Talk:Make Love, Not Warcraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Skip to Table of Contents Skip to Table of Contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Make Love, Not Warcraft article.
Good articles Make Love, Not Warcraft has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
SP
 This article 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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the importance scale.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Machinima, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to machinima on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the main project page and join or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as being of High importance within machinima on the importance scale.
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance, but no comments have yet been left.
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.


1, 2


Contents

[edit] Making Everyone Happy

I believe that if the article included more pictures of monkeys sword-fighting while riding mules, we could make everyone satisfied with the content of this article. I'd love to hear everyone else's opinions. --68.195.25.63 01:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is: that's not a very helpful suggestion. WillD 19:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
That sounds absolutely insane... And I don't see how that will improve satisfaction in anyone... -Emhilradim 05:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Screen time

According to my calcuations (excluding the time for intro credits and end credits):

Videogame footage appears onscreen for 590 seconds/1270 seconds, or 46% of the time (374 seconds are pure videogame footage, 216 seconds are when the videogame is shown smaller and scaled to a computer screen). Footage with just animation appears onscreen for 680 seconds/1270 seconds, or 54% of the time. And much of that is people at their computers, or people at Blizzard.

So it seems silly to me to complain the article is "too much about the videogame." The whole episode is about the videogame -- it's a crossover. The airtime is split nearly 50/50 between the videogame and the cartoon.

And the very definition of "trivia" is "unimportant or trivial pieces of information." Removing a piece of trivia because it's TRIVIAL is ludicrous. WP:CRUFT is NOT an actual policy or guideline, besides the fact that "cruft" is POV.

Many pages on South Park episodes have huge trivia sections, most without sources. To those who keep removing the sections, I'm sure there are many other pages that that can be improved. The {{fact}} and {{verify source}} tags were made for a reason. --Pixelface 01:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Highly agreed. In fact, it occurs to me that should those who keep deleting the sections be allowed to win out here, the article should be deleted. Now, this isn't any kind of threat or anything, mind you. It's just that with this strict a standard on what is allowed and what isn't, all the trivia should be removed from the page.
For example, we don't KNOW the episode title is a reference to "Make Love, Not War". There isn't a link to an interview of Trey and Matt being insulted with that obvious question. The editor who added that *technically* guessed it. Now, the idea that of course he's right wouldn't matter here. It's original research. It should be deleted.
We don't KNOW that the bass guitar in Token's basement is the same one as in Christian Hard Rock. It may just be an identical one. We're assuming it is. No matter how safe the assumption and how stupid the alternative, it's original research by these standards.
And so and so forth until all we're left is a plot summary. And then, we have a problem. According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia articles should not be simply plot summaries. So the article would be deleted. Now we have a bigger problem. Of 150+ episodes of South Park, this is the only one with no article.
All because three editors want to put themselves above the community and put special standards (such as the information must somehow be verifiable without checking the cited source) on this specific article because it's tangentially about a computer game, something they've made clear THEY don't see as worthwhile and have no issue assuming no one else would either. - 66.93.144.171 12:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
From the moment I saw the first article I have been one of the ones arguing here that there was no room for the bulk of the additional content - although I must point out that I sought to make my point of view here in the discussion page and not through editing of the main article. I still maintain that much of it is inappropriate as it stands. A prime example would be "...This can be explained that a large number of the South Park Studios team plays the game. More likely this is a result of interactions between Blizzard and members of the South Park Studios or a single very knowledgeable WoW player working for the South Park Studios" which clearly is baseless speculation. Not only that but I personally cannot see how much of the trivia content could ever at any point be integrated into the main article. With a view to not leaving this article with only a plot section is it not possible to create a heading for a smaller section that specifically deals with the WoW/South Park crossover bringing in some of the ideas of the trivia section- as a body of text with proper sourcing and less (well - none ideally) speculation/opinion? I am new here so this is a question for more experienced people. Johan Aruba 19:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
No one is saying there wasn't room to discuss removal of CERTAIN items that were purely speculation (or outright wrong), or fixing them to remove any hint of OR or unverifiability. What is being objected to here is certain editors coming in here and deleting the sections and otherwise gutting the article without even bothering to discuss such sweeping changes first, and then repeatedly undoing attempted reversions of people who objected to such tactics. No matter how right they were sure they were, this was the wrong way to handle the situation. - 66.93.144.171 20:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to note, that I reverted twice only. Which is hardly 'repeatedly'. You are assuming that your position is the default one when there are other editors who disagree with that. Wikipedia is made by consensus, not majority rule.-Localzuk(talk) 20:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem taking you on your word that you personally only reverted twice. However, your position was first brought into this article by an editor who DID repeatedly revert and immediately stated she was going to continue to do so, and that the only way to stop her was to take the matter to a higher power, later confirmed to be arbitration (which is supposed to be the last step, not the first.) I also agree that Wikipedia is run by consensus, rather than majority. But that also means it is not run by one editor, regardless of how right that editor thinks he is. Unilaterally gutting the article utterly defies and derails the whole consensus process. - 66.93.144.171 21:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshots

