Jump to content

Talk:More Crap

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

King of Kong

[edit]

Is it just me, or does this episode bear a huge resemblance to The King of Kong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.131.84 (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


response:yha this is the second time i saw it and its tottly makin fun of it about the part when bono mailes his poo,

also it makes fun of a Male *****, due to the times the guys say "u just dont get it"

Question

[edit]

Why doe you keep deleting the cultural references? All other SP articles have them!--Cartman0052007 03:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are usually tedious unsourced statements? 77.99.186.110 (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil?

[edit]

I think the whole biggest crap measuring thing was a reference to the news about the recent heaviest baby born at 17lbs in brazil? i think someone should put that in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.90.154.157 (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not me

[edit]

Do not think that 24.95.66.88 was vandilising because I was not signed in and I was trying to revert vandilism and messed up. --Xxhopingtearsxx 02:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Society

[edit]

Does anybody recall the name of the society in Zürich? I believe it was something like "European Society of Fecal Standards and Measurements," but I'm not sure. The name of the society should probably be included somewhere in the article. Aasartor 05:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The building of the society looks like the main center of the ETH Zürich www.ethz.ch. (Swiss Federal Technical University) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.144.207 (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check discussion topic ETH Zurich. (129.132.248.82 (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Song

[edit]

Whats the name of the song in the bar when the guys are in there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.38.219 (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a possible reference to Little Britian when Bono gets "Bitte" 83.100.210.231 12:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Courics

[edit]

Not to be anal, but shouldn't 'Courics' here be in lowercase, as are other units of measurement named after people (volts, watts, newtons, etc.)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.2.124.11 (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, units named in honor of a person are usually written in capitals. Volts, Watts, Newtons. Or also consider the example of the way we abbreviate kilowatts as kW. Little k, big W. It helps distinguish the Coulomb (C) from the speed of light unit (c). Or Newton-meters (Nm) from nanometers (nm).

Anyway, I originally came to this topic, to ask, what is the cultural reference to Courics, being used as the unit of measurement for crap? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.62.22 (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More Crap

[edit]

I'm deleting the final point of the pop culture references, about South Park putting out "more crap" every week, unless someone comes up with a source from the authors. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 18:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

emmy award

[edit]

was it just me, or did they purposely display the emmy award at times in the episode that seemed particularly (uh) *unclassy*? 24.59.148.187 22:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they did. Watch the very ending of the episode and you'll see that it was intended.--Swellman 00:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article, then? The episode was called "More Crap" I'm guessing as a way of saying it was just more crap, but it wins emmys. J-Rod 18:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A response from Bono?

[edit]

Any response? Any reason why Bono was chosen specifically? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.131.228 (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

European Fecal Standards & Measurements Board

[edit]

The link to the European Fecal Standards & Measurements Board is not to a real site. As in the site did not exist before the episode aired. The society doesn't exist. Someone created the site for the sole purpose of the episode. I'm removing the link to the site.

Here is the whois information on this site Whois Olandir 03:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, this site is obviously a fake and shouldn't be linked here, it's back, but I'll delete it again. --84.114.130.170 13:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just clarified that it was a fake site that was created after the airing of this episode, which in theory could keep it - however, i'm not exactly crazy about the idea of linking to some goofy site that some dude made up as a joke; however, one might make the case for keeping it as an external link that shows the impact of the episode. either way - whether it stays or goes - is all the same to me, but i would just make the point that it can't stay without clarifying that it's fake and was created in response to this episode. Warchef 15:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the link should be deleted. Why can't we link to all of the other fan sites if we are gonna keep that one?--Cartman0052007 19:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
fair point. like i say, i'm not pro the link at all, i just seem to be eternally deleting people's contributions and getting stick for it, i'm happy to let someone else be the hardass on this one :) I looked through Wikipedia:External links and couldn't find anything which explicitly outlaws the link, however when all the factors are weighed up - relevance, accountability, insight - there isn't really much of a case for its inclusionWarchef 21:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'll be the "hardass" as I barely edit anything. The link doesn't have any sort of citation to let readers know it is not the "official" website of such an institute. If you were reading this article, you would click on that link thinking "Oh such an organization must exist." It's misleading and though I know very little about Wikipedia's standards, I'm fairly certain that the intention is not to mislead or misdirect.Olandir (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no personal knowledge of Katie Couric or her work, and upon attempting to find out, I could not: is there any reason in particular that Parker &or Stone would select Couric? Several of my friends had the same question, which I found out upon asking them for the answer. If there is an answer out there, it would make for interesting and necessary additional content for this article. A citation would be nice, but even a personal theory would also be appreciated, as it may help me in finding a citation. Cheers. Harlequence (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

