Talk:South Park/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Musical section 2 First sentance 3 Links 4 Too Serious 5 Freedom 6 Misrepresenting Catholics 7 whats 8 Mormonism and Judaism 9 Two more seasons?!? 10 Child abuse and neglect 11 Main characters 12 Whatever, Editors. 13 The connection between Cartoon Wars and the Scientology Episode 14 Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard 15 its so funny 16 Online episodes 17 Season 11 - 2nd Half? 18 Tagged as long 19 2000? 20 "belies his baser motivations" 21 Animation 22 Turd Ferguson 23 Production 24 IKE=.....

Musical section

The musical section could use some cleanup, maybe converting the broken paragraph and sentences into a list of episodes with cartman singing? Shad0w 06:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

First sentance

The opening sentance of the article "Southpark is about four fourth grade school boys" struck me as needing adjustment, in the form of the "foul mouthed" section being removed. I would argue that referring to the characters as foul-mouthed in the opening sentance is superfluous, considering that a good deal of the rest of the article is devoted to analyzing the vulgarity of the show (and additionally, the vulgarity of the central characters is not by any means atypical for boys in that age group). In addition, are the characters really fourth-graders? IIRC, they're supposed to be 8 years old, Mr. Garrison was identified as a teacher of third grade, and fourth graders are typically 9-10 years of age. I could be wrong though, on that point, so I didn't change it.

-wgw2024

The characters are in the third grade up until season 4 episode 11. From then on the boys are in the forth grade.80.47.111.117 01:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Links

So, I know of this website where you can watch any SP episode ever made. You can even watch the movie and lots of bonus stuff. Would it be appropriate to add it into the external links section? I'm not sure. Irish rover 11:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be an obvious copyright violation, very much not appropriate. - Ugliness Man 07:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually the site that he's probably referring to doesn't actually host the files, they just link to them. It's not illegal, at least i don't think there has been any legal case about that. (Just like i never heard about any Bittorent tracker being shut down in the USA by court). But sure, since everything is controlled by the media anyway, not adding the link would probably be the right choice. Ran4 01:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The site consists of many youtube, myspace video, and many other video hosting sites. Irish rover 00:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Matt Stone and Trey Parker have said that they don't care if their episodes are viewed on the Internet. However, it would be best if we didn't link to it.--Orthologist 09:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Too Serious

The author(s) of this article have completely missed the point of South Park and all of Parker/Stone's work: To make fun of as many people, cultures, and societies as possible in as many ways as possible. It should be fairly obvious to any viewer of South Park that Matt and Trey are not trying to make statements about society or express their religious beliefs (as if they have any.) These guys are all about the humor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.166.94.171 (talk) 03:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

There are many problems with this statement, but I'll break it down into the two that immediately come to mind:

• First of all, you are stating an opinion, your personal interpretation of their intentions. You can use the word "obvious", but what that really means is that that's how you interpret it, and you think that anyone who feels differently is "wrong". That's not how it works in the real world. If you want to debate a point of fact, please do, but one lone voice opposing general consensus isn't going to make much of an impression, especially when that lone voice can't spell "serious".
• Second, your position has been contradicted by statements made by Matt and Trey themselves. It's true that they've expressed concern that some of their material is taken more seriously than intended, but they have also confirmed a variety of political and religious views they hold personally, and also confirmed the influence these views have had on their stories, as well as the resulting discussion they hoped would come from people reacting to the episodes.

If you have a citeable source that says that Matt and Trey have plainly stated that none of their subject matter is to be taken seriously, please cite it. However, your personal opinion is not a citeable source, and at this point should have no direct effect on this article. - Ugliness Man 05:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"To make fun of as many people, cultures, and societies as possible in as many ways as possible." - Actually, they say the exact opposite of this statement in the "Going Down To South Park" special that airs from time to time. - Whoa2000 04:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is I agree too serious and fucking retarded. It's the kind of in depth analysis a loser cunt university student would give a program. You've focussed on the shit issues of south park like scientology and how they make fun of religion and the word "satire" has no place on this page.

