Talk:South Park season 21

Edit War - Article Creation

User:AussieLegend and User:Favre1fan93 are in dispute over the existence of this article with myself User:SanAnMan and User:Pokelova. Previous discussion regarding the dispute took place on SanAnMan's talk page and Pokelova's talk page.

• It is apparent that two editors (myself and Poke) that the article should exist, has sufficient cites and references, and meets all guidelines. Two other editors (Favre and Aussie) disagree with this and continue to revert the changes and warn about blocks. I believe at this ongoing discussion that either A) administrator intervention may be necessary, or B) other opinions from other, non-involved editors should be added here before any further reversions or changes are made to the article. Thank you for your attention. -- SanAnMan (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • As it currently stands, the amount of content available to us no where near warrants an article about the season. Per WP:TVUPCOMING, all currently known info is properly listed in the lead of List of South Park episodes. All we know is that the season was ordered, how many episodes, and the intended air dates. Also, per WP:NOTTVGUIDE, we do not simply list episode air dates for upcoming episodes with no other info. In this case, a second piece of info is needed (title, director or writers) to have any episode rows unhidden. And of course we are in absolutely no rush to have this article exist. Just wait until more info is available to create the article. It is noted properly in all the places it has to be at this time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Also, per WP:NOTTVGUIDE, we do not simply list episode air dates for upcoming episodes with no other info. In this case, a second piece of info is needed (title, director or writers) to have any episode rows unhidden. This is not stated at all in WP:NOTTVGUIDE. And even if it was, there is a second piece of information available, the production codes of the episodes. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Please see point #4 of WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Also, there is nothing inherently notable with the production codes as they are just sequential, essentially making them a third episode number. So again, as I stated, a second piece of info is needed: the title, director or writers. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
        • From WP:NOTTVGUIDE #4: "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. Likewise an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article." Nowhere here does it specifically state that an episode table must require two pieces of information. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
          • You need to use a little bit of common sense here. Production codes without anything else except dates that could change serve no encyclopaedic purpose. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
            • The production codes are a moot point here; I was just using it as an example. The fact is that we can have an episode table with just the first episode only, with a confirmed, well-cited and sourced air date, and that is the argument here. You and Favre have been arguing that the reason this episode table was not valid was because of point #4 from NOTTVGUIDE which requires the two pieces of info. I am stating that the guideline does not specifically state that. That is the crux of my argument, and to this point, you have not shown specifically where it states what you claim that it states. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
              • I have made no such claim. Instead I stand by WP:TVUPCOMING. You need to convince others that the article complies with WP:TVUPCOMING, which is not going to be possible. Remember, we are the people who wrote it, so we understand it. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
                • Ok, we'll discuss TVUPCOMING then. That guideline basically states that the section (or in this case, the article) should not be created until an episode guide can be created. It has been stated and shown that the guide can be created, so this point is met. What specific part(s) of TVUPCOMING are not met here? Honestly asking. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
                  • When we wrote TVUPCOMING in June 2014 (it was actually Favre1fan93 who added it to MOS:TV.[1]) it was partially to stop the creation of exactly the sort of table that you created here; a table with no episode titles, writers, or directors and only scant information like dates and production codes that provides no useful information to the reader. It has never been the intention to include that sort of table, and they are deleted from LoE pages regularly. Articles based on renewal information only, whether or not they contain such tables are regularly redirected to the LoE page. When we create an episode table it should be as Favre1fan93 has described above. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
                    • So you're basically admitting that nowhere in TVUPCOMING or MOS:TV does it actually state, in writing, that the type of table that was used in this article is not permitted. It was, for lack of a better word, implied. And as for whether or not other similar articles were regularly redirected to the LoE page or not, other stuff exists, to quote some of the comments made towards me.

Look, I'm not trying to be a troublemaker or anything here, I'm an intelligent author who reads and understands written rules. I'm not just some dumb user. It's not fair to state that you had a purpose in mind when writing a MOS policy and/or guideline but not have that purpose in writing. If there was anything actually in writing that backed up what you and Favre had been arguing, I would have dropped it right then and there. Instead, you have made arguments about ideas that you clearly stated were written in policy, and I have proven that they were not.

I think it's best at this point to let other editors, and possibly even actual administrators, weigh in on the matter at this point. Our arguing back and forth is not getting us anywhere. You have your opinions, I and Pokelova have ours, and I don't think we're going to come to a mutual agreement here. - SanAnMan (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• This is a notice to @Pokelova:, @AussieLegend:, and @Favre1fan93:, I am filing a request for dispute resolution at the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. - SanAnMan (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's a good test. Can the information easily exist on the LoE page? If the answer is "yes", then an independent page does not need to exist right now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Unlock a page

It's continued! Can you unlock a page? 31.223.133.218 (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

If you want specific changes, please feel free to request them here and they can be made. Or you can create your own user account and you will be able to do so yourself. Cheers! --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 13:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:South Park season 21 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@AussieLegend, Favre1fan93, SanAnMan, Pokelova, and Bignole: FYI — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• • That discussion is now in Talk:South Park (season 21)/Archive 1. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Bad wording

"Unlike previous seasons with only ten episodes, season 21 will have three "dark weeks" as announced by the producers. This means the ten episodes will air over 14 weeks with three separate breaks with no episode."

It's not clear if the three dark weeks or the announcement by the producers is the new information in this sentences. And why "only ten episodes". This is not a neutral statement. It's been like this for years and it's misleading for someone who doesn't already know about it. If you read "unlike previous seasons with only ten episodes" for the first time, you would expect the crucial information of the sentence being season 21 having more episodes. --88.65.127.178 (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)