Talk:Kyle Broflovski

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleKyle Broflovski has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 25, 2009Good article nomineeListed

Aliases[edit]

He is the Human Kite in the Mysterion line of episodes, This is revealed by Cartman calling him "The Human Kike" Kike being a derogatory term for jews

Birthday[edit]

Kyle seems like a fire sign native. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.107.189.66 (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian Jew?[edit]

In the Antismoking episode of South Park Cartman sais to Kyle he is a Serbian Jew? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.7.224 (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, he accuses him of trying to carry out a "Serbian Jew double-bluff".__Gamren (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First Appearance?[edit]

The article lists Kyle's first appearance in the short Jesus vs. Frosty. But, there is no character in that short that resembles Kyle. Should this be changed to Jesus vs. Santa? Andy120290 02:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle is the one that thinks that a snowman coming to life is cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.240.8 (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be more accurate to state that these were characters were BASED on South Park characters. If you watch the special, "the fat kid" who obviously most closely resembles Cartman, is called Kenny. And true to form, "Cartman" is killed first. Although the unnamed child who resembles Kenny except for a visible mouth is the next to die. PatrickLMT (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order Of Who's Oldest to Youngest Doesn't Make Sense[edit]

When I looked at the South Park calendar and then say the articles of the four boys. it doesn't make sense how Cartman can be the 2nd oldest, Kenny be the 3rd oldest and Kyle being the youngest. I'm sure Stan is the oldest out of the boys. Remember all the boys are 9. I will use the years 1996, 1997, and 1998 as examples and take it as this year of 2006. Stan's birthday is October 19 so and he's the oldest so he would have to be born in 1996. Kenny's birthday is March 22 but his article says he's the 3rd oldest and Eric Cartman's article says his birthday is July 1st and he's the 2nd oldest. But if Kenny's the 3rd oldest that would make him born in 1998. Kyle's birthday is May 26 and if Cartman is the 2nd oldest and Kenny being the 3rd oldest that would make him born in 1998. If Kyle and Kenny are born in 1998 that would make it impossible for them to be 9. What it should be is Stan being the oldest born on October 19, 1996, Kenny being the 2nd oldest born on March 22, 1997, Kyle being the 3rd oldest born on May 26, 1997, and Cartman being the youngest born on July 1, 1997.

Information Of Who's Oldest To Youngest Out Of The Four Boys From The South Park Calender[edit]

I got this information from the South Park Calender.

Birthdays If you use the cutoff date of September 1 by which all kids have to be 8 to enter 3rd grade, or 9 to enter 4th grade, then the four boys turn 9 during 3rd grade, and 10 during 4th grade. Given their birthdays in 3rd grade, the boys turn nine in this order: Stan - October 19 Kenny - March 22 Kyle - May 26 Cartman - July 1 If Cartman's birthday is February 4 instead of July 1, the dates are Stan - October 19 Cartman - February 4 Kenny - March 22 Kyle - May 26 Stan is thus the oldest of the four boys. Whether Kyle or Cartman is the youngest depends on when you believe Cartman's birthday falls. Cartman's is the only birthday we've seen so far (except for Jesus' and Grandpa Marsh's).

From this information Stan is the only one that we really know what spot of who's oldest to youngest out of the four boys which Stan is the oldest and that we can put in his article. Cartman's birthday could either be February 4 or July 1 so Cartman is either the 2nd oldest or the youngest which we can put in his article. Kenny is either the 2nd oldest or the 3 oldest which we can put in his article. Kyle is either the 3rd oldest or the youngest which we can put in his article. I couldn't find a site that can prove whether Cartman's birthday is February 4 or July 1.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stan_Marsh"

Weapons[edit]

Kyle was too willing to give up his weapon in "Good Times With Weapons" witch proves if he had time alone he would most likely practice. I've read that a few times, but it still makes no sense to me. Can we delete it?

I would say yes since that doesn't make sense to me either. Oh, and sign your post next time. Misteryoshi 11:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics[edit]

The handicap of being black. The Black link lead to 'african american'. If you are black you are not neccesarily african american.

"the one who views things the most logically. Since Kyle is the more rational of his peers"?[edit]

Kyle was fooled by the Blainetologists in The Super Best Friends and by John Edward in The Biggest Douche in the Universe. He also lost faith in God after a single morning's thought in Cartmanland, and tried his damnedest to follow the trends in Chinpokomon. There are probably other examples. If nobody tells me why he's the most rational or logical in a week, I'm taking that out. 152.3.46.147 22:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, fuck it. I don't feel like editing that out. Someone else do it. 152.3.46.147 05:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be edited out, since, as it stands, it's factual. "Most logical" is a relative term. A person can behave illogically, but still be more logical than his peers, as long as his peers have a history of behaving even more illogically. PatrickLMT (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sick most easily?[edit]

