Talk:South Park/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Hey User:Musicfan122

Firstly, you cannot enlarge non-free images from its original size unless you have the copyright claimant's permission to do so, under number 3b at WP:NFCC: "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace." Citing The Simpsons as an example isn't really gonna help your case as it clearly violates this site's policy regarding fair-use images. per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Granted, I'm going to revert that image in The Simpsons back to its original size. Secondly, "bizarre adventures" sounds in-universe language; "exploits" is much more neutral. Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi there Slightlymad. I'm sorry, but I cannot see how you interpreted the quote to prohibit resizing, all I'm reading concerns "high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate" and not the size of an image. I cited The Simpsons, a featured article since 2006, as an example as it had the image resized and unchanged since that year. If the policy does prohibit resizing non-free images, than it's hard to believe the image was left in a featured article of this importance for almost 13 years. If this proves to cause a dispute, perhaps we could ask for an admin's help? Musicfan122 (talk) 07:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Alright, an editor that is expert on images told me that it's permissible to resize copyrighted images under the fair use to a reasonable size. However, he did say that the image in the Settings and characters section is too large and should be reduced further. SNUGGUMS, what are your thoughts on the "bizarre adventures" wording? Is it neutral? Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

No it isn't, and we should avoid biased terms like that (unless of course that's part of a quote or title). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Well I provided an alternative, which is "exploits". Thoughts? Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

That or simply "adventures" would be better. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I think 1.35/300px is reasonable for this particular image since it allows the reader to see the background characters comfortably. Even at this size, it's 200px less than The Simpsons', and is merely 50px larger. Musicfan122 (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Musicfan122 Since SNUGGUMS and I disagree with your wording, you're gonna have to choose between the alternatives we provided. Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Well since you've decided to leave this discussion (despite pinging you), I'm gonna go ahead and boldly change the wording. Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for taking too long. Though I think "exploits" works fine, how about we get more editors' opinions through a WP:RFC? Musicfan122 (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Over a word choice? Good luck with that pal... Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Why not? it was done before, to a similar article. Musicfan122 (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

File:South Park production comparison.png use in Animation section

@Aspects: since you won't start the discussion, I'll go ahead and do that myself. The image is of exceptionally low quality and thus, regardless of how long it has been in the article, should be removed. There is not a single good article that I know of that has an image of this horrendous quality. If you can obtain an image with a quality similar to that of the "Quintuplets 2000", please upload it under a non-free license and insert it in the article, otherwise this needs to go. Musicfan122 (talk) 08:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

You have stated numerous times that the image is "low quality" and now "horrendous" and I disagree with that assessment, especially since you do not explain how it is "low quality." The image has been in the article since it became a good article ten years ago in 2009 and had not been removed from it until this week. In 2010, the image was determined to be too large and was reduced. The current consensus is the same as when the article was promoted to a good article, that the image is not low quality and is a valid free use image that passes WP:NFCC. Since the image is now discussed here, I am reverting its deletion so the image is not deleted for being an orphaned fair use image. Aspects (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Similarly, you seem to repeatedly refer to how long the image has been in the article. Where is the consensus that the image is "not low quality"? An image can pass the non free content criteria while still being of low quality. As for an explanation, you can compare it to other non-free images in other good articles. The fact of the matter is, per MOS:PERTINENCE, poor quality images should not be used in any article, let alone a good article. Musicfan122 (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Musicfan122, I also don't understand what you mean when you say the image is "low quality" and why you've removed it. Could you clarify? Do you mean the image looks visually bad, do you mean the image is too low resolution, do you mean the image isn't relevant to the text, or something else? - Samuel Wiki (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Samuel Wiki, thanks for joining in on the discussion. Yes, by "low quality" I mean the low resolution and that the image looks visually bad. The MOS:PERTINENCE guideline simply states that poor quality images "should not be used". Musicfan122 (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

All non-free images on Wikipedia must meet the non-free content criteria. Point 3B of the criteria states that low-resolution images should be used and not high-resolution images. The image was downsized to meet the criteria. Given the circumstances, I think the image looks fine, it clearly illustrates the various stages of production. The quality definitely isn't "horrendous" or "exceptionally low". That said, WP:IMAGERES allows for a bit more resolution while still satisfying the NFCC. I've uploaded a slightly higher resolution of the image. Is that satisfactory to everyone? - Samuel Wiki (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks much better now, thank you! Musicfan122 (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