First off, hostility and attacks are not needed whatsoever here. Secondly, take the program with a grain of salt; it's not the real world. It's meant to be entertaining and fun. When you can't get beyond that, you've got to step back a little bit and recognize what's wrong. Jmlk17 09:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Freedom

I think that we could include the fact that the children in the show have a large amount of freedom in travelling. They seem to be able to go wherever thay want, in episodes such as Cartoon Wars and The Passion of the Jew, without any interference by their parents. This is quite different from neglect, as, even though the kids care for the children more or less, the kids never seem to ask them for permission to go to another town or city and the parents never seem to prohibit them to do it or even know about it.--Orthologist 19:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The parents in South Park are incompetent half of the time. I bet that they don't even know their kids are gone half the time.Kritish5951 05:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh... Orthologist, you, uh, do realize that this is a cartoon, right? Why then should anyone include the fact that these characters can travel freely without interference from their parents?

It is a cartoon, but in most adult cartoons, children characters don't have this ability; they're constantly supervised by their parents (The Simpsons). Also, please sign your comments.--Orthologist 09:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This is simply a cartoon. The creators have stated time and time again that they aren't too concerned with the tiny details of the cartoon; they just want to entertain. Jmlk17 08:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Misrepresenting Catholics

Repeatedly, the area documenting South Park's misrepresentation of Roman Catholic views on Evolution has been altered. Claiming that the reference was to show the views "of several Catholics" is not supported by fact and is not NPOV. The Catholic Church has an official position, which is documented, the show's transcript, which is also a matter of provable fact, contradicts it. The show could have used a character from a Bible-literalist denomination. It did not.

24.215.145.136 05:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has accused South Park of being a documentary. Its entertainment and an adult cartoon. It has no responsibility to the Catholic Church, or any other church for that matter. Dman727 14:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If you go back and read the same area, it has been pointed out that Matt and Trey make a very big deal about the accuracy of their portrayls of religious beliefs. That generally would lead most people to believe that their portayals of all religions are accurate parody. Ask any ten avid South Park fans where they learned most of what they know about Mormonism and Scientology. Nine will say - "South Park"

Btw, one thing I wish I could write in the article but it is in no way NPOV. The recent portrayal of Bill Donohue of the Catholic League was dead on 100% true. Bill Donohue constantly shows up on news programs representing the whole Catholic Church, when in fact, he is NOT in step with most Catholics and often not even the Pope. So right there is an example where South Park is closer to reality that the "serious" media.24.215.145.136 09:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that, however its not really relevant. It's still an adult cartoon and not a documentary. While the film makers may choose to be as accurate as possible, their first priority if they wish to continue is to entertain. No serious person who wants to learn about any religion turns to South Park first as their primary source. Sure many may first learn about a religion through a show like this (i.e. Scientolgy), its incidental to the entertainment aspect. Dman727

The show is meant for entertainment purposes only...anyone trying to learn about religion or any aspect of it should probably research elsewhere. Jmlk17 21:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

whats

whats the leaders of the 6 grades name

hamburger dan

Are you asking what the name of the little 6th grader gang is? Jmlk17 21:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Mormonism and Judaism

I don't think that in the controversy section, Mormonism and Judaism should be grouped together. Mormons were devoted only one episode that mocked them(and were actually given a quite flattering representation in another), while as Jews are lampooned (even if it is just a throw-away comment by Cartman) in every single episode. Also, how is it considered controversy if the churches have not even issued statements?Kman34 03:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Kman34

A controversy doesn't just become a controversy the moment a church of some religon makes a comment on it. Yes it's true that Kyle is insulted regularily on South Park, but Mormonism is made fun of mulitple times, as everyone is dissapointed and all "aww" when they are told that "the correct religon was...Mormonism" in the episode Do the Handicapped Go to Hell? and Mormonism is also portrayed in the episodes sequel, Probably. In both cases, Mormonists are sort of ridiculed as being the "only" way to God and being overly friendly and polite, so you can't just say that they were only mocked in one episode when they weren't.

