and I agree it wasn't the best way to present it but thought the information relevant and informative helping give context and expanding my understanding of the concept like a good encyclopedia would do. I'm not overly concerned about how exactly the information be included in the article but I do think it should be included one way or another. -- Horkana (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalizing
There are many edits by anonymous IP's making major changes of the article without discussion or consensus. Page protection? Alatari (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I see the one IP was directly blocked. Seemed we are all a bunch of 'wankers' Alatari (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried to add the template for protection against vandalism but apparently that isn't how you request protection. I'd suggest only protecting it for a short time, would protecting it for a day be enough? Maybe a week since the first broadcast in the UK is coming up? Is the new "flagged revisions" system an option? -- Horkana (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:RFP. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not necessary. There was really only one IP that was vandalizing, and he has been blocked. WP:RCP handled it basically automatically. I don't think PP is necessary here, the episode already aired so any major vandalism threat should now be over. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * there was another guy before him complaining about Hiroshima being mocked. -- Horkana (talk) 08:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Stan's age
I noticed that the article mentioned that the Marshes were celebrating Stan's ninth birthday. As there are no citations that specifically credit this as his ninth birthday, I feel that it categorises as speculation rather than fact and should just be referred to as his birthday. Also, as South Park follows a floating timeline, it would be a lot better to avoid age references at all costs, unless there are specific references provided. Grieferhate (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Plenty of cartoon characters have birthdays which both dont specify an age and dont actually change the age of that character. - Redmess (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well yeah. Beetle Bailey and his comrades have been typical Army conscripts for 60 years. (82.134.28.194 (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

Plot summary
A hidden comment in the plot summary requested that it be more compliant with WP:PLOTSUM.

Here is the summary as of this post. After I...
 * De-linked "Denver Aquarium" (no such aquarium exists. There is a "Downtown Aquarium" in Denver)
 * removed "the vacation goes bad" (seems kind of informal)
 * changed "appear out of nowhere" to "storm the dolphinarium" (the former seems rather vague)
 * removed "stinky butter" and "now they're like us" references (the episode is the primary source, there is no need to footnote a description of the events of the plot)
 * changed "jealous of Stan's media attention" to "wanting to be on television" (I think this was their biggest motive
 * moved commentary on Paul Watson to another section)
 * reduced details on encounters with Larry King (thus, the commentary on Paul Watson) and Deadliest Catch ship (relative to the plot, these are throwaway gags that don't advance the main narrative from one point to the next, and are more suitable for other sections)
 * trimmed and consolidated the rest to bring it down to under 500 words (from 600)

...I came up with this...


 * The Marsh family are spending Stan's birthday at a public aquarium in Denver. Japanese people armed with spears suddenly storm the dolphinarium and slaughter all the dolphins. The Japanese perform similar attacks at several other aquariums, and at an NFL game, where they kill members of the Miami Dolphins football team. Stan asks his friends Kyle, Cartman, and Kenny to help him in taking on the cause of saving the dolphins and whales from the Japanese. Kyle declines, feeling they can't change Japan's views on the issue. Cartman and Kenny are more interested in playing the video game Rock Band, professing they don't care about the whales. After learning about the television show Whale Wars, Stan joins host Paul Watson and his crew aboard the Sea Shepherd, but is underwhelmed by their method of throwing "stinky butter" at Japanese whalers in an effort to deter them. After the Japanese whalers kill Watson with a harpoon, Stan destroys their ship by igniting their fuel barrels with a flare gun. Stan becomes the new captain and leads a more successful campaign in impeding the Japanese whaling effort by employing more aggressive methods. Stan becomes irritated when his genuine interest in saving the whales is ignored by the media, which is focused more on discussing the concurrence of the added violent content of Whale Wars and the show's increased Nielsen ratings.


