Talk:Trapped in the Closet (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.

Goofs?

This article is much different than the articles for the other episodes. For one, there's no Goofs section. For one, the president of Scientology says he's been waiting forty-two years for "this" (refering to finding Hubbard's reincarnation, Stan). However, Hubbard had only been dead for twenty years. Shouldn't goofs be in this article like the others? Mac OS X 09:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• It never says that it is technically a documentary of Scientology, but rather a spoof, parody or satire, though it does represent certain bits accurately. Because it is a parody, I think the writers just took certain liberties. But if you can find a secondary source that discusses these "goofs", by all means. Cirt 18:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC).

User:Scorpion0422 recent edits

• User:Scorpion0422, thank you for your recent edits, DIFF, they seem to go in-line with the useful suggestions from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trapped in the Closet (South Park). Cirt 21:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC).
  • Further edits by Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs) look good. I agree, having the reviews directly below the beginning of "Reception" is nice. Cirt 01:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

"Closetgate"

• I'm debating renaming the subsection Rebroadcasts of the episode to instead call that subsection "Closetgate" - from the references made to that term by the Los Angeles Times and The Independent, and the descriptions of the event at South Park controversies and at List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. Cirt 00:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC).
  • After finding another good source, the Chicago Sun-Times, I changed the subsection title to "Closetgate." Cirt 00:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC).

John Smith Credits

During The End Credits of the episode it seemes as if all the names are John Smit. Watch the episode youll see what im talking aboutMIMS SUX007 08:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

What's your point? I think it's already mentioned in the article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

John and Jane Smith that isMallerd 19:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Slight error in OT III rendition

This passage, "When the 13.5 trillion spirits were being blown around on the nuclear winds, the electronic traps worked like a charm and captured all the souls in the electronic, sticky fly-paper like traps." is incorrect and according to the material written by Hubbard is, "An electronic ribbon came UP from the implant station, capturing the spirits, and drawing them down, to the implant station..." I would need to find a RS for this however. --Fahrenheit451 21:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This is about the episode though, which doesn't neccassarly reflect the exact beliefs of scientoligists.--Swellman 22:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. If we ever were to find a significant amount of secondary sources comparing and contrasting the "official" Xenu doctrine and the doctrine as described in the episode, we could add that to the article. Until then, we'll just have to wait for the secondary sources. Cirt 22:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC).

Some interesting potential dates for Wikipedia:Today's featured article

• November 16, 2007 - This would be a neat date, because it would be 2 years to the date since the episode aired. (2005)
• March 15, 2008 - 2 years to the date since the controversial day that the episode was scheduled to be rebroadcast, but did not. (2006)
• March 17, 2008 - 2 years to the date since Matt Stone and Trey Parker commented in Daily Variety, calling themselves: "servants of the dark lord Xenu." (2006)
• July 19, 2008 - 2 years to the date since Trapped in the Closet was finally actually rebroadcast on Comedy Central. (2006)

Anyone have other ideas, good dates for this to be "Today's featured article" ? If so, as the time gets closer, we'll have to look at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests and Wikipedia:Today's featured article and think about providing input there. Cirt 10:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

All of those dates sound good. I think the two-year anniversary of the episode would be best though, so I'd go with that one to propose.--Swellman 12:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

More interesting info here: User:Marskell/TFA considerations. Cirt 17:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC).

More good info. Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page. Cirt 17:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC).

User:FMAFan1990 edits

• Diff - My apologies, you're correct, it looks like this info was not in the article. Thanks for adding it. Cirt 03:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC).

Lead

The WP:LEAD as it stands is an accurate summary of the rest of the article. But I did move a sentence per an edit summary note of 66.57.44.247 (talk · contribs), so the second paragraph proceeds in more of a chronological order of events. Cirt (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC).

Coming out of the closet

Great read! Just one question. I didn't read anything about the ambiguity of "coming out of the closet". Shouldn't it at least be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baldrick90 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• If you can find mention of that in a secondary source, feel free to add it to the article. Cirt (talk) 05:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC).

Plot detail

The plot was already cut down a bit in order to become a Featured Article. Let's not add to it any more. Cirt (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC).

• Subtopic w/in this thread, Intro/Lead detail: Don't really think we need this much detail from prev edit in this lede. It's explained in quite detail in the plot section already and elsewhere in the article. Cirt (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • But if others think differently, I'd love to discuss it, I'm not 100% opposed to the change... Cirt (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it still being broadcast anywhere?

Article needs (badly) to state, in the first couple paragraphs as well as under "Controversy", whether the episode is still being broadcast, either on Comedy Central or any of the syndication outlets. Or is it being suppressed? Tempshill (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Y Done, fixed. Good suggestion, thank you. Cirt (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC).

TFA template

• Thanks for saving this here! This may yet come in handy. Cirt (talk).

Removed "This is what Scientologists actually believe"

They just re-aired this episode on March 7, 2008, and I noticed that in the Xenu section, the original overlaid text "This is what Scientologists actually believe" was no longer shown. Is that a long time change, or just recent? --24.0.204.37 (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I really have no idea about this change, but without a citation to a secondary source that satisfies WP:RS and WP:V, this is just original research. Cirt (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Episode referred to in UK press

Nick Cohen's column in today's Observer mentions that this episode has never been broadcast in Britain, during a part of his article in which he complains about the UK's very fierce (by US standards) libel laws. The column can be read freely here. 86.132.140.45 (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will take a look and incorporate that. Cirt (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (Pass)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. (Yes, I know it's an FA, this is just to make sure all is still appropriate for GA sweeping). Regards, MASEM 20:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Gaping hole

Okay, maybe not that gaping but how is it there is no reference to Trapped in the Closet in this article, given the extensive parodying of this work of genius in the episode? 86.141.4.199 (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I will see if I can find analysis/comparison of this in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm astonished there's not even a fleeting reference to the origin of the episode's title, let alone the parody of the song cycle. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 01:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I understand and I will try to find some WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources that mention that, and add it to the article. Cirt (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Page move

After today is done with, I suggest that the page is moved to Trapped in the Closet (South Park episode) in order to conform with the naming conventions of other SP episodes (e.g. Volcano and Death). All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 13:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, those two are improperly named. The conventions are that it just go by whatever series the episode is from. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough! Excellent article, btw. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 17:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

congrat.s and a question.....

congrat.s for being on the main page, folks - and rather than edit on a day like today, I thought I'd drop a question in here.... The lead says "The title is a reference to the R. Kelly song of the same name." but doesn't it also mean something else? - Privatemusings (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"The Closet" has connotations of latent homosexuality, see Closeted. As for how it relates to this article, I don't know enough about R. Kelly's work to comment. Raul654 (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

well not to disparage hip hopera (and I'm sure you're a secret connoisseur!) I suppose it's possible that the title of the episode might relate to the former as well as R Kelly's Magnum Opus? I'll try a slight reword later, and see what folk think.... Privatemusings (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Too many quotations

This article uses far too many quotations and they need to be trimmed down. Just about every single paragraph outside of the plot section has at least one quotation. I have already attempted to do this, but I have been reverted several times. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you do, please don't remove the quotation from Trey Parker in the Production section about going forward with doing the episode, and the quote from Stone and Parker in Daily Variety. Those are integral pieces of the article, and the sequence of events. Cirt (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The article before yesterday was fine, but pretty much the entire production & controversy sections have been rewritten to include many quotes. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, as long as these 2 quotes I alluded to above stay in, I'm fine with it. I suppose I'll have to go through it later on at some point. Cirt (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

Congrats to the main editors of this article making to a featured page. The series is excellent, the episode also excellent, and the article even better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.229.70 (talk • contribs)

It's no coincidence that this FA coincides with the worldwide antiscientology protests taking place tomorrow March 15 (also L Ron's birthday). Anonymous is legion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.145.25 (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A very timely selection indeed. Great article! Sidar (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection?

Since this is linked to from the front page as a featured article and in anticipation of Scientology backlash (due to their current affairs with Anonymous), wouldn't this be eligible for some type of protection? DiamondDragon talk 00:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:TFA stuff is rarely protected while on the Main Page, to encourage the "anyone can edit" principle. Cirt (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the article is protected against being moved by anyone but sysops, but otherwise Cirt is right. Today's Featured Article is almost never protected or even semi-protected against editing. But we do need extra eyes watching out for and reverting vandalism. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 01:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Curious that most of the the second para, with the business about Tom Cruise, is not on the main page. So the excerpt on the main page reads poorly for flow and jumps right into Isaac Hayes with no transition. As it stands, the portion opening the main page reads rather poorly because it's taken out of context. Was there a reason not to include the Cruise business on the main page? When something is a featured article, but reads poorly on the main page, that does not speak well for Wikipedia. 71.175.28.121 (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Shut up. Noone really cares. The first paragraph is on the front page. If someone wants to read the rest, they can click on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.229.70 (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Why does Noone care so much? 24.3.209.59 (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I find the timing of this page's promotion to TFA rather humorous. Purely coincidental, I'm sure, but humorous nonetheless -- RoninBK _{T C} 03:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

March 15, 2006 was the date the episode was scheduled for rebroadcast, but was pulled by Comedy Central after reports of complaints made to Viacom, which set off the controversy known as "Closetgate". So it's been 2 years to the day since the start of that controversy. Cirt (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd normaly criticism this choice for a featured article... but today is the anonymous protesting day against scientology. It's great to see Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica converging on something :) Daniel de França (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I find it unusual that given the worldwide protests that are set to take place today and Wikipedia's stance of neutrality, especially on controversial issues, this - dealing with Scientology and parodying and criticising it - is the featured article for this one particular day.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The article was originally suggested at WP:TFA/R back in November 2007, but another WP:FA took precedence, as it was about something for a 100-year anniversary. This was the next potential date, 2 years to the date since March 15, 2006, the beginning of the controversy surrounding Closetgate. Cirt (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI - Potential dates listed on the article's talk page, back in October 2007. Cirt (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Cirt is right, this is one of the dates we originally had in mind. It is just a huge coincidence. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It just works out much more interestingly this way. Had it aired on the November date, it would not have coincided with Hubbard's birthday, Coincidence on top of coincidence... -- RoninBK _{T C} 14:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The November date was proposed by Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs), but was not chosen because a 100-year anniversary for a different article was selected instead. This was the next available date. Cirt (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article on 3/15

Thankyou, wikipedia. Good game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tar7arus (talk • contribs) 19:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Church of Scientology to sue Wikipedia in 3 ... 2 ... 1! 130.49.212.156 (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If CoS was gonna sue, it would hit Wikinews first, n:Scientology protest group celebrates founder's birthday worldwide and others -- RoninBK _{T C} 14:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Article views

The article received 80,500 views the day it was on the main page, and 24,500 the next. This wilkl likely put the article on the Top 10,000 list for March. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for providing this here, it's really interesting. Cirt (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)