It seems to me that much of the ballyhoo about WP:OR could be resolved by showing screenshots from the episode next to screenshots from the videogame.

The fair use policy on images says that the following count as FAIR USE:

Film and television screen shots. For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television.
Screenshots from software products. For critical commentary.

For example, by going to this page, one can find a screenshot of the Frostwolf Battle Tabard. And here is a picture of Stan's character wearing it in the episode.

I'm not sure on the policy of linking to third party image sites, but the screenshots could be taken by a Wiki editor, uploaded to Wikipedia and released under fair use.

AFAIK, there has never been a videogame/cartoon crossover as notable as this episode. I feel screenshots would greatly contribute to the article. --Pixelface 01:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

LINKS to the screenshots would definitely improve the page quality if verifiability is really as much of a concern on a South Park episode's article as it is on, say, AIDS or 9/11. Including all the actual screenshots themselves would make the page far too graphics intensive, especially for dialup users.
But this is the kind of actual *progress* and *constructive edits* we could have discussed on the issue had certain editors not chosen to come in and start unilaterally gutting the article under an absolute feeling of certainty they were in the right. - 66.93.144.171 08:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
See my comment about the use of 'A + B must = C' type arguments and how they breach WP:OR.-Localzuk(talk) 14:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
That can be avoided by writing it this way:

Stan's World of Warcraft character is human and part of the Alliance faction.[1] Frostwolf Battle Tabards are only available to the Horde faction. [2][3]

No assumption is made. Only facts are presented. --Pixelface 01:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I would have to say, though that it reads a little funny... There is nothing wrong with presenting that information, it just doesn't quite read right to me.-Localzuk(talk) 14:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe because the first and second sentence aren't clearly connected. In that format they appear unrelated. Johan Aruba 18:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] machinima

i thought machinima was film out of the game not of the game. it's just showing them play the game. it's not like the wow characters replaced southpark characters.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.157.30.102 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Make Love, Not Warcraft uses machinima, aka using footage from the game to represent characters. While it is essentially the boys roleplaying and not actually in the game itself, it can still be considered machinima. 67.11.140.20 19:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

As a production technique, the term concerns the rendering of computer-generated imagery (CGI) using real-time, interactive (game) 3D engines, as opposed to high-end and complex 3D animation software used by professionals. -- Wikipedia, 'machinema'

I find not one shred of evidence in the article that the episode was produced in this way. It seems far more likely that the necessary models and textures were simply dropped into Maya and animated as normal. Which would be contrary to the definition wikipedia appears to hold. 80.168.197.252 20:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

More needs to be said about this, but it's possible that it's a mixture of both. That said, nothing that I can find actually disputes that it's machinima, and Paul Marino's blog for the Academy of Machinima Arts & Sciences indicates that two accomplished World of Warcraft machinima producers were involved. However, South Park's production blog indicates that they did prerecord some WoW scenes for later use. That said, lip-synching and other animations in WoW machinima are nothing new; Illegal Danish: Super Snacks! does it, and so does Rufus Cubed's The Return (which, unfortunately, we don't have an article for at the moment). — TKD::Talk 00:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion on a Trivia Add

At one point during the episode, Cartman informs Kyle that the "Autolocate Macro" is Command-0. IIRC, Command is a key on Macs comparable to Ctrl or Alt on a PC. This would imply the boys are playing on Macs, which I think to be interesting trivia.

