South Park Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Park, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South Park on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South ParkWikipedia:WikiProject South ParkTemplate:WikiProject South ParkSouth Park articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Episode coverage Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance).

There are reliable sources for both! I think we should include both as valid titles, or include one but add another as a {{efn}} foot note. DreamyDude20042 (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The title is all messed up all over the place. Some sources have a hyphen but most (including the official press release) don't, and there are even some sources (including one Tweet from Comedy Central) that leave out the word "The" and just call it "Worldwide Privacy Tour". Instead of making multiple references to all of the variants, the most reliable source should be the official press release from Comedy Central which has the listing "The Worldwide Privacy Tour". I do think your efn suggestion might be the best alternative. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your constructiveness San :D DreamyDude20042 (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This would need to be archived, but, according to South Park Studios (web subsidiary of Comedy Central), the title is "The Worldwide Privacy Tour". I would say the website listing is a more reliable source than a press release (especially given the nature of the show's production schedule), and would be a preferable citation, even if they are in agreement:

https://southpark.cc.com/ 24.151.103.37 (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very often, episode pages like this would include cultural references for things like the title itself and an original song in the episode that is a major element of the episode. In this case, the title of the episode, the "Worldwide Privacy Tour" song (which eats up an entire minute of the episode's runtime), and the themes of the episode derived from the montage set to the song "Worldwide Privacy Tour" (including many of the angles and shots within the montage) are a clear and patently obvious reference to The Beatles' 1967 album and song "Magical Mystery Tour". Thoughts on including this reference? 24.151.103.37 (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any independent reliable source out there that confirms this that we can use as a cited source for this. No matter how "obvious" it may be to a viewer, statements in WP should be backed up with a RS. There are a couple of blogs and wikis out there, but those definitely do not qualify as a RS. See South Park: Post Covid for an example of how pop culture references should always be cited. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@24.151.103.37: Hello, and Welcome to Wikipedia. As SanAnMan mentioned above, Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the article text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here.

With regard to material about the content of narrative works that is evaluative, analytical or interpretive, the source must be a secondary source, and it must explicitly mention the information in relation to the work in question. Relying instead on personal observation or interpretation is referred to on Wikipedia as original research. One type of original research is the use of primary sources to form conclusions not explicitly in those sources, which is called synthesis. This is also mentioned in the banner at the top of these episode article talk pages, like the one at the top of this one. Let us know if you have come across sources for what you described, or if you have any other questions or suggestions. Nightscream (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a 'little' back-and-forth going on, concerning 'how' to describe Harry's family. Perhaps "...royal family of the United Kingdom, Canada, and the other Commonwealth realms..." would suffice? Let's keep in mind, this is about a cartoon episode :) GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Miesianiacal: & @Nightscream:, I begun this 'discussion' for the benefit of you both. Work it out, here. GoodDay (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My response to a message that Miesianiacal left on my talk page pretty much summmarizes my position on the matter. If anyone else wants to chime in on the matter, feel free to do so. Let me know if you prefer not to do so there, or what. Nightscream (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your position is, "I think it's bloat". That, as I pointed out in my last edit summary in the article, is just a personal opinion. The end result in the article, though, is something demonstrably false: your wording claims the Sussexes stepped back as working members of the British Royal Family only, meaning they're still working members of the Royal Family of Canada and those of the remaining Commonwealth Realms. You made some assertion about this episode being a parody of the Sussexes recusing themselves from their roles as senior members of the British Royal Family, specifically. Yet, there's literally nothing in the episode to verify that. So, we're back to you relying on your personal preference, which isn't a guiding principle of Wikipedia. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You say "just a personal opinion", as if some implication to the contrary on my part was that it was fact. It wasn't. Of course it's an opinion. And when we have diferning ones, we employ evidence and/or reasoning to argue which one is more well-reasoned, and we call in other editors to see which position they agree with.

