Talk:Imaginationland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Imaginationland is part of WikiProject South Park, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia articles related to South Park. If you wish to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no merge
; suspended pending resolution of RfC Will (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge poll

This poll is if we should merge Imaginationland , Imaginationland Episode II and Imaginationland Episode III into one page.

This will be a 15 day poll opening on 25 October 2007 (UTC) and closing on 09 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support

Please vote by putting a # the reason for your vote and signing --~~~~

  1. Support As other multiple part episodes of South Park have been merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Haunted Angel (talk • contribs) 11:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Merge, but wait until episode 3 airs that way the emrge can be properly planned out.--Swellman 17:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
    for the same reasons I've been saying. People seem to think that no matter what, merging is a bad thing, but if it improves readability and notability, it's better off thar way. "But seperate episodes deserve separate articles." That's not a valid reason for not wanting to merge. See Cartoon Wars or Go God Go. They were merged because they would be better off together. Alone they would have been nothing better than stubs, but together they form a good, thriving article. I also think you all need to take a look at Wikipedia:Pokemon test.
    "But their's too much info for one page." Hardly. The plots need to be cut down anyway. Their's supposed to be only 10 words per one minute of story, meaning that the plot sections should only contain about 200 to 220 words. And the character list could also be easily merged. It's practically the same list on every page. What's the point of that? And even if the list is too long, it will be severely cut down on once unsourced names start being removed (which I'll give a couple of weeks to do, in case any more sources show up).
    Any counter-arguments besides the two I just covered?--Swellman 23:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    Neither of your arguments are persuasive. You dismiss the "separate articles" argument with a wave of your hand, and point to other articles that should not have been merged in the first place. You then cite some "supposed to be" guideline pulled out of thin air. As for the list of characters, I agree, they should all be combined...and given their own separate article. Captain Infinity 23:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    A seperate article has been made, (See Inhabitants of Imaginationland) and is being considered for deletion. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inhabitants of Imaginationland for why people believe it should be deleted.) As for my supposed "guideline pulled out of thin air", see Wikipedia:Television episodes#Plot Summaries. It clearly states how long a plot summary should be.--Swellman 00:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Merge all three episodes into one page - per readability sense - they are tripartite episodes in a series which has a very loose if at all continuity. Current practice is to do so, because it makes it easier for the reader to understand. See, for example, the 170-odd pages for the old serials of Doctor Who (as opposed to 690 episodes), "Cartoon Wars", Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story, "Encounter at Farpoint", "Exodus (Lost)", "Pilot (Lost)". In reality, "Go God Go" itself should be merged as well. By the way, most against votes are quite weak, because of:
    • "What about Star Wars?" - Star Wars is treat in-house as six different constituent parts. In addition, there are many EU materials that go in between the films, most notably Clone Wars
    • "What about The Lord of the Rings?" - Strictly speaking, it's anywhere between one and seven books (The Ring Sets Out, The Ring Goes South, The Treason of Isengard, The Ring Goes East, The War of the Ring, The End of the Third Age, Appendices in my version). The LOTR main page says "Although intended as a single-volume work, it was originally published in three volumes in 1954 and 1955 due to the high cost of paper as a result of the war, and it is in this three-volume form that it is popularly known.". Look at the films, et cetera.
    • Other points rely entirely on other episodes not being merged, notably the Meteor trilogy and Go God Go. That isn't a reason why this shouldn't though. Will (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    So you suggest that we should merge the Bourne Identity, Supremacy & ultimatum? This is just like the LoTR, it is one single story told over 3 different movies. Heck the 3'rd film even starts immediately after the second! LoTR according to JRR Tolkin was one book and should have always been treated as one... yet the wikipedia articles talk about the 3 parts not only because they were published as 3 books, not as the 6 chapters and 1 Appendices (the Appendices were published a few years after the last book btw and included with RotK). But because so much happens in the books that the article would become too large to cover everything or too glib to keep the page smaller. There are many cases of shows having a single story going over many episodes, Babylon 5 is considered by the Guinness book of world records as the longest miniseries ever broadcasted. Why you ask, well the entire 5 season series was scripted from beginning to end. Meaning that many episodes had stories that completed much later. Heck if we did merge them the page would become way too long and would have to be split. So I see no real good reason that these 3 episodes should become one page it would just end up sacrifice quality to keep down the length. -- UKPhoenix79 06:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    You're making straw men. We're not concerned just about story, we've got to factor in production, advertising, et cetera in an article to be encyclopedic. Take for example Bond 22, which will start two minutes after the end of Casino Royale. Now, we can't just have plot summaries. The article about Casino Royale has information about Daniel Craig's casting, Bond 22 has information about filming for the film. The Babylon 5 argument isn't very good because there's an entirely different scope of continuity involved - Babylon 5's continuity is very strict, as South Park has very little continuity at all.
    Now, you're mention length. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a TV guide. If you want to publish a plot summary that's 1,000 words long for ten minutes, go to TV.com or a South Park wiki. Current guidelines are around 10 words per minute for plot summaries, more if the plot is very complicated. I think a quality plot could be written for all three with as many words as the current count on this page alone (863). Will (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    So you think that the TV series 24 should only have recaps be by season and not by episode? It is one story with no interruptions and no middle story line (e.g. clone wars). -- UKPhoenix79 09:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    Yes. They've done that with Day 5, I think, and it's proved very successful. Will (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    They didn't, but lets say that they did... according to you there should be around 10 words per min for a good summery... well in the case of 24 each episode is around 45 min long and there were 24 episodes (excluding the prequel episodes on the web) so 45 times 24 equals a 10,800 word summery (45x24=10,800)... ok if we were to convert that into pages (with the average page length being around 250 words/page) that would make the summery alone 43.2 pages in length... I don't know about you but that is a very long read and would make a massive article page. So editors would have to trim it down and loose detail in doing so... So by merging it would make the topic suffer just to make the page more readable. -- UKPhoenix79 23:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    Last I checked, they had. See 24 (season 5). We don't need every detail, just the basic plot. Will (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    Wow I assumed that the 288 pros and 914 non pros word summery of the ENTIRE season was just a snippet. Hell the Prequel was double the length in pros reaching 481 words.... This according to your own logic is woefully lacking! Merging in this case has only created an article that is rather uninformative and not a good reference for an encyclopedia that does not use paper. -- UKPhoenix79 23:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    Ten words per minute is a guideline. Anything that makes the page less like a plot summary, the better. Will (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Merge Generally, I'd prefer to keep them as three different articles. If nothing else, it makes templates of episodes by season a bit easier to work with. Though looking at the ones that have been merged, they do seem to be done well and readable. Just so long as the articles don't lose any info than I have no problem with the merge. It would be nice to see a draft before the merge is finalized, though. Tweeks Coffee 17:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. I'm all for merging, but agree that it shouldn't be done until the third episode airs. Yes, yes, every seperate episode deserves a page; it all depends on how you define seperate. This trilogy is one single episode, that is just too long for its slot so it's split into a trilogy. In the list of episodes, there should be a link for each episode, but they should all direct to the one article. I also think this should apply to other two-parters such as Do the Handicapped Go to Hell? and Probably and Cartman's Mom is a Dirty Slut, for consistency. It'll be a bit longer than other South Park articles, but it'll be concise, and it really is all one story. Also, though I don't like the list, this is the only episode that I won't fight against including a list. This South Park episode is different from Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings because there's much less that goes on; those trilogies are much bigger and the information wouldn't fit in a single article. Professor Chaos 23:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. For: I do think it would be a good idea to merge, because it would make finding the episodes a whole lot easier by typing "Imaginationland" rather than "Imaginationland episode..." It worked with Cartoon Wars, after all. Grieferhate 09:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. Merge The Cartoon Wars merger was done pretty well, with existing links to the individual articles being routed to sections of the merged article. I change my opinion. --LordMinogue
  8. Merge Why is this such an issue! It makes absolutely no sense to basically have the same list of imaginary characters 3 times and it's obvious they don't warrant their own article either. I really do not want to see the list disappear so if it means combining the three episodes into one, do it! How is it going to "degrade" the quality of the article by combining them? It's not like it would be anywhere near the length of other large Wikipedia articles and the merging of such articles is not unprecedented. Olandir —Preceding comment was added at 02:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  9. Merge* A lot of the information is repeated in the three articles (character lists for example), and since the plot is effectively one single plot over the three parts, it would be easier to read them on one page (although each part should be listed under three separate sections within said merged article)Toad of Steel 04:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  10. Defintately merge them... it makes sense since it's one episode but in 3 parts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.32.255.195 (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  11. Merge, they are clearly a continuing storyline and preceding South Park multi-part episodes (Cartoon Wars, Go God Go) are presented as one page and hence are able to give the entire storyline more coherently.~ Mazca 22:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    And the Simpson's episodes Who Shot Mr. Burns are contninuing storylines kept separate in Who Shot Mr. Burns? (Part One) and Who Shot Mr. Burns? (Part Two) the first one is even a GA. -- UKPhoenix79 10:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  12. Strong Merge Previous serialized episodes have been merged, and it would work better for this since it is one storyline ~ flowerkiller1692, 2:21, 5 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.87.22 (talk)

[edit] Neutral

Please vote by putting a # the reason for your vote and signing --~~~~

  1. Neutral Since the "Cartoon Wars" articles have been merged into one article I think it would be appropriate to merge the "Imaginationland" articles if those two episode remain merged as well, if not, please leave it like this. Baldrick90 16:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. NeutralIf you're going to merge them, you should wait till after the 3rd episode of the triligy. Many people have mentioned movies being merged, but we're not talking about movies.J miester25 11:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. If we can make a simpler plot description by merging I won't oppose that. -- Patrickov 16:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Merging is an option, but the main priority is to cover the material at an appropriate level of detail. 750 words plus a list of more than 120 "Character references" for less than 25 minutes of TV time, is excessive. --Tony Sidaway 20:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral - Personally, I think the page should be kept separate. However, there are also good reasons to merge the three pages together. The Chronic 07:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