(outdent) Thank you for your work here, Samuel Wiki, but it looks like our counterpart has been blocked. Aspects (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Samsung Galaxy S5 Vector.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2019

In the syndication section, there should be a space between "In 2019" and the sources before it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.2.148.124 (talk)

 Done, thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 12:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

It's me again. I just noticed that the last source in the syndication section is the only source that's a bare link, can somebody fix that please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.2.148.158 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 18:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Sentence syntax

An user has reverted three times in favor of his own text, which has a sentence that reads that the show "satirizes [certain topics] towards a mature audience", which I reckon is horrible syntax. In order to avoid edit warring (which they could already be reported for), I'll just ignore the thing for the time being, but I'm leaving it here for everyone to weigh in. --uKER (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:South Park for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:South Park is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:South Park (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The main characters

As of season 23 (and perhaps season 22), Randy has replaced the four boys as the main character, so can someone edit the description to change that?

83.90.182.155 (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Genre dispute?

QuestFour, Dan Wescher - What's going on with all of the recent back-and-forth reverting that you two have been engaging in here? It looks like there's a dispute over this article's genre and whether or not it should be classified as an adult cartoon? Instead of edit warring over this, do you two mind joining this discussion, talking about what's going on, and helping me to work this out? I don't want to see this editing dispute continue over the article, and I don't want to see this escalate when it doesn't need to. Also, Dan Wescher, what's with this edit you made to QuestFour's user talk page? Instead of leaving that kind of a message, that was a perfect opportunity that you could've taken to civilly discuss this dispute and work things out in a cordial manner... Thanks in advance. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

QuestFour didn't like the fact that I said on the page that the show is adult animated, despite the fact that they're fine with the categories saying it. And now that I've actually found a source saying it is adult animated, QuestFour is upset. They even mocked me by posting garbage on my talk page where they blatantly lied that I'm a "disruptive editor". As for that talk page edit, I just wanted to know why they hate me. I never did anything wrong. —ÐW (talk/contribs) 06:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

You really really need to read WP:CONSENSUS. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

1) Who are you? 2) I've already read that page, like, a billion times. —ÐW (talk/contribs) 22:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

No, you didn't. QuestFour (talk) 12:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Please stop throwing a tantrum over the fact that I actually have a source citing it as adult animated. —ÐW (talk/contribs) 21:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. There was just a part of the beginning of the page that I misread. Sorry. —ÐW (talk/contribs) 01:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The main image needs to be changed.

The main image on this article is a third party, fan-made image that does not originate from the show, and the characters designs are completely wrong. The image used to represent the show should be accurate to what the show looks like, not a fan made reproduction image. This should be an easy fix, it should be either the title card, or something like this image, https://www.deviantart.com/zizigolllo/art/south-park-logo-517617589, which contains the official South Park font and the four main characters, and might replace the current image. Anything would be better than what it currently is.

Dthompson19 (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Dthompson19

In one season (I can't remember which) that was a title image. This a great show anyway — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:2BB1:2EC0:58C2:10D6:8E95:DDB5 (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: the main image in the article (here) is from the original show, see that page for details. The issue with using images from shows such as this is copyright. We can't just upload a screenshot from a recent TV show, as they are usually copyrighted, and images on Wikipedia - unless used under fair-use rationale (as the current image is) - must be available under a free-licence, which I don't believe your suggestions would be unfortunately. If you have more questions about images on Wikipedia, you can ask here. @Dthompson19. Seagull123 Φ 13:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Status as adult animation

The page should classify this as adult animation. Even the categories say it's adult animated. —ÐW (talk/contribs) 23:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Dan Wescher, articles concerning shows often have many categories, that does not mean that all of them belong in the lede; that's why South Park is not described as satirical or LGBT-related. However, they are mentioned in the article, e.g. the part describing the adult nature of the show in the first paragraph of the lede. Please make sure to gain consensus before implementing any further changes. Thank you. QuestFour (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