Questions:

1. Am I correct about the Command key being a Mac thing?

2. Would this trivia be OR as it stands? Would I need to find citation that the Command key is something on a Macintosh? Would it still be OR?

If this does pass muster, someone else would need to add it, due to the current semi-protection status of the article. - 66.93.144.171 21:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In response to 1, yes. Command is a mac key.
Stating that the Command key is a mac key would not be OR as it is 'stating the obvious'.
However, I would question how this would be included? How would it fit into the article as a whole? Trivia should be able to be included in a larger section of prose else it doesn't really fit.-Localzuk(talk) 22:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
As far as this article is concerned, WP:OR depends heavily on what is obvious to the editors. It's such a subjective area for such a new episode that you have no choice but to post it and see if someone doesn't take it down sooner or later.
Regarding the point, yes, it would imply at least one of the characters is playing on a Mac (the one to whom Cartman was speaking...I forget which one it was now). It could be illustrating the greater point that WoW is one of a select few mainstream games actively ported to the Mac by the company producing it. As a lot of people working in the TV production industry use Macs, this could be how so many of the South Park Studios team justified using it: it worked on their OS and nothing else did. SlvrEagle23 22:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
You do have a choice whether or not to post. You can take a look at the policy and decide whether you are making any judgements based on facts without actually having a source do it for you. It is quite a simple policy to understand.-Localzuk(talk) 13:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
As with many things in South Park, it is probably showing the preference and views of the creators MAtt and Trey. Can't know for sure without asking them. Sabar 07:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, and as such we can only post what third parties have published. -Localzuk(talk) 13:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Publicity

It seems alot of people think the editors that added the goofs were "upset" or "complaining", but I feel the list of goofs was purely informational.

Seeing as how this Wiki page itself has generated alot of publicity, I think the information should be reinstated.

MANY people are coming to this page to see the list of goofs. It makes Wikipedia more valuable. Removing information is counter to a comprehensive written compendium of knowledge. Many articles go beyond mere summaries and contain in-depth details. --Pixelface 01:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