#162

[edit]

I'm wondering if this is intentional or not, but the episode number, 162, is also the number of times "shit" is mentioned in It Hits the Fan, and the episode title may reference that fact as well. It may be worth mentioning if there was official word on this... --Geopgeop 15:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm...I highly doubt that.--Swellman 18:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Bono

[edit]

Is the real life image of Bono really neccasary? It's hardly relevant to the article, and just feels out of place. I've removed it twice, but somebody keeps re-adding it. I'm going to continue removing it until someone gives me a good reason why I should not.--Swellman 21:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

free and relevant crap
Yes it is. It's relevant because Bono looks like this in the episode: he wears the same outfit. I would agree with you if it were any random picture of Bono. The current image of his charity in africa is not better and a tad unclear (small) and Fair use. If a free replacement is available, it's not fair use but infringement. (btw: I only placed the image twice, and will now do so for the third time) — Zanaq (?) 02:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about an episode of an animated telivision series, that frequently makes fun of celeberties. Look at any of the other 160 south park episode articles. NONE of them feature real life images of the people they make fun of of. I'm not going to argue with your removal of the other image, but I am going to remove this one again.--Swellman 02:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"He is the only person ever to be nominated for a Golden Globe, an Academy Award, and the Nobel Peace Prize." - They probably had to add the Golden Globe line once Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize last week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.244.119 (talk) 07:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gore I think won the Nobel for inventing the Internet. On topic, I see they just put a picture of him in the episode. Does this make it resolved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.75.181 (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity

[edit]

While it's noteworthy that Randy did indeed kind of win a Nobel Prize once, it has been firmly established that the continuity in South Park is not a set thing, and they play with it all the time whenever it's convenient. I think a note about that in the main South Park article (maybe there is one?) is enough, and there's no point mentioning continuity errors spanning multiple episodes, let alone seasons. Only if there's an error within the episode do I think it should be in the article. Professor Chaos 05:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that motion!Warchef 17:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put this in the article, but it got removed. --Town Idiot25
But that's exactly the point, that it shouldn't be in the articleWarchef 10:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Britain bitty gag

[edit]

TO whoever it was who kept introducing this cultural reference to little britain - i kept deleting it as it was unsourced; however on south park's official FAQ page, they have now admitted that it was indeed taken from Little Britain: so please feel free to re-add it. however, make sure to include this link as a reference http://www.southparkstudios.com/show/faq/faq_archives.php?month=10&year=2007 :)Warchef 21:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is so Little Britain.

Fair use rationale for Image:1109.gif

[edit]

Image:1109.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detail Plot

[edit]

The section labeled 'Detail' is a better plot summary then the section labeled 'Plot'. Very confused. Lots42 (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was trimmed down massively by an anon-IP editor. The edits make little sense, especially since the previous revision of the plot section fit within the guidelines for TV articles. (Albeit pushing the limit somewhat) I'm restoring the old version of that section, and later I'll start poking at it further to trim down some of the extraneous details. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 07:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ETH Zurich

[edit]

I would really like to know what drove the painters, authors or producers of South Park to make fun of the Swiss Feredal Insitute of Technology Zurich (ETH Zurich) (the building of the European Fecal Standards & Measurements Institute really looks like the main building of the ETH Zurich, I know that because I live in Zurich and I work at the ETH Zurich). Maybe somebody of the people involved with South Park had a bad experience there? Don't get me wrong, I'm not offended. I love South Park, I just would like to have some insight on the topic.