On a side note and also partially in answer to the claim that "South Park shouldn't be taken as anything more than shock and/or potty humor", Trey Parker and Matt Stone make fun of celebrities or famous people that piss them off all the time on South Park. Princess Diana and Gandhi are in Hell, Phil Collins is portrayed as being as being manipulative and talentless, etc, etc. Basically they find a fault in everyone and rip on it, that's what South Park is about. I quote an extended interview with Trey from the PBS program The Charlie Rose Show, in which a section of the interview was given in the book "South Park and Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today" as edited by Robert Arp. Trey was on the show with Matt, and he proclaimed "What we say with the show is not anything new, but I think it's something that is great to put out there. It is that the people screaming on this side and the people screaming on that side are the same people, and it's OK to be someone in the middle, laughing at both of them." Captain N 1:44 PM, April 12th, 2007 (EST)

I Agree with you that "a controversy doesn't just become a controversy the moment a church of some religion makes a comment on it", but the problem is, there was NO controversy at all with All About Mormons (most Mormons love the depiction, as it is hilariously true). Unless your definition of controversy is that it hurt one member of the Church's feelings, no controversy has occured as a result. No one ever protested it, there was no public outcry, etc., and so including it in this section is just plain stupid. Perhaps it would fit into a "Religions parodied in South Park" category, but it certainly does not fit here. Enlighten me with your rationale for including it in said section, perhaps you can shed some light.Kman3406:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The section on Judaism seriously needs splitting from Mormonism and expanding. Anti-semitic jokes are a big part of South Park and this needs discussion about how it can be interpreted in a satirical sense and what the creators have said about this - and they have commented, e.g. on the DVD. Matt Stone mother was also Jewish which gives an insight into the jokes. If you do not think there has been a large controversy over this (I doubt it, but...), as per Kman above, then it can be taken out of the controversy section, but IMHO it must be discussed. Thanks. Singhyuk 05:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Does it really? I mean I am not fully convinced that the Jewish issue in South Park is truly a controversy. I realize the Scientology and Mormon episodes were big, but that's because they completely made fun hardcore of those respective religions, while the Jewish jokes are often just limited to one-liners. Jmlk17 07:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The Scientology episode was a big deal because it upset the Scientologist community (i.e. departure of Isaac Hayes, Tom Cruise refusing to promote MI:III if it was shown again in re-runs, etc.). The Mormon episode was NOT big because reaction was extremely mellow and was actually quite well received by the LDS community. This is because Trapped in the Closet showed all Scientologists as crazy or greedy, and CLEARLY stated that Scientology is a "big, fat, global scam." All about Mormons depicted all of the odder Mormon beliefs in a humorous context, but also showed Mormons as good, nice people (albeit a little too nice sometimes) with strong family ties. This is why there was no controversy. All of this, however is just more reason as to why Judaism and Mormonism should not be grouped together. If Mormonism is to be grouped with anything in this section (I personally feel that it does not belong in this section at all), it should be Scientology, because the episode and satire format is similar, as is somewhat stated by Jmlk17 above. 72.8.113.144 22:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Kman34

Two more seasons?!?

Uh, some guy put "TWO more seasons are planned, with an option of renewal at the end of season 12." I'll fix this... Jay B. 22:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this was before the 11th season started. Jmlk17 21:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Child abuse and neglect

odd, i see no mention of Ike and his teacher in here yet...· Lygophile has spoken 21:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would you? Or am I missing something here...Jmlk17 21:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Miss Teacher Bangs a Boy features Ike having a relationship with his teacher. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 11:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand and know the episode, but the show is satire; I don't think child abuse and neglect play a big issue. Jmlk17 23:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

even though the rhetoric was purely about sexdiscriminatory mentality about seks, the episode revolves around an obvious case of child abuse. doesnt that require it be added?· Lygophile has spoken 16:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suppose so :) Jmlk17 20:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Butters'_Very_Own_Episode is quite full of child abuse, too. ~~

