Talk:The Ungroundable

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scotsdale[edit]

But which Scotsdale is "the most horrible, miserable place on Earth"? It's currently linked to the one in Arizone, but on Scottsdale Missouri they've already listed that place as the one referred to. In any case, why Scotsdale? Has it been in the news lately? And for what? And which Scotsdale... *confused*--193.157.242.172 (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the one in Arizona. http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0603539/ Scottsdale seems to be linked Twilight, the new vampire movie. The one in Missouri is a village of 211 people, and is unknown, I doubt that's the one. Belasted (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

its not identified in the show. we cannot disambiguate based on our interpretations. needs to be sourced. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're a douchebag who needs to quit being anal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.51.95 (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red has a point, though. You can't just decide that it's one Scottsdale over the other. Also it's Scottsdale with two T's in either case. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is defeated if anonymous users can just go around what is or is not fact. Disturbed286 (talk) 08:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without a source identifying which Scottsdale, no link. WP:V, WP:OR-- The Red Pen of Doom 04:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the Missouri Scotsdale does have one "t". I suppose a copy of the script would clarify. But really, this is crazy. If the show had mentioned Dallas, would anybody really be arguing that it was a city in Georgia or Oregon? Scottsdale AZ may not be as prominent as Dallas, but it's far and away the most prominent Scot(t)sdale192.104.39.2 (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen[edit]

ok since this is the season finale of season 12, that means that there is only 3 more years of South Park. That means that when the DVD comes out in 2012 for season 15, we need to fix all the little consistencies and agree on what should be capitalized, whether or not the episode number should only be stated on the right box, and not also in the introduction for the article, little tid-bits like that so that Wikipedia appears more professional. We don't have to worry about it now, i already started doing this for the season 6 episodes, but we just need to make sure everything is consistent and structured. So we'll hold discussions, debates, etc. so we form a consensus about what stats goes in specifically where and fix titles and correct grammar etc. Little things like that. --J miester25 (talk) 04:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Wow, there's only three years until a consensus has to be formed on Wikipedia? Well your timeline is right at least...but you might want to add in a few extra months for trolling, complaining, Wikipedia Nazis and hackers just in case. You're quite the little ambitious puppy there, aren't you sport? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.102.104.95 (talk) 06:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't call it over before the actual last episode gets anounced. They have a three-year contract for now, yes, but what stops them from just signing another contract after that one runs out? - Redmess (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural References[edit]

before any conflicts arise, as to adding references before people agree on them, im creating this template so that when the core article is created when the show airs tomorrow, people can add here what they want to add about cultural references and then ONLY here until we agree will the sources be included with your claims so that verification of the information is consulted as primary and secondary sources (e.g. SouthParkStudios). I now agree with Alastairward on this matter and it should continue from here on out. I am not establishing a position above users, but i feel its the smartest thing to do about this issue, since it has become a problem since The China Probrem (minus the pun). --J miester25 (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Aw go Scott Tenorman yourself. There's Lost Boys for one, though I wonder how many current SP viewers got the reference. Pretty sure Buffy the Vampire Slayer could be argued, if maybe a weak case. After that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.102.104.95 (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They also directly referenced the Twilight series. TakaraLioness (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Go Scott Tenorman yourself"?... - Redmess (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He means eat your parents lol Jay794 (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So obvious it can't be cited? Does the article suffer from not having the speculation above added? I don't believe so, but let me know to the contrary. Alastairward (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clamato or Clammato[edit]

