Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of characters in South Park/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 01:29, 24 February 2010 [1].

List of characters in South Park[edit]

Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it fulfills the FL criteria. Nergaal (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Mm40 (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think role column should be sortable and incomplete sentences shouldn't have periods. Image also lacks alt text.—Chris!c/t 04:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed both the sorbability and the punctuation. Nergaal (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the image of characters meets WP:FUC. Anyone else have opinions on it? In any case, it'll need a much stronger fair-use rationale, not the same one used for South Park. Mm40 (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is "To show the four main characters of the show (present in the foreground), together with a large portion of the characters in South Park." sufficient? Nergaal (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, never mind, saw the sublists. Still don't like it though. Text entries are still better than the tables (have a paragraph or two for the sections with sublists that describes generally the characters in the list), and my point on the lack of overall conception/reception information still stands. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 10:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Th difference is that this list has way more than 20 characters who are important for the series. There are actually almost 60 of them, and having even a short paragraph on each would make this a humongous article. Nergaal (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a short paragraph on all of them; it's a short paragraph on what the general content of the list is. That's far better than having a table per section, and still, the list needs conception/reception information. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 03:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the conception section that I have added sufficient? Nergaal (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks okay, although I'd recommend others to evaluate whether it's comprehensive or not. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 02:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Excuse my inexperience but there are some things I'm questioning. The Alt Text needs to be more generic, blind users would not know who Kenny is. The tables don't seem to be the way to go, even if the list is extremely long. Also the information seems incomplete since Kevin McCormick and Stephen Stotch are missing their voice actors. The separation seems a bit in-universe though such as "South Park Elementary". Some characters seem to be irrelevant such as Mr. Kitty. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 02:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The two characters are not important enough for anybody (I have seriously looked for a long time) to declare their voice actors; almost all of the male voices are done by the two creators, Stone and Parker, but putting that in would be wp:or; I was tempted to remove them, but for the sake of consistency in the families section I have kept them in. Mr. Kitty is actually relevant in several episodes. Nergaal (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Creation section. "though he is portrayed to give the impression that the show still utilizes its original technique" Who's he? Also I still feel that the list still needs re-arranging and the tables need to be removed. If I had to suggest, the sections should be made so its "Protagonists or Main Characters" and "Other characters" with level 3 headers for "Students at South Park Elementary", "Staff at South Park Elementary", and "Others"; I suggest the others to contain the families and the supporting cast which are summarized in a paragraph. This would also solve the two characters missing voice actors. I'm inexperienced though and the character lists I've worked on were from anime and video games only. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 09:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I missed this reply somehow. I fixed the "portrayed" part. As for tables vs paragraphs, I still believe tables are better: with so many characters that are actually notable (I think I remover about half how many entries are now for characters that don't make multiple appearances throughout the seasons), it would become just an enumeration of characters with very repetitive prose (four ppl do almost all voices), and with awkward prose to list all the initial appearances. As for unknown voices, four of them doesn't sound too much to appear problematic to me. Nergaal (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "has become infamous" needs refs.
Added 2 pertinent reviews. Nergaal (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "home to an assortment of frequent characters " no, home to assortment of characters who make frequent appearances in the show.
switched Nergaal (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is a "family" a character?
Switched with family members Nergaal (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "various residents.,[1][2] of " - spare period.
fixed Nergaal (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since 1999, respectively 2000" what does that mean?
reordered Nergaal (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for what would later become the show South Park, came in 1992 " reads poorly to me.
Is the reordered sentence ok? Nergaal (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "talking stool" perhaps link stool appropriately as it doesn't mean a four-legged piece of furniture in this case.
Added feces in paranthesis to clarify. Nergaal (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "characters ofSouth Park, i" space needed.
Fixed. Nergaal (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They is not offered the same free" not good English.
Ups, fixed that. Nergaal (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hough he is portrayed to give the impression that the show still utilizes its original technique." I don't have a clue what this means.
rephrased Nergaal (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You relink episode names but not Tray or Matt, why not?
linked all Nergaal (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Role" col seems to be your own personal commentary on what these guys are like, no refs or anything.
Isn't this case very similar to the plot sections in episodes articles? Asides from the more detailed descriptions of the more complex characters I don't understand why would this require any referencing. Nergaal (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The boys' classmate " when you refer to "boys'", do you mean the main characters? It's not clear.
Yes. Is there to make it more clear without becoming extremely repetitive? Nergaal (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some problems with RS: e.g. what makes nowgrounds.com reliable?
That reference is used in the merchandise section for "Similar possibilities have been available on multiple fansites". Its point is to exemplify such a fansite selling items. Nergaal (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty to do here. I'll come back with a detailed review if these are suitably addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "he characters are composed of simple geometrical shapes and primary colors" not true per the image - I see brown, lime green, and the skin tone is definitely not a primary color.
I agree. But the reference says the animation is as simple as possible (watching it, you can imagine the cel-makers at Disney writhing in apoplexy), with big, uninflected patches of primary colors and simple shapes for heads, eyes and mouths. I think he meant basic color; do you have a specific suggestion how to fix this? Nergaal (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe talk about the predominance of primary colors rather than simply stating they're composed of primary colors. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How's now? Nergaal (talk) 08:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just noticed that some episode names aren't italicized. They should be.—Chris!c/t 21:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Episode names are not in italics but are enclosed in quotation marks. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then the episode names in the prose should not be italicized. They are inconsistent.—Chris!c/t 22:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Think I fixed this. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note I have archived this nomination as unsuccessful, as more than a month has passed since this FLC was submitted, there is no consensus to promote and the length of FLC has put off reviewers. Also, there seems to be unresolved issues regarding the format of the list that I think would benefit from a centralized discussion or peer review. Unfortunately, I have had to fail several old, stale FLCs because of the backlog. Feel free to re-submit this FLC in 5 or 6 days after ensuring that the previous issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_characters_in_South_Park/archive1&oldid=1140228542"