South Park has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 26, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed March 21, 2007 Peer review Reviewed February 7, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed August 11, 2009 Good article nominee Listed Current status: Good article

This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Animation: American / Television / Computer / South Park Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by the Animated television work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by the Computer animation work group. This article is supported by the South Park task force (assessed as Top-importance). Comedy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Television High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance). United States: Animation / Television / Colorado Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Animation - American animation work group. This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Colorado, our collaboration to create, improve, and update Wikipedia articles about the U.S. State of Colorado. To comment about this article, select the Add topic tab above. For questions about, or to make suggestions for Colorado articles, go to our project's talk page. We invite you to join us!

Syndicated runs of South Park feature the Debmar Studios logo and the Mercury entertainment logos separate (both known as Debmar-Mercury today) in place of the Braniff Television logo. The syndication credits also feature the 20th Television logo. I think it's best to add them to the distribution part of the page.

Here is proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVVhA-Fr3aU DarkModeEditor (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The distribution part of infobox doesnt exist anymore; this fact was stated at the Distribution section and it was updated that CBS has reclaimed syndication rights at that same section. 1.64.131.140 (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DarkModeEditor How Debmar-Mercury and FOX would appear in South Park ALTHOUGH THE SHOW IS OWNED BY VIACOM LeronJomes (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

because of distribution and stuff. 20th television had distribution DarkModeEditor (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, Paramount plus's mention in the lead is more than sufficient, there's no need to include it in the infobox as done with the specials in the episode table template, it's superfluous. QuestFour (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, someone with your experience should have known to wait until consensus has been reached when your change has been reverted by two different editors. Barry Wom (talk) 10:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PP is one of the two networks that the show premieres on, that I'd say everyone here agrees with. The dispute revolves around its inclusion in the infobox's original network parameter. As explained above, approaching this in the same manner as done with the episode tables in the episodes article, placing the PP content in a separate section from the main table, seems best. SanAnMan, you're welcome to participate in this. QuestFour (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My view on this is fairly straightforward. Per Template:Infobox television, the field for "network" reads: "The original network(s) on which the show has appeared. Do not add foreign broadcasters here. Use links if articles are available." First, note the word "network(s)", that indicates that more than one network is acceptable here. Also, ever since this recent new contract came out, new episodes of South Park have been premiering on two different networks -- regular season shows on Comedy Central, special episodes on PP. There are multiple examples of other series that have been on multiple networks including both streaming service networks and cable-only networks. I will admit that South Park is (once again) a bit out of the norm since it is premiering new episodes on two different networks, but I see no good reason why both CC and PP shouldn't be included here. The comment about adding any other network/service such as HBO Max is moot since HBO Max doesn't premiere the new episodes. - SanAnMan (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment -- here's a great example, the show Dancing with the Stars (American TV series) was on ABC for years, then switched to Disney+ for one year, and now will be having debut episodes on both networks; and both networks are credited in this field in the infobox. - SanAnMan (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed the text inside a footnote. This seems to be a decent compromise as it still includes the wording but not in a way that would make it seem that PP is on a par with CC in regard to South Park, since the specials are peripheral to the show's standard episodes, and again, more reflects the episode tables and template. QuestFour (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the guidelines is that this infobox field should list every network on which episodes of the show premiered. Barry Wom (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which it now does. The footnote is just a layout feature. Template:Series overview mentions the inclusion of special episodes, yet they're placed in an entirely separate table. Guidelines are helpful but don't necessarily always have to be enacted word-for-word or in a strictly literal sense, see WP:5P5 and WP:COMMON. QuestFour (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why we would want to hide Paramount+ in a footnote. You claim that "the specials are peripheral to the show's standard episodes", but two of the specials continue the plot from previous episodes. Barry Wom (talk) 06:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes are not used to hide text, they're to "add explanations, comments or other additional information relating to the main content but would make the text too long or awkward to read," as per Help:Explanatory notes; it's also worth mentioning that the clutter-reducing aspect mentioned here is too a good point. The PP specials may include some cannon features, as the movie does, but both are still subsidiary to the show's original, standard episodes. QuestFour (talk) 09:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A list of two networks hardly constitutes "clutter". Barry Wom (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they don't, a footnote here does make things tidier. As San mentioned, this case is unique in that the show's network was not changed, instead 'specials' release on a different network/streaming service. QuestFour (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SanAnMan has already provided an example of a show currently broadcasting new episodes on two differnet networks. Barry Wom (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is beside the point, see WP:OTHERCONTENT. QuestFour (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, I'm not quite sure what your point is. Your rationale for excluding Paramount+ as an original network for the show appears to revolve around claiming without evidence or explanation that the specials are somehow inferior in status to the regular episodes ("superfluous", Paramount+ is not "on a par" with Comedy Central, "subsidiary"). Barry Wom (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A footnote is not "excluding" anything, we've already been through this. PP only streams the specials and not the standard episodes, so yes, the fourteen specials are subsidiary to the regular +300 episodes. QuestFour (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to render Paramount+ invisible in the infobox simply because they've released fewer episodes than Comedy Central? That's really not much of an argument.