If you truly believe that summarizing the passage as I have is not reasonable, that doing so would leave readers to think the passage is indicating that "they're still working members of the Royal Family of Canada" (something you claim is "demonstrable"--I'd like to see how you can demonstrate this), and you think a preponderance of other editors will agree with you with this, then we'll call for a consensus discussion. Is that what you want?

"...there's literally nothing in the episode to verify that."

Verifiability is satisified when material is supported by reliable, secondary sources. The passage in question is indeed supported by such sources cited in the article. Again, if you think other editors will agree with you on this, then we'll ask them. Let me know how you wish to proceed. Nightscream (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"What I think is reasonable" does not trump "what is factual". The claim, implied or not, that the Sussexes downgraded themselves only within the UK's Royal Family is factually inaccurate. Your other claim that the episode spoofs the Sussexes' quitting as working members of just the British Royal Family is not supported by the content of the episode, no matter how many times you say it is; all you're really doing is gradually turning the suspicion you haven't watched the episode into a certainty. The word "British" isn't even used once in the script. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 08:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, you both might consider opening a RFC on this matter? I'll leave that decision in your hands. GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The claim, implied or not, that the Sussexes downgraded themselves only within the UK's Royal Family..."

The passage does not say "only". It merely summarizes the fact in question. Adding every level of detail, in every article that even mentions the event in passing, is not necessary.

"Your other claim that the episode spoofs the Sussexes' quitting as working members of just the British Royal Family is not supported by the content of the episode, no matter how many times you say it is.."

I never said it was.

I said it is supported by the secondary sources cited in the article, which is precisely what is required by Wikipedia's policy on WP:Verifiability. You can see this if you scroll up and my read my message. The episode itself is not a secondary source, it's a primary source, and for information that is interprtive, analytical, or evaluative, we need secondary sources (as it states in the yellow box at the top of this page), which is why those sources have been cited for that info.

The subject of a work of satire does not need to be established in-story. It only needs reliable, secondary sources, which the information in the article indeed has. Since you've accumulated over 43,500 edits here since 2008, you should already know this, yet you not only speak as if you don't, but when I bring it up, you ignore this point, preferring instead of falsely state that I claimed something that I in fact never did, and indicate that I said it many "times". Why is this?

Since we appear to be at the agree-to-disagree threshold, and since you don't seem to be willing or capable to directly respond to the things I've actually said regarding policy, preferring instead of fabricate things that I have not said, I will ask another editor to weigh in on this matter. Nightscream (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Miesianiacal:

With this edit of yours to the article, you are now editing during an ongoing, unresolved editorial dispute, which is considered edit warring, and a blockable offense. Do you dispute this? Nightscream (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

False. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Miesianiacal:

Also, it should be pointed out that the opening line of the Megxit article reads:

On 8 January 2020, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, announced on Instagram their decision to "step back as 'senior' members" of the British royal family,[(citation)] split their time between the United Kingdom and North America, and become financially independent.

That's it. "British royal family." Not "House of Windsor", as you edited the passage here, much less "royal family of Britain, Canada, and the other Commonwealth realms", as you insisted the passage read here.

Moreover, it should be noted what the wording is in the citation that appears right after the phrase "British royal family" in the Megexit passage cited above. That citation is the very public statement issued by the royal couple, in which they wrote:

After many months of reflection and internal discussions, we have chosen to make a transition this year in starting to carve out a progressive new role within this institution. We intend to step back as 'senior' members of the Royal Family, and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen.

So in other words, the royals themselves used a simplified, summarized term to describe the general institution in question, and so did the Wikipedia article referencing it. This is no different than when people refer to "China" as such, and not the "People's Republic of China", or when the town near mine is referred to as "North Bergen", even though its technical official name is the Township of North Bergen. No one argue that these passages are "demonstrably false", or not "factual." What is your response to this? Do you still oppose simply saying the "British royal family"? Nightscream (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I see is the article Mexit doesn't match the source. Also, comparing "China" and "People's Republic of China" with "British royal family" and "Canadian royal family" and "New Zealand royal family", etc, is a false equivalnecy. "British royal family" is neither the long nor short form of, say, "Jamaican royal family". Regardless, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing a criterion that was neither in my message above, and is completely irrelevant to the point. The point is not whether they "match".

The point is this: he cited source says "the Royal Family." The article says "the British Royal Family." In other words, the article on the very thing the South Park episode is parodying uses a simplified term (the very one I did, as I recall), as does the royal couple themselves in the statement that that article cites as a source. Thus, it makes little sense to insist upon the longer term you insisted upon, or the more recent "Windsor" one you edited, should be used in an article parodying Megxit, when the Megxit articles itself, does not. Saying "they don't match" is a non-sequitur that ignores this. Do you have a basis to dispute this?

If you'd like me to put it more simply, try answering this: Why should the article parodying Megxit use that long description in a passing mention of the thing being parodied, when neither the Megxit article itself, nor the very royals at the center of Megxit, do not?

It does not matter whether the terms for "China" were t4he long nor short form of anything. It was an analogy used to illustrate the use of a shortened, common term for something for which a longer, more detailed descrption may be more technically accurate. Analogies don't have to be perfect in order for the essential point conveyed to be understood, unless you're being willfully obtuse, and prefer to split hairs rather than to admit you understand the point.

OTHERSTUFF is a section on deletion discussions, which pertains to arguments over whether a subject merits its own article. It has jack-all to do with how to word a passage. I mean, seriously, when you say these things, I honestly don't know if you have a reading comprehension problem, whether you were being intentionall deceitful, and didn't think I was already familiar with that policy (and read it again), and then point this out to you, or what. But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you have some insight into how that policy pertains to how to word a passage in an article's lede section. So fine: Please tell me how that policy pertains to this.

Also, you didn't answer my question above. Do you dispute that you resumed editing the article even though we had not resolved this dispute, and that this is considered edit-warring, and a blockable offense? Yes or no? Nightscream (talk)06:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You brought up what's on another article. See: WP:OTHERSTUFF.

You brought up the Instagram message from the Sussexes. It uses the term "royal family"; no "British" to be seen.

You raised "China" as a short form for "People's Republc of China" as comparable to using "British royal family" instead of "the royal family of Britain, Canada, and the other Commonewalth realms". That is a false equivalency. China and the People's Republic of China are the same thing. The British Royal Family and the Canadian Royal Family (and the Australian Royal Family, and the Jamaican Royal Family, etc) are not the same thing. By your logic, the monarchy of Belize is the same thing as the monarchy of Tuvalu, the monarchy of the United Kingdom, and so on. They are not.

You ask if I addressed your question about new, compromise edits being part of an edit war. Please read more carefully.

Familiarize yourself with WP:NPA, which I note you were previously blocked for breaching. You already only just barely missed a block for a 3RR violation. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 06:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"You brought up what's on another article."

That's not what OTHERSTUFF is about. What part of this are you not understanding?

The fact that a policy governing discussion on whether a topic merits an aritcle or whether it should be deleted admonishes editors not to cite other articles, does not mean that citing other articles is prohibited in unrelated discussions on other points of dispute. Can you falsify this? Nightscream (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one said anything about prohibition. The principle of WP:OTHERSTUFF is the same, whether in the context of using the existence of one article to justify the existence of another or using the existence of a phrase or term in one article to justify the existence of that phrase or term in another article. Just because something is used somewhere in Wikipedia is not, in and of itself, a slam-dunk argument that it should be used somewhere else in Wikipedia. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The principle is not the same. It is a principle cited for one type of matter that you are fraudulently passing off as a one that the community cites for another. The reason the community is admonished to avoid that argument in deletion discussions is because each topic proposed for its own article is unique, and must argued for or against in the individual merits of that specific topic, which does not apply to the wording with which some entity is described, either in passing, or in the opening line of an article. But let's put it another way:

Do you believe that the wording in the opening line of Megxit is wrong? Yes or no? Do you believe Harry and Meghan were wrong to refer to "the royal family" as such in their statement? Nightscream (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]