 * Wanting to be on television, Cartman and Kenny join the ship's crew under false pretenses of wanting to save the whales. After a brief run-in with a ship and its crew from the show Deadliest Catch, Japanese pilots launch kamikaze attacks on the Sea Shepherd. The suicidal planes kill the Whale Wars crew except for Stan, Cartman and Kenny. The trio are captured and brought to Japan, where Emperor Akihito tells them retaliation for the bombing of Hiroshima is the motive for Japan's whaling efforts. He shows them a doctored photograph&mdash;given to Japan by the United States after the bombing&mdash;of the Enola Gay piloted by a dolphin and a Killer whale. Knowing the picture is a fake, Stan decides to reveal the truth about the bombing, but Cartman hints that doing so might influence the Japanese to start another war on the United States. Claiming the US government has authorized him to show the "original" photo, Stan presents the Japanese with a new doctored photo showing a cow and chicken in the Enola Gay. The Japanese become infuriated, now believing cows and chickens had doctored the original photo to frame the innocent whales and dolphins. The Japanese resolve to cease their whaling efforts and begin a violent vendetta of slaughtering cows and chickens. The episode ends as Randy congratulates Stan for making the Japanese "normal, like us".

Would this work? I would also suggest removing the from the summary and using it as a replacement for the. Thoughts? -  SoSaysChappy   (talk)  08:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * IIRC from other South Park episode articles only one screenshot per episode is considered fair use by Wikipedia. Perhaps another better image (perhaps one showing the Whales Wars guy being parodied? or a picture of the family that actually included any dolphins) would be a better image to represent the whole theme of the episode but of the two currently in the article the enola gay picture seems like it would be a better picture than the marsh family in the swimming pool. -- Horkana (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Saying he was interviewed by 'the media' is incorrect. He was interviewed by only Larry King that we know of. Larry King was parodied also by his humped shoulders so low as to make him appear as old as Yoda.  Alatari (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a good idea to put the major spoiler of a story at the top in an infobox. – RVJ (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:SPOILER. By now, everyone should know to expect spoilers when coming to such an article. A purpose is being served here by including the info in the image caption. -  SoSaysChappy   (talk)  13:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There are two lines in the "Theme" section (I know this is "Plot," but it's related) that are simply wrong. In the second paragraph, the second and third sentences read "Watson has received wide criticism for his method of disrupting illegal whale hunts by at times attacking and sinking Japanese and Norwegian whaling ships. 'Whale Whores' presents Watson and his show in a way that condemns these actions and other forms of eco-terrorism." In no way does the episode "Whale Whores" condemn "eco-terrorism," or even suggests that prior to Stan Marsh's captaincy, that the Sea Shepards did anything remotely "terroristic." After all, this paragraph goes on to quote a fictitious magazine article from Whale Whores titled "New Captain Turns Vegan Pussies Into Real Pirates." REGARDLESS of what some people think of what the Sea Shepards may have done, the Sea Shepards in "Whale Whores" are non-violent--incompetent, but still non-violent, until Stan takes over. And when Stan becomes a pirate ie "eco-terrorist," the show presents that change of Sea Shepard tactics as an unqualified improvement. I would propose that those two sentences just be deleted (probably they're just Japanese & Norwegian propaganda--I'm kidding). Bill Abendroth (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Category
The episode isn't about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's about reality TV and cultural differences between east and west. Kakun (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The mean of "ikura"
japanese say "ikura". This mean is "How much ?" Dolphin is "iruka". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.54.107.183 (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Reference 5
I thought they were making fun of the Japanese by simply showing them going all insane even in a water park. Then they hunted for whales in all of these other places, I didn't think it was 'the reality between whaling and looking at whales for amusement'.

The problem I have with reference 5 is that to highlight an opinion as fact, you reference a blog with someones opinion. Unless it comes from the mouths of the writers themselves, I doubt it. Don't mean to come off as a dick, but I deleted that part.71.190.248.53 (talk) 08:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you make a decent point. However, I think the better solution would have been to clarify that this is an interpretation that has been read into the episode, rather than simply deleting it altogether. Keep in mind too that Theme sections don't always requires such clarifications, and this particular bit of info has stood up to a GAN review and other scrutiny. I'm restoring the info, but with the distinction I mentioned above, as per your thoughts on the topic... —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  14:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)