Jump to content

Talk:South Park

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 96.240.128.124 (talk) at 14:38, 25 May 2021 (Lots of typos and grammatical errors: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

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, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
March 21, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
February 7, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
August 11, 2009Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

"Dick Figures" Is a "South Park" Spin-Off — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.146.40.174 (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status as adult animation

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

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

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

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

Genre dispute?

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

QuestFour didn't like the fact that I said on the page that the show is adult animated, despite the fact that they're fine with the categories saying it. And now that I've actually found a source saying it is adult animated, QuestFour is upset. They even mocked me by posting garbage on my talk page where they blatantly lied that I'm a "disruptive editor". As for that talk page edit, I just wanted to know why they hate me. I never did anything wrong. —ÐW (talk/contribs) 06:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You really really need to read WP:CONSENSUS. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 14:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1) Who are you? 2) I've already read that page, like, a billion times. —ÐW (talk/contribs) 22:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't. QuestFour (talk) 12:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. Please stop throwing a tantrum over the fact that I actually have a source citing it as adult animated. —ÐW (talk/contribs) 21:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, never mind. There was just a part of the beginning of the page that I misread. Sorry. —ÐW (talk/contribs) 01:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The main image needs to be changed.

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

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

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

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

To 49.146.40.174

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

"Tardicaca shark" listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Lots of typos and grammatical errors

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