Please vote by putting a # the reason for your vote and signing --~~~~

  1. Strong Against Would we merge each part of the Lord of the Rings? Should we merge the Star Wars trilogies? These pages would become too bloated and would have to be split in the end. There is no good reason that these THREE episodes should be merged. -- UKPhoenix79 09:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Against I disagree with the fact that "Cartoon Wars" was merged, but the fact still remains that most television series with separate episode articles don't merge multi-part episodes. Furthermore, the articles currently merit separate articles -- each has a significant amount of information that is unique to each episode. I propose the lead section to read that "Imaginationland was the first episode of a three-episode story arc, similiar to the stance we took on "Go God Go". If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 12:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Weak Against-- Even though combining all of the allusions into one brick would be nice, the synopsis would be too long and it would violate the tradition of giving each South Park episode has its own —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Minogue (talk • contribs) 05:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Against -- In general I'm for keeping separate episode pages separate. The fact that two episodes are related shouldn't automatically mean they should be merged --after all there are a lot of shows were every episode flows into the next. South Park seems to particularly play up the different nuances of separate "to be continued" episodes, for example: the first season's Cartman's Mom Is a Dirty Slut, which had an entire spoof episode tucked in between it and its sequel; or the recent Go God Go/Go God Go XII where the second episode worked on its own. --Bobak 15:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Against - Each of the two episodes (and soon to be three) already have a lot of info for each, and merging them would make it into a big confusing article. I also apply this to Cartoon Wars as well. The Chronic 15:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Against - Do Not Merge Separate episodes deserve separate articles. Captain Infinity 22:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Against, Go God Go and Cartoon Wars are separated, so should Imaginationland. A separate article for each episode, a disambig page and an article for inhabitants.--Cartman005 18:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Strong Against Yes, obviously we must merge multiple films and episodes into one lump. Mr. Raptor 04:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    *sigh*, read the merger's argument instead of knee-jerk reactions. Will (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Against This individual episodes are all documented individually and are too long when combined. Cartoon Wars part 1 & 2 was not merged so dont merge Imaginationland --Cs california 10:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  10. Weak Against: Not because of my love for the show, but think about it: The other merged episodes had only two parts, whereas this one has three. The merged article would indeed be very protruded, if you include all of the trivia/imaginary character sightings lists. I still believe we should not merge.User:TheSilverAce —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.155.86 (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  11. Don't merge. Per Captain Infinity's reasoning. — PyTom (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. Don't Merge. These are two completely different episodes. Why would someone merge them? Although Trey Parker and Matt Stone said that they wanted it to be a movie, just make another page titled The South Park Triology: Kyle Sucks Cartman's Balls and merge them all there. But leave these individual episodes alone. There is absolutly no point in merging the two episodes. - Dude7324 09:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  13. Don't merge per all of the above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.217.222 (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  14. Don't merge because each individual episode of South Park deserves its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.121.27.2 (talk) 02:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  15. Don't mergeBecause the idea is almost as silly as a talking towel, and just as useful. Seriously, wait until all three episodes have aired, create a semi-duplicate entry for the episode as a whole (call it "Imaginationland Trilology" or whatever) and do it that way. If you're going to start arguing semantics like this, you may as well go ahead and build a time machine to go back to last week where you can ask Matt and Trey if this deserves a single entry on Wikipedia or one for all three episodes. --Iwriteu 03:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  16. Don't Merge. There are three related, but separate episodes. What a jumble will be in trivia and in "Imaginationland inhabitants" sections, if you will merge it! Fleutist 08:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  17. Strongly Against a merge is not nesaccary or needed because A) they represent individual parts of the story that are equally important B) it might confuse important details of the trilogy incorrectly citing them C) makes navigating through south park episodes tedious —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark-Ace (talk • contribs) 13:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  18. Weak Against While all three episodes do make one overall story arc, they are three different episodes, and as it's customary for all episodes of series (be it South Park, Simpsons, etc.) to have their own article, there should be three different articles for these three episodes. I know that Cartoon Wars was merged, but I disagree with that as well. I don't feel particularly strongly about this, so there's no point in trying to argue with me about it. :) faithless (speak) 02:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  19. Against It would be best if every episode had its own page. Merging episodes would make reading a plot synopsis unpleasent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twelvepack (talk • contribs) 03:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  20. Do Not Merge. Separate episodes deserve separate articles. Captain Infinity 22:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  21. Agree--do not merge. See above. Tenk you veddy much. -Wack'd Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork! 22:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  22. Do Not Merge. To much info for one page
  23. Do not merge - just cut the list of characters that appear. --User:Kaizenyorii —Preceding comment was added at 04:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  24. Do not merge All 3 articles need 3 summaries for the events that happened in each episode. However, all 3 "Character references" sections should be moved to 1 article, something to the effect of: List of character references in South Park's Imaginationland trilogy, and have each of the 3 articles link to it. --Zimbabweed 07:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  25. Strongly disagree. If you merge the articles, then the one resulting page would be a mess. (Emigdioofmiami 19:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC))
  26. Do not merge you bunch of Ewoks These are 3 episode not one. It's as simple as that. Merging would improve nothing in this case. Dorkules 14:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  27. Oppose The fact that these are three DIFFERENT episodes, not one, should be reason enough not to merge. Dadude3320 21:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  28. Oppose Three different episodes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.155.40 (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  29. Against This page is a mess - if we're going to merge then we have to move all those lists onto another page which is just "A List of characters in imaginationland". If we're going to keep seperate lists then we can't merge. My vote is for both seperate pages AND another page for the list of characters (there's far too much ridiculous and unnecessary repetition in different lists for each episode) - but the one thing that is clear is that both a merge and 3 seperate lists is madness (madness I tells ya!) however I think it can all be saved with a clear head and some prudent organisationWarchef 23:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    Of course it's not going to be like that in the end. That's just an interim solution. Will (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    THANK YOU. I've been saying that all along about the separate list. I tried creating it myself but it was deleted.--Cartman005 02:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  30. Do Not Merge Too much information for just one page. JesseMeza 19:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  31. Oppose. Don't turn the 3 articles into redirects. You can merge the 3 articles into 1 additional article. I don't think the decision is only between 1 article and 3 articles. You can have both: 4 articles. I think there should be an additional article on the trilogy as a whole. I suppose that could be considered "neutral", or even "merge but don't redirect", but I'm opposed to having only 1 article for 3 episodes. If an additional article on the trilogy does not happen, I would prefer 3 articles to 1. In the interest of instant-runoff voting, my order of preference on the number of articles is 4, 3, 1, 0. I think there should be 1 article for each episode and 1 article for the trilogy as a whole. I think this is a reasonable compromise. I think each episode is notable on its own. And since the trilogy will supposedly be released on DVD, that means the trilogy as a whole is notable. If all 3 episodes were aired back-to-back I could see a good reason to merge and have only 1 article, but they are 3 separate episodes that aired in 3 different weeks. The number of viewers of each initial airing likely differs. And the critical reception of each individual episode may also differ, just like some critics prefer The Empire Strikes Back to Star Wars Episode IV and VI. Each episode has its own individual summary on TV.com. What if one of the episodes gets nominated for an award but the others don't? So far, the main argument I see for merging them is that they contain a continuing storyline. Many articles on fictional works have continuing story arcs but that is no reason to merge all of them. One benefit I can see to merging these 3 articles is that the character list (which some people want/some people don't) could be all on one page instead of split across 3 articles or in its own article. I see that the individual article for the character list has been deleted. If the 3 articles are merged, it's likely the plot description will be trimmed. If the purpose of the merge is to cut content, I don't think they should be merged. I suppose some options are: 3 articles for 3 episodes, 3 articles for 3 episodes with 1 article for character list (which was deleted), 1 article for the trilogy, and 3 articles for 3 episodes with 1 article for the trilogy as a whole. I am in favor of keeping the 3 articles and favor the creation of an additional article on the trilogy as a whole. Editors who want separate articles get their separate articles. Editors who want one article get their one article. A continuing storyline is not a good reason to merge articles down to 1 in my opinion. The 3 Lord of the Rings films by Peter Jackson were all filmed at once. They each have their own individual article, and there is also an article on the trilogy as a whole. Individual articles on fictional works with an article covering the series have also been used for the Ender's Game series and Harry Potter. Is that redundant? Perhaps, but nobody is forcing you to read it. We also keep articles on episodic video games separate. WP:EPISODE says if articles contain little content, consider merging them, but I would not say that these 3 articles contain little content. I question the size of the suggested single article. I would have to see the proposed single article so I can decide whether it's an improvement, before I would considering merging and redirecting. But I do suggest that people who want a single article for the whole trilogy create that article, at Imaginationland (trilogy). One issue that may arise with an additional trilogy page is the character list. These are some options:
    A) List on 1, list on 2, list on 3, combined list on trilogy page.
    B) List on 1, list on 2, list on 3, no list on trilogy page.
    C) No list on any page.
    D) Use the {{main}} template under character sections. On 1 see trilogy page, on 2 see trilogy page, on 3 see trilogy page, combined list on trilogy page. I favor this option. --Pixelface 21:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    The articles at their current states are plot summaries and WP:TRIVIA. Again, you're missing the point, like so many opposers are: Half Life 2: Episode One/Two, Harry Potter were conceived to be in seperate parts. The LOTR films have production information, etcetera, to prove their individual notability. This is regarded by SPS to be one entire episode, but split into three parts. Precedent is to do such, see Exodus (Lost), Pilot (Lost), etc, etc. Will (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    The articles contain more than plot summaries and trivia. You think these 3 episodes were not "conceived to be in separate parts"? They weren't aired all in one night. Do you think that 3 individual articles and 1 article on the trilogy cannot co-exist? Is each episode notable? Yes, otherwise they could be deleted. If they're not notable, a single article for all 3 of them could also be deleted. Is the trilogy notable? Yes. WP:EPISODE says merging should be considered when articles have little content, but I do not think these 3 articles have little content. Back to the Future Part II begins right where Back to the Future ends, yet each film has its own article. The trilogy also has its own article, Back to the Future trilogy. These 3 South Park episodes have incremental production numbers: 1110, 1111, 1112. The production numbers are not 1110a, 1110b, 1110c. They're clearly 3 separate episodes. Speaking of Doctor Who, those are considered serials and share the same production number. There is clearly a precedent for merging episode articles: the 2 Cartoon Wars episodes were merged into one article, the 2 Go God Go episodes were merged into one article. The guideline on television episodes says nothing about merging story-arcs. There is also a precedent for keeping episodes separate: the South Park episodes Cat Orgy, Two Guys Naked in a Hot Tub, and Jewbilee are a 3-part story arc, yet each have their own articles. That is why I suggested a compromise of an additional article for the trilogy as a whole. I highly doubt that the producers of the 3 episodes got paid for only 1 episode. And I don't know if the production crew was the same for each of the 3 episodes. This article is currently protected from all editing, so editors might as well get started on Imaginationland (trilogy). But there should be a consensus to turn these 3 articles into redirects before actually turning them into redirects. --Pixelface 10:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    Well there is also the precedent set by arguably the most famous cartoon split episode ever, and that would be the legendary Simpson's episodes Who Shot Mr. Burns. They are are continuing storylines kept separate in two articles Who Shot Mr. Burns? (Part One) and Who Shot Mr. Burns? (Part Two) the first one is even a GA. -- UKPhoenix79 22:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    I don't see why that shouldn't be merged either. In fact, I'll propose it as soon as this one ends. Will (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    I've heard of delitionists and inclusionists.... but never a mergist!!!! You should make a page detailing that phenomenon.... but if you do, you might just merge it with all the other wiki personalities, and knowing the state of wikipedia today it would most likely be deleted hehehehe-- UKPhoenix79 22:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, it's mergism is quite common. Will (talk) 11:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    No, they really don't have anything beyond plot summaries and trivia. The sections of each article are "Plot", "Allusions" and the character section. The only vaguely worthwhile thing is the section on the reception of the episode. Even that's only contained on the first episode page, not on any of the other parts. And no, these episodes were not created individually. The trilogy was created at the same time, starting over a month ago. It was broken down as necessary to fit into the allotted time. Tweeks Coffee 15:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  32. Oppose. Keep them Seperate. they deserve their own articles Philbuck222 11:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  33. Against, they're seperate episodes, they should stay seperate. Remember Wikipedia is not Paper? 76.208.49.70 23:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