Was it spelled "Clammato" in the episode? I just changed all the times in the article where it is spelled that way, but I might have been wrong. Belasted (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • it is "clammato" in the show. most likely to avoid trademark issues with motts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Backvoods (talk • contribs) 19:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we wikilink this to Clamato without a source? There are wikilinks to "hot topic" and "call of duty" in the plot summary, and i don't see any sources listed for those. How is this different? - Poobslag (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because we are linking "Hot Topic" to "Hot Topic" and not attempting to link "Hawt Topic" to "Hot Topic". There is no analysis involved in the Hot Topic link, but it is wikipedia editors analysis that says "Clammato" is the same as "Clamato".
The sentance with Call of Duty should not be in the article at all, but I have reached my limit for removing it today: feel free to remove it as irrelevant [relevant?] and per excessive plot.-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the policy for this kind of stuff, then it's new to me... I guess we should also fix The_Jeffersons_(South_Park_episode) so it doesn't link to Michael Jackson? - Poobslag (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If no where in the show the "Mr. Jefferson" is explicitly identified as Jackson and we do not have a reliable source that says the character "Mr. Jefferson" is Jackson, then yes, the link piping Jefferson to Jackson should be removed. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say Clamato, you say clammato.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mankytoes (talk • contribs) 19:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire lifestyle refrence?[edit]

In the begining of the episode when the "vampires" are discussing what types they are, "psy" and "sanguine vampire" are mentioned. Does anyone else agree that this is a reference to the "modern vampire" culture?--Ursula darling (talk) 06:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Duty[edit]

The game played in the initial scene is Call of Duty: World at War. Should it be added under cultural references or as part of the summary? Legija (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clearly it is not part of the Plot and not at all necessary or important to include in the plot SUMMARY of which this article already is way to excessive. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What is wrong with you people? Getting rid of all the game references and all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.253.252.29 (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is wrong with us- we are here to write an encyclopedia, not to write a fansite's gag-by-gag recreation of the episode. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By your logic we would get rid of everything and everyone and have one sentence for each entry. The game is played; therefore it is referenced, therefore it can be included in the entry. Stop acting so damn elitist.
WP:V Yes we do need references for everything. I am not challenging much of the current excess becasue it can at least be argued that the material is tangentially related to the plot, but the fact the boys are playing the game cannot be. Please see Wikipedia guidelines bout writing about fiction. I am not being elitist, I am trying to shape an encyclopeida. If creating an encyclopedia is too elitist for you and you would rather create a fansite, perhaps you should go elsewhere.-- The Red Pen of Doom 16:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I have to agree. While it is referenced, it's merely a side gag. While it could be added it's not really necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.204.114.227 (talk) 10:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

returning the above content [1] that was accidentally deleted when the following IP personal attack was added. [2] -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, the guy is the biggest anal douchebag I've ever seen.

We act civilly towards other editors, or we get blocked from the project. Please behave. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who is this "we?" I'd rather amputate my own penis than be put into any group or category with you. I'm going to erase your changes. See your talk page for more information. --166.102.104.62 (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good call —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.208.236 (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you dont want to be a part of the "We" who follow wikipedia rules, then you can be a part of "them" who are blocked from participating in Wikipedia. The choice is yours. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need a vacation away from Wikipedia. Seriously. This "us or them" mentality is scary. It's been used for everything from religious fundamentalists to the Nazis - and I wouldn't hesitate to refer to you as one of the so-called 'Wikipedia Nazis.' At any rate, just because you believe one thing does not mean that the rest of the world has to follow it. It seems YOU are the one who can't play nice here, NOT the others, and I suggest you compromise or prepare to continually violate the 3RR rule, as it seems you have no problem doing. Then again you appear to enjoy bending the rules when it suits your needs and attacking others when they do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizza With Cheesy Crust (talk • contribs) 02:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Godwin's law in action, but please remember our rules about commenting on content not contributor.-- The Red Pen of Doom 06:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I've never seen a non-political wikipedia page that has been so anally monitored. Is this necessary? It is only a television show... Most pages would be more lenient. I understand that you love rules but if the majority of those that visit here come to read cultural references noticed and to contribute their own than ca't you make an exception? As long as evidence is used to back these claims up I don't see the harm. Especially with the most obvious examples. Twilight, for one, is referenced by name and thus is an indisputable reference to the novel. This really is silly though to fight over something which lacks importance on so many levels. Just allow it. 64.252.3.65 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

