Talk:Make Love, Not Warcraft/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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

Too Much Irrelev55yant Detail

Proposal: Remove the table of characters, most of the game-inaccuracies stuff and so forth. Prune it down to a standard episode article for South Park, with a few lines of trivia tops. Reason: Episode is light hearted satire, and since it is not intended to be canonical warcraft material, most of it is crap that can be removed.

-SteveGray

I agree, this really isn't needed. If everyone thinks it should stay, perhaps it should just be shortened to the profiles for the main characters?

-Mat

I can't believe there's so much excessive detail on this page that people adamantly defend that a character, who is supposed to be a complete, lifeless slob has an apartment that 'resembles the main character of GTA's and it has a palm tree too!' really should be in this article, and demand on changing it back when I delete it.

- K —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.152.196 (talk • contribs) 20:14, October 6, 2006

Maybe you should try using edit summaries and your deletions might not be immediately reverted. Gdo01 00:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The length of the list is really quite obnoxious. When the incongruities become longer than the summary itself, one has to wonder how necessary they are. At the very least just give a few examples if you're not going to allow the deletion of it.

-MHH90

"Throughout the episode, references made to locations and player activities in World of Warcraft are accurate to their in-game counterparts, including the "plains of Elwynn Forest near Westfall", the Arathi Highlands, the starting quests for human characters and the presence of large numbers of boars near starting zones. Cartman correctly references an actual map from the game to plan the attack on the ganker, and the final battle takes place in the area of Goldshire. This can be explained both by quotes from the press release stating that a large number of the South Park Studios team plays the game, and the collaborative effort between South Park and Blizzard to provide the in-game rendered portions of the episode."

Those line can be shortened as "References made to locations accurate to their in-game counterparts". the player activities is removed because it is not entirely true and rest of the sentences is irrelevant.

I have deleted the "All of the World of Warcraft players in Southpark are male." under Trivia because it is already repeated under Incongruities WAWOWP

-erison

Devout or Netherwind?

Devout or Netherwind as Ike's item set?

Devout with the exception of the helm (likely the Lieutenant Commander's Satin Hood or Field Marshall's Headdress) --Ted 05:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto reference

Regarding the deletion of the following trivia item:

  • When Randy is rushing to find a computer he can use to deliver the Sword of a Thousand Truths to Stan, he commits a carjacking in a manner very similar to those seen in the Grand Theft Auto series of video games; this scene appears likely to be an homage to the GTA franchise.

I feel that given the context and theme of the episode, the near-identical choreographing of Randy's carjacking to those seen in the GTA games, and the numerous allusions to popular video games other than World of Warcraft throughout the episode, it is reasonable to assume that it at least "appears likely" to be an homage and thus would be a relevant trivia item. I won't just add it back in since it was immediately deleted the first time, but I would appreciate the thoughts of other users on this possible bit of trivia. --G-my

It seems like a possible allusion. The Grand Theft Auto series was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the episode, so it's very likely that's what Trey and Matt intended to do. I want to see what others think as well before adding it in th\o the article, as many people have yet to see the episode. Monkeypillow 03:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree, at this point I'm editing it into the page. --Nutschig 07:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
This had to be a GTA/Saint's Row homage. Even though the guy got out of his car with no struggle Randy punched him in the face. So funny.
I'm the one that originally submitted it, so I'm glad it's been improved on and kept:) --Dilcoe

Quotes?

I'm going to go over the episode and get a few good quotes. I'm not at all suprised that a "Too Much Trivia" tag got added. It only took 1/2 hr. Anyways, this artice needs a few good edits... --Zrulli 03:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

What did you expect? Every geek who plays Warcraft had to opine about where this graphic or that scene came from. Man, I liked this episode.

I changed the Kenny's Death to say "You bastard", since they actually had said it in the singular sense, as opposed to the trademark plural (even when one thing kills him, normally other things are involved in some way). In this episode, it was simply the guy, and they in fact said "bastard". --I forgot my password so I have to have it sent to my e-mail but this is Tabris (check logs)

sword of 1000 truths

i dont play wow, is that sword real?

- no. the sword's model is 'the hungering cold', which does exist.

West Coast

When (if it will) does this air west coast (mountain rocky time)?

It aired last night at 10:00/9:00 P.M. all over country. It will appear on itunes soon. Pacman 16:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Rocky mountain and west coast time are diffrent. California has pacific time.
Actually, there are two possibilities of the episodes air time in the Rocky Mountain time zone and it will depend on your cable system. Some cities in this time zone receive the East Coast feed of the Comedy Channel and for them it airs at 8 pm. Other cities will get the West Coast feed and then it airs at 11 pm. So check your local listings online to be sure. Here in Denver the show aired at 8 for several years. However, due to the wonderfully raunchy nature of the show, many parental groups protested this. So our cable system changed over to the west coast feed and it now airs at the later time. This difference applies to many cable networks and one always has to be aware of this when looking for certain shows. MarnetteD | Talk 04:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Blizzard Executives

Can we positively identify any of the others in the Blizzard board room? Based on photos, it seems pretty obvious that the two lead roles are Mike Morhaime and Rob Pardo, but I can't tell about any of the others.

Theme song

Did anyone other than me notice that Kenny's muffled quote in the theme song has changed? I only noticed it the second time I heard it (the first time I was too thrown off by the song itself changing), so I haven't figured out what he's saying yet. I'm not usually all that amazing at figuring out what he's saying, anyways (I never would have realized what he was saying in the past theme songs unless I had read it online) so I'll leave it up to other people, I just thought I'd point it out. Shivers talk 07:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to change slightly every time a new season or continuation of a season begins...that's just my opinion though. Jmlk17 08:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Kenny has had three phrases if I remember correctly... each one lasted a few seasons, and then it changed. Each time he is saying something really naughty, because, well, he's Kenny. Somehow people figured out what he was saying in the past (and once I read what it was, I realized they were right... not just power of suggestion either) and I noticed that he's not saying the same thing anymore, it's something completely new. Shivers talk 16:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
My friend from deviantART had this to say on the matter:

"OK... my friend Corbin figured out what Kenny says. Matt 'n' Trey tried to pull a fast one on us and gave us a subliminal message. I'm 99.9% sure it's "suck my -----" played backwards four times."

I just chopped the sound and reversed it and it definately sounds like "suck my ----" repeated 4 times in Kenny's slightly muffled voice.
I haven't had a chance to listen to it and figure out if that's it myself, but if I ever do get around to it, I'll confirm it. Others are (obviously) welcome to try figuring it out, too. Shivers talk 17:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

no

"the entire premise of the episode centers around a violation of the game's limits, because it would not be possible for a character of the same faction to attack another character without consent."

no, it was mentioned twice in the episode that the 'evil' player leveled up so much so he could do it even though the game doesnt allow it. fictional yes, "violation of the game" no, this is a tv show.