please leave general or non specific comments here

Star Wars is a trilogy, should we merge them? Seeing as no one is specifically FOR merging in this poll, can we give it up? You lose.--Cartman005 18:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Read my comment again. There's quite a difference between this trilogy and Star Wars. If I'm not mistaken, Cartoon Wars was merged, both parts into one article, and that sets a good precedent, I think. This is one episode, just too long for a single half-hour tv slot. All three together are shorter than any one of the Star Wars movies. Professor Chaos 22:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I still think each episode should have its own page, otherwise, the article becomes less detailed. --Cartman005 01:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I removed the merge tags because I find the argument for merging very thin and there seems to be an abundant vote against merging. Cburnett 14:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I've re-added the merge template. It's obviously still in discussion. Merge as per Cartoon Wars and Go God Go. The plot sections can easily be merged together, and so can the list of character references. Alot of the names are mentioned in all three articles. Their's no point in listing the exact same information in three seperate articles.--Swellman 20:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Or we could put the list on a separate page while still keeping the 3 episodes separate!--Cartman005 01:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It was in discussion and the vast, vast majority are against the merge. Cburnett 02:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If we worked in majorities alone, you know and I know we'd have a lot of crap articles because they're "interesting". Will (talk) 11:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, I'm the french guy who made french South Park's articles for Wikipedia (Sorry for my poor english). And if you made a fourth article who merged the three others ? This is what I do for the french case. Good luck to found a way out. 90.3.99.1 22:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Can people stop comparing this to other things like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. They are completely different, and something which works one way for one thing doesn't work the same way for something else. StuartDD contributions 22:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay then. I'll compare it to something more related: the two Who Shot Mr. Burns? from the Simpsons. Both pages are kept separate there, and one of those articles is a GA. The Chronic 00:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • With regards to the "They're three episodes, thus warrant three articles" argument, it's a load of crap. If we went like that, we'd have 144 24 plot summaries which are hard to follow, 65+ Kim Possible episode pages, etc. Quite a lot of shows don't even have episode articles. Will (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    In addition, South Park Studios treats the episodes as one, or at the very least, is advertising episode 3 on the "This Week" section simply as "Imaginationland". If no other valid points in opposition to merging are given within 24 hours, I will merge. While it is against a 3:1 majority, the anti-merge points rest on, with no exaggeration, "What about article X" or "they're three seperate episodes", the latter being proven otherwise. Will (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, go ahead and merge them so we can undo it.--Cartman005 22:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't be a dick, get off your high horse and listen to consensus. We win. ~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 16:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. As nearly all thirty of the opposing arguments are very weak, there's more of a consensus to merge. In fact, discounting any weak "votes" (such as WAX and "3 seperate episodes"), there are only two or three opposes worth. Will (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
From what I've seen as far as commentary on this episode, it was done as a singular episode. In a change of pace for Matt and Trey, this series has actually been in the works for months. The fact alone that it was a trilogy should show that this is much different than any previous episodes of the show. Take it how you will, but I see it as singular plot spread across three episodes. Tweeks Coffee 04:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment - the only issue here should be what has been done with previous multi-part South Park episodes. Will's right - What about article X shouldn't come into it. StuartDD contributions 10:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
If previous South Park multi-parters have been merged, merge this. If not, keep them separate. StuartDD contributions 11:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The poll in 3:1 in favor of keeping it separate... this is an ongoing debate and no actions should be done until the poll is closed. It is simple Wiki Etiquette of Working towards an agreement, so while the issue is being discussed please use the talk page :-) -- UKPhoenix79 22:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Consensus isn't based on a poll. It's based on the weight of arguments. You were given enough time to support your argument with sources. Will (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree but it is intended to show you where the opinions of the editors lie. It is clear that the vast majority think that this is not a good idea. You also must know that wikipedia is not a legal body. It is called a talk page not an evidence page. There are many arguments for and against and one can list them until the chickens come home and in the end both would still be right. Please the whole idea of the talk page is so that people can communicate and figure out what is right for the page at hand. -- UKPhoenix79 00:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Yep. Whoever keeps revering the merge needs to read Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Majority vote means nothing if the arguments aren't valid.--Swellman 00:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • AGAIN. Majority vote means nothing. None of the arguments are valid anyway. About half of them are people just saying "seperate episodes deserve seperate articles". Tell me where in any wikipedia guiedline does it even hint at that? And also, people who compare this to Star Wars or The Lord of the Rings, do I even have to tell you how silly it is comparing the notability of these three episodes to those films? Seriously, stop reverting the merge.--Swellman 00:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    If the vote means nothing then why did you do it? Its just that since you are on the losing side, you claim that it doesn't count.--Cartman005 01:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    No they are right it is not a vote but for lack of a better definition an opinion poll. I have been through many and it generally has two outcomes.
    • 1) A Conclusive outcome. There is a clear decision and one that will be respected by the editors at hand.
    • 2) There is no conclusion. While one side might have had more "votes" there is no decisive outcome and the debate must continue until a good conclusion is reached.
    a straw poll is not a vote but a way of figuring out what the other editors are thinking. This one is STILL ONGOING and the discussion should still be continuing. This is no replacement for discussion but editors should respect that this is an ongoing debate and should respect the opinions of others and discuss this situation further. But while being bold is a great thing the general ignoring of the talk page and the obvious opinions of its editors should be enough for people to be brought back to discussing the talk page at hand. Don't forget that we are ALL here for the betterment of the articles and we ALL have valid opinions and should be treated as equals since we are just trying to do what is best :-) I hope that helps -- UKPhoenix79 01:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    It's a friggin' cartoon. Look, the arguement over merging is about as silly as the arguement over Kenny's role in the series and if he's technically alive or not. At this point there's so much bickering over merging that the idea of the episode itself has been lost in what mockingly poses as the discussion. The entire idea of the episode was to poke fun at reality, to have a good laugh and to reminisce about times past. How can you expect to do that when you're so busy focusing on the semantics? This would be like watching a Bugs Bunny cartoon and arguing that Bugs is technically a crossdresser even though he only did it to fool Elmer Fudd. I say don't merge, keep them as they are. Wikipedia servers (now THERE'S a joke) have enough memory to hold a measly three articles plus talk page down, each episode IS by its own right an individual one (otherwise they would have made this episode a direct-to-DVD release or possibly made it a 'special' episode that boils to an hour and a half), and what you've basically got here is something that has significant plot changes in each episode, so merging would not only face the possibility of losing those changes via rewrites in the plot synopsis or by scrunching the three plots together, but merging would also lose the impact of the episode. It's unique for a reason; this is no different than a two-part episode (several of which have aired on SP before) and frankly it's my opinion that if Matt or Trey were reading this, they'd be laughing their asses off right now at all the mayhem that the idea of merging has created. That's IF they haven't gone anonymous and created accounts of their own on Wikipedia; which, given the laughable reputation that Wikipedia has in cyberspace (and besides I could swear I remember at least one Wikipedia reference in past SP episodes), I wouldn't doubt. So M&T if you're reading this, congratulations. Seems as if that month and a half of work has paid off more than you expected.--Iwriteu 05:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
    LOL hahahaha oh this is a great comment :-) Everybody wave to Matt or Trey <waves>. Thanks for that! -- UKPhoenix79 06:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this poll is set to end on 11/9, nobody should be merging the article before the discussion is actually over. Also; the people who are saying that the merged article will be too long don't have a valid argument. A) Wikipedia isn't limited by space, articles can be as long or as short as we want. Should the article on, say, World War II be cut down because it's too long? B) Considering that most of the articles' content at the moment is just a plot summary, much of that can be trimmed out. Articles shouldn't just be a retelling of the plot, leave that for the South Park sites. Tweeks Coffee 14:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Yet another good reason to merge is the fact that they are releasing the trilogy on DVD as if it were a movie.[1] It basically IS a movie. If anyone remembers, there was originally a leak of info online by one of the editors at south park saying that during the prodction of the trilogy, there were thoughts of actually making a theatrical-release film. (If you scroll up towards the top of the of the talk page, you'll see my original comment linking to the blog. The links have been removed however, because they didn't want the info online.) So, what's the purpose of splitting up ONE storyline, intended to be a film, into three articles? I'll be shocked if anyone gives me a valid response (under Wikipedia:Notability) to that.--Swellman 00:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The best analogy would be Ghost in the Shell SAC. There was a persistent and continuous story line running through the series (the laughing man) and the story line was so successful that they released a 2½ hour movie called Ghost in the Shell: S.A.C. - The Laughing Man which was a compilation of all the episodes onto one disk. Now from what you said this adds greater credence to creating an Imagionationland (trilogy) page. Since there are many examples of episodes that are released together (Simpson's Tree house of horrors are released on DVD's together & by season) I see no reason to lump the episodes into one page unless it is one trilogy page that can have the plot trimmed down and each episode has there own page that is more detailed with character references. -- UKPhoenix79 00:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I really fail to see what having a trilogy page AND individual episode pages would accomplish. What would possibly be included on a central page that wouldn't be mentioned in the individual articles? Tweeks Coffee 15:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other Comments