To Clarify: Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETH_Zurich and see the third picture down (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ETH_Dome.jpg). Then consult this screenshot from the episode: http://pds6.egloos.com/pds/200710/11/11/e0040411_470dc4906dcbb.jpg. As I already said, I live and work there, so I know the place quite well. It is stated in the episode that this building is supposed to be in Zurich, and there really are not that many buildings like that here.

Maybe this picture might be helpfull too: http://www.gmw06.ch/Vor_Ort/Bilder/Semper-Bau-Raemi-b.gif —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.162.206.14 (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about we let the issue drop unless Trey or Matt or a South Park writer says it is? No need to go messing about with stuff about real people. Wikipedia frowns upon that. Lots42 (talk) 05:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no matter how similar you think it is, it is still speculation. ≈ The Haunted Angel 12:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I won't bring it up again. But I still don't think it's speculation, since the respemblance of the building is clear, the location is mentioned (Zurich), the name is very similiar (both have the attribute 'Institute', Fecal sounds like Federal, Standards & Measurements is easily connected to Technology), the guys of the "European Fecal Standards & Measurements Institute" do look like Professors and they speak English with a very distinguishable Swiss accent. So I really think they (the South Park guys) wanted to scoff at the ETH Zurich and it would be intresting to hear from them why. (129.132.248.82 (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Maybe it's called "humor?" I know that's a foreign concept to some people here... 67.164.72.148 (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People, People

[edit]

Please don't get into a revert war over the spelling of a measurement of poop. For crying out loud. Lots42 (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now we're reverting SOURCES. Just awesome. Lots42 (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courics vs. Kurics?

[edit]

There has been some speculation over whether or not the spelling of the measurement of fecal matter referred to in this episode should be spelled "Kuric" as Yukichigai (talk) has recommended "per the EFSM website" or whether it should be spelled "Couric."

If one were to view the clip Crap Verification s/he would find that at the 1:10 point of the clip the exact words that are used to define what the EFSM refers to as "the standard measuring unit for human feces" is "one Katie Couric is approximately 2.5 lbs of excrement." This should be proof enough that the measurement should be spelled "couric" as opposed to "kuric."

Yes, Yukichigai (talk) does cite the EFSM website as the source for spelling the word "kuric", but as we can see from Talk:More Crap-European Fecal Standards & Measurements Board there is much speculation about this website being a valid reference source. If one were to go to SouthParkStudios.com and conduct a website search for the words "courics" or "couric" one would find data on this episode. On the other hand, if one were to conduct another website search for the words "kurics" or "kuric" one would come up empty handed on receiving any data on this episode. Because Southparkstudios.com is the official website of this show I would consider it to be a much more valid reference source than that of the EFSM website which has already been looked at skeptically.

Respectfully submitted,
SmedPull 16:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Written by Matt Stone?

[edit]

I'm pretty sure that this episdoe, like most, was written by Trey Parker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayfinkle1 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sexism

[edit]

I think this is the turning point episode where Parker/Stone revealed how sexist they REALLY are. Of course the sexism was there always, but it got much worse after this one ("Eat, pray, queef" and such tripe). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.125.28 (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, this is a comedy. A satirical one. They make fun of EVERYTHING, including both women and sexism. So please, stop. Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.250.67.152 (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question in my in mind is what they have not made fun of. Come to think of it, they have not made fun of Gordon Sumners (his name is Sting). Family Guy has already made fun of Sting.(82.134.28.194 (talk) 07:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

genuine accent?

[edit]

When examening the pooh, the staff members of the €pean Standards on.....spoke something that did not seem like German. Was it Schwyzerdütsch?

More of a weird assumption of what Swiss german would Sound. Kind of like the weird stuff they put in movies when they want sth to sound german but have no idea about it. KhlavKhalash (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

clockwise

[edit]

Has anyone noticed that Randy Marsh moved in a clockwise fashion while taking a crap? Is it because his crap was counter-clockwise due to the coriolis effect?

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on More Crap. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:More_Crap&oldid=1244556815"