When I first started watching it I noticed this until they stated that like the above user said the player had leveled up too much and became powerful which is how he was able to do whatever he wanted and kill people without initiating a duel

The Blizzard characters themselves stated that it was was a game violation. Nightscream 06:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Splooge vs. Spooge

It seems to me that Stan's name is not a misspelling of splooge, but a correct spelling for spooge. Wikipedia redirects spooge to a noun, but I've heard it used many times as a verb. Hoof Hearted 16:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've heard "spooge" used, too, and that is most definetely what they said when they said his screen name aloud. Shivers talk 16:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Thirded - 66.93.144.171 19:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Fourthed. wikipediatrix 20:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Fifthed. It is spooge. It is the same word they use in the JLo-Ben Affleck South Park, 65.11.201.83 15:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC) CK
I think it's "spooge" as well, but if you watch the closed captions, it leaves out a few characters in the spelling of his name. I'm not sure if this can be considered real evidence, though. --72.200.64.230 23:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

*9 months to a year to level*

Someone put that grinding world mobs makes leveling slower. They stated it takes 9 months to a year to hit 60. I can personally attest this isn't true, since it only took me 5 months to hit 60 (I didn't run an instance till lvl 60), and I have a friend that played it pretty much every day (like the south park kids do) and hit 60 in just two months of grinding. 9 months to a year is how long a casual WoW player takes to hit 60.

Grinding mobs straight IS the fastest way to level (thats why the power-levelers do it that way), you just don't get any gear from instances. Roffler 17:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to add, there's some inconsistence with what level they're attempting to achieve in the episode. When Cartman first brings up the idea of grinding boars, Kyle suggests they'll only be grinding 30 levels. Later though, the Blizzard execs mention that the boys had gained 50 levels in 3 weeks. Because the episode suggests level 60 isn't the maximum limit, there's no effective way to compare this to the time it would take in the real game. SlvrEagle23 17:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Because the kids aren't "newbs" like Randy is, we assume they have gained several levels. Perhaps they each had achieved 30th level, and thus only needed 30 more levels each to reach 60. Also, perhaps the "they've gained 50 levels in 3 weeks" line refers not to "50 levels each" but rather "50 levels altogether". -- DesireCampbell 140.184.32.65 22:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Incongruities with actual World of Warcraft play

I am not sure if the content on this particular section of the article is encyclopedic (or relevant to an encyclopedia) --Ted 19:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There is way too much information about Warcraft on this article, and most of it is WP:OR anyway. The article about Cartman Joins NAMBLA doesn't tell us more than we want to know about NAMBLA, and the article for Trapped in the Closet (South Park episode) doesn't go on and on about Scientology. wikipediatrix 20:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. The other articles you cite gave information on the subject as it related to the episode - which I feel is absolutely relevant. The incongruities section was exactly what I was looking for when I searched for this article. I also fail to see where original research comes in to play regarding screen name limitations, impossible character combinations, and game play anomalies. I'll grant that several of the incongruity points are trivial, and would add to an already lengthy trivia section. So I'm not reverting your edit, but I'd like to see them returned. Hoof Hearted 20:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Detailed unsourced comparisons are inherently original research - you're comparing the real-world Warcraft with how it was portrayed in the show, and making observations about things that were flawed, wrong, and/or different. This is WP:OR by definition. Wikipedia articles are simply supposed to state what verifiable sources have stated, not make its own statements and especially not supposed to analyze things. wikipediatrix 20:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
This is preposterous. Wikipedia is full of lists of facts published elsewhere but collected uniquely within a Wikipedia entry. Why should this list be original "research" and others aren't? What other source would be valid? If message boards/fansites/blogs listing this material aren't citable, and a diligent list of links back to the original rules aren't citable, must we wait until some professor commissions a study before we can link to this information? Jameson 16:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The presence of this section is not intended to convey the opinion that South Park's portrayal of World of Warcraft was "wrong"; by contrast, it wasn't intended to convey any opinion at all. The fact exists that Blizzard assisted the South Park team by providing them with a sandbox environment in which to film their show. Thus, to note the ways in which the South Park team manipulated the engine they were given is not introducing a new idea or pursuing an agenda that isn't objectively known. Furthermore, because of the heavily publicized collaborative effort between Blizzard and South Park Studios to produce the episode, content describing the world created for the show is undoubtedly encyclopedic. This is the way in which this episode differs from those listed above: Trapped in the Closet was purely satire and involved no input from Scientology, and the same can be said for Cartman Joins NAMBLA. On the other hand, this was the joint effort of two groups to create a single show in which their two creations could co-exist. This episode centers as much around World of Warcraft as it does on the South Park residents themselves. For this reason, the large portion of the show spent in the rendered world of Azeroth deserves equal consideration. SlvrEagle23 21:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Whether Blizzard was involved or not has nothing to do with Wikipedia policies regarding WP:OR. Take it to a higher power if you believe I am in error. wikipediatrix 21:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Am I right in assuming, then, that you would consider the Trivia sections of all prior South Park episodes to be synthesis of two sources with the uncited assumption that they were linked? In most cases, South Park Studios has made no explicit note that they intended for a portion of the show to be connected in any way to other productions, but this is done anyway for the sake of documenting what may otherwise seem like obvious points to some. At the very least, the content previously held in this section deserves a sub-heading within Trivia, as its merit is no less than that which resides there. No higher power required. SlvrEagle23 21:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Whatever it is you're trying to say, it has nothing to do with the bottom line, which is WP:OR. What is this, the Chewbacca Defense? wikipediatrix 21:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
If the bottom line is WP:OR, then almost all trivia falls under this category as well. Add the deleted content to the Trivia section or allow it where it previously was. Or head back to all South Park episode pages and delete all content that would be defined as WP:OR if this is. Either way, don't pick and choose your irrational moderation tactics. SlvrEagle23 22:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree, almost all trivia does fall under the category as well. Feel free to delete any of it that's unsourced, I've already deleted a bunch of it today. wikipediatrix 22:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Tell you what, why don't we just put that section back and list it as uncited? The information merits existence on this page and I'm still fairly certain of your slanted bias in the application of WP:OR policy. Just because you don't care personally doesn't make the content irrelevant or subject to policy violation. SlvrEagle23 22:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Unless you can find a reputable independent third-party source (i.e., not a fansite, not a blog, not a message board) that echoes every bit of this information, there's no way it can ever be properly sourced. And if you think my interpretation of WP:OR is slanted, I repeat, feel free to take the matter to a higher power. wikipediatrix 22:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Although I will continue to fail to see what good you've done to this article and the community at large with such editing procedures, I'm done dealing with this. Your extended tenure here at Wikipedia has rendered you all but unable to comprehend the value of the site from the end-user's perspective, leaving you only capable of seeing it from the administrators' points of view. So long as you see yourself as a self-appointed vigilante enforcer of the strictest tenets of administrative policy, there's no use in attempting to create content with the best interests of the everyday web surfer in mind. So, I give up. SlvrEagle23 22:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I think I get it now... are you guys acting out a Wikipedia version of the episode, with one deranged user too powerful to be challenged going around eradicating the hard work of others? I love it! Where are the Wikipedia boars I have to slaughter to topple this meanie? Jameson 16:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reinserted this section into the article with proper references according to WP:CITE. There are a few items that still need verification and more sources would be appreciated. Thanks. Pixelface 23:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think a section detailing differences between the episode and the game is entirely appropriate. I also think the Wikipedia rule against WP:OR here is being entirely misapplied. It's meant from crackpots using Wikipedia as publicity and validation for their own theories, not from the majority being able to say that two plus two equals four or that the sky is blue without having to find a citation for it first. I also note it seems to be just one person here raising the objection to it. - 66.93.144.171 02:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Surely WP:OR is entirely appropriate to this. Here two plus two equals four only for those who know WoW. The vast majority who do not know WoW inside out and read this article need verifiable sources. Which brings me to the second point which is relevance - even if sourcing is fixed I do not understand the need for the information. Some inconsistencies may be relevant if they are of general interest. Much of this is not of general interest and only serves to complicate and confuse the entry. Johan Aruba 19:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
That's like saying something is WP:OR if I don't have the book they cite. Everything in the disputed sections is either from the episode or the now properly cited game World of Warcraft. And that's a fundamental misunderstanding of what WP:OR is. Original Research means we are citing OURSELVES. Given that, to our best knowledge, none of us MADE the game World of Warcraft, we are not committing it. The source is verifiable. Are there certain financial barriers to verifying it? Sure. But that's the case with other sources on Wikipedia as well. Now, is there a *need* for this information? No. But frankly, there's not a *need* for this entire article either. It's fun. And I disagree with you as to it being in the general interest. Once again, we see one user assume that because it is not in HIS interest, it must not be in the general interest. - 66.93.144.171 22:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparantly, Scott Thomas [1] decided to delete all the Warcraft related sections without even discussing the deletions here. Gdo01 04:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