[edit] Imaginatioland + Imaginationland Episode II

Why did you merge that two episodes? At first, we don't know title of third trilogy episode, and, if it isn't "Imaginationland Episode III", we will have two pages for three episodes. More: the trivia sections for first and second part, especially the "Imaginationland inhabitants" section, will be very tangled without any sense. Every section, as "Production", "Reception", we now have to divide for two or more parts. I think that's better to have two pages for two "Imaginationland" episodes. Fleutist 19:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Aren't merges supposed to be discussed before they take place? This was also done with the Cartoon Wars episodes. I think their should be some type of discussion before a major change like this...--Swellman 21:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't merge these pages, they are two separate episodes. I don't think they should have done it with Cartoon Wars either, because every episode should have its own page. In the past South Park two-parters have not been put on one page (Do the Handicapped Go TO Hell/Probably, Go God Go/Go God Go XII) were not put on the same page, right? -- 71.255.82.50 23 October 2007

Why not? If they have the same plot and the same title - why not? Can't see any negative in that. I am for that only when they share the same title. Which they do. That's why I am for that. Cartoon Wars is the same case.

Regards: Painbearer 15:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
That's absurdity to merge pages for trilogy episodes, when only one of it aired for that moment. There are a lot of variants for second and third episode, in which we can't merge this articles. Please, don't do it without any discussion and without consent with other wiki members. (Actually, they can be marged only like "Kyle Sucks Cartman's Balls" - it's name of thilogy, not "Imaginationland"). Fleutist 15:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Because each is a separate episode. That's the way Wikipedia maintains that episodes for shows are to be written, when enough information is available. And if indeed there is a third part (which there is), the pure length of one article would be too long and would eventually be split into individual articles again. This merger should NOT take place without discussion, which it appears to have, and has been undone. If need be, a vote can be held, but as consensus is showing as of now, there is one vote to merge the pages and six to keep them separate. Zchris87v 23:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the pages should NOT be merged together. Each of the two episodes (and soon to be three) already have a lot of info for each, and merging them would make it into a big confusing article. I also apply this to Cartoon Wars as well. The Chronic 05:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three separate articles + disambig page

Would it be possible to split all three episodes into three separate articles (being "Episode I", "Episode II" and "Episode III")? The original Imaginationland page would be a disambig page for the three (similiar to Who Shot Mr. Burns?). The Chronic 05:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, because, actually, first episode named "Imaginationland", not "Imaginationland Episode I". But that's better than merge pages. Fleutist 08:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It should not be merged. They are a trilogy of separate episodes. It wouldn't be right merger the Star Wars trilogy into one article would it?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.81.121 (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the three separate articles and one disambig page.--Cartman005 16:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merged

OK, you guys merged it, the article looks like complete shit now but whatever. Now can we at least create a separate article for the characters so we can get rid of the ugly list that is in the article now?--Cartman005

Nope. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inhabitants of Imaginationland. Will (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
And.... your point?--Cartman005 —Preceding comment was added at 21:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Do it then. I won't stop you. Other people might, though. Will (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that it is a good idea to create a separate article for the list?--Cartman005 21:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The decision was to delete it. You can create it again, but it will just be deleted again, and will possibly earn you a block (so I wouldn't reccomend it). As for the article, I've trimmed down the plot a bit, but it still needs some shortening. And also, the three seperate lists need to be made into one.--Swellman 22:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The length of the plot summary

I'll set aside for a moment the question of whether the merger of the other episodes into this one is valid. My point here is solely about the edits to the episode one plot summary.

I've undone a reversion of this edit to the plot summary. Philbuck222 has reverted, with the edit summary "too brief".

Now even with my edits, the plot summary is nearly 500 words in length (before I edited, it had been closer to 700 words). This is a ridiculous length for a plot description, written per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) (WP:WAF), of a TV episode lasting about 25 minutes.

I really do think we need to trim this. Complaining that 487 words is "too brief" a plot summary is really not in keeping with our well established principles for writing about fiction. --Tony Sidaway 00:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Post Poll Merge Debate

Just remember now that the poll is closed it does not mean that the debate is closed. We know that the majority of editors want them separate, but what should be the course of action now? -- UKPhoenix79 06:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The course of action should be that the articles are worked on independently of each other, as editors try to make them the best written articles they can possibly be, and that the small handful of editors who are urging merger accept that the majority of editors feel that the separate episodes are deserving of separate articles and assist in the effort to make the articles better. Captain Infinity 14:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just put the superhero costume down and back away

I don't understand any of you guys - all of the South Park episode pages are filled with trivia, original research, unsourced and unreferenced statements, and a whole load of information that fails notability - pretty much they're all in a poor state - and nobody can bother their hole to do anything about it; and something as relatively irrelevant as this merger has gotten everyone's knickers in a twist. If the page is merged or if it isn't merged it won't make an awful lot of difference to anything if the content remains the same. And pro-merge people seem to think that anything but a merge will be a DISASTER, and anti-merge people seem to think that a merge would be a DISASTER, where as quite frankly neither is the case. If it stays as three articles or is merged they should still be articles with roughly the same content relaying the same information for pretty much the same purpose. Neither outcome would result in a breakdown of Wikipedia as we know it- in fact everything will be just fine either way once the content is up to scratch.

In this spirit I'm calling for people to 1) refocus their energies onto the CONTENT over the format, which quite frankly is a much more pressing issue here; 2) to back down slightly from their high horses (on both sides) to see that unless they gain some objective perspective on this whole thing (which means acknowledging the rights of the opposing opinion) a consensus will never be reached and this will go on in a never-ending circle (or at least until a new episode comes along that shifts everybody's focus); and finally, 3) for the love of god do NOT climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. peaceWarchef 13:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Very good points, the only reason I like to keep them separate is because I don't want the content to be shortened, which typically happens when pages are merged (as was suggested to be done when they were briefly merged). Aside from that I am only very weakly opposing the merge. But its always good to have users out there trying to give people a reality check, Thanks! -- UKPhoenix79 06:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] South park wiki project

I think something needs to be decided at the South park wiki project on how to deal with south-park multi parters with regard to merging. It should be kept consistant inside a particular series, and should in no way whatsoever be affected by other articles that are not South Park. StuartDD contributions 22:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That actually sounds like a good idea. If the debate starts please post a link to is here :-) thanks -- UKPhoenix79 06:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allusion section is trivia

And is thus discouraged under Wikipedia guidelines. Please tag as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.105.234 (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

NO. For god's sake, no.

I give up, what exactly is wrong with a trival section anyway? 70.88.213.74 20:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

read WP:TRIVIA - not that I agree with it. StuartDD contributions 22:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Just out of curiousity, had Jesus appeared in Imaginationland, would he have counted as a fictional character in the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.33.21 (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if Ra and Anubis appeared there, then so would any other Religious character; Jesus included. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 01:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
But Muhammad and Joseph Smith are both in there as well and they are independently verifiable historical figures. So what's up with that? 68.175.49.98 17:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe.... just maybe.... it's a joke?!??? 69.132.53.190 02:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Jesus, Muhammed and Moses are not in Imaginationland. This is obviously deliberate as the other memebers of the super best friends are there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.135.66.188 (talk) 06:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Jesus is there now... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.187.45 (talk) 02:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Jesus was there in part one of imaginationland, see http://www.southparkstudios.com/downloads/preview/?id=7508 70.17.9.56 06:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Kita

[edit] "Muslim terrorists"?

Has there been an official announcement that the terrorists were indeed followers of Islam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.97.55 (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There isn't any statement saying they are Muslim directly. But them screaming "Allah!" is a hint that they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.81.121 (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That just means they're Arabic. Allah is the Arabic word for "god". 124.171.169.132 06:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Allah is assosciated with Islam. 2. This is the imagination of America. In America's imagination all terrorists are Muslim.

~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 09:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The government in this episode says "Al Qeada" many times, suggests they are muslim. Philbuck222 10:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No, they actually call them "Muslim terrorists". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.1.154 (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to help clarify: The US military guys call them "Muslim terrorists" at the start of the pentagon scene, at about 14:45 in the episode. Justanotherperson 23:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Truck Scene at End of Episode

Does anyone know if the truck scene with Cartman heading to DC was parodying something specific?

It definately is a specific parody. I believe it represents one of those situations with a discharged soldier coming back (from vietnam, etc.) to settle an old score. Im thinking Sylvester Stallone but im not sure. - CBhadha 10/17/07 10:52 PM EST

I thought it was parodying Optimus Prime.--70.253.203.15 07:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Jericho came to my mind at first.. I must be wrong? --nlitement [talk] 23:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you are definitely wrong. It's not a parody of Jericho or Optimus Prime, it's a parody of the movie First Blood...Cartman is dressed and talks like Rambo. -- 71.255.82.50


Its definitely from First Blood. His cloths are the exact same and the line is very similar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kangolcone (talk • contribs) 04:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe its from Hitchhiker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exterminator13 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the song being played while Cartman is talking from anything specific? Tampabay721 22:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler Alert

When the Boys first enter Imaginationland, the Superbest friends are seen, however, Muhammad and Jesus are not there.