Suggest you raise an RfC somewhere if you feel that strongly about it. Barry Wom (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing "subsidiary" about the specials. They were part of a new deal signed only a few years ago, and they are episodes that continue upon or add to existing plotlines, and the plots of the specials continue to influence the regular season episodes. The comments about the specials being "subsidiary" and such appear to be biased in your own view. As for the fact that the Episodes table in this article doesn't include the section for the Specials, that is definitely something that needs to be worked on in the List of South Park episodes, but that doesn't deter from the fact that the specials are still episodes, and have no greater or lesser importance than any other episode. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have successfully fixed the Episodes table at the top of List of South Park episodes, and that table has updated itself in this article as well, so the special episodes are now included properly in this article. - SanAnMan (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The PP specials, even if argued to not be secondary to the main CC episodes, constitute less than 5% of the show's episodes. As such, placing PP in a footnote is best reflective of this as per WP:UNDUE and WP:PROPORTION; with the former stating that undue weight is given through prominence of placement. QuestFour (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in the guidelines stating that a network needs to have aired a particular percentage of episodes to be noted in the infobox. Barry Wom (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't because that's not how guidelines work; there won't be a list of every possible situation a guideline could be applicable. The network is noted in the infobox, and I moreover made the note appear more prominently than before. As per WP:NEGOTIATE, this is now the second compromise I've proposed, yet there doesn't seem to be much effort from yourself to do so. QuestFour (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've failed to convince either me or SanAnMan that any "compromise" is necessary. As already suggested, you may want to think about raising an RfC somewhere to garner further opinions on the matter. Barry Wom (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As demonstrated above, the aforementioned guidelines clearly and evidently apply here; unless you're able to prove otherwise, not being convinced is not a counterargument. QuestFour (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe either WP:UNDUE or WP:PROPORTION apply in this case. By that rationale, we should also be removing mention of Paramount+ from the lede. Barry Wom (talk) 11:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PP's scope and proportion of mentioning in the lead is not the same as it is in the infobox parameter; you're comparing apples to oranges. And a note as discussed ad infinitum does not remove or omit text. You're most certainly entitled to your belief, but it doesn't decree Wikipedia, policies and guidelines do. QuestFour (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you're most certainly entitled to your belief that listing Paramount+ as an original network in the infobox is somehow against guidelines simply because it has aired fewer episodes than Comedy Central. Claiming that hiding the information in a footnote does not "remove or omit text" is disingenuous at best. Barry Wom (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a straw man, and not what's presented above; your flawed understanding of what footnotes are or their function too doesn't constitute an argument. Also, per WP:AOBF, do without the "disingenuous" remark. QuestFour (talk) 11:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The PP specials, even if argued to not be secondary to the main CC episodes, constitute less than 5% of the show's episodes. As such, placing PP in a footnote is best reflective of this as per WP:UNDUE and WP:PROPORTION"

They may well constitute only 5% of the total number of episodes, but that's hardly surprising for a show which was running for over twenty years on a single network before Paramount+ entered the equation.