And I reverted it back. - 66.93.144.171 04:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The amount of WoW information on here is unnecessary. This is a page on a South park episode with a plot based around world of warcraft written in a humorous fashion. Therefore it should not be taken seriously and the conflicts between this episode and the actual game are not needed for general readers. Scott Thomas 04:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

A good many general readers may very well be interested in that information. I find it helpful and appropriate, and I am obviously far from the only one. - 66.93.144.171 04:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It is completely irrelevant to the episode! What everyday web surfer needs to know that Cartmans online name is actually not allowed in the actual game? Only WoW players would find that remotely useful and therefore the article is biased to what they want. There are more users of Wikipedia who do not have anything to do with that game than those users who do play it. Keep the article simple and to the point. Details of characters and differences between the game and the episodes take on the game are not needed. Scott Thomas 04:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

YOU think it irrelevant. But it is relevant to an audience beyond those who play World of Warcraft (of which there are 7 million people by the way, hardly a small audience). This information would be quite helpful, for example, to those who saw the episode and have begun to become interested in the game. You are simply projecting your own opinions onto the majority and are taking it upon yourself to unilaterally delete entire sections and that's not what Wikipedia is about. You tread dangerously close to vandalism if you continue. - 66.93.144.171 04:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You are a hypocrite. Completely biased towards the WoW viewers of this site. Something remotely WoW pops up and you spam it with your unnecessary information which is completely irrelevant to anyone looking for South Park episodes info. There might be 7 million WoW players but they arent the majority in my eyes on Wikipedia (I'm sure most people who come to this page won't give a hoot about 90% of the WoW info here therefore it is a waste of space). Unfortunately I cannot touch it as you are now most likely going to cite it as vandalism to get your way. Go back to your MMORPG and talk to your '1337' freinds about how 'ub3r' it is to have south park promoting WoW. I'm pretty sure they are actually poking fun at how much people take WoW too seriously and waste their lives spending rediculous amounts of time on something so trivial. I dont know why I bother when I cannot reason with you people. Scott Thomas 04:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Treading on personal attack there. Gdo01 04:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
What am I saying? It is a personal attack on two grounds:
  1. Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life."
  2. Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.
Consider yourself warned. Gdo01 05:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for my comments, when I cannot get my opinion across I feel annoyed. There is way to much World of Warcraft information on this page! Some would be fine and I wouldnt have complained if it had been kept small, but please let us cut it down! Scott Thomas 05:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
How about replacing the entire section with something like a "Many of the details of World Of Warcraft are incorrect, although this can be disregarded as the episode parodies the game." entry in trivia? I don't think a detailed analysis of every tiny little facet of the episode really counts as notable information.. it's a cartoon.¬rehevkor¬ 05:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Given the amount of work a lot of people put into that section, they obviously feel it IS noteworthy information and that it does not need to be cut down. I, for one, find wholesale deletion of the sections in question or replacement of them with a one or two line blurb unacceptable. If the sections offend you so much, do not read them. As to Mr. Thomas, you did get your opinion across. We simply disagree, and you did not get your way. With all due respect, there is a difference. - 66.93.144.171 06:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

We understand that alot of work has been put into it but that doesnt warrant why it should be there. There is waaaay to much information on World of Warcraft on this, a 'South Park' episode page. I feel it may of been an over enthusiastic WoW fan going a bit over the top. Dont get rid of all of it, but there is such a thing as too much information.Scott Thomas 06:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

As pointed out above, there is legitimate reason that an audience besides World of Warcraft players (who already constitute a fairly large base on Wikipedia as it stands) would be interested in this information. Plus, in a textual encyclopedia, I would very much expect to find comparisons and contrasts to similar events and phenomenon under certain entries. There is no apparent reason why having this information would hurt you or Wikipedia in general. Indeed, there seems to be no reason to even worry about it other than your *apparent* issues and prejudices with WoW players as revealed by your attack above. (No attack on my part intended, I can only go by what you say, and it's clear you have a number of views about WoW and its players coming into this debate and that that has a role in your wanting to remove as much about WoW as possible from this entry.) It's not like the sections in question are a complete annotated guide to the episode. They are quite appropriate. - 66.93.144.171 06:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No I dont want to have as much information about WoW as possible removed from the page, I want the page to be kept to the point as much as possible. At the moment it seems to be more focused on WoW than South Park. Which is my main argument to have the WoW information trimmed to a smaller amount. I am not prejudice againts WoW players, I was simply frustrated cause it seemed from my viewpoint that my opinion was simply discarded. I have apologised for my "attack" so can we please move on. Scott Thomas 06:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