I wonder if it has to do with CC being angry with thinking of them as "imaginary" or if they will be in the episode later. Things just dont happen for no reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.193.238 (talk) 08:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
HA! He just said that things don't happen for no reason on South Park.  :) 151.191.175.232 20:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, Jesus, Satan, God, e.t.c. have been featured more on the show then the others. Wouldn't it be kind of strange for them to be "imaginary" all of a sudden? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.71.169 (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Jesus is in Imaginationland, being King Aragorn. Mallerd 20:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saving Private Ryan and Stan

Basically the beach scene. ýPreceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.227.3 (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there a scene in Black Hawk Down that was similar to this as well? --RckmRobot 02:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • No. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was more of a parody of The Kingdom, as was the pentagon scene 66.27.118.245 06:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • No. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
No, that scene of Ronald McDonald picking up his severed arm is a direct lift from SPR. Inkan1969 14:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

People, it's from the beach assault in Saving Private Ryan. End of story. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely a Saving Private Ryan parody. It's too obvious to disputed because of a lack of a source. Anyone who has seen the movie can recognize it in a second. We must put put it back in the "allusions" section.Simpson, Bart 17:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you think these two links are valid to cite the Saving Private Ryan reference?

http://www.videosift.com/video/South-Park-Imagination-Land http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y1YL9C8Hfw

I dunno? Simpson, Bart (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imagination Inhabitants

There were just so many and the scenes go by so quickly...looks like it may take the next (two?) episodes to get a complete run-down of the list. I'm not sure even the forums at southparkstudios.com can help with this one - though I imagine the list will increase next week, if this is truly a continuation. Keep in mind T&M have pulled that stunt before. However, I imagine a reference to Lord of the Rings and Mordor will be present if the episode truly continues this storyline. --166.102.104.95 02:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The idea of a barrier keeping back evil is nothing new; Star Trek, Fairly Oddparents, to name a few (and widely different) shows, have used the idea in the past 10 to 15 years. However, it did almost have a LOTR "feel" to the animation of the scene. I think it was less the lightning and more of the color used for the red background. Plus those cool-looking mountains, even if they were in two-dimensional form. --Iwriteu 03:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is Mr. Tumnas from The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Not a satyr in general. 143.195.150.63 02:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw Link from The Legend of Zelda sporting his Four Swords variation with a red tunic. He had brown hair, too which was odd. When I saw Mario, I thought they were going to include Link but I doubted it. Funny. This has to be one of the best episodes, especially with the Saving Private Ryan parody. --TravisBatos 02:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe I saw one of the monsters from Where the Wild Things Are. -- RattleMan 05:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I also see the following: The Mad Hatter, Astro Boy, Mario, Little Red Riding Hood, Jack, The Prince, Mr. Tumnus, the Taco alien, a Care Bear one of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Cheetarah, Ronald McDonald, Charlie Brown (ugh!), Raggedy Ann and Andy, Santa Claus, one of the trees from Lord of the Rings, and that's all I can identify for now. -- RattleMan 05:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
A couple Blue Meanies from Yellow Submarine (The Beatles movie) appear as well. Imaginationland appears to be heavily based on Pepperland and the Yellow Submarine movie style overall. Generalleoff 11:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There WAS a section for this but someone named Fighting for Justicekeeps deleting it. also, i dont think the "mayor" guy was supposed to be willy wonka. hes a guy from some movie that i cant remember the name of. he had a balloon thing like in the show and i think he owned a little red dragon. i cant remember the name of the damn movie but i thought it was a disneyland ride but cant find anything on it. anyone have any clue to help me from going crazy?Whitey138 —Preceding comment was added at 05:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC) its flip from little nemo. wheres the same polka-dot pants, vest, top hat, bow tie, and jacket I believe the mayor is meant to be DreamFinder from Epcot's original Journey into Imagination -- and he did indeed have a small (purple) dragon named Figment.


thats it! thank you!Whitey138

Was H.R. Pufnstuf in there too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.146.106 (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The inclusion of this list is a blatant violation of WP:NOT#INFO; as such, it has been removed, and will continue to be removed. Dlong 16:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
No need rush to remove content so quickly, at least wait until the second episode is aired and perhaps with more context this episodes summary can be restructed into something more useful than a flat list. There are so many references - many of them obscure - it is discouraging to repeatedly delete the list which helps make the many references in the episode more understandable. Some of the characters can be grouped and explained more easily in a non-list format such as the Super Best Friends, and given time perhaps a sensible way to reformat the list can be found. -- Horkana 23:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I saw Shiva, Mohammed and that leader of the mormons there. I'm serious. Second 08:17 --212.247.27.162 18:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep. The Super Best Friends were there! Which brings up an interesting point: Muhammad and Joseph Smith are both verifiable historical figures, not imaginary characters. Shiva, Buddha and Sea Man (especially Sea Man!) can all be effectively written off as "imaginary," and there HAS been periodic scholarly debate about the existence of Jesus as a historical figure, but there are independent and verifiable historical records of the existence of the other two men. Which also means that the part of the "references" section here which says that Joseph Smith only exists "according to" past episodes is just plain silly. ;) 68.175.49.98 17:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Astro Boy, Pikmin, both visible in the scene with the king of lollipops. Ronald McDonald also. I'll bet the faun is Tumnus from the Lion, the witch, and the wardrobe. Reid 23:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The list shows the inclusion of Aquaman...however that is not him but a South Park Parody of him from "Super Best Friends" a character named Seaman, however I did not see his sidekick, Swallow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.160.91 (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Reusing the existing character of Seaman already parodying Aquaman probably helps it fall under fair use, so perhaps it would be better to refer to the Seaman character? This kind of detail might also help towards reformatting the list into sentences which are less likely to be so quickly edited out. -- Horkana 23:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Also in the scene where stan is in shell shock he looks up to see a tower plainly occupied by Rapunzel explode at the base and collapse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.94.204 (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Whats that girls name in the tower hanging her hair down? I remember her from some story with some guy using it as a rope to climb up but she does not appear to be on the current list. Also the list has reference to "A scarecrow". This is not THE scarecrow from The Wizard of Oz? Generalleoff 21:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That girl is Rapunzel. And yeah, I thought it was the Scarecrow from Oz too. 68.175.49.98 17:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There are some Mr. Men; notably Mr. Strong (the red diamond) and but I don't know who the green one is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.94.124 (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The reference to Pan (Dragon Ball) is incorrect. It should be Pan (mythology). Whoever read that article misinterpreted what was written (or is probably a geek). FIX IT GODDAMNIT IT'S BOTHERING ME. That is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.225.113 (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed Warchef 16:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be Harry of Harry and Hendersons instead of Bigfoot? -William —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonrazer (talk • contribs) 14:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably. Hey, where did you see Ash in the episode? Any hints, fellas?-Nick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.100.214.102 (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Somebody should mention that the woodland creatures are from 'A woodland critter christmas' from season 8 24.166.154.108 22:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title

The episode calls itself "Kyle Sucks Cartman's balls: The Trilogy" so shouldn't this title be used, or at least acknowledged as the secondary title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.109.203 (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think so. I will add it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.248.193 (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is it called Imaginaitonland? The actual episode calls itself "Kyle Sucks Cartman's balls: The Trilogy" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.159.2.32 (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stupid Questions

Shouldn't this page be renamed Imaginationland Part 1?--Cartman0052007 03:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure the second one will be called "Part 2"? Part 2 might be named something else [for example: Do the Handicapped Go to Hell? (1) and Probably (2)]. Wait until more info comes out before you post it. The Chronic 06:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


I have a stupid question too. Isn't this whole thing a parody of March of the Wooden Soldiers? I mean they have the fairy tale land and the gate separating the evil half of the world from the good half. It just seems a lot like it except there's no evil imaginary character leading the attack. -Ganondorf (not a member)

If this is only a two part episode, why do the opening titles say its a trilogy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.151.237 (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The second episode will be called Imaginationland Episode II. And frankly I think its stupid that they combined the pages for the two episodes. Why the merger? An explanation would be nice. That's my stupid question anyway. -- 71.255.82.50 23 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.82.50 (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I still say that the first episode parodies March of the Wooden Soldiers, but no one who knows how to do these pages has added that. -Ganondorf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.59.102 (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

the whole thing should be called "Kyle Sucks Cartman's balls: The Trilogy", with parts 2 and 3 added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.244.34 (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Being a dick is discouraged by wikipedia

If anyone removes the trivia section ... now known as pop culture references WTF? ... again, please restore the list. Thank you. --Iwriteu 04:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Try not to refer to the "trivia" section as such. It's the "pop-culture refrences" section now, which complies with Wikipedia's rules. No reason to get angry. --68.111.223.235 04:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Suck my balls. You don't even need a contract. --Iwriteu 04:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to restore the list a few times but another user keeps removing it. I give up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.44.208 (talk) 05:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with the person who keeps removing it. I think that the list is irrevealent, and does nothing to help describe the article. You can maybe state several notable characters on the article, but not the whole list. The Chronic 05:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The list is not needed at all. It fails WP:NOT#INFO. Please do not restore the list. Douglasr007 06:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I vote for keeping the list. A major point of Imaginationland is that it contains all these well known characters, and a major motivation for fans to watch this episode it to spot these characters. So I think the list has value. Inkan1969 14:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Just move the list below trivia. There's no reason the list should not be there, every other South Park episode lists the pop culture references, and while I think the list is too bulky for the main "Trivia" section, putting it below trivia is the appropriate spot for it I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.242.206 (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
A "trivia/cultural references" section may be used, but not a list of all the characters in Imaginationland. The Chronic 15:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I would ask why having such a useful list is so vehemently opposed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.94.204 (talk • contribs)
Calling a list of a bunch of characters who appeared for only a few seconds in a half-hour television show and had absolutely no effect on the plot is FAR from useful. Dlong 19:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Is it really hurting anyone by being there? I like it and find it interesting.--69.204.3.118 19:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
"I like it" is not a valid reason. See WP:ILIKEIT. Dlong 19:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is a reference website, and people are coming to the page for information about references made in the episode, then how exactly is that against Wikipedia policy? Maybe you see it as a list of statistics, but people are actually coming to this page to see if there is complete information about the cultural references. Unfortunately, they're apparently not allowed to have complete information? If you want to spout the "I like it" rule, take note of the "I don't care about it" rule below it. You not caring doesn't mean other people don't want the information. Pop culture references are a major source of humor in this particular television show, which makes it relevant to the article.