as far as i know, wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, not a sell-out. wikipidia does not need the fame to get more people coming.60.50.168.33 13:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia's policies remain the same, even if it means removing unsourced original-research information that large amounts of people find entertaining or interesting. wikipediatrix 13:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Also agreed. The key thing here is the word 'encyclopedia' not fansite. We have to keep the article encyclopedic else it just presents a bad image of wikipedia.-Localzuk(talk) 14:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Publicing Wikipedia is encouraged -- Wikipedia:Publicity.
And many people already have a poor image of Wikipedia -- Wikipedia:Criticisms.
An encylopedia is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge.
Is a screenshot original research? Does a screenshot not count as a source? Shall every picture on Wikipedia taken by a Wiki editor be removed because it's "original research?" --Pixelface 12:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Arguments have already been made that the removed sections were both encyclopedic and not original research, at least not so much that *every single word in both entire sections* was beyond salvation and needed to be destroyed. These arguments have been repeatedly ignored. Even though the policy demands I assume good faith on the editors involved that they believe their actions to be for the benefit of improving Wikipedia, it seems obvious that reasoning is no longer going to be a productive course of action.
The editors involved saw no problem with coming in, and rather than talking about the issue, taking unilateral action on their own and gutting the page (thus provoking the ensuing edit war, and in violation of Wikiquette), even though they demanded later editors bring the issue to the talk page before THEY made major changes to the page, namely reverting them back. With all due respect to the editors involved, I have seen absolutely no benefit of the doubt taken by the editors that they could be the ones in the wrong, and their comments on this page have been invariably lecturing us about how we were in the wrong, typically because we didn't understand "our" policies, which is both insulting, and sets the whole thing up as an "us vs. them" argument casting Wikipedia on their side.
Given this, even though they might disagree with a lot in this comment, or in my past comments, but I feel fairly certain in saying that even they'd agree with this: No amount of discussion at this point, if ever, is going to get them to allow the article to be re-posted, even if we started working in a more consensus type manner to make it more presentable (though no matter how surprised it would make me, I could be wrong). Wikipediatrix even said that from the start, that she continued to keep up her behavior unless stopped by an arbitatrator, even though arbitration is supposed to be the last step, not the first.
Given that, our only options are this: Request arbitration, or give up. I'm anonymous, and would prefer to remain that way for the nonce, and it's probably not a good status for me to lead arbitration requests from, so someone else will have to lead that charge.
The way things stand though, we have an article which has a standard no other South Park episodes have applied to it, and if that standard is applied to its logical conclusion, ALL trivia for the episode MUST be deleted, and thus the article deleted because WP:NOT specifically bans articles that are plot summaries only.
Or, to summarize... with all due respect, if all that's been happening from one side is just that one side telling us why we're wrong... that's not really any form of negotiation or work towards consensus. It's a lecture. - 66.93.144.171 12:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Please make your proposed additions to the article and post them on this talk page. We can then go over them and specify which bits are ok and which bits aren't. I have been looking deeper into the 'popular culture' WP:OR ideas and believe that we can come to some sort of consensus on this.-Localzuk(talk) 12:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
My suggestion has been clear from the beginning, and it has been, I think, the majority suggestion as well. Restore all deleted content to this article (with the exception of copyrighted links) and then work from there towards consensus towards fixing any content that might be OR, and giving some benefit of the doubt if it can be explained that certain content is not OR. Deletion should be absolutely last resort. Is this acceptable? - 66.93.144.171 22:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I know what your suggestion is. My suggestion is pretty much the opposite. In order to come to some sort of compromise, we need to analyse the information specifically. That is why I am suggesting you post it here for editors to look at. Else we're just going to be at stale mate forever.-Localzuk(talk) 17:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
You did not deal in suggestions. You dealt in unilateral sweeps. You gutted the article despite the wishes of several of the editors here because it was YOUR opinion (and others, though still a decided minority) that *some* of the content deleted was Original Research (an argument that every single word of the deleted content was OR would be fairly ludicrous) or was too trivial (again, a completely subjective opinion). Such a unilateral and hostile approach is completely against the etiquette of Wikipedia. There is simply too much deleted information to have to go back into the archives and argue case by case for its inclusion. Arguing case by case for its dis-inclusion is far more within the spirit of Wikipedia.
But as seen, you have no interest in such an approach. Therefore, I am urging my fellow editors who do have an interest in restoring the proper content of this article to begin the process of arbitration. It's a big step, but it's obviously the only way to get the content restored, and it was pretty much made the only way when you editors who agreed with you thought it proper to gut the article and repeatedly revert people trying to change it back rather than discuss the ideas first. - 66.93.144.171 09:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joystiq

The website Joystiq has a huge lists of goofs that can be cited [4]

You do realize that the Joystiq article you linked to got all of that information from earlier revisions of this Wikipedia page? --Billdorr 02:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I also found a review by Dan Iversion on IGN [5]

There are the third-party sources you wanted. --Pixelface 01:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Joystiq is a blog, and doesn't qualify under WP:V and WP:RS. wikipediatrix 13:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. IGN are an acceptable source though.-Localzuk(talk) 14:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Theft Auto moment (GTA)