What's with all this "consensus" talk? —ÐW (talk/contribs) 17:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Adult Animation ShakeZula2000 (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

To 49.146.40.174

Dick Figures is NOT a South Park spin-off P/ K/ L. inc (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

"Tardicaca shark" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tardicaca shark. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 30#Tardicaca shark until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 22:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Lots of typos and grammatical errors

Considering what would presumably be an army of logged in users able to edit, one would think that "Complete seasons of South Park have been regularly released on their entirety on DVD" would be caught.96.240.128.124 (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal -- Relocate/remove all content in "Franchise" section to South Park (franchise)

Pretty much all of the content in the section "Franchise" is near-identical if not an exact copy of information and text in the article South Park (franchise). I realize that there is a hatnote at the top of the section redirecting to this article, but for the most part, I think the entire text of the section doesn't even need to exist. We can keep the hatnote about the video games since it references another article, but outside of that, just have the hatnote for the the franchise article and leave it at that. Anyone object to this or have other ideas? -- SanAnMan (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Post Covid: Movies or episodes?

Please see discussion at Talk:List of South Park episodes#Post Covid. --Thibaut (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The Disclaimer

shouldn't the disclaimer be capitalized as seen in the show? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kermitisawesome (talk • contribs) 21:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kermitisawesome: No, not per policy at MOS:ALLCAPS. - SanAnMan (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Retconning mentions of Tolkien

I've noticed that over the past couple days, virtually every mention of Tolkien Black from his many previous appearances have been rewritten to appear as though his name has always been that. I agree that his section on the List of Characters should reflect the name change, though is it necessary to retcon the prior episode & season pages in which his name was canonically "Token"? BOTTO _(T•C) 22:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Obviously having everyone pretend this was always his name is part of the joke and a campaign to this effect was planned as part of the release date of this episode (official sites changed the character's name at the moment the episode began). From a real-world perspective it should be treated just like any other fictional character whose in-universe "real name" was eventually revealed - e.g. Mac_(It's_Always_Sunny_in_Philadelphia) or Darth Vader. Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposal -- Fixing grammar in "Syndication" section

At the time of writing, the last sentence of the Syndication section currently states, "In 2019, CBS Television Distribution (the syndication arm of ViacomCBS, now known as Paramount Global the parent company of Comedy Central), took over..."

The parentheses in this sentence is missing a comma and worded in a clunky manner. I instead propose changing the parentheses above to, "(the syndication arm of Paramount Global, the parent company of Comedy Central)".

I also propose that the proper noun "Paramount Global" be linked to the article on the corporation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramount_Global

Thank you for your consideration.

Patrick Kohn (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Patrick Kohn: Done, thanks for the suggestion. - SanAnMan (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

"South ParQ" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect South ParQ and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 5#South ParQ until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. SanAnMan (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Adult Show

South Park is an adult animated show, so wouldn't it make sense to put "adult" before "animated sitcom" in the first sentence? 172.72.175.178 (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2023

Under the category "Voice cast," the name "Token Black" should be changed to "Tolkien Black," as was revealed to be his true name in Season 25 Episode 2. Doormouse1 (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

It’s been dealt with, thanks for helping. STB (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Production Companies

MTV Entertainment Studios is being removed from the infobox of the article. In the description of the edits, it was said that there was no need for it to stay there and can go. The thing is I have a fear that this can be a little misleading. MTVES may not be the main producers, but they are a label that is displayed in the series and specials credits since. Is it unnecessary to have them on the infobox? RamsesTimeGame (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Being shown in the credits does not warrant inserting them in the infobox alongside the main production company of the show; see Template:Infobox television#Parameters. QuestFour (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

You see the thing is, MTV Entertainment Studios pretty much IS the main production company behind the show right now. Comedy Central has been folded under MTV Entertainment Group for while and anything under it is produced through MTV's studio. It not only appears in the credits, but MTV Entertainment Studios is mentioned in near all official South Park press releases. I have to side with Ramses here. Averyfunkydude23 (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Per Template:Infobox television#Parameters, the "production company or companies that funded/organized series production” should be listed; MTV Entertainment Studio counts as a company that funds/organizes series production, as they formed a deal with Parker and Stone to continue the series. I side with Ramses and Avery here. STB (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@QuestFour what's ur explanation of this issue? STB (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@QuestFour MTV Entertainment Studios produces every Comedy Central show without involvement from CBS, further proof that they should be included in the production company list is in the sources that I sent before. STB (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