I went to this page just to see the list of the characters it should not be deleted.

Perhaps Imaginationland could just have it's own page? Generalleoff 20:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The trivia section is useless, because its nothing but conjecture and unimportant references. The list is completely pointless as it adds nothing of value with regards to information of the episode (there are plenty of fan-sites that will happily list this information as well as discussion to possible references.) The main article also needs re-writing, badly. Its far too verbose in places. You are attempting to write it as succinctly as possible. Not transcribe the entire episode. Aarfy Aardvark 20:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If a list of characters from this character intense episode is so useless, why was wikipedia the first place I looked for it? Part of the point of this episode was the jog people's memory about pop culture references and trivia. Hell, it was most of the fun of watching. Reid 23:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The list is probably the most interesting thing about the episode, and Wikipedia is the correct place for it-just as we have a list of all the people who appear on the cover of the Beatle's Sgt Pepper album. But it needs to be an accurate list - and since there are no independent internet references to a "Nathan Reavy", I'm removing him until/unless someone can justify his inclusion. And the links should point to the right articles (I suspect Remy doesn't.) - Nunh-huh 01:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to throw in my two cents. I came to Wikipedia to look for the list as well. I think the most interesting part of this episode was the number of characters who appeared in Imaginationland. I was specifically pausing the episode every shot in order to look at the characters in the background. A lot of the characters are an intrinsic part of my childhood and I thought it was a wonderful addition to the episode. I came here because I wanted to know who I missed. I feel this list is a valuable part of the article and should not be deleted. Kevinh456 14:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Also came here to read the list... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.187.45 (talk) 02:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I too am a big supporter of allowing extra pieces of information like this character list and the 'cultural references' or 'trivia' sections. Unfortunately there are a handful of dicks who routinely delete this content because they honestly believe they are somehow serving a higher power or some such tripe. I can't comprehend how you can actually like the show and be such a 'Nazi conformist cheerleader' List_of_students_at_South_Park_Elementary#Goth_Kids when it comes to the content. C'mon people lets face it, its the references, the parodies, the characters that are spoofs of real people that make the show as entertaining as it is. To not document them is just plain stupid and completely at odds with the spirit of Wikipedia. If you want to argue forever about 'how' to document these extras then fine, lets discuss it and come to a mutual agreement. And if you want to delete posts that are pure speculation or fluff I think thats great but don't be a dick and just delete valid posts because of your own inflated sense of worth, grow up Snafu7x7 (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment regarding inclusion of character list

Content dispute regarding whether the article should contain "Character References in Imaginationland" 19:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

TBH, the whole 'no trivia' thing is a load of balls. It's basically what I come to these pages for. Keep. ~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 20:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
It does matter whether or not you like the policy. It's still policy. Dlong 21:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the character list was what brought me to the page in the first place. Please keep it. Heck, if you have to make a separate page for it and link to that to keep the main article short it would be worth it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.44.208 (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't one of length. The problem is that this is blatantly in violation of WP:NOT. It's quite frankly not even close. Dlong 21:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Being that it is the "imagination land" episode, I'm fairly certain that a list of noted "imaginary" characters appearing in the episode is entirely relevant to the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.94.204 (talk • contribs)
As I posted earlier:

"A list of a bunch of characters who appeared for only a few seconds in a half-hour television show and had absolutely no effect on the plot is FAR from useful." I hope that's not over your head. Dlong 21:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

there is no need to stoop to petty rudeness, this is a discussion mate, if you can't handle that stop posting and collect yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.94.204 (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The list fails WP:NOT#INFO. The list needs to be removed. Period. Stop stating that's it's useful. It's not. Douglasr007 22:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Where in that list does it say that lists of cameos (or whatever you want to call them) cannot be listed?--Cartman0052007 00:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Not all lists are trivia sections
   For further information concerning the use of lists in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Lists

In this guideline, when we refer to a trivia section, we are referring to its content, not its section name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and unselective list. These disorganized items are in need of cleanup, either by incorporating them into the prose of another section, or by filtering the list to be more selective. A selectively populated list with a narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cartman0052007 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


On the list of episodes, whats with the 2 parts of imaginationland? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.108.39 (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


If the list is to be removed, then a proper and well wrtting section should be included to replace it, noting the more prominent imagined characters. And Also a sub section to state the copyrighted characters used (Ronald McDonald, Care Bear etc). This would be more than adequate to quell this stupi argument. I would do it but its late here. Philbuck222 22:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with incorporating a small sentence or two summarizing this information into the plot section. However, there is absolutely no reason to list all character who appeared. Dlong 01:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


I would personally advise some patience and allow this section to develop into something, if it can. I would invoke Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, since the people who are creating, supporting and maintaining these South Park articles clearly are in favor of this section and I'm sure will be able to adapt it somewhat. Lists are used in many other situations where no one seems to mind (e.g. lists of famous university alumni). Deletionism isn't really a good idea here. I can understand the temporary protection. --Bobak 00:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify myself, I'm trying to say there must be some middle ground here. I am not in favor of seeing some black or white solution. --Bobak 00:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The people adding this section are not established users, at least not for the most part. They are IP users and newly registered accounts, not the long-time editors who work on the South Park articles. Dlong 01:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a great section to have. It is interesting and again, this is what draws people to the site. You can't find this information anywhere else. I think that the more in depth these articles go, the better. But, I can also agree with making it a separate page. Just don't delete it!--Cartman0052007 00:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"It is interesting" is not a valid argument. No one has yet to explain a good reason for listing every single cameo appearance that occurred in the episode. The fact is, most of these characters had little to do with the plot. Dlong 01:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
It is a perfectly valid argument. Why not add information that people find interesting? Wait, you're right, lets just put a bunch of crap that no one cares about and are not going to read. Thats what I call a great article.--Csrtman005 01:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, no it's not. See: WP:INTERESTING Dlong 02:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
"Likewise," -", so just because you are not interested by a topic, that does not mean everyone else is similarly disinterested." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.94.204 (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
That would be a valid point if my argument for removal had anything to do with me being disinterested. However, that's not what it was. Dlong 02:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a perfectly valid argument for why the list of fictional characters should be kept. There were numerous characters present in Imaginationland that I remember from my childhood but could not remember their names (H.R. Pufnstuf for example). The inclusion of the list allowed me to click on each name until I came to the Wikipedia article of the character I was looking for. This is one of the purposes of Wikipedia--to allow people to find information that they would otherwise have a difficult time locating. I doubt I would have ever remembered the names of half the characters that I wanted to reminisce about from my childhood. Thanks to this list, I was able to find the Wikipedia article for every single character that I wanted to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aqausten (talk • contribs)


So the list has been permanently removed? Who decided to do that 24.154.94.204 23:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been permanently removed until someone puts it back. Captain Infinity 23:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Straw poll

  • Keep and see what it turns into. It's only been one day since the show aired; seems a bit early to start imposing exclusionist restrictions. Captain Infinity 02:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, because I'm an inclusionist. Xaxafrad 02:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
What can it possibly turn into but a bigger list (when part 2 airs)? Dlong 02:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, because there's absolutely no reason not to. Are we really going to debate the importance on an entry for a South Park episode on this joke of a website? Wikipedia is serious business, guys! 168.122.213.166 06:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Forgot to sign in. I wrote that. FreakmanJ 06:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Not necessary, but they are notable characters in part of the story being told, the cast of character cameos are imaginary and therefore have relevance to the article of the episode ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 09:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Anyone who takes a moment to step back and look at this objectively will see that both sides are right to a degree (as well as being wrong) 1)of course this list is extremely interesting to anyone who watches the show and wants to learn more about it, and the nature of the episode and "imaginationland" itself makes an argument for special circumstances as regards relevance and how informative the inclusion such information is. however 2) of course it's against wikipedia policy, which is pretty clear on not including lists, and it's not exactly necessary, and extremely hard to verify and reference. however, i'd argue that there are much bigger fish to fry around these south park pages. i'd be more than happy to let it stay - either here or on its own page - if it would mean people would stop writing things like "this could may be possibly might be a reference to xyz"; those things are the real problem-this list, while unneccesary and slightly against policy, is also relatively harmlessWarchef 10:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Please see my comment in the "Don't be a d***" section. Kevinh456 14:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The cultural references are an integral part of the episode; by the logic being employed here, we should probably also delete the "physical properties" section in most of the Element articles, as well as the "summary" portions of the Torah-related articles. Sorry, folks, but lists are sometimes necessary to an article. 68.175.49.98 17:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You all can stop commenting. It has become quite clear at this point that I am the only one here interested in following Wikipedia procedure. With that in mind, you guys can be in charge of the article, and when it devolves into a shitstew, as it will, you guys can be the ones who clean it up. I refuse to deal with people who cannot use logic, and this will be no exception. Dlong 14:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