WP:V does not make exceptions for any article "just because its only a TV show". All of Wikipedia is an encylopedia, there are not pages that get a pass to be fansites.-- The Red Pen of Doom 16:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Twilight - yes it is mentioned by name in the show - so what. What is the significance of the mention? Why is the mention important? When you find a reliable source that tells us why, then include it in the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're disputing those are images from Call of Duty: World at War? Have you played the game? You're saying the mention of Twilight is not significant or important? Have you seen the episode? It's about vampires. It's about dressing up like vampires. The episode aired 2 days before Twilight debuted in movie theaters. Do you know what you're talking about? And could you please describe in your own words the difference between an encyclopedia article and a fansite? because it would really help if we were all on the same page here. --Pixelface (talk) 10:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying the video game is irrelevant to the plot summary. I am saying that the mention of Twilight in episode is meaningless without context and that Wikipedia editors cannot make the context^. The difference between a fansite and an encyclopedia is that a fansite can put anything into their article about The Ungroundable that they find interesting, humorous, or even a gag by gag retelling of the episode - we follow Wikipedias policies and include content that is relevant, on topic and sourced. See below. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
^Context - such as what you have described - now find a source that makes the connection between Twilight and The Ungroundables, and we have article content, otherwise it is original reasearch and not allowed. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The videogame is part of what happens in the episode, so no, it's no "irrelevant" to the plot summary. The mention of Twilight is meaningless? Twilight is explicitly mentioned right there in the episode. It's not "original research" to say so. The episode is the primary source. And there is no "relevance" policy on Wikipedia. Wikipedia policy says information has to be verifiable, neutral, and not be unsourced analysis. If someone wants to include something they find interesting or funny, they can. You don't even know who wrote the policies you're pretending to understand. --Pixelface (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the video game is a gag, it is not plot. And please read the original research page - It is VERY clear that a wikipedia editor making a claim that the appearance of the word Twilight in the episode is because the movie is being released is our definition of original research unless the connection has been made in some other published reliable source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So we should probably delete the episode summary as well because we haven't cited any interviews with the producers/writers that would verify what we saw. No details beyond what is described in the south park studios or comedy central website can be used without complete verification. In fact, we should probably delete the entire article as it is entirely speculative. And who are you to decide what is and what isn't relevant to a plot summary? How hard is it to describe the setting in which the episode opens, in some regards the beginning is the most important part of any show because it sets the tone for the entire episode. You are taking these rules a little too seriously, does it hurt to be as thorough and detailed as possible?64.148.7.231 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Essentially, yes, there is nothing that shows that this episode rises to actually meet our notability guidelines for articles. However, I am not suggesting that at this point that the article be deleted, just that the content that is included as much as possible meets our other guidelines. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The episode is the season finale of the 12th season of South Park. It's notable. Go write an article on notability and you might learn something, although somehow I doubt it. --Pixelface (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please be civil. Our guideline on notability (and so you dont have to click to the link I will quote here: "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice." Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," ..."If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability") and has as its basis our verifiability policy "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.". Our article currently has ZERO reliable third party sources to attest to its notability. ZERO. That is not to say that no sources DO exist or that no sources may come about in the future, but as the article stands, it currently fails our guideline of notibility which needs to be met before a stand alone article on the topic should exist. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand much about making pages, but I as bot a primary and avid user of wikipedia know that the more info the better. When I look at southpark and other shows pages. I want pop culture references. Restore the pop culture references for the page and all other sp pages. Anything contrary just doesn't make sense. This page isn't about the plot it's about the episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.64.249 (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion. However your desire for cultural references does not necessarily match with wikipedias objectives of producing an encyclopedia. WP:NOT -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would just like to point out that CoD:WaW not being important in the episode is just your opinion, and you know what they say about opinions. Moving on, currently the summary is very bad, I am not sure who messed it up this way, but it's just bad. And the article says "the kids are playing a game". Considering the game wasn't drawn but was actual game footage, that's retarded. I have added a Cultural References paragraph saying that the game played was CoD:WaW, because at least you can't deny that and say it needs to be referenced, thus if anyone reverts or removes my edit, I(and others, probably) will consider it unconstructive vandalism. Hell, I might even complain. Legija (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it important? How would the story have been any different if the boys had been playing Grand Theft Auto 7 or Hello Kitty's Beach Adventure? -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't worth noting, the authors wouldn't go to the trouble of putting actual game footage in and having the kids shout game-related taunts. Legija (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you'd need more than that. They may have put in actual game footage simply because they thought it would look cool. Without a reliable third party source that says it's notable and important to the story, this is all pure OR and conjecture.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I need an external source to "allow me" to note a cultural reference? Isn't the point of cultural references to be noted under the right section when they are detected and confirmed? Legija (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need a source to "allow you" to put any conjectures of why this video game was included. And without a "why" there is no reason to include it in the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not merely a collection of bits of information. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Please familiarize yourself with WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Unless the specific game they're playing has relevance to the plot (as noted by a reliable source), it is trivia and the inclusion of the factoid, even if the factoid is correct, is not relevant.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about The List and Guitar Queer-o? How does the CoD:WaW reference differ from those cultural references? Or have those references somehow managed to elude you? I hope it's not the latter, since it would mean me condemning those innocent references who simply wanted to make the world a better place... Legija (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that other articles have not yet been brought up to proper standards is a poor basis to argue that we should for some reason allow this article to be sub-standard as well. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you misunderstood me. I found it unlikely that the "South Park committee" hasn't seen that, since South Park articles are monitored and reverted 24/7 by said group, so I reckoned you knew it was there, which would mean you deliberately haven't removed it. Since you say it's otherwise, I recognise the futility of this argument and withdraw. Legija (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I misuderstood you, I just pointed out that the premise of your arguement did not appear to be a valid starting point for discussion. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Software[edit]