That is very true. Jmlk17 08:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

so does the Return of Chef· Lygophile has spoken 15:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

and then theres that time when butters was beat up by his parents by cartmens making, whilst he watched from just outside the door with popcorn and soda· Lygophile has spoken 15:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I get it. There is child abuse in the show, but should it become a section of considerable information or not, that is the question. Jmlk17 21:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

well as it is (though the section is moved) it does state the very trivial occurence of butters receiving annilingus from his uncle. i think the section needs to say that childabuse is often used for purpose of making a point unrelated to childabuse, such as in Miss Teacher Bangs a Boy and The Return of Chef. and a little note about how frequent referals to childabuse occur in many different episode, such as butters mom trying to kill him, butters getting beat up by his parents, butters being molested by his uncle, the occasional psychological abuse of butters by his parents, butters parents trying to sell him to Paris Hilton (poor butters..), the awesemo incedent with the guy that wants to have sex with cartmen thinking he's a robot, cartmen sucking semen out of a "hose" and giving handjobs to uhm, that acter, the guy that talks to jimmy about his spontanous eractions and wants to make out with him....etc. these 'little' incedents occur so much in the series, it should be mentioned in a paragraph· Lygophile has spoken 14:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Thank you for pointing out the instances. I want to make it clear that I am not saying we shouldn't have a section for it. What I was previously stating is that I did not believe it was a central theme. It appears that it is a minor theme, more of a random, background issue that occurs at times to certain characters. I mean, I don't believe Stan, nor Kyle have had any episode mention anything of sexual abuse about them in it. I dunno...either way, a small section is probably not a bad idea. Jmlk17 20:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

yeah agreed. the section allready exists though, it just needs a paragraph in it, instead of only a bit of it being spread out throughout the section. im just too lazy....but ill guess ill give it a go· Lygophile has spoken 22:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol alright. I'll help out a bit later on. Jmlk17 22:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Main characters

The page lists the obvious four (Cartmen, Kenny, Kyle and Stan), but it also lists Butters. Now, this is arguably true since Butters was a "fourth friend" after Kenny's season-long death. However, so we Tweek, yet Tweek is not listed. Should Tweek's info be moved to this section? If not, then I think it's fair to remove Butters. Geeky Randy 06:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fair to assume that there are only FOUR main characters. Cartman, Kyle, Stan, and Kenny have been the four main since the shows inception. Thus, even though Kenny spent about a season "dead", his return has given him the stature again. Butters is more than a minor characters, but I think he is far from "main". Jmlk17 06:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I have found a middle ground here. While I can see and partially agree that the MAIN characters should be the original four, Butters is too big to be a secondary character. Instead we should classify characters as MAJOR and MINOR characters. Therefor the original 4 are both major and main charatcers. So I propose we change the title listing from MAIN to Major characters that way it stays true to the nature of the show. (Thrawny 14:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC))

That would work for me. Tweeks Coffee 15:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good deal. Jmlk17 18:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, Editors.

I'm still unsure about the bureacracy of editing pages, but I removed a piece of the article that appears to be nothing more than vandalism. The word "nigger" was randomly inserted as a heading, with absolutely no reference. It was above the section describing minor characters. I may use the rest of my afternoon browsing old versions of the page to find the user who made that change in the first place. --le petite robot 17:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That was done by the editor before you. A simple act of vandalism, nothing to get too worried about. Tweeks Coffee 17:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Get used to that around here...far too many random acts of vandalism. Tweeks Coffee is right though" nothing to get all worked up about. That's why we have undo and reverts. JṃŁЌ¹⁷ 21:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The connection between Cartoon Wars and the Scientology Episode