On the other hand, there are now six episodes per year airing on Comedy Central and two double length specials per year airing on Paramount+. So since 2021, the specials are accounting for 67% of the show's total annual runtime. Your argument that "the specials are peripheral to the show's standard episodes" doesn't hold water. Barry Wom (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the quote you cited already addresses that argument, restating it amounts to no more than a red herring. As for the specials, they're set at 14; their percentage will only decrease. QuestFour (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I must state I regard this pagespace disagreement as edit warring, regardless of the pace. If it requires an RFC to settle this disagreement, the sooner the better. Such mainspace edit warring from longtime contributors is unseemly and reflects badly on our best practices. BusterD (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demanding an RFC is merely part of Barry's disruptive WP:STONEWALLING here, as the only argument he seemingly has to offer is "no consensus". QuestFour (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've been attempting to unilaterally make this change multiple times since October 2023 despite being reverted on each occasion by two editors including myself. I've issued a 3RR warning, but can't make a further reversal without breaking the rule myself. Per WP:STATUSQUO, I believe the original text should be reinserted until further discussion has taken place.

the only argument he seemingly has to offer is "no consensus"

As anyone who reads the above discussion will realize, this simply isn't true. As pointed out by @SanAnMan:, many shows have broadcast on multiple networks and a quick check reveals that most if not all the listed shows have every original broadcast network in the infobox. Your arguments for removing Paramount+ have been along the lines of "Paramount is not on a par with Comedy Central", that "the specials are peripheral/subsidiary to the show's standard episodes", that listing two networks constitutes "clutter" and that the specials have consisted of fewer episodes than the standard ones. None of these arguments are valid. Barry Wom (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2023 and 2024 discussions are not one, and the former's finalized, as made clear by the first post of the latter, which the matter in hand is concerning; so don't even try to straw man this. QuestFour (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify - you're retracting your previous arguments and your sole argument for your change is now that Paramount+ has aired fewer episodes than Comedy Central? Barry Wom (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure and no, that's your straw manned version. QuestFour (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason to be so gnomic? It would obviously be helpful if you clearly summarized your reasoning for hiding Paramount+ in a footnote. Barry Wom (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gnomic? When constantly and consistently misconstrued, as in referring to placing text in a footnote as "hiding", then perhaps. All is in the first post, and is in no need of any further summarization. QuestFour (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the portrayal of Stan Marsh in this article about South Park is wrong. Stan Marsh is not portrayed as an "average 4th grade student". After seeing the later videos, you would realize that he actually has a very unique character. In the 8th episode of the 15th season in South Park (Ass Burgers), Stan Marsh develops a different world view seeing everything as literal "shit" and is later diagnosed with Aspergers, his parents get divorced. Even if his life returns to normal at the end of this episode, this definitely does not count Stan as "an average 4th grader". The tenth episode of the eleventh season marks the beginning of the Imaginationland Series, in which Stan Marsh has an important role, as he helps in opening the door to Imaginationland and defeat the terrorists by singing a song (This is not what happens in the life of an "average 4th grade student"). There are many more incidences in South Park which make do not make Stan an "average 4th grade student". I hereby propose that this statement should be removed and changed as it spreads misinformation about the character of Stan.Helper who is a human (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Helper who is a human: - The description of Stan as quoted comes directly from South Park's website and is cited and sourced. If you don't like it, I suggest you contact them and get them to change it. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dude the citated source was literally retrieved in 2010 from Internet Archive. Currently its 2010 and in 13 years character sketches will obviously go through changes. The source that is citated is very outdated and thus unreliable. Helper who is a human (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect I'm going down to South Park, gonna have myself a time. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 25 § I'm going down to South Park, gonna have myself a time. until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can read it for yourself. [1]Speakfor23 (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept not putting it in the lede. However, I do feel it is relevant for the article. The article doesn't have a broadcast section like how the Rick and Morty article does. Trey Parker stated that they were “waiting for Paramount to figure all their shit out.”[2]Speakfor23 (talk) 13:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Speakfor23: The information is already in the article under the "Streaming" subheading. SanAnMan (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]