Mr. Mackey was (badly) describing how to use some sort of equation plotting software or possibly a computer algebra system while the kids were playing Call of Duty. Did anyone recognize this as an actual commercial product? I'm pretty sure it was neither Mathematica nor Mathcad, but I don't recognize it. It must be a product designed for a Mac because some of the keyboard shortcuts mentioned the "command" key.

Excuse me, but, who cares? Why would it matter? What does this piece of info add to the article? - Redmess (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music[edit]

The Gith Kids were listening to several songs, which--I assume--may have been actual Goth-type music. Not being a part of that subculture myself, I don't recognize any of them but I'm rather curious as to what bands/songs were used in the episode. Anyone have any insight on that? Thanks.

It was actual Goth music. Some of it was done by Trey Parker (who is a fan of Gothic Rock), and the rest was by Siouxsie & The Banshees, a pioneer band of the genre. I'm pretty certain that they were listening to a track titled "Swimming Horses". -- NineInchNailed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NineInchNailed (talk • contribs) 15:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PVj594JR5M Seems to be it!78.50.66.199 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policies editors should read[edit]

Our verifiability policy:

Our policy about no original research

Our policy that Wikipedia is not a fansite or just random pieces of information.

(:-( no cute picture for this one)

Please make sure that your edits to the article fit within these guidelines or they will be reverted or altered. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also of interest is WP:MOSTV, which has guidelines and citing-requirements for both the direct plot-description and its analysis. DMacks (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit silly[edit]

"Clammato" is a parody/spoof of "Clamato Juice."

South park simply added an extra 'm' for a parody or to avoid a copyright suit.

