This article iswritten inAmerican English, which has its own spelling conventions (center,color,defense,realize,traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from othervarieties of English. According to therelevant style guide, this should not be changed withoutbroad consensus.
This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide toanimation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you canedit the article attached to this page, help out with theopen tasks, or contribute to thediscussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofcomedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofNew York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles abouttelevision programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you canjoin the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to thestyle guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Please do not add mention of pop cultural references, continuity notes, trivia, or who the targets of a given episode's parody are, without accompanying such material with aninline citation of areliable, published,secondary source. Adding such material without such sources violates Wikipedia's policies ofVerifiability,No Original Research, andWP:SYNTH.
While a primary source (such as the episode itself, or a screencap or clip from it at South Park Studios) is acceptable for material that is merely descriptive, such as the synopsis, it is not enough to cite a primary source for material that constitutes an analytic, evaluative or interpretative claims, such as cultural references in works of satire or parody, because in such cases, such claims are being made on the part of the editor. This is calledsynthesis, which is a form oforiginal research, and is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia, regardless of whether one thinks the meaning of the reference is "obvious". Sources for such claimsmust be secondary sources in which reliable persons, such as TV critics or reviewers,explicitly mention the reference.
In addition,trivial information that is not salient or relevant enough to be incorporated into the major sections of an article should not be included, perWP:TRIVIA, and this includes the plot summary. The plot summary is an overview of a work's main events, so avoid any minutiae that is not needed for a reader's understanding of the story's three fundamental elements: plot, characterization and theme.Nightscream (talk)15:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this run of episodes for the season someone has been monopolizing this one person's review. He is of the AV Club. I never post these, and rarely post to wikipedia at all but this is kind of crazy. It's almost like free advertising for this gentleman and I think it should be stopped. Maybe I'm missing the point of relevence but please consider reviewing this for ad trolling.— Precedingunsigned comment added by70.54.100.210 (talk)16:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
personnaly, I think there should be no "reviews" in the episode articles for all these shows. some guy's opinion on the episode doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, just like my opinion doesn't belong there either70.29.162.12 (talk)02:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A review does reflect the views of the public, at least partially. Therefore, it does have a place in the wikipedia. The only thing that could be improved is to add reviews from multiple sources to reduce bias and provide fuller coverage.— Precedingunsigned comment added by69.196.180.245 (talk)16:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The A.V. Club is a legitimate publication, and therefore, appropriately summarized mentions of reviews from it are reasonable, and do not constitute "advertisement", nor have you provided a cogent explanation of how they are. A review does not become an "advertisement" just because it's a single one. Wikipedia is a constant work in progresswith no time limit, so a single review should be thought of as merely thefirst of the several that can eventually be added to that section. To remove that one review instead of adding more is to get the collaborative editing process backwards. As for your label of"arbitrary" in describing the review, well, you're welcome to that opinion, but it's not a valid criterion for removal. All opinions are arguably "arbitrary" when they're ones that someone disagrees with.
As far as your accusation that the recent articles emphasize that publication (which is what I'm guessing you meant when you said that they "monopolize" them), I've addressed this idea on theHistory Channel Thanksgiving talk page. Editors post reviews that are available, and sinceThe A.V. Club is one of the few notable publishers of episodic TV reviews, naturally, they will show up in episode articles, and not because any undue emphasis is being placed on them. Other publications do exist, which is why we sometimes try to mention them as well, such as with the work I did on the Reception section of the1% article. If you feel this article doesn't represent other points of view, then feel free to improve it in similar fashion byadding more reviews yourself, and not byremoving the one validly sourced one in the article, simply because you don't feel like doing the necessary work. To remove such a review because the common citation of a given publication across multiple articles constitutes "advertisement" makes little sense, and certainly does not reflect any"agreement" on the part of this talk page discussion. Three anonymous people (only of whom has done any editing, the other two having done almost no editing, and exhibiting no apparent knowledge of or willingness to learn any of the policies or guidelines by which articles Wikipedia is edited), plus one person who disagrees with them (which is now two), hardly constitutes an informed consensus.Nightscream (talk)05:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
they should mention that they made fun of elton john who appeared in a different episode as himself in the reception section because there was probable some critical response on that— Precedingunsigned comment added byMonsterpose43 (talk •contribs)02:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question for Americans: the whole "Mr Marsh becoming Spiderman" and ruining the Broadway shows, is that a nod to something happening in the states? Is the recent comic-hero characters being in big movies reducing the amount of people that go and see Broadway shows?— Precedingunsigned comment added by86.217.44.88 (talk)18:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a jab at the spider man broadway show. Randy said something along the lines of "It's time to put an end to broadway forever" when he was in the costume, so my guess would be it's a commentary on what the producers may have viewed as a terrible concept and execution.71.251.136.167 (talk)13:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@86.217.44.88:@Nightscream: Sorry to be 14 years late, but it was a fairly obvious reference toSpider-Man: Turn Off the Dark. The article does allude to this at present, withsome fun theater references, including the most appropriate costume Randy could have grabbed to sabotage a play, Spider-Man, but this doesn't make much sense without explicitly naming the Spider-Man musical. Can someone locate a source for this? Otherwise, I think the quotation should be removed.Hijiri 88 (聖やや)12:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, Nightscream, you have removed my info claiming its trivial and does not advance understanding of the plot. However, how does the fact that Randy heard about subtext turning women on at a bar advance it any more then just saying he hears it from a fellow theater goer? Also, is saying that Randy is upset over wicked going to Seatle, that he has seen it 23 times and that he is upset over a theater district better then just saying he is upset over the lack theater district? Seriously, those are truly unneccessary details, yet you added them back. That backs the article even longer, they don't add any greater understanding. Yet adding my detail you had a problem with and on my talk page imply blocking. Seriously, you are just wanting to dominate this page.— Precedingunsigned comment added byOdoital25 (talk •contribs)17:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
