Talk:Broadway Bro Down

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 an inline citation of a reliable, published, secondary source. Adding such material without such sources violates Wikipedia's policies of Verifiability, No Original Research, and WP: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 called synthesis, which is a form of original research, and is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia, regardless of whether one thinks the meaning of the reference is "obvious". Sources for such claims must 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, per WP: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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.100.210 (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I noticed this too and I agree with what you write. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 17:13, 30 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 either 70.29.162.12 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.180.245 (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Material on critical reception to creative works, such as movies, TV shows, books, music, comics, etc. is widely found in the very best Wikipedia articles on such works. Examples include: The Country Wife, Night of the Living Dead, "The Beginning of the End", Rock Steady, "Sinestro Corps War" and "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe".

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 progress with no time limit, so a single review should be thought of as merely the first 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 the History Channel Thanksgiving talk page. Editors post reviews that are available, and since The 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 the 1% article. If you feel this article doesn't represent other points of view, then feel free to improve it in similar fashion by adding more reviews yourself, and not by removing 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

Uhh, ok??? Monsterpose43 (talk) 06:38, 3 December 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monsterpose43 (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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.44.88 (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Does your question pertain to improving the article in some way? Nightscream (talk) 23:55, 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

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odoital25 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Can you please sign your message before I respond? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply