From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSouth Park has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 26, 2006 Good article nomineeNot listed
March 21, 2007 Peer reviewReviewed
February 7, 2009 Good article nomineeNot listed
August 11, 2009 Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Production Companies

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

Being shown in the credits does not warrant inserting them in the infobox alongside the main production company of the show; see Template:Infobox television#Parameters. QuestFour ( talk) 10:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply
You see the thing is, MTV Entertainment Studios pretty much IS the main production company behind the show right now. Comedy Central has been folded under MTV Entertainment Group for while and anything under it is produced through MTV's studio. It not only appears in the credits, but MTV Entertainment Studios is mentioned in near all official South Park press releases. I have to side with Ramses here. Averyfunkydude23 ( talk) 20:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Per Template:Infobox television#Parameters, the "production company or companies that funded/organized series production” should be listed; MTV Entertainment Studio counts as a company that funds/organizes series production, as they formed a deal with Parker and Stone to continue the series. I side with Ramses and Avery here. STB ( talk) 01:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ QuestFour what's ur explanation of this issue? STB ( talk) 07:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ QuestFour MTV Entertainment Studios produces every Comedy Central show without involvement from CBS, further proof that they should be included in the production company list is in the sources that I sent before. STB ( talk) 08:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
MTVES is not stated or referenced as the main production company in the sources that have been provided or any as of yet and concluding that constitutes WP:OR, until sources cite it as such its mention in the production section is sufficient. QuestFour ( talk) 16:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply
@ QuestFour If this is the case then you ought to remove the studio’s mentions from every Comedy Central show without involvement from CBS Media Ventures, the studio has been producing them since 2021. Also season 24 was produced at MTV when South Park Studios was closed down due to COVID-19. STB ( talk) 00:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC) reply
@ QuestFour by that logic that means Celluloid Studios, which helped out with production should be deleted from the list; also MTV is the funder of the show nowadays, according to https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/south-park-trek-parker-matt-stone-paramount-plus-movies-1235035295/; Comedy Partners are just executives of the network. STB ( talk) 14:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
See WP:OTHERCONTENT; as per the above the mention of them in the body is enough for now. QuestFour ( talk) 21:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply
@ QuestFour You ought to refer to the article for MTV Entertainment Studios, they currently produce every film and TV series under the MTV Entertainment Group brand; this applies to every Comedy Central show produced since its 2021 rebrand. If you think this does not apply to South Park, it would not apply to most other Comedy Central shows either. STB ( talk) 07:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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

I suggest you open up a discussion here before making such a dramatic change as the article's logo which has stood for some time now. IMO it looks like you're just trying to justify replacing the logo because you created the png file of the just the text version. - SanAnMan ( talk) 19:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Editor has also removed content without valid reason and has a long history of edit warring. Should we report him if he does such a radical change again? STB ( talk) 01:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC) reply
@ SanAnMan: Hardly. The current image in the infobox, though similar in art style, is unofficial fanart. The original artwork by Comedy Central can be seen here. In terms of a logo, the show has not really had a consistent one, given that besides the town sign there's also logos like this and this; though both were not used until the movie and later, and their current use is mostly limited to promotion and merchandising. The font on the sign is the closest to a logo the show has had, it is used alone on the season releases, and is consistent in format with most TV logos used in this site as they primarily consist of text of the show's title in an SVG file. QuestFour ( talk) 04:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC) reply
@ QuestFour: And yet that "unofficial fanart" has been used for a long time without contention. Now I can understand that maybe the picture with the four kids is a little too much, and I'm willing to suggest a compromise and change the infobox image to [File: South_park_sign.svg] (the picture with the same text on the well-known wooden sign), which has been in use in multiple other SP articles, but the image you created with just the words looks absolutely horrible to be blunt. - SanAnMan ( talk) 16:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC) reply
It's just the text sans the sign, how exactly is it "horrible"? Is having it plastered on the cover of the season 20 release horrible? Also, I didn't make it, but found it along with the other font looking up South Park logos. I think the sign is too much; if the text was never used outside the sign then yes, obviously there wouldn't be an argument about not using it, but it is. Your reasoning against it seems entirely arbitrary. QuestFour ( talk) 22:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Besides it being unofficial, the infobox image fails criteria 1 of WP:NFCCP, so I'm replacing it with the logo for now. The sign or no sign disagreement can be further discussed here. QuestFour ( talk) 21:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
@ QuestFour please don't add and remove stuff just because u like it while other editors object to this, u're doing it in a very uncivilised way; @ SanAnMan you oughtta do something about this, this user has been abusively removing content and provoking multiple edit wars. STB ( talk) 12:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Excuse me? The image clearly fails WP:NFCCP#1. If this is because of the text version then so be it, the sign it is. QuestFour ( talk) 12:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The sign is a much-more recognized logo for the show. If the logo needs to be replaced, then so be it, but the sign is definitely a better choice than just the text. As discussed earlier, there really doesn't seem to be an "official" logo for the show, so this compromose is the best I can think of. - SanAnMan ( talk) 16:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Since the show doesn't have a clear logo, restoring the title card until further decision is made seems to be the best option per Template:Infobox television, as it was the file used in the infobox prior to the previous image, already is used in the article and has a non-free media rationale, and is much more representative of the show. I'll go ahead and replace it for the time being. QuestFour ( talk) 02:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Production Companies/Distributiors

Syndicated runs of South Park feature the Debmar Studios logo and the Mercury entertainment logos separate (both known as Debmar-Mercury today) in place of the Braniff Television logo. The syndication credits also feature the 20th Television logo. I think it's best to add them to the distribution part of the page.

Here is proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVVhA-Fr3aU DarkModeEditor ( talk) 04:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The distribution part of infobox doesnt exist anymore; this fact was stated at the Distribution section and it was updated that CBS has reclaimed syndication rights at that same section. 1.64.131.140 ( talk) 12:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
@ DarkModeEditor How Debmar-Mercury and FOX would appear in South Park ALTHOUGH THE SHOW IS OWNED BY VIACOM LeronJomes ( talk) 00:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply
because of distribution and stuff. 20th television had distribution DarkModeEditor ( talk) 19:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Paramount+ in the original network parameter

Simply put, Paramount plus's mention in the lead is more than sufficient, there's no need to include it in the infobox as done with the specials in the episode table template, it's superfluous. QuestFour ( talk) 20:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Simply put, someone with your experience should have known to wait until consensus has been reached when your change has been reverted by two different editors. Barry Wom ( talk) 10:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply
PP is one of the two networks that the show premieres on, that I'd say everyone here agrees with. The dispute revolves around its inclusion in the infobox's original network parameter. As explained above, approaching this in the same manner as done with the episode tables in the episodes article, placing the PP content in a separate section from the main table, seems best. SanAnMan, you're welcome to participate in this. QuestFour ( talk) 12:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply

My view on this is fairly straightforward. Per Template:Infobox television, the field for "network" reads: "The original network(s) on which the show has appeared. Do not add foreign broadcasters here. Use links if articles are available." First, note the word "network(s)", that indicates that more than one network is acceptable here. Also, ever since this recent new contract came out, new episodes of South Park have been premiering on two different networks -- regular season shows on Comedy Central, special episodes on PP. There are multiple examples of other series that have been on multiple networks including both streaming service networks and cable-only networks. I will admit that South Park is (once again) a bit out of the norm since it is premiering new episodes on two different networks, but I see no good reason why both CC and PP shouldn't be included here. The comment about adding any other network/service such as HBO Max is moot since HBO Max doesn't premiere the new episodes. - SanAnMan ( talk) 13:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Additional comment -- here's a great example, the show Dancing with the Stars (American TV series) was on ABC for years, then switched to Disney+ for one year, and now will be having debut episodes on both networks; and both networks are credited in this field in the infobox. - SanAnMan ( talk) 13:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply
I've placed the text inside a footnote. This seems to be a decent compromise as it still includes the wording but not in a way that would make it seem that PP is on a par with CC in regard to South Park, since the specials are peripheral to the show's standard episodes, and again, more reflects the episode tables and template. QuestFour ( talk) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
My understanding of the guidelines is that this infobox field should list every network on which episodes of the show premiered. Barry Wom ( talk) 22:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Which it now does. The footnote is just a layout feature. Template:Series overview mentions the inclusion of special episodes, yet they're placed in an entirely separate table. Guidelines are helpful but don't necessarily always have to be enacted word-for-word or in a strictly literal sense, see WP:5P5 and WP:COMMON. QuestFour ( talk) 06:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply
I can't see why we would want to hide Paramount+ in a footnote. You claim that "the specials are peripheral to the show's standard episodes", but two of the specials continue the plot from previous episodes. Barry Wom ( talk) 06:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Footnotes are not used to hide text, they're to "add explanations, comments or other additional information relating to the main content but would make the text too long or awkward to read," as per Help:Explanatory notes; it's also worth mentioning that the clutter-reducing aspect mentioned here is too a good point. The PP specials may include some cannon features, as the movie does, but both are still subsidiary to the show's original, standard episodes. QuestFour ( talk) 09:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply
A list of two networks hardly constitutes "clutter". Barry Wom ( talk) 10:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Even if they don't, a footnote here does make things tidier. As San mentioned, this case is unique in that the show's network was not changed, instead 'specials' release on a different network/streaming service. QuestFour ( talk) 10:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply
SanAnMan has already provided an example of a show currently broadcasting new episodes on two differnet networks. Barry Wom ( talk) 10:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply
This is beside the point, see WP:OTHERCONTENT. QuestFour ( talk) 12:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply
Problem is, I'm not quite sure what your point is. Your rationale for excluding Paramount+ as an original network for the show appears to revolve around claiming without evidence or explanation that the specials are somehow inferior in status to the regular episodes ("superfluous", Paramount+ is not "on a par" with Comedy Central, "subsidiary"). Barry Wom ( talk) 13:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply
A footnote is not "excluding" anything, we've already been through this. PP only streams the specials and not the standard episodes, so yes, the fourteen specials are subsidiary to the regular +300 episodes. QuestFour ( talk) 14:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply
So you want to render Paramount+ invisible in the infobox simply because they've released fewer episodes than Comedy Central? That's really not much of an argument.
Suggest you raise an RfC somewhere if you feel that strongly about it. Barry Wom ( talk) 14:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

There is absolutely nothing "subsidiary" about the specials. They were part of a new deal signed only a few years ago, and they are episodes that continue upon or add to existing plotlines, and the plots of the specials continue to influence the regular season episodes. The comments about the specials being "subsidiary" and such appear to be biased in your own view. As for the fact that the Episodes table in this article doesn't include the section for the Specials, that is definitely something that needs to be worked on in the List of South Park episodes, but that doesn't deter from the fact that the specials are still episodes, and have no greater or lesser importance than any other episode. - SanAnMan ( talk) 14:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I have successfully fixed the Episodes table at the top of List of South Park episodes, and that table has updated itself in this article as well, so the special episodes are now included properly in this article. - SanAnMan ( talk) 15:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

The PP specials, even if argued to not be secondary to the main CC episodes, constitute less than 5% of the show's episodes. As such, placing PP in a footnote is best reflective of this as per WP:UNDUE and WP:PROPORTION; with the former stating that undue weight is given through prominence of placement. QuestFour ( talk) 06:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

There's nothing in the guidelines stating that a network needs to have aired a particular percentage of episodes to be noted in the infobox. Barry Wom ( talk) 10:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply
There isn't because that's not how guidelines work; there won't be a list of every possible situation a guideline could be applicable. The network is noted in the infobox, and I moreover made the note appear more prominently than before. As per WP:NEGOTIATE, this is now the second compromise I've proposed, yet there doesn't seem to be much effort from yourself to do so. QuestFour ( talk) 12:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply
You've failed to convince either me or SanAnMan that any "compromise" is necessary. As already suggested, you may want to think about raising an RfC somewhere to garner further opinions on the matter. Barry Wom ( talk) 09:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply
As demonstrated above, the aforementioned guidelines clearly and evidently apply here; unless you're able to prove otherwise, not being convinced is not a counterargument. QuestFour ( talk) 10:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't believe either WP:UNDUE or WP:PROPORTION apply in this case. By that rationale, we should also be removing mention of Paramount+ from the lede. Barry Wom ( talk) 11:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply
PP's scope and proportion of mentioning in the lead is not the same as it is in the infobox parameter; you're comparing apples to oranges. And a note as discussed ad infinitum does not remove or omit text. You're most certainly entitled to your belief, but it doesn't decree Wikipedia, policies and guidelines do. QuestFour ( talk) 16:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply
And you're most certainly entitled to your belief that listing Paramount+ as an original network in the infobox is somehow against guidelines simply because it has aired fewer episodes than Comedy Central. Claiming that hiding the information in a footnote does not "remove or omit text" is disingenuous at best. Barry Wom ( talk) 17:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply
That's a straw man, and not what's presented above; your flawed understanding of what footnotes are or their function too doesn't constitute an argument. Also, per WP:AOBF, do without the "disingenuous" remark. QuestFour ( talk) 11:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply
"The PP specials, even if argued to not be secondary to the main CC episodes, constitute less than 5% of the show's episodes. As such, placing PP in a footnote is best reflective of this as per WP:UNDUE and WP:PROPORTION"
They may well constitute only 5% of the total number of episodes, but that's hardly surprising for a show which was running for over twenty years on a single network before Paramount+ entered the equation.
On the other hand, there are now six episodes per year airing on Comedy Central and two double length specials per year airing on Paramount+. So since 2021, the specials are accounting for 67% of the show's total annual runtime. Your argument that "the specials are peripheral to the show's standard episodes" doesn't hold water. Barry Wom ( talk) 14:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply
As the quote you cited already addresses that argument, restating it amounts to no more than a red herring. As for the specials, they're set at 14; their percentage will only decrease. QuestFour ( talk) 03:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Portrayal of Stan Marsh

I believe that the portrayal of Stan Marsh in this article about South Park is wrong. Stan Marsh is not portrayed as an "average 4th grade student". After seeing the later videos, you would realize that he actually has a very unique character. In the 8th episode of the 15th season in South Park (Ass Burgers), Stan Marsh develops a different world view seeing everything as literal "shit" and is later diagnosed with Aspergers, his parents get divorced. Even if his life returns to normal at the end of this episode, this definitely does not count Stan as "an average 4th grader". The tenth episode of the eleventh season marks the beginning of the Imaginationland Series, in which Stan Marsh has an important role, as he helps in opening the door to Imaginationland and defeat the terrorists by singing a song (This is not what happens in the life of an "average 4th grade student"). There are many more incidences in South Park which make do not make Stan an "average 4th grade student". I hereby propose that this statement should be removed and changed as it spreads misinformation about the character of Stan. Helper who is a human ( talk) 16:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Helper who is a human: - The description of Stan as quoted comes directly from South Park's website and is cited and sourced. If you don't like it, I suggest you contact them and get them to change it. - SanAnMan ( talk) 17:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Dude the citated source was literally retrieved in 2010 from Internet Archive. Currently its 2010 and in 13 years character sketches will obviously go through changes. The source that is citated is very outdated and thus unreliable. Helper who is a human ( talk) 09:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

" I'm going down to South Park, gonna have myself a time." listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect I'm going down to South Park, gonna have myself a time. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 25 § I'm going down to South Park, gonna have myself a time. until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 08:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:South_Park&oldid=1213617633"