Talk:Cartmanland

Stop deleting the plot hole in this episode. Yes, this was a great episode, and the plot hole was barely noticeable, which is why it deserves attention. If you delete it, please give an explanation why it's wrong it or why it shouldn't be put up.

To whomever keeps deleting stuff without giving a reason: I've contacted wikipedia to stop you vandalizing the page. I don't know if you'll get banned for doing this, but I thought you'd like to know.Jbm867 17:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it both because it's original research as presented and is not a plot hole. The owner says he can't keep up enough attendance to make a profit while Cartman complains about the lines being long... Evidently, an inadequate number of people visited the park to turn a profit, but enough to make Cartman complain about lines. United Airlines went bankrupt even with scads of customers -- just not enough to cover costs. Tuf-Kat 01:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha, Wiki doesn't allow original research! Why does that not surprise me? Even if it was common sense I bet. This is because they presume: A. You're probably too stupid to make any conclusions, and B. They like to maintain a "mainstream view" which might be challenged by original research. Screw Wiki.

I didn't know about the original research policy, so I guess that would suffice as a reason for removal. Still, it is a plot hole. First, Cartman didn't complain about "just enough" people to bother him. In his diatribe, he goes on about how the lines were so long that they had to invent speed pass, among other things. Second, even though an argument can be made about overhead costs being the reason for financial ruin, it wouldn't apply here because the original owner bought back the park anyway in order to make a profit.

Hmm, to the guy that thinks there is a plothole, it is clear that Cartman is talking about amusement parks in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.36.103 (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I took out the part about Stan having brown/black hair as pertaining to his disguise. Obviously he has black hair, but he's in disguise...

I noticed that someone noted that, in Cartman's defense, Kenny dies all the time. The whole idea is the fact that Cartman has some defense in his lawsuit - Kenny had been standing up on the roller-coaster, which is prohibited on roller-coasters. This would've almost certainly given Cartman some help in his lawsuit. 87.84.59.36 (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Big deal, that's your own original research and not mentioned in the episode. I replaced the line with a quote from Cartman. Alastairward (talk) 07:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess your idea was the solution to his problem, whatever that was. Grieferhate (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Cartmanland really a parody of Disneyland? If it was, I would have thought it would mock typical Disney things, like how (allegedly) Disney employees are treated, how everything is happy and expensive, how they want your money, etc. I think Cartmanland is an archeatype (spelt that wrong) of theme parks in general. Maybe I missed something here.Jbm867 04:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I took out the comment about it being curious that Kyle's parents read out of the book of Job, as it's a Christian book. I looked it up online and found that the book of Job is in the Old Testament, which I think is a part of the bible that Jewish people believe in. I did more research and found this [1] where it talks about the book of Job. Jbm867 04:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't change the fact that he is being read to out of a bible. — Mütze 09:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The article didn't make clear that in the Book of Job God actually did kill Job's children, just as South Park showed. God gave Job new children by the end of the Old Testament. Ariadne55 16:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, that's a dubious distinction. And I doubt Job's old children were too pleased about it either way. 206.180.38.20 17:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

At the end of the episode, the owner says, "i dont care, says pierre" in reference to the book Pierre: A Cautionary Tale in 5 Chapters and a Prologue by Maurice Sendak. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.139.145.136 (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

I removed part of a sentence, the original went something like: "Cartman was extremely miserable and frustrated; more so than if he had never acquired the park in the first place." The second half of this sentence doesn't seem important to the story, and unless its based on an actual quote in the episode, in which case it should probably be attributed, it seems like its just an obversation, and not really suited to inclusion in the article. If there is an actual quote in the ep., and people think its important enough to need to be included, I would reccommend something like: "Character x observed that Cartman appeared to be more unhappy than he would have been if he had never acquired the park." LewisNiet (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)