I think the South Park creators also slipped in a GTA moment in this episode as well. Stan's dad, Randy, leaves his house to get to Cartman's house to hand him the USB thumb drive with the sword of a thousand truths. Both Blizzard executives tell Randy they came by cab. Randy notes that his car is in the shop. Randy suddenly steps into the street and a car comes to a screeching halt. Randy goes to the driver's door and opens it. Then he grabs the driver and pulls him out of the car. Then he punches the driver and throws him to the ground. Randy then gets into the car and closes the door. At that moment the Blizzard executives open their doors, on the right side of the car, get in and close their doors.
The whole sequence is almost identical to Grand Theft Auto San Andreas. I believe Trey and Matt snuck in this GTA moment on purpose. I'm surprised that nobody noticed since it wasn't mentioned in the article.


It was discussed. Have a look at the archive page. Johan Aruba 18:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Details on the creation of this episode

I think this article desperately needs more information on how it was created. How did Blizzard help with this episode? Did they give the creators a modified WoW client that let them pose and animate characters within the actual game-world, or a copy of it running on a special server? Or were actual WoW scenes combined in post-processing with machinima? There really should be at least one good paragraph describing this process and Blizzard's collaboration on this episode. CGameProgrammer 09:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a source of such information then it can be added. However I do not believe such details have been released. Timb0h 19:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
There appears to be a lot of information on the official production blog. [6]. Timb0h 10:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why cant we edit this page anymore?

Why cant we edit this page anymore?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.215.183.102 (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2006

Of course you can. It's not protected. L0b0t 17:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
'Note: This page has been protected so that only established users can edit it.'. The page is semi-protected Timb0h 19:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, there is no tag on the page. I did not know that.L0b0t 20:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I've unprotected, as the page was semiprotected for almost three weeks. The hype from the newness of the episode should have hopefully died down by now. — TKD::Talk 20:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gynoid

I'm unsure about the trivia statement referencing Gynoid. Unsure how it can be worked into the main article, or ever if it's actually worth mentioning at all? Timb0h 20:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] whats the point of having Trivia?

Whats the point? I mean, everytime someone adds some that is of interest to both the show and WoW someone who thinks they can edit and remove things can decide to remove it?

The hole entire point of this episode is about WoW, and the affects it has on both people and in mmorpg.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ripster40 (talk • contribs).

Trivia is supposed to be worked into the main article body - not stuck as a list forever. Take a look at WP:TRIVIA. Also, everything that is claimed as trivia has to comply with our policies and guidelines for neutrality, original research and citation. If it falls foul of any of these then it will simply be deleted.
Also, it is your opinion that 'the entire episode is about WoW. Personally I see it as a dig against MMORPG's in general and the people who obsess over them. However, neither of these opinions are admissable unless they have been published by a third party. (Also, please sign your posts by using ~~~~) -Localzuk(talk) 17:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


I've posted some of the relevant sections of Policies and guidelines over here. Cheers. L0b0t 17:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Machinima.com interview

Just thought I'd point out an interesting interview about the creation of the episode. Might be a good source for the article. --Conti|✉ 20:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've read it and will incorporate it into the aticle when I'll have time. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leroy

Is the Leroy character a nod to Leroy Jenkins? Also, how do we know his name is Leroy? The reference in the article makes no reference to the charater name. Duke Starhopper 17:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Plot doesn't need any references by default. The fact that he was named after Leroy Jenkins was originally mentioned here, which is already linked at reference #12. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great job guys

It seems like everything a good episode article should be. I'm rather impressed. Certainly gets my vote for GA. --SeizureDog 10:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Youtube

I found this episode in a full length format, heres the link: I'm thinking that we can groove it into the article as an external link, there are 2 other full length ones on Youtube too. Ace Fighter 03:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Except that this is illegal and if Comedy Central cared they could sue us for putting the links. Gdo01 03:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, thank you ever so much, but if you want the link, i have it. I had no idea about that :S, but wouldnt YouTube also become pissed off? Contact if you would like it on my Talk Page. Ace Fighter 01:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/k/Talk%7EMake_Love%2C_Not_Warcraft_a2ca.html"