MTVES is not stated or referenced as the main production company in the sources that have been provided or any as of yet and concluding that constitutes WP:OR, until sources cite it as such its mention in the production section is sufficient. QuestFour (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@QuestFour If this is the case then you ought to remove the studio’s mentions from every Comedy Central show without involvement from CBS Media Ventures, the studio has been producing them since 2021. Also season 24 was produced at MTV when South Park Studios was closed down due to COVID-19. STB (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@QuestFour by that logic that means Celluloid Studios, which helped out with production should be deleted from the list; also MTV is the funder of the show nowadays, according to https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/south-park-trek-parker-matt-stone-paramount-plus-movies-1235035295/; Comedy Partners are just executives of the network. STB (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERCONTENT; as per the above the mention of them in the body is enough for now. QuestFour (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@QuestFour You ought to refer to the article for MTV Entertainment Studios, they currently produce every film and TV series under the MTV Entertainment Group brand; this applies to every Comedy Central show produced since its 2021 rebrand. If you think this does not apply to South Park, it would not apply to most other Comedy Central shows either. STB (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Logo

The show's logo is the South Park text on the sign, it's been used on every season release. QuestFour (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you open up a discussion here before making such a dramatic change as the article's logo which has stood for some time now. IMO it looks like you're just trying to justify replacing the logo because you created the png file of the just the text version. - SanAnMan (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Editor has also removed content without valid reason and has a long history of edit warring. Should we report him if he does such a radical change again? STB (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@SanAnMan: Hardly. The current image in the infobox, though similar in art style, is unofficial fanart. The original artwork by Comedy Central can be seen here. In terms of a logo, the show has not really had a consistent one, given that besides the town sign there's also logos like this and this; though both were not used until the movie and later, and their current use is mostly limited to promotion and merchandising. The font on the sign is the closest to a logo the show has had, it is used alone on the season releases, and is consistent in format with most TV logos used in this site as they primarily consist of text of the show's title in an SVG file. QuestFour (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@QuestFour: And yet that "unofficial fanart" has been used for a long time without contention. Now I can understand that maybe the picture with the four kids is a little too much, and I'm willing to suggest a compromise and change the infobox image to [File: South_park_sign.svg] (the picture with the same text on the well-known wooden sign), which has been in use in multiple other SP articles, but the image you created with just the words looks absolutely horrible to be blunt. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It's just the text sans the sign, how exactly is it "horrible"? Is having it plastered on the cover of the season 20 release horrible? Also, I didn't make it, but found it along with the other font looking up South Park logos. I think the sign is too much; if the text was never used outside the sign then yes, obviously there wouldn't be an argument about not using it, but it is. Your reasoning against it seems entirely arbitrary. QuestFour (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Besides it being unofficial, the infobox image fails criteria 1 of WP:NFCCP, so I'm replacing it with the logo for now. The sign or no sign disagreement can be further discussed here. QuestFour (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@QuestFour please don't add and remove stuff just because u like it while other editors object to this, u're doing it in a very uncivilised way; @SanAnMan you oughtta do something about this, this user has been abusively removing content and provoking multiple edit wars. STB (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me? The image clearly fails WP:NFCCP#1. If this is because of the text version then so be it, the sign it is. QuestFour (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The sign is a much-more recognized logo for the show. If the logo needs to be replaced, then so be it, but the sign is definitely a better choice than just the text. As discussed earlier, there really doesn't seem to be an "official" logo for the show, so this compromose is the best I can think of. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Since the show doesn't have a clear logo, restoring the title card until further decision is made seems to be the best option per Template:Infobox television, as it was the file used in the infobox prior to the previous image, already is used in the article and has a non-free media rationale, and is much more representative of the show. I'll go ahead and replace it for the time being. QuestFour (talk) 02:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)