hehe, i think you need to chill out a little there dude. this is a talk page for discussion, and all that the above people have done is give their opinion on the matter, which is exactly what was asked of them. i don't think anyone considers the issue resolved, and the article is still developing and trying to find a common consensus-I personally think there's plenty of room for compromise. your side of the argument is of course a valid one, however the "everyone's entitled to an opinion as long as they agree with me"/"i'm taking my ball with me" approach doesn't do the cause much good. we'll try to struggle on without you; however due to your elegant parting words i'm sure you'll always be remembered round here as a martyr for justiceWarchef 15:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe he can just use Rockety Rocket to blow up Wikipedia, since people aren't using it the way he wants them to? 68.175.49.98 17:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep keep it, it is useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.55.193.82 (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This section is not actually a trivia section since it has a clear definition of that it entails. A cultural reference section is deserved and should be kept. -- UKPhoenix79 22:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The section fails reason number 1 of WP:NOT#DIR. It's not useful at all. Douglasr007 01:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails the guidelines, and is not relevant to the storyline. The majority appeared on the screen for less than a second and are yet suddenly deemed incendiary devices that propelled the narrative towards its crucial conclusion? Makes no sense to me. The article should conform itself to the guidelines of wikipedia and NOT the other way around. Aarfy Aardvark 16:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Please quit saying fails, think of another word. And yes it is useful and should be kept. Why is Wikipedia loaded with so many deletionists?--Cartman005 01:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that the list should stay FOR NOW, and that we slowly start to turn it into prose. Such as:
"Imaginationland's inhabitants come from a wide spectrum of cultural areas, from high art and mythology to television and pop culture. It contains mythical creatures (, a [[griffin], a centaur, etc...), greek mythological figures (Pan (mythology)etc...). The world of pop culture is also represented through computer-game characters (Mario, blah, blah blah), famous and obscure TV characters (Snarf, etc. etc.)" and so on and so on....
That's my suggestion to keep the info (cultural references ARE allowed and encouraged, once verifiable) and start to slowly move away from the list. Should make things a bit more encyclopedic all round and help diffuse some of the differences here maybe? I don't have time to do it now but I think it's a pretty decent suggestion... comments/thoughts? Warchef 09:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Keep it. Sinmple as. Philbuck222 23:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is interesting information, not readily obtained elsewhere. 130.154.0.250 23:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - I came on this article just to read the list as I'm sure many people do, and it's not there. It's alot easier to have the list in the article and find it at a glance rather than having to read through this whole discussion section to find what I'm looking for. Daveldhu (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - I can't believe valuable content like this is being lost because people have a chip on the shoulder about including any sort of list on WP. I agree this shouldn't be part of the main article but why not put it in its own article and link to it? Honestly, what does that hurt? How is more knowledge ever a bad thing? If you want to argue that the information is not presented properly, or non-verifiable or improperly referenced I think that's valid, but don't indulge in what amounts to book burning because of your own personal opinions on the subject. Clearly most of the people commenting are in support of this kind of content. You haters all quote WP:NOT to support your argument yet you selectively ignore the first rule 'Wikipedia is NOT a paper encyclopedia, there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content..." So how is linking to a sub article in this case a bad thing? Snafu7x7 (talk) 04:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Butters being left Behind

It's actually based off of the part from red dawn where the group is driving away and a group of soviet paratroopers jump the guy with the glasses. It's very similar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.42.115 (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall the Soviet paratroops beating the crap out of the kid with the glasses and forcing him to read a statement on television, but I'll let your comments stand - if only because Red Dawn is one of the finer versions of campy 1980s films trying to teach us how to hate the Russians. --166.102.104.78 04:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Same could be said about the scene from Platoon douchebag, the scene that Wikipedia is citing as refences, which is actually isn't the scene of LT Wolfe being blinded by a Frag Garnade, but the scene of Sgt Elias being left behind as Barnes anounced his death. Now I don't usually use the term douchebag, but since your smugness offends me, I think it is accurate; almost as accurate as saying the scene of Butters being left behind is a refeneces to Red Dawn, than Platoon. 74.77.105.6 07:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not at all like Platoon. I have a copy of the film and just reviewed the key scenes - THERE ARE NO RELEVANT SIMILARITIES. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 14:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
SP has made previous Red Dawn analogies. For instance "Avenge me!" from inside a prison camp. The movie is both campy and has a Colorado reference. And allows SP to be both mocking and pro redneck in the cool way that they are. You fucking commies, you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 23:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The scene is OBVIOUSLY referencing Platoon. Whoever removed this has apparentely never seen the movie (or reviewed the "key scenes" well!). The following link is a Youtube clip of the actual scene from Platoon that South Park referenced (specifically the part of the clip beggining at the 2:00 mark) [2] The allusion has been placed back in the article.--Holtskee 02:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see any similarities at all.--Swellman 02:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Group on truck leave behind guy with glasses and beat the crap out of the kid with glasses as hte group is driving away. In platoon hte guy is running away he is gunned down not beaten up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.42.115 (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allusions

  • The scene where the Defense Department gets help from movie directors alludes to the ongoing gripes of Hollywood's running out of ideas.

This is not true. It's actually an allusion to the Pentagon employing Hollywood writers to "think up" possible actions of terrorists and how to counter them. See: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117854200.html?categoryid=1&cs=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.169.214 (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right. The West Wing is a famous example in which one of the scenes was ACTUALLY implemented in reality later on.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be included somewhere as it is a direct reference to what SineBot is discussing. Here is another article, one from the BBC, where they did a special program on Hollywood individuals working with the Defense Department after 9/11 to come up with ways terrorist my try and strike at targets. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/1891196.stm Being as this is a joke I would venture to guess most people would overlook because it is based upon a now overlooked incident it might be worthy to mention it in the article. Vaginsh 23:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The scene where Cartman is in a sultan outfit at a party waiting to collect on his bet is an allusion to the scene in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen where the Sultan is planning to collect the Baron's head as part of their bet. Ja V C 06:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the terrorist explosion and the Defense strategy room are both allusion from the film The Kingdom. I assume that most people have not seen it as it is fairly new and the reference wasn't noticed. (OttOO (talk) 05:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC))

The ship they travel on to Imaginationland and the wall that keeps the evil things out appear to be an allusion to the film Stardust: http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0486655/Ss/0486655/11091018.jpg?path=gallery&path_key=0486655 http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0486655/Ss/0486655/11092404.jpg?path=gallery&path_key=0486655 http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0486655/Ss/0486655/150_SD05097.jpg?path=gallery&path_key=0486655

And the bit where the guy says to Kurt Russel that he's there because it's much the same as the film he was in is a reference to Stargate (film)

Castle Sunshine and the following counsel meeting is a parody of Lord Of The Rings: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/_Breaker_/CastleSunshine.jpg http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0120737/Ss/0120737/lotr_30.jpg?path=gallery&path_key=0120737

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.205.171 (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Who are you?"

The scene when the FBI-Guy watches the Screenshot with Butters and asks "Who are you?", is that a reference to a film? I think to have seen it already but i am not shure.
I've been trying to figure that out too. I know I've seen it before--I just can't think what movie it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aqausten (talk • contribs) 20:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


I think they have used this in several films. Off the top of my head, I think in Rambo I when the sheriff is talking to his men and the General appears from nowhere and starts talking, the sheriff turns to him and says something like "Who the hell are you?" or something in that vein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.166.36.24 (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


The show is Deja Vu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.14.10 (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "They are coming..."

When the wall begins to collapse, the mayor says "they are coming"----What's this in reference to? It seems like it's gotta be from something... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannysk89 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


the lord of the rings... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.140.19.113 (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Production Details

See for yourselves:

-from one of the animators of the show, Keef Bartkus, as he's known as on the internet.

This definitely deserves mention in the article.--Swellman 22:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, excellent! If you don't mind I think I'll "be bold" and add it, and ye can fix it up as ye see fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warchef (talk • contribs) 10:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Warchef 12:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Where did the production details go? did someone give a proper reason for removing it? I thought they were relevant and properly referencedWarchef (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I am also wondering this. I am going to try to find where they were removed and restore them.--Cartman005 (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Characters to ad

http://www.spscriptorium.com/Season11/E1110guests.htm

  • Dreamfinder From the "imagination" ride at Epcot Center.
  • Brer Rabbit
  • Moon Bellied Sneetch
  • Eliot the Dragon
  • The Dreadful Flying Glove
  • The Brave Little Toaster
  • Aubrey (Little Gems)
  • Casper the Friendly Ghost
  • Boober Fraggle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.172.131 (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch Interwikilink

Could somebody please make a link to the Dutch version of this article? Thanks... Afhaalchinees, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... Afhaalchinees, 16:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reception

Is it really necessary to document an episodes reception in the media? If so, I don't things like IGN would be creditable sources. Wikipedia is a lot of things, but I hope it's not the next IMDB. --Serious Mr. Karate 03:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's in the Wikipedia guidelines for writing articles on TV shows to include reception/critical reaction; I agree that IGN et al aren't exactly the best sources, but as times goes on the show will get more relevant reviews (when the DVD comes out for example), and there's no reason not to show some representation of the reaction in the meantime. I guess?Warchef 05:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imaginary characters list

We can't keep putting in characters unless there is proof of existence in the episode. find more proof of characters before placing more names on the list.(Emigdioofmiami 21:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

In scene, when Brown Hornet runs from right side to left, you can see Pac-Man run on the backdgound. (08:35-08:36). Next: look to the picture number 11 there ([3]), Yoda stands just behind Comedy Central logo, but we can see him. Next: look to the picture 13 on the same page; the ghost here marked on "SPScriptorium" as Casper, but he isn't looks like Casper - that's Bloo. Fleutist 21:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

VINCENT can be seen in pic 16 between the scarecrow and Snarf at the same link([4]). Vader47000 12:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


The lists of imaginary characters from each article have to to merged into one separate article. It is stupid to list them separately for each episode. Can we do a poll or something please?--Cartman005 16:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

So its been removed again, I thought it was resolved over 2 months ago that the list would remain.24.154.94.204 (talk)

[edit] image

Image:South Park 1110 imaginationland terrorist al qaeda.jpg this is from http://www.southparkstudios.com/downloads/preview/?id=7522 and is released by southparkstudios for download this should be covered in fair use? can we use this in the article? Philbuck222 18:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

can someone please help me with this fair use rationale? or this image will be removed on the 12th. It was released from SPS, with an actual download link. This should qualify for fair use. please help me, because im getting confused. Philbuck222 17:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I put a fiar use tag on it, its standard on most FU rationales for simpsons so it might hold. --123.51.103.64 06:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] adventure in slumberland

i think this episode is almost like nemo: adventure in slumberland. it's an old disney movie it's basically the same.

