Talk:Son of Stan

Picture

The picture is labelled "Steve and Stan's clone". If any, it would be Stan and Steve's clone.

Location of Langley Falls and/or the CIA

I live in the real-life equivalent of Langley Falls. Langley is a community in McLean, Virginia. It is near Great Falls, Virginia. The CIA is near the Langley area. These are all just west of Washington, D.C. and are hours (driving, anyway) away from where the dot on Stan's map is. Should this be noted as an inconsistency? Even if you don't analyze the name and call it purely fictional, the location of the CIA is definite, and that white dot is really far from the CIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.227.90 (talk) 03:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Doniago's disruptive edits

Doniago seems to be editing this a lot. In almost every case, he has removed content without a consensus. He claims a reference to a MGMT song is trivia; numerous people have added this and he has been the only one to remove it. I think it's perfectly acceptable. In addition, he added a spurrious notability tag to this article; the article is clearly notable Purplebackpack89 04:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Please provide specific examples where you feel I removed content improperly. I would also like to hear your evidence that this episode of a tv show is notable, as the article itself does not establish this (I'd specifically point out the lack of third-party information, which you have not addressed prior to removing the Notability tag). It is inappropriate to claim that I acted without consensus when consensus is exactly what we are trying to establish now. It is further inappropriate to call my edits disruptive and vandalism when you have not spoken with me regarding them previously; you may wish to review WP:AGF. Doniago (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel it's improper for you to remove content you deem as trivia; the history shows that in the past three months, most of your edits summaries say something like "rm trivia", accompanied by removals of content. In doing so, you have undid the edits of several different editors. That isn't right, and would suggest a consensus against your position. And I just left a notice on your page explaining that I thought your deletion inappropriate. You have yet to produce evidence that this particular episode of the show is not notable...why would all other American Dad episodes be notable and this one not be? If you really feel this isn't notable, propose a merge or an AFD, don't add a spurrious tag. In short, I cannot condone your repeated removal of content Purplebackpack89 05:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That editors keep adding material does not automatically mean the material being added is appropriate. Can you provide any instances of editors actually -reverting- my removal of material? That might more clearly suggest some level of disagreement, but consensus is determined via discussion, not via actions. The note you left on my Talk page showed a complete failure to assume good faith. In fact, it didn't even include a link to this article. Frankly, it also wasn't especially polite, which suggests to me that you weren't seeking to resolve our differences so much as try to intimidate me. As WP:BURDEN points out, it's incumbent on the editor(s) adding material to substantiate that material; you should explain why this particular episode is notable, not require me to prove that it is not. That other episodes have articles doesn't necessarily mean that they are notable either; if memory serves a fair number of them are similarly tagged with notability or other significant concerns. In any event, it seems unlikely that we are going to agree on this; the best course of action would therefore seem to be to await the input of other editors. Doniago (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact that several other editors have added it would suggest a consensus FOR the information being there. I suggest you refrain from telling me to get a consensus until you yourself get a consensus for removal, one it's clear you don't. In addition, if no one comments on this within a week, I WILL add the information back, as I feel there IS a consensus already for the information being there Purplebackpack89 18:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I assume we can both agree at least that the -appearance- of consensus is not necessarily the same thing as actual consensus (especially with a lack of discussion), and that simply because a large number of editors add the same material doesn't mean the material is appropriate for inclusion? In any case, if you'd like to persuade me of your views, how about providing some policies or sourcing that supports them? I can list WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOTE as reasons why I tagged the article for notability issues and removed what I believed to be trivia. Instead of simply disagreeing, why not provide explanations of how the material, from your perpsective, doesn't fall under those policies?

To add the material back without hearing from anyone else or explaining your reasons for doing so beyond "I disagree with you" would IMO be exercising ownership of the article. I sincerely hope you will not engage in that form of disruptive editing. Without the input of other editors, I will note that I may not respond to any further comments from you, as I feel we may not have the ability to resolve this on our own, and frankly I feel your approach has been less than hospitable thus far. Doniago (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

third opinion Given that every episode of this series appears to have an article I would think the notability tag is unnecessary. eg does 100 A.D. have issues? If this article has notability problems it would seem to be a wider topic than this page - and should be raised on a more general page.

Using this diff [1] - the other question is the necessity of inclusion of the music used in the episode. If it relates to the topic or style of the episode in some way and is relevant that should be made clear. Otherwise I would assume it to be trivia - that needs clarifying either way. Until that is done I can't comment further. (Were there any other issues?)

To clarify on the music - if the music were a parody of a type of music used in a related genre which was being used as a topic of humour in this episode - then I would think that it would be suitable for inclusion in a section cultural references. That is just one example. If no good reason can be given for mentioning the music in the episode then it would be trivia, and almost certainly not suitable for inclusion. Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Done Cultural references section created. It clearly relates to a part of the plot...the part about Roger's psychadelic trip to Thailand. Also, Don, you cannot claim Sf5's comment as creating a consensus, as he doesn't comment one way or the other. Purplebackpack89 21:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You haven't really explained how the music is relevent in the section - ie is it in some way part of the humour, and if so how.Sf5xeplus (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)