And it seems the majority here feel the information on the page IS to the point as much as possible and that trimming is not needed. That doesn't mean your opinion is discarded so much as disagreed with. It happens. - 66.93.144.171 07:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
If length is the issue, split it off to a separate page (the way episode lists are split from entries describing the original show). I think the information is valuable, and it deserves to be seen. Jameson 16:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
It honestly seems the issue is more that the people in question assume that because they find no use for the information, and that in fact its presence is somehow so offensive to them as to deserve a crusade for its deletion, that everybody thinks so (the number 90% has been thrown around as a figure who would find the information completely useless, and I would really like to see their research data on that.) Arguments have been made as to how the information is useful and encyclopedic and they've been ignored. - 66.93.144.171 18:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Guys this is exactly what Matt and Trey want you to think about. They most likely put all the wrong stuff in there just so you can argue and then see how stupid it is. Besides its just a cartoon show.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.198.23.63 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible Compromise on Incongruities & Warcraft Data Sections

Just as a possible idea to end what could become a long feud/edit war, could it be feasible to move the two sections in question over to a sub page? That way, the sections would still be there, but they would just be links, which should make the people bothered so much by these sections happy. I'm not sure if I'm backing this proposal yet myself because I worry that those against Warcraft content on Wikipedia might then try to get the subpages deleted, which would kind of shove this compromise attempt in our face. Any comments? - 66.93.144.171 07:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have no problem with that. If all of the information in the page is absolutely necessary it should be given a sub page for those who need it. Scott Thomas 07:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is too long. It must be the longest south park article ever. Someone please remove useless information

I tried but I didnt realise I have to discuss it first. I dont see a need for the "Characters' Warcraft data" or the "Incongruities with actual World of Warcraft play" sections, as the average South Park watcher/Wikipedia browser will most likely find no use for that information. As I said before, I suspect it was an overzealous Warcraft fan who has gone a touch too far on the information. It should be cut down or if it must remain, should have a sub page. Although there will most likely be further dispute over the need for that page. This page has become more the focus of World of Warcraft than South Park. Scott Thomas 11:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This sounds completely like a subjective opinion to me. The bottom line is, there's a huge amount of information available for this episode since it splits its display time between the simplicity of South Park and the complexity of the World of Warcraft. Much of the info about other South Park episodes I would find "useless" but I respect its right to exist on the page. Whether or not you personally find that useful doesn't warrant your complete deletion of the section. I would support the idea of creating a sub-page with the information, just as long as it exists for the huge shared demographic between the two. SlvrEagle23 17:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
My one fear with the subpage though is that certain, but not all, of those trying to delete this content from this page now might then try to turn around and move to delete the subpages on the basis that they're not strong enough to be pages of their own. So an attempt to compromise could be shoved back in our face. - 66.93.144.171 18:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This discussion would really be a lot more civil and productive if you (in the plural sense) could realize that simply because you find the information "useless" or "only focused on World of Warcraft rather than South Park", it doesn't mean *everybody* does. Or that even a majority does. Based on the number of people who worked on the sections in question vs. the number of people who are trying to get them deleted, it would seem it's the vast MINORITY who has the issue with the content. - 66.93.144.171 17:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, folks, it would be no different than if the article about Cartman Joins NAMBLA devoted a lengthy and obsessive Original Research analysis contrasting the difference between the real NAMBLA and NAMBLA as portrayed in the episode. Not only is such information WP:OR, it's completely irrelevant to the article. I know of no other South Park article that devotes such effort to comparing something from the real world to the way it was portrayed on South Park. (And if one does exist, let me know so I can edit that one too.) wikipediatrix 18:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Aaaalright, then. So far, you've slammed the WP:OR label on this content despite the fact that we scoured the web finding cited sources for the information. You've claimed that information regarding the South Park character's WoW equivalents in an episode where half of the show is IN the game is irrelevant. You've insultingly paralleled World of Warcraft to NAMBLA on several occasions, as if there were pages of data pouring out of the Cartman Joins NAMBLA episode for us to post. This is, in several ways, comparing apples to oranges: the NAMBLA episode was not filmed 50% in "NAMBLAland", NAMBLA themselves took no efforts to create a wealth of data about themselves in the episode, and the cross-section of boy-loving men / south park fans is, at best, 2. Since you have so diligently taken it upon yourself to ensure content that deserves a right to exist doesn't, let me ask you: have you seen this episode? SlvrEagle23 18:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
See, I don't think the NAMBLA example is such a good one. (By the way -- she's comparing the episodes, not trying to conflate membership in WoW with membership in NAMBLA.) This added information about how Warcraft is portrayed in the episode talks about filmmaking decisions made by the producers. Information about how they worked with Blizzard to get access to things they couldn't normally do in the game, and how the game's rules and history (and, further, social communities and aesthetic motifs) contributed to the design and plot of the episode. NAMBLA background would just be further information about a topic from the show (information best consigned to a NAMBLA entry). This background is actually "making-of" information that illuminates the creative decisions that went into the episode. I think it's of interest to South Park fans, WoW fans, and casual viewers of the episode. I knew very little of WoW when I saw the episode, but after reading the now-removed section of this article, I was interested to learn just how much work the South Park creators had done in creating their world. Someone who might otherwise have thought they just churned out a few quickie machinima scenes could learn a lot about the choices Trey & Matt made by reading this information. Bottom line: it contributes to the appreciation of the episode, which is what an article about the episode should do. User:Jameson 18:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time, you are wrong. WP:OR was intended to stop crackpots from using Wikipedia as a basis to promote their own theories as truth, not to stop people from posting easily observable information. By this definition of WP:OR, two plus two equals four and the sky is blue also qualifies, and that's a ludicrous extreme. - 66.93.144.171 18:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Further, I submit that the interpretation of the section in question as Original Research was flawed from the beginning. If you consult the page on WP:OR, and go to the "What is Excluded?" section, you will see it specifies that "An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments." This section does not. It only recounts observations. THEREFORE, the section is not OR and should not be deleted under those terms. - 66.93.144.171 18:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there's a whole lot more to WP:OR than the one bit you just selectively focused on. Furthermore, the article is filled with things like "this is most likely due...", "he appears to...", "could most likely not be...", "he may simply have been...", "The episode also appears to ignore the concept of...", "it is not so much an incongruity as...", "His character's armor suggests he is...", "presumably he would...", "this may not be an incongruity so much as...", "should be noted that this incongruity is intended", "seems to suggest that...", etc., etc. Sourced or not, the whole thing is still Original Research. wikipediatrix 19:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
So if someone culls through the list and removes the subjective phrases like those mentioned, it wouldn't be a wasted effort? You'd leave it in? Jameson 19:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I sourced what I said. You seem to be going off "Because I said so." As I said, it is NOT Original Research because it is NOT presenting an idea or an argument. It is merely recounting observations. It *may* be using Weasel Words, but that's another different subject. The section does not deserve deletion. I am politely asking you on behalf of everybody who has worked on it and knows it deserves to be here: PLEASE STOP. - 66.93.144.171 19:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I could rewrite it myself and condense it into a tighter, far less crufty, version that would pass WP:OR, but you probably won't like that either. If your intentions are sincere about the article and you're not just so in love with your own writing that you can't bear to have any of it deleted, then let's whittle it down to a simple paragraph. It's enough to acknowledge that there are many incongruities between the real Warcraft and the way South Park portrayed it. There is no reason to list every single incongruity in massively fannish detail because that is not the subject of the article. wikipediatrix 19:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Why do you feel the need to be insulting? I didn't write all of that section. No one person did. Look at the edit history. A *lot* of people did. It's not loose, it's not crufty, it's not OR. And it doesn't need to be slashed down to a paragraph. You cannot continue to use OR as your basis because I pulled the definition of OR from WP:OR and demonstrated why it is NOT APPLICABLE HERE. The section deserves to be there. There is no problem with it nor good reason to delete it. Please stop doing so. - 66.93.144.171 19:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstood: I was giving you benefit of the doubt that you didn't fit that description. So, I take it my compromise suggestion is being rejected? wikipediatrix 19:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Your joke was rejected as unfunny would be more appropriate. May I take it that you are rejecting repeated polite requests to stop deleting the content after it was determined that it was NOT OR by citing the definition of OR according to Wikipedia? That could be helpful if we do go to arbitration, which wouldn't be my first choice, but you seem dead set on continuing to vandalize this article until you either get your way or that happens. - 66.93.144.171 19:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't making a joke. I was deadly serious. And if you're going to call removing WP:OR vandalism, then we are done talking. wikipediatrix 19:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
You're right, we are. This issue will be settled by administrators. Your hijacking of this page subject to your own personal opinions has to stop, and if we can't stop you, we know of someone who will. SlvrEagle23 19:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Does this mean someone has initiated arbitration proceedings? I was hoping it wouldn't come to that. Choose words carefully people! Jameson 20:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I personally don't know how to, but I'm hoping one of the other readers here has. I was hoping it wouldn't come to that either, but when you're dealing with someone absolutely dead set on not listening to reason and threatening that they will just keep removing the section over and over and over again UNTIL an arbitrator is involved (and she basically brought in that threat almost from the first rather than even attempt to have a reasonable discussion), it limits your options to give in and let her have her way, or go ahead and bring in arbitration. Right now, the section is gone and I'm hoping someone puts it back. I can't because of 3RR. - 66.93.144.171 20:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Seems like if it gets put back, it'll be taken out again. Sadly, an accord must be reached in order to stop going in circles. I think a paragraph may be a reasonable compromise, as long as it offers substantial detail to make it clear it's not a fan list of "goofs" but actually making-of info. (But I fear that paragraph may still be open to criticism for lacking adequate citation.) Jameson 20:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Since you sound like a reasonable soul, why don't you take a crack at reintroducing it in the way you just described? Sounds good to me. wikipediatrix 20:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy to give it a try. May take me some time, though; I've never played WoW. Jameson 20:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think a paragraph is a reasonable compromise at all. There is a lot of good information that was taken out. Obviously, the paragraph idea would only satisfy the deleters if it was relatively short, meaning there would still be a lot of good information left out for no good reason. I vote no for the reason that it sounds less a compromise and more a conditional surrender. - 66.93.144.171 20:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Hee! I'm no Lindsey Graham! ;-) I think it's worth trying a long paragraph. Let's at least give that a try before we abandon hope. Jameson 20:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I still vote for arbitration over conditional surrender. I just don't see ANY way a simple paragraph can make up for all that information that deserves to be there and had no good reason to be deleted. This isn't any dispersion on you, Jameson, and I hope you don't take it as such. And I see that your heart is in the right place. - 66.93.144.171 20:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
None taken; I'm just interested in exhausting all diplomatic options. I firmly believe that the list belongs, too, but if adding it will only be met with reversing it, we'll be locked in an endless cycle until the article's history crashes the database server. I'll try to post a paragraph (here on the discussion page) later this evening, and I welcome the feedback of everyone. Jameson 20:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I am considering the repeated reversion of this page with the associated threat that administrators will have to stop said edits to be vandalism, and have reported it as such. If our only option is to take this to arbitration, I'm more than happy to do so for the sake of the content's right to exist on the page. SlvrEagle23 20:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Good. Especially since I disproved the removing OR argument. Jameson, I would thus hold off on the paragraph until this complaint is resolved.
<-----

Sounds fine. I'll have it ready. I think it's important to be clear that we're reasonable people (and not necessarily even WoW enthusiasts), and willing to work toward a fair solution. Best of luck with the arbitration/complaint - if that process incorporates feedback from the community at large, I hope to add to that discussion as well. Jameson 20:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And I think we have been trying to be reasonable. But that on the other hand, wikipediatrix took the attitude of "I'm right and doing whatever I want regardless of what you say and your only option is to take it to a higher power." as early as her SECOND COMMENT on this issue. Even after I disproved her rationale of OR - 66.93.144.171 20:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Right on. Wasn't disparaging anyone's behavior so far; just reviewing key points going into the arbitration process, for our best chance at success. Most important part of the dispute resolution process? Take a long-term view. (And a deep breath.) Jameson 21:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You are not removing WP:OR. I already cited the definition from that page and the section you are removing does not qualify, as it is only observation, not ideas or arguments. Your counter for this basically boiled down to "Yes it is, because I say so." with NO citation. You are simply removing a whole section you don't like and threatening to keep doing so until others get tired and you get your way. What else would you call it? - 66.93.144.171 20:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