kids come from the real world into slumberland by a hot air balloon. there was a barrier between the "good dreams and the nightmare" butters thinking he woke up from a bad dream but then realize that "reality was the dream". just my thoughts J1j2j3 06:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That movie was actually based on a comic strip from the late 1800's and early 1900's. Just a little bit of side info there. I agree though, there are similarities.--Zahveed 14:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inhabitants of Imaginationland

I don't think that separate article for Imaginationland inhabitants is a good idea. Fleutist 12:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's better off just having the lists in the episode articles...--Swellman 16:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
WHY? Then we have basically the same list in two articles... soon to be three. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cartman0052007 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
That's why a merge is being discussed for the three articles.--Swellman 17:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What's bad in three lists in three articles? For example, we have plot description in all articles about episodes, trivia sections in all articles about episodes... Let's make article "Plots of all South Park episodes" of merge it all! Fleutist 17:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ya but the plots for the three episodes aren't the same, as the inhabitants are.--Cartman005 18:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Inhabitants aren't the same, they just are cross. This part of trivia don't make any sense, if we can't see list for each episode separately. Fleutist 19:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Thats why I included a key for which episode(s) the character was in!--Cartman005 01:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think a seperate article for the inhabitants is a good idea as long as they are divided into what episodes they first appear in and which ones cross into the other eps. The Guitar Hero pages have seperate articles for the list of songs because of the amount listed. There are a lot of characters being featured and making cameos, so it will clean up the main article quite a bit if they are moved. Either that, or keep it where it is and make a cleaner looking list.--Zahveed 14:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Teabagging?

To suck someones balls could hardly be called teabagging. But fellatio isnt right either. Any suggestions?--81.236.228.72 16:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Errrrr....sucking his balls? No link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.61.0 (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critical and commercial success?

I haven't seen this episode and its sequels but this three-part story does look like an audacious and well received plot arc.

I'm a little concerned about the statement that the program was a "commercial success." As I understand it, the audience was only 3.4 million in the United States. In the UK, a country with about one-fifth of the population of the US, a highly successful TV program on a cable/satellite channel, BBC Three, gets around 2.4 million (Torchwood episode one, Everything Changes), and even then this was estimated to be only a 12.7% audience share. There seems to be a discrepancy, here. If 2.4 million cable viewers is only a tiny proportion of the audience in a much, much smaller country, how does 3.4 million US viewers equate to great success? Moreover if I understand it correctly, our article says that the episode was "ranked #1 in cable among Persons 18-49". If that's so, then presumably cable is a very tiny proprtion of the market in the US, compared to Britain. At least, amongst most adults. --Tony Sidaway 01:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The message of this one

... What's the message of this one? It seems to be something about terrorists making our imagination run wild, but I didn't really get it. Was it about copyright BS? (they showed tons of copyrighted characters, including strawberry shortcake, whose owners have been rabid lawsuiters before) I didn't see much emphasis on that.. I guess not all South Park episodes have a 'moral' but lately most of them do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DVD Release

Just thought someone would like to add the news that the trilogy is being released on DVD. - Mysteryham 23:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

I have requested comment from neutral editors to hopefully have this merge dispute resolved.--Swellman 02:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Um....where do I start? --293.xx.xxx.xx 13:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I'll probably end up having to go to request for arbitration. But according to policy, we have to try other stuff first.--Swellman 20:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
It shouldn't need to go to RfAr. Will (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge debate continued

From what I can tell, it's you two — Swellman & Will — that don't want to "lose". I say you two specifically just based on a quick skim that you two are the most vocal (read: most replies) for merging. Swellman has — a number of times — claimed the oppose side has no argument (specifically "arguments aren't valid"). Will wants "sources".

One thing that seems to be agreement is that it's silly duplicating the inhabitants list three times. Yet, Swellman AFD'd Inhabitants of Imaginationland despite admitting "It's practically the same list on every page. What's the point of that?" because of what I see as his willingness to fight until death that the merge must take place (ergo there WILL be one page for one list).

The argument for each side boils down to this:

  • support — other articles are merged
  • oppose — three episodes = three articles

What I find very peculiar is that Swellman points out and relies upon Cartoon Wars and Go God Go for his primary reason to merge, but gets pissed off at people referencing Star Wars & LotR: "do I even have to tell you how silly it is [?]". Counter all you like Swellman, but I find this an inconsistent argument. Then there is Will's absolutely blatant incivility:

In actual fact, it should go the other way as the oppose votes are full of shit.

Will: grow up and add WP:CIVIL to your user page. Seriously. You want to reach a consensus by calling your "opponents" full of shit?

As far as I'm concerned, neither side has compelling enough argument to do anything. If things were switched — one merged article, and people fighting tooth-and-tail to split it up — I'd say no split. Just so happens that this means the status quo is retained and we have three articles.

I would so bet 1000:1 against that Swellman agreeing with me. He quickly reverted my removal of merge tags over a week ago despite the consensus then being the same as now: don't merge. I have to agree very strongly with Warchef that there are better things time could be spent on than arguing about a merge. But neither of you will listen to me and likely will contend I'm not neutral, right? Just don't call me full of shit. Cburnett 03:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a million reasons why using Go God Go or Cartoon Wars is a better argument better than using Star Wars. Will (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
True but the same cannot be said about Who Shot Mr. Burns? (Part One) and Who Shot Mr. Burns? (Part Two). -- UKPhoenix79 17:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
This section is not for continuing the debate, please take it to the appropriate section. Cburnett 17:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I am so sorry you are right -- UKPhoenix79 05:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Will, out of all that, your only reply is to restate your argument? Pfftt. Cburnett 17:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I find Swellman's argument stronger as he's taking an example from the same topic. It's like, but not as extreme as, voting for say, Johnny Bravo, to have episode articles because The Simpsons does, which is generally accepted as a weak argument. However, were he to vote for/against an article for episode 2 of Johnny Bravo because of what happened to the article on episode 7, where both articles have little difference (e.g. both plot summaries and trivia), it'd be at least better because there would be some sort of precedent that could easily be applied. On the subject of the "three episodes!" argument, the reason I want sources is because several sources point to Imaginationland being one extended episode split because of Comedy Central's scheduling (southparkstudios.com advertised part 3 just as "Imaginationland", Trey and Matt's comments about it being conceived as one, etc), while I haven't seen any (apart from scheduling) pointing towards them being three episodes. And while I may be a tad uncivil, I'm a saint compared to other people. Will (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, you find your argument as more convincing than your opponents' argument! I'm...I'm shocked. What you don't *get* is that people just. don't. agree. with. you. WP:WAX is about AFD. If you want to apply it here, then you can't disregard "what about star wars?" but hinge your argument on "what about another SP episode?" If you want to disregard other articles then you have to do them all. To do otherwise is inconsistent. It's much akin to doublethink. But you glazed over that point of my previous post.
On a side note: reducing your civility to that of others still — believe it or not — speaks about your character. If you're fine with that then don't pawn off responsibility for your statement on others' words. Cburnett 19:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
And in comes the obligatory Nineteen Eighty-Four reference. You're missing my point too - if two articles are the same structurally and fundamentally, then WAX can be seen as a strong argument. There's nothing fundamentally or structurally different between Imaginationland and Cartoon Wars apart from the fact that Imaginationland was three episodes. There is a mile of both structural and fundamental difference, however between Imaginationland I, II, III (plot and trivia) and Star Wars episode I, II, III (production, plot, analogues). Will (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Erm... the reception section, perchance? ~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 21:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to listen to Warchef and stop wasting my time on this. "OMG 1984 reference!!1one" "OMG, like you missed my point!!!" It's like I'm conversing with a teenager. *sigh* This page is going off my watchlist so bash me all you want (and I'm sure you'll get in some good, strong jabs). Cburnett 22:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
You are conversing with a teenager. He's 16. Captain Infinity 22:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that if you read the first entry's in the oppose section of the merge debate they were point out that the reason Imaginationland should be kept separate is because Go God Go and Cartoon Wars are separate

Against, Go God Go and Cartoon Wars are separated, so should Imaginationland. A separate article for each episode, a disambig page and an article for inhabitants.--Cartman005 18:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

but somewhere during the debates someone merged one of them [5] to prove their point and to give evidence that the argument was based on past decisions... humh... Interesting... -- UKPhoenix79 05:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I merged one of them. Not to prove my point, but because one of them was already merged and looked a lot better. Will (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that a bit disingenuous? To make your point you fabricate the evidence? I know it sounds harsh but your actions don't help :-( -- UKPhoenix79 09:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I've created a new section for the past 10-15 comments, since none of them have anything to do with the RFC (all of the comments have been from people who have made edits to the article, and are not neutral).--Swellman 21:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Good call but doesn't Cburnett count as a RFC reply since he was not a part of the poll? -- UKPhoenix79 05:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hobbes?

Where does Hobbes appear in this episode? I have looked throughout and have not seen him, and yet he is on the list. Does anyone know what part he shows up in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.96.151 (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Since the merger is closed

Can we lose the merge tags from the pages now that the merge deate has been closed? StuartDD contributions 15:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes please. And the edit block too.--Cartman005 23:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I would agree it does seam like the discussion is over and the consensus (aside from a couple of nice but vocal editors) is that the pages should remain as is. I have put the edit tag up for an admin to edit these 3 pages and remove the tags. -- UKPhoenix79 02:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Kenny death?

I have only seen the third Imaginationland and would not be asking this otherwise. My friend is certain that Kenny was killed in the terrorist attack, but I thought his only death this season was in The List. Did Kenny get killed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.38.108 (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

He escaped with Stan and Kyle. He did die in the third part, of course, only to be resurrected. --  L. T. Dangerous  (Talk to me!)  21:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References to Popular Culture : EPCOT Imagination

Consider adding:

the similarity of the "Imagination song" to the "intro to EPCOT Imagination center"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.158.132 (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LOL HEY EVERYBODY, CHECK IT OUT!!!!!!!!

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080521/LETTERS/55164451

(RE: IMAGINATIONLAND) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.236.111 (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)