So whoever keeps reverting the links are simply silly fools.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever is adding the link without a cite is perhaps not keeping to the policies RedPen was kind enough to point out above. Please keep it civil. Alastairward (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Mountain out of a Mole Hill[edit]

i love how everybody is making a big deal over trivial things. Apparently, people have no lives if they care what is in a South Park article and fight and grumble over little insignificant things. I dont see the point of this anymore and i think all the time i put into wikipedia is just a waste and i think other people should realize that for themselves. --206.219.69.3 (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's even better when people take time out to type that for us all to know! Alastairward (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary insufficient explanation[edit]

Please explain [3] What two facts are related - how they are related - why they are important to the reader. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's just silly triva.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant Trivia section[edit]

Surely neither of the points in the trivia section are useful in any way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.45.177 (talk) 10:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a cartoon[edit]

Can we just stop editing warring??!

Geez, it's just a cartoon for god sake's.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft[edit]

discussion moved from my talk page to centralized location

The definition of fancruft is loose and can't be applied here, as both "trivia" facts are closely related to the article. Similar happenings at the beginning and the end of the episode is an indication of writing style - notice that I'm not committing WP:SYNTH here in any way, but "let[ting] the reader draw their own conclusions" by putting the two facts together. As for Butters being referred to as gay - it's part of what this episode contributes as far as continuity goes. Please don't mutilate articles just for the sake of following rules - eventually, WP is there for the reader and not for the editor. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is mutilating articles, don't use weasel words. The rules are there to stop Wikipedia from turning into another fan site or fan wiki. There is great benefit to the reader to be able to verify what we say. If you would like to simply throw facts or speculation at the screen, then use one of those fan sites (southparkstuff.com for example.) If not, then follow the guidelines here to make the articles a bit more worthy.
Any amount of trivia might closely relate to the episode script, but we run the risk of simply repeating what is said on the script, which was why we ask about relevance. Alastairward (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again you're forcing me to repeat myself. Please read my previous comment and find all the answers to your queries. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SYN: "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research." ... "In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor." (emph added)
And the actual context of "letting the reader draw their own conclusions" is in relation to "Comparing and contrasting conflicting facts and opinion is not original research, as long as any characterization of the conflict is sourced to reliable sources." (emph added)
See also our guidelines on the use of primary sources: "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." (emph added)-- The Red Pen of Doom 16:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tallying the number of episodes that characters have called Butters "gay" is fancruft pure and simple. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to Twilight[edit]

In the beggining, when Butters is spying on the vamps, doesn't the girl say shes that shes [this girl] (I can't remember the name) from Twilight. Does she say that or was i just imagining this? 70.27.125.61 (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes she mentioned it, but see above Talk:The_Ungroundable#Call_of_Duty (since it is kind of tucked away here is the relevent conversation:  ::RE: Twilight - yes it is mentioned by name in the show - so what. What is the significance of the mention? Why is the mention important? When you find a reliable source that tells us why, then include it in the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]
... You're saying the mention of Twilight is not significant or important? Have you seen the episode? It's about vampires. It's about dressing up like vampires. The episode aired 2 days before Twilight debuted in movie theaters. ... --Pixelface (talk) 10:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]
... I am saying that the mention of Twilight in episode is meaningless without context and that Wikipedia editors cannot make the context^. ...^Context - such as what you have described - now find a source that makes the connection between Twilight and The Ungroundables, and we have article content, otherwise it is original reasearch and not allowed. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entire episode is a spoof of the Twilight series and its fans. I'm sorry, but I feel this is tremendously relevant to the plot, especially considering it was mentioned in the show itself. I don't see how there could POSSIBLY be any disagreement with this. 71.192.116.155 (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Find a reliable source that says so and it can go into the article. Barring that, it's your original research.--Ramdrake (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned *in the episode*. As mentioned above, a girl compares herself to a character from Twilight. How is this my original research? The entire episode is about vampire fan culture, Twilight is mentioned, and the episode was released just before the premiere of the movie - an episode of a serious that is well-known for parodying current events. Have you never seen it before? 71.192.116.155 (talk) 04:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So the girl compares herself to a character from Twilight. That is all you can cite from the show. So what. What is the importnace of the comparison happening in the show? How do you know she was talking about the movie and not the book? The answer to any of these questions and to anything of any value related to Twilight is an analysis that must come from a published reliable source to be included in the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree though, the whole episode does seem like a spoof of twilight. the series is a current fad and the episode is obviously a spoof. It should at least say in a reference section, or a trivia section that the episode has been thought of by many fans as a twlight spoof, especially since there is a reference to the series in the episode and it being a current fad for parker and stone to poke fun at. Could be put up to a vote 86.9.30.31 (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia is not; "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting". Cite the reference and as suggested above, explain it's relevance or importance to the article. Alastairward (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight and Comedy Central[edit]