There is no denying the connection that exists between the Scientology Episode and the two part Cartoon Wars episode. "Trapped in the Closet" aired at the end of season 9 (episode 12). Then episodes 3 and 4 of season 10 were called Cartoon Wars. The episode on Scientology was pulled in from its re-run in the US, and British stations pulled the episode. The entire episode (Cartoon Wars) is devoted to Catman getting an episode of Family Guy pulled because it is too controversial for TV. Alternately, Kyle tries to stop Cartman by arguing that free speech is important and a TV show should leave no topic untouched no matter what. Mohammed's (representing the muslim religion) appearance on Family Guy (on South Park) clearly reflects the controversial view of the scientology religion in Trapped in the Closet. In the same way Family Guy is in this case an allegory for South Park. To call this obvious statement about one episode reflecting the views of the producers toward people that want to remove their show as "nonsense and overall junk" shows ignorance about the history of the show and someone who hasn't watch the two episodes. YOU ARE RETARDED for not seeing this obvious link between reality and these two particular episodes of South Park. Why don't you actually try watching the episodes of South Park before dismissing an obvious fact about the episodes as "nonsense and overall junk". Yes I am talking to you Jmlk17!!! JSP - UOS, TN —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.97.130.50 (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Dude, all my issue was is the fact you kept JAMMING it onto the article page where it doesn't belong. And settle down; if you have an issue with me, do it on my talk page, not an article talk page next time. Jmlk17 21:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A) That's your interpretation, not necessarily the views of Matt and Trey. B) Cartoon wars was about the censoring of Mohammed and the outcry from the Danish cartoons. C) It's best not to call people names and dismiss their opinions because they don't match your views. Tweeks Coffee 12:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Tweeks, Coffee, that is great that you know what interpretations are, but it does not help this particular discussion. What I want to know: Do you, Tweeks Coffee, deny all validity of this interpretation? It seems like there is a myriad of valid evidence in the show for this particular interpretation. (i.e. Stan's mention in part to that he was once part of a cult, the family guy episode and the south park episode where both two parts likening them to each other, the use of the idea of freedom of speech within cartoons, and pulling the episode reflects the episode that South Park was forced to pull in real life) And as for the Danish cartoon thing ... Many South Park shows have content that can be used to critique a variety of different things in our post modern era. I think that trying to tie it down to "the outcry from the Danish cartoons" might be a bit short-sighted. What I would like to see, if you dismiss this interpretation, is evidence that it is false. While upholding its validity will not necessarily show that this is an important interpretation of this episode, it will, however show that further steps need to be taken to prove that it indeeds holds some merit. Granted it might take no less then a letter from Matt and Trey themselves to actually convience you, but I would be willing to look into it, if you will.

I provide this excerpt from the Rolling Stone interview: "Stone is the guy who always argues with the network while Parker snickers on the sidelines -- he doesn't like confrontation. They don't argue much with Comedy Central, but the knives came out in April 2006 over a planned episode in the face of worldwide riots sparked by the depiction of the Islamic prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper cartoon, which is considered sacrilegious by Islamic law. Stone and Parker wanted to show the image anyway. "I really felt we had to do this," says Stone. "I know I'm a total pussy living a privileged life on the west side of Los Angeles while soldiers and policemen protect me so I can say things like 'fudge-packing faggot' on my television show, but this was our duty. Comedy Central wussed out because they thought their offices on 57th Street in Manhattan were going to get bombed." Says Comedy Central president Doug Herzog, "The guys were coming at us all week with questions like, 'Can we show some of Mohammed? Can his turban be showing? Can part of his turban be showing?' It was, quite frankly, retarded. But did we overreact by not showing the picture? Absolutely. At the time, nobody was ready to take the chance." You can find the article in it's entirety here. Yes, they made a couple mentions of the Scientology controversy, but that was by no means the focus of the episode. Tweeks Coffee 17:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your internet/magazine source. It carries a lot of merit, because it has quotes from Matt and Trey. I don't think that it is the whole story, however, and after reading the entire article that you quoted from, it is appearent that "Cartoon Wars" is not the focus of this article. The writer, Vanessa Grigoriadis, probably did not have space in his article to include this theme from the episode. As I did not have a source but merely my own thought on this, I ran a Google search, and this article came up. I am not the only one that thinks this show is related to the scientology episode, and I have emailed the author of this site, Eric Goldman, for further sources (hopefully a more official source) that substanciate his view. Just the way that you criticize my interpretation, your view is also just an interpretation that you support with an article that doesn't even focus on the episode itself. Rather it focuses on Matt and Trey, and it merely references this episode briefly. Using dismissive statement such as, "that was by no means the focus of the episode," when you hardly have a good source yourself is not what wikipedia is about. 152.97.200.81 20:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC) JYW UoS

An interview with Matt and Trey in Rolling Stone magazine isn't credible? What you provided would hardly be called an article. it's a review from a person running a blog on IGN, certainly nothing citable. I'm not categorically denying your claims, but without any sources it's merely speculation. The fact is, this episode made blanket statements about censorship, which does include the censoring of their own show. I don't have to disprove your claims, you have to prove them. I've provided a source for the basis that the Mohammed cartoon controversy was the inspiration, my job is done. Tweeks Coffee 20:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as my source, Rolling Stone easily fits into the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for more info. Tweeks Coffee 20:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Sorry, kind of misread you there. Here's an article specifically talking about the episode and the controversy around it. Tweeks Coffee 21:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for being so quick to criticize, but you did realize your mistake. Make sure to always read closely. I like the article you just posted. It does make it sound as if there is a seperation between the two events, but as far as I am concerned nothing is settled until I hear back from Eric Goldman. You never know; he might have a really great source that we are not considering. I will continue this discussion at that point. JYW UoS 152.97.200.81 21:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard

A new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

its so good

This noticeboard has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard. Please disregard the above post. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

its so funny

people must see that its absalutly hillarious, mabye not for some but for others, it just cracks me up! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.129.193.60 (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, it is a great show. Jmlk17 03:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Online episodes

This should be removed, the websites/links are unofficial and we should not promote free downloading, viewing etc. Mr. Garrison (talk · contribs)

I've deleted it several times, but the user keeps adding the link(s). He was reported to WP:AIV, and is currently blocked, so we shall see what happens after the block expires. Jmlk17 03:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Season 11 - 2nd Half?

The main article claims the 2nd half of the 11th season will start Wednesday, October 3, 2007, at 8:00 a.m. Does this make sense that it will resume at 8:00am? What's the significance of that time? New episodes typically air at 10:00pm (EST). -David White 20:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's edited correctly now. Jmlk17 03:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagged as long

SP was tagged as being long, so I made several sections into subarticles, thus, summarizing them here. hmwithtalk 22:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good...thank you! Jmlk17 05:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

2000?

I've already asked this in the episode list discussion page, but figured I'd have a better chance of getting a response here... has there ever been an official explanation of why the first 4 episodes of season 4 have the year 2000 tagged onto the episode titles? - Ugliness Man 05:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it was already responded to on the other page. Jmlk17 10:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, lol, I may as well answer it here as well. The season started off at the beginning of the year 2000, when everything was "2000" this and "2000" that, and I believe the writers wanted to just add a little subtle joke into the titles of the episodes. Jmlk17 10:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"belies his baser motivations"

say what?· Lygophile has spoken 16:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol, the hell does that mean? 20:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmlk17 (talk • contribs)

my question exactly. its halfway in the section music· Lygophile has spoken 00:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Animation

There is something very unique about south park.Because of the style of animation, it is actually possible to have an episode of south park in an .svg animation, which is a file format that allows for unlimited up-conversion of images and animation but only in a way of simple shapes,and since south park is already a somewhat brick style animation, you could theoretically up-convert it to high definition using the .svg format and it would look just like that was the normal resolution. Rodrigue 20:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That's true. Also, computer episodes can readily be made available in smaller size files (such as .rm), instead of the much-larger .mpg, .avi, or .mpeg. I think that's a big reason the show has garnered such a cult following on the internet. Jmlk17 20:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Turd Ferguson

This is from the Characters section. I don't recall this at all.

One of the most popular recent additions to the show's offbeat cast of characters is a Humpty-Dumpty inspired, big-headed drug addict named Turd Ferguson. In the season finale of the 11th season he stuffed Kenny into a crack pipe and smoked him with Towelie. Turd Ferguson was inspired by Sheri Dunn, who is possibly the devil.

--DMW 20:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Say what you will, but that is actually pretty funny.

-Terd Ferguson was a name that Burt Reynolds (played by Norm MacDonald) used in a SNL Celebrity Jeopardy skit.

71.71.203.235 01:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Production

I've noticed that their isn't really too much information about the actual production of episodes on the main south park page. So I suggest a "Production" subform (with "animation Style" being part of it). I have a few links to actual info about the production of the show (mainly the writing of the episodes). Though i'm not very good at writing articles yet. So if anybody else thinks this is a good idea, i'd be happy to give you the links, that way somebody else could add the info to the main page. But if nobody is interested I will do so myself, and hopefully it will be edited to perfection.--Swellman 02:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

IKE=.....

Anyone notice that the name "Ike" is similar to the ethnic slur called "kike". Should I add that in triva.

No, even if that were relevant to anything, it isn't trivia. Ike is Canadian, not Jewish. Also, see Wikipedia's policy on trivia. --DMW 23:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)