Didn't intend to suggest it should be your homework to rewrite the passage, just curious to know that if someone did it they wouldn't be wasting their time creating more reversion fodder. I think "massively fannish detail" is subjective: presenting the information in list form is probably not the most effective method, but it still serves as factual "making-of" information about how the game was altered by Blizzard/South Park in order to create the episode. For those uninitiated in WoW, more detail means more understanding of some of the episode's less obvious material and jokes. Jameson 19:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Almost that entire ingongruities can be left out. Almost every one follows the formula: "Character is seen performing such action, or equiping this item. This is not possible in the actual game." IT IS A CARTOON SHOW! Who cares? Take it out. It's all irrelevant. Professor Chaos 02:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It is irrelevant to you. That does not make it irrelevant to others. The "It is a cartoon" argument could be used to justify removal of the entire article, and thus becomes irrational here. - 66.93.144.171 03:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


This edit-warring subject to the opinion of a single editor that the content violates WP:OR guidelines has degraded into pure vandalism. To threaten not to stop the editing until administrators are involved is to claim that you are above the entire democratic process of editing pages and above your own fellow users. If the will of the populace at large isn't enough to bring an end to this obvious vandalism, I can only hope the administrators will deal with the situation in a swift fashion. SlvrEagle23 18:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The page was momentarily protected last night... and then unprotected when the sysop in question saw how new the episode was. The sysop apparently figured that when the episode aged a bit, it would calm down naturally. So hopefully, there's more ways in which the admins have been alerted here. - 66.93.144.171 18:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition to vandalism, Wikipediatrix was reported for violation of 3RR, a pretty open and shut case. She blanked the portion of the article she's after at Oct 6 19:08, Oct 7 15:32, 17:34 and 17:54. - 66.93.144.171 18:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

May I ask what it is that is so important about the ingongruities and character details? I am not on a "crusade" to remove the information. I am not "offended" by the information, a questionable accusation by some of the people so enthused on keeping the information on the page. I simply happened to see the article after seeing the episode and noticed the information was largely to do with World of Warcraft rather than South Park. eg: "While fighting the Renegade, Cartman uses Mocking Blow. This special attack meant to draw a hostile NPC's attention has little effect on a human controlled enemy. Dialogue hints that Cartman is a warrior, although when his screen is show it is clear that he is actually a Rogue; which would make his weilding of a two-handed mace impossible." This is a direct example of too much information. It is something so trivial it should not warrant a spot on the page or be a worry to any WoW fan who has seen the episode. After all, its a cartoon made in a humorous fashin, not intended to be taken seriously. A small amount of information on the players characters I would see no problem with but I fail to see the necessity for the large amount of detail which seems to have a restriced use only by largely enthusiastic WoW fans. Scott Thomas 04:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

YOU do not find it helpful. You have made this very clear. You then proceed to project this onto everybody who is not a WoW fan and then proceed to dismiss this as a negligible base of the readership of the article. Both are very subjective opinions. A number of people put a lot of work into the page. Deletion of huge sections of that work is a pretty big matter and should not be done out of hand. They obviously think there was a need for it to be there. Perhaps SOME of the information is unnecessary, and if a line or two was deleted, there'd be much less of a fight over it. But there is no need to delete entire sections and it's a huge slap in the face to everyone who worked on them. And continual deletion is even worse. - 66.93.144.171 04:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You are clearly oblivious to the fact that not everyone plays WoW. Think about it logically, the majority of people who come to this page will not be WoW fans. Its a fact, and you are completely biased if you think otherwise. Someone with nothing to do with WoW would have absoloutely no use whatsoever for that information. Stop assuming its just me who finds this information irrelivant. I understand that alot of people (mainly WoW fans) find the information interesting, yes, but the surely can find another place for the information rather than to clutter this article up. You are accusing me of being one sided and only seeing my point of view but you are exactly the same. I would be compeltely happy with the articles WoW information trimmed down, I have said before that my problem with it is there is too much information and I feel it is taking the focus of the article off South Park and shifting it onto WoW. Scott Thomas 09:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It has already been established above that the sections in question will be helpful to more than just WoW fans. I have never said they would be helpful to everybody. Nothing in this article is helpful to everybody. However, taking out the sections hurts those who would find the information useful and interesting. Leaving them in causes no harm whatsoever because those not interested in the information could merely *ignore* the sections in question (and have given no good reason why they are not). Again, because you find the sections clutter does not mean that everybody does or even that everybody but WoW fans does. The last charge is ridiculous as WoW is never discuss outside of the context of the episode and the South Park characters. - 66.93.144.171 10:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not rediculous, I made the comment in relation to my previous statement, that it is unnecessary. TOO MUCH INFORMATION FOR WHAT IS REALLY NECESSARY IN THE ARTICLE. The article is about SOUTH PARK and I feel the focus is diverted more on Warcraft because of the amount of information divulged into the crossover WoW into the show and the errors made in the process of this COMEDIC programs depiction of warcraft. What general Wikipedia viewer needs to know that "The Renegade seems to be a Mage, but wears a Plate helm. Mages are restricted to cloth armor", I'm sorry but it seems so rediculously trivial in my opinion to include this information. And just because you dont see how the sections are relevant doesnt mean that the majority of this articles viewers dont. The door swings both ways mate and it looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. I'll leave this how it is and let the admins deal with it cause its obvious we cannot come to any terms. Scott Thomas 11:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, who made you supreme arbiter of what is necessary and what is not? The article is about an episode of South Park that heavily involves the game World of Warcraft. A listing of the boys' game characters, and a comparison and contrast with the real game is not really all that out of place at all. Bound encyclopedias often include comparisons and contrasts with related ideas. You have often thrown around the idea that the sections were made by a single WoW fan who went out of control. A look at the edit logs will disprove this, as many people worked on them. And Jameson, who has been as vocal defending them as anyone else, has said he is not a fan but still finds the sections interesting (which does kill your theory that no one but WoW fans would). I will also point out there have been good faith efforts to work with the people that were bothered by the length, such as my conversion of the Incongruities section into a table which lowered its page real estate by 50%. However, it's obvious we cannot come to any terms because your side will only settle for one of two unreasonable solutions, either outright killing the sections, or gutting them to nothing. There is proof that plenty of other people find the sections interesting. There is none that all that many other people are as bothered by you by their presence. You are simply assuming this by projecting your own feelings onto others. - 66.93.144.171 18:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Who made me supreme arbiter of what is necessary and what is not? You're over reacting here dude, calm down. What I'm saying about whats necessary is just common sense in my eyes, but obviously it differs to others. Keep the damn information cause I'm done arguing, if its going to make you that much happier to have it there fine, but im not wasting more of my time trying to get a simple opinion across when i'm just repeating it to no effect. When I said the article should be cut down can you cite a specific time where I said we should gut it down to nothing? I want some of the more trivial information removed but I dont mind if the sections have to stay. But I suppose it's crucial the millions of Wikipedia readers and WoW fans who will be reading this section of Wikipedia on South Park know that "Kyle's character has an Arcane/Fire spec." Such important and useful information. I bet they'll sleep better knowing that. Anyways good luck with your maintaining the "Make love, not Warcraft" article quest, I'm sure it will get even more exciting in time. Scott Thomas 02:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm perfectly calm. And your OPINION did get across. It is simply disagreed with by the majority. You have been confusing getting your opinion across with getting your way. I, and others, have simply been defending people's rights to not have their work unilaterally cut simply because certain people assume that since THEY don't see a reason for the information to be there, no one does. And repeating your opinion over and over again in more condescending and angry tone each time doesn't help. If you've ever added the slightest bit of trivia to any Wiki article yourself, someone could go in there and call it totally unnecessary too. That doesn't mean they're entitled to just rip out your hard work or insult you for including it in the first place. If you're going to leave, leave. Otherwise, you're making it clear you're the one with the obsession with getting it removed without any good reason other than YOU think it's unnecessary. - 66.93.144.171 03:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Condescending? Speak for yourself. I'm not so much angry as I'm speaking in a frustrated way. And you single me out despite the fact that several others are making the same point as me. I am going to leave but I'm not going to leave myself open from insult at the same time by yours truly. Several people have made the exact same point as me without influence just like several people have made the exact same point as you. People putting alot of work into the article does NOT warrant its existance OR relevance and you saying that there IS alot of people who would find the information useful doesnt make that true either. I am not biased against WoW its the principal of the thing. This article has TOO MUCH info about warcraft. I have even asked WoW playing freinds of mine just to get an opinion from the other side, and they agree that there is too much WoW info. You say the same about my comment that the information is useless. Just cause I say it isnt useful doesnt make it true. However common sense to the average person would know the fact that "Stan's character is wearing a Frostwolf Battle Tabard, an item available to buy only for Horde players." is trivial and unnecessary information. Scott Thomas 03:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You are the one being insulting. You have been since you showed up into this article. You first attempted to unilaterally delete the sections twice without even attempting to discuss the situation. When you were warned such tactics could be seen as vandalism, you started being insulting, and have not let up since. You justified this by saying you were frustrated that your opinion wasn't getting across, but it was. It was simply disagreed with. You FEEL the article has too much information about Warcraft. You automatically assume nearly everyone else feels the same way. I'd like to see your research data. I feel what's there is just fine. A greater number of people disagree with me and the edit logs bear that out. You need to stop assuming everyone agrees with you. You need to stop using terms like "common sense" for people agreeing with you. It isn't. There has been good faith efforts to work with you and others who had issues with the content, including the converstion of the Incongruities section into a table, which lowered its page real estate by 50%. This did not placate you in the slightest, and lends itself to the idea that you do not intend to be reasonable about this and see yours as the only valid viewpoint. - 66.93.144.171 04:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

How long have you been fighting to keep this page from a cleanup? Just out of curiosity. And are you a WoW player? And by the way, I find myself being equally insulted by you, maybe from now on we can just keep it cool. I didnt discuss my edit in the first place because I didnt realise we had to discuss it. Newbie mistake by myself. The only reason I'm here is I was under the impression that we could edit the page to a standard we consider suitable for the article. Thus why I am still debating the WoW informations place, I want the article to be as relevent and efficient to the wiki readers as possible. Scott Thomas 04:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Not that I see the relevance of this, other than to invite ad hominem attacks, but yes, I play WoW from time to time. I haven't been fighting to keep the page from a cleanup, I've been fighting to keep it from pointless slashing of other people's good work without good reason. "I don't think it's relevant and everybody must agree with me." is not good reason. Several people have told you that's a subjective opinion. I'm not sure any kind of joint standard is still possible. All you're doing is pulling out random bits of the trivia and mocking it which you could do with every piece of trivia on the page, WoW related or not. There was a good faith effort which reduced the page real estate of the section which didn't placate you. I, and others, feel the section is fine, relevant and efficient as it is and see no good reason why you cannot simply ignore it if you disagree. - 66.93.144.171 04:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to bait you to insult you, I said in my last post here that I would like to cool things off, I asked simply out of curiosity. "I don't think it's relevant and everybody must agree with me." You're putting words in my mouth dude, I never said that or implied that. I never said everyone should agree with me but I do feel its irrelevant and several other people HAVE said the same on their own accord. "All you're doing is pulling out random bits of the trivia and mocking it" Ok I mocked it once but still, it is an example of the information I dont see has a place here. "I, and others, feel the section is fine, relevant and efficient as it is and see no good reason why you cannot simply ignore it if you disagree." I, and others, feel the section is not relevant to the page or at least contains too many pointless facts. We see no good reason why it should be on the page in the first place. I dont know any other South Park episode page that has this much trivial information on the subject of the episode. Which incedentally will most likely be the subject of humor. The episode isnt too be taken seriously, yet again showing why its a bit too far to include so much information. I appreciate that people have taken the time to write up this information but maybe they should have thought twice before they decided on the amount of info to include. Scott Thomas 05:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You certainly have said on many times that the sections would be useless to "90%" of Wikipedians, or that "common sense" dictated the information would be useless, and you just don't know that. You assume that based on your own feelings. A relative few people have agreed with you. Not enough to justify removing the content. The content should be on the page because it does appeal to, as justified by the large number of people who have worked on it, a large audience. This is the good reason to keep it. There has still been given no good reason to remove it, and if it is removed then the people who do find it useful lose out at the hands of the relative few who simply could not ignore it. - 66.93.144.171 05:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What I can't see is how that apparent abundance of people looking for this information couldnt find it elsewhere. I would say that due to the small amount of people who are posting on this article anyway, we both cannot claim the larger number of people who concur with our points of view. I'll withdraw my statement implying that most people would hold the same opinion as myself, because you are correct, I dont know. However we dont know that people coming to this article would see nothing but a clutter of unnecessary information as well. Who does know? What I think is needed is to cut down, NOT GUT, the information to whats really needed by the average wiki reader. The characters WoW players, and some of the Incongruities. I realise it can be ignored but im not sure that all of it is really needed. Scott Thomas 05:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe there is anything wrong with the amount of information on WoW incongruities in the article. Numerous articles on fictional stories, such as movies, TV episodes, etc., have sections on plot holes, goofs, etc. Thi is no different. It is not OR, because the game itself serves as documentation of the aspects of the game that are being violated. Not every fact stated in a WP article has to be documented, but merely those that are not self-evident. If a character can do this or cannot do that, then what documentation would exist to chronicle it? Sure, the fac that there are 100 WoW servers is an example of something that may need documentation, but what documentation exists that say, the Sword of 1000 Truths is based on a sword from another game? Should an editor cite a rule book, or something, in order to insert a given passage? I also do not feel that comparing this to the articles on "Cartman Joins NAMBLA" or "Trapped in the Closet" is tenable, because those episodes did not contain so much inaccurate information on NAMBLA or Scientology. It is for that reason that the articles about them do not go on and on about them. And for the record, I'm not a gamer, and have never played an online game, RPG, or MMPORG, or anything. I don't even own a video game console. Nightscream 06:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Just some thoughts

I know this episode was done in conjuction with Blizzard but a couple of things are still puzzeling me.