This was published on Nov. 18 and the episode came out on Nov. 19. Therefore, it cannot be an interpretation (as the episode itself did not air before the article was published). The source tells us about Twilight being parodied - since Twilight's plot has little or nothing to do with the episode's plot, it means that only certain elements were parodied. In a nutshell: the reference does not seem problematic. Thoughts? NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third Party Sourcing tag[edit]

The article has only one third party source and that is used only to support a minor claim about clammato being clamato. The article needs more third party sources to be a decent article and even to meet our basic notability requirments for a stand alone article: WP:N. Leave the tag until more independent sources have been added to the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clammato and Clamato[edit]

The Clammato/Clamato claim should be left out of the plot synopsis. We don't need to reference it, the episode can be watched and described as seen. Alastairward (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clammato IS Clamato--141.209.134.71 (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alastairward - read about parody, you seem to misunderstand the point. It's a parody and as such, misspelled (for fun or whatever). I've fulfilled my part as for WP:BURDEN - I've provided a source; moreover, it's a secondary/tertiary source and is needed as such. Now if you want to keep challenging it - prove your point. The source shows the connection - and remember that challenging comes before removing. Only after a consensus is reached can the material be removed. Until then - my cite is valid. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud your words.

Keep finding sources, you're doing good!--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 08:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the input. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe people FIGHT over certain sentences in this articles!--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 11:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fight/discuss/come to a consensus - that is how collaborative projects can sometimes work. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AliGFan, nobody said you weren't providing sources (dubious though some of them are). The plot summary is just that, a plot summary. We don't need references, just watch the episode. If there's a cultural reference, something that needs further input, create a new references section and add it there. Alastairward (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T-shirt[edit]

I find this rather ironic, but Hot Topic is already selling THREE t-shirts focused on this episode.
http://www.hottopic.com/hottopic/store/product.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302028401&PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845524442193324&bmUID=1231727655000
http://www.hottopic.com/hottopic/store/product.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302028399&PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845524442193502&bmUID=1231727680077
http://www.hottopic.com/hottopic/store/product.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302028401&PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845524442193327&bmUID=1231727688895

Think that should be mentioned at all? 68.117.0.60 (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Ehehehe[reply]

Article looks good.[edit]

The plot summery looks good and I see cultural references that are cited.

Good work Alastairward and NotAnotherAliGFan.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 09:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Ungroundable. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence of "plot" section[edit]

First time poster, long time user. The first sentence of this article in the 'Plot' section is kind of a mess:

The fourth graders are in a computer class are playing Call of Duty: World at War was taught by Mr. Mackey, but nobody that paying attention.

This definitely could use an editor's touch. I don't have an account, but this would be an improvement: "The fourth graders are in a computer class playing Call of Duty: World at War. The class was being taught by Mr. Mackey, but nobody that was playing was paying attention."

72.250.140.128 (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up; this was a recent edit that nobody noticed. I removed the sentence as unnecessary anyway. Please note that you do not need an account to edit Wikipedia. Only pages with some sort of protection are locked to unregistered users. Mezigue (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Ungroundable&oldid=1209844168"