1: The guy who kept killing people at any point without a duel, did Blizzard alter the code for them to allow this? or did they create a character and give him the Orb of Deception? (Orb of Deception allows your avatar to turn into a race on the opposite faction, allowing you to go into enemy territory without being attacked by players or guards) 2: I noticed other people walking around in Goldshire in the beginning (right before the uber character appeared) did they actually film this on an actual server? or did Blizzard create a private server specifically for this? (i also noticed that there was coversations in the general chat when they showed them in town, shortly before Cartman made the comment about how most of the people in game were Koreans)

but overall I thought the epsiode was very well done, I'm not a huge fan of South Park but this is definently one of my favorite episodes.

Please read about the simulacrum theory of Jean Baudrillard; I think the sort of sarcasm in which this episode deals with the fact that many people can't tell the difference anymore between 'real' and 'unreal' , can be found in Baudrillard's theory and maybe therefore should be added?

Perhaps your comment was made while the "Incongruities with World of Warcraft" section was wrongfully deleted, but yes, the plot of the episode would be impossible in the game for several reasons. - 66.93.144.171 18:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Converted Incongruities Section

I converted it into a table to help clean it up, shorten it and work with those who took issue with it. Hopefully it helps. Comments? - 66.93.144.171 05:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I like it. It's nice! I cleaned up a little more to make it blend with the table above it in style. SlvrEagle23 08:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


well you realize that what they did wa sprobably get the drawers/artists from world of warcraft or

Suggestions by Pixelface

I appreciate your efforts 66.93.144.171, but you also removed nearly all of the references from the article.

I think to understand where Wikipediatrix is coming from, everyone should read No original research, Verifiability, list of policies, and reliable sources.

WP:NOR is policy (I've bolded some parts)

Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material (such as arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements) that serves to advance a position.

WP:V is policy.

Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

I think Wikipediatrix is deleting the sections Characters' Warcraft data and Incongruities with actual World of Warcraft play because that information hasn't been published elsewhere. Earlier I provided links to WorldofWarcraft.com and Blizzard.com and they were removed by Wikipediatrix -- I suppose because Blizzard could be considered a primary source. I think removal of entire sections is reckless, although some parts of the sections have no citations. I think continued removal of the sections is being seen as harassment.

Although, from WP:V:

The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic.

For example, this line is currently in the article:

Stan's character is wearing a Frostwolf Battle Tabard, an item available to buy only for Horde players.

How is a reader able to verify the information is correct? By buying World of Warcraft, playing to level 60, and then watching the episode? I think those sections would not be deleted if a citation was provided. Basically, it would be helpful if an editor found a website (not a blog) that contains that sentence, and puts the URL in brackets after the statement in the article.

A hyperlink to the game manual that says that item is only available for Horde players could be found, but that would only verify the second half of the statement. Earlier the article had a link to a site that talks ABOUT a Frostwolf Battle Tabard, but no site has been found that claims "Stan's character is wearing a Frostwolf Battle Tabard." Perhaps a screenshot from the episode alongside a screenshot from the videogame would satisfy Wikipediatrix?

I'm trying to see things from both sides here. I think the sections are quite informative and improve the article, they just need to follow the rules on no original research and verifiability.

The article on sky actually DOES have a citation to an article on why the sky is blue, not just a statement written by an editor.

I think the article could be improved if an editor can find a reliable and reputable source that has published a list of goofs, and then cite it. I think information that is obvious to one person, may not be so obvious to others. Wikipediatrix has described the material as "crufty" but WP:CRUFT is not policy (or even a guideline). One man's "cruft" is another man's details. I see this episode as a multi-owner fictional crossover and I believe the material is informational to people interested in buying the game (and who think they'll be able to do what they've seen in the episode). It also provides background information on creative decisions by producers.

After citations are provided, there may still be disagreements on whether or not the sources provided are reliable or not. Hopefully a gaming/entertainment site like Gamespot or IGN or UGO will publish a list and then it can be cited.

While Wikipediatrix's edits may help keep Wikipedia verifiable and factual in the short term, I feel they are short-sighted and don't take a long view. If an expert know something about a topic, I feel they should be allowed to contribute to an article. I'm not going to remove the sections and I'm also not going to re-insert them. Though I can help find references if you like.

I hope my suggestions are seen in good faith. Perhaps I am "that which has no life", LOL. --Pixelface 02:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are bolding the wrong parts here. I would say these are merely observations, not ideas or arguments or any of the terms above. Hence, by Wikipediatrix's definition, "2+2=4", and "The sky is blue." as well as about 95% of the unfootnoted sentences on Wikipedia would comprise OR and that's just silly. In my view, this is pushing the WP:OR policy to a ridiculous legal extreme, hence Wikilawyering, while completely ignoring it's spirit.
Unfortunately, in the conversion, I was unable to keep the references, as I did the table as an HTML table and converted it. It was my first table. I considered this an acceptable loss as Wikipediatrix was not appeased by the references and still attempted to continually delete the sections anyway due to her flawed interpretation of WP:OR.
It certainly wouldn't hurt to add references back. However, it seems this is a case of a Wikipedian who is less interested in a consensus improving of the page and more of forcing her way, hence the threats of continuing to outright delete the sections until they are not restored or meet her criteria of a "simple paragraph" (which many find unacceptable).
Frankly, I would think referencing the entire Incongruities section to worldofwarcraft.com should be sufficient reference. The Character Data could be referenced to worldofwarcraft.com and the episode itself should that be necessary. - 66.93.144.171 02:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Plus, everything in the game is verifiable via two sources. The South Park episode the game is about... and the game itself. Where precisely does Wikipedia say that the game cannot be a reference? It might be easier to get a character to level 60 to check something than find some out of print tome to verify something. - 66.93.144.171 03:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)