The part about Kyle's health problems mentions that he was the last to get sick in the Chickenpox episode. It might be worth mentioning that after his kidney transplant in Cherokee Hair Tampons, Kyle would have been on antirejection drugs, which supress the immune system. Chickenpox was before the transplant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.8.140.149 (talk) 03:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Image[edit]

I switched the image, because vector images should be used in place of regular images. FictionH 21:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well someone's going to have to change it again because he wears an orange jacket and a green hat, not the other way around. Mattbutcher 21:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Say no more, I'll fix that. Despite the fact that it is an orange hat and green jacket in the version I watch. FictionH 21:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. FictionH 21:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for his brown eyes. I admit, he looks ugly with them. I'll give him blue eyes. FictionH 23:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon, but I'm afraid you're wrong. In the first place, you should not add any colour, as that is not how he appears to the audience. In the second place, In "Good Times With Weapons", his anime self is shown to have either brown or violet eyes. To give him blue eyes would be lying. Wilhelmina Will June 24th, 2007.


Sorry if it really is an orange jacket and green hat, but they make him look ugly, and it's the other way around in the version I watch. In fact, I'm now a Comedy Central employee and we have plans to change the way he looks, so I'm gonna put his future look. FictionH 20:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're lying.
A) If you're a Comedy Central employee than you'd be living in the US, where Kyle has an orange jacket and green hat.
B) Comedy Central is not responsible for Kyle's color scheme. This change would be directed by Matt or Trey and done at South Park Studios.
Please refrain from editing the picture again, it is fine the way it is. Tweeks Coffee 20:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SVG Image[edit]

That one is stupid looking. Please remake an SVG version of the Kyle image, but in the same pose as the current .GIF one. FictionH 20:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or here is an idea - you could do it yourself. All the hard work has already been done. It would be trivially easy to change the pose. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But where can I download Inkscape? FictionH 21:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You last edit is vandalism. Any more trolling and I will block you. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It isn't trolling. FictionH 21:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh well that's alright then. Do whatever you like as long as you say it isn't trolling (that was sarcasm) I'm still going to block you if you delete an image or if you revert to the non vector image. I'll call it vandalism in the block log instead. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • But it pretty much is useless to have an image if there's an edit war about it. FictionH 21:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • So stop this lame edit war, Accept that SVG is they way wikipedia is heading. Download inkscape from thier website and learn to use it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the PNG version of the image. There's no need to have two almost-identical images. JameiLei 14:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're not identical. The PNG I made has a sad face, and the mittens are a darker green. And I absolutely hate it when someone claims an image of mine is useless. --98E 21:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, they're not identical, but it serves no real purpose. Would you at least be willing to convert the image to SVG format to meet Wiki's preferred guidelines? Tweeks Coffee 02:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really have no clue how to change a PNG image right into an SVG image, and besides, I rarely use Inkscape. Is there a tutorial that shows my how to change a MS Paint/Adobe Photoshop PNG into an Inkscape SVG? Only then will I be able to convert it. --98E 22:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I myself haven't attempted to anything with SVGs. I did locate this tool which is specifically made for converting PNG to SVG. You can also try SVG tools for other options. Tweeks Coffee 01:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no real way to convert PNG to SVG at the click of a button, as far as I know, due to the way PNG and SVG are created. SVG, or scale vector graphic, uses a series of points to tell the computer how to draw a picture on-the-fly, whereas PNG records the phyischal pixels that the computer must show. So, to convert it, the computer has to work out the individual shapes for the image, and while this isn't actually impossible, it can be quite difficult. You may have to accept that your image cannot be used on Wikipedia. I'm sure there are plenty of fan sites who will be glad to use it with a free licence. Smomo 16:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Jew Content?[edit]

There's some stuff about jews being steriotypically portrayed as greedy or amoral; I think that this is BS and should be removed. Should I do so? 146.95.224.173 12:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and I removed it yesterday. Although Jews unfortunately often are portrayed as greedy, it has absloutely nothing to with Kyle's personality. Pointing it out as an anormality every time a fictional Jew is not portrayed as the Jews were stereotyped in the Middle Ages and totalitarian states should not be necessary in a free world. 96T 13:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well you could say Cartman views Kyle and every other Jewish person in South Park as the stereotypical Jew. 72.152.135.75 (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle's age[edit]

Kyle is NOT 8 years old any more. In case people haven't payed attention, age mistakes are always made on South Park. Stan once said he was 9, then 8 in a later episode. Cartman is repeatedly called "an 8 year old boy" even after being confirmed to be 9 years old. If Kyle is also having age mistakes made about him, why does he become 8 when Stan and Cartman are not? Grieferhate (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle is 9. Please stop changing it. I know everyone is now convinced he's 8, but as I said earlier, age mistakes are made all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grieferhate (talk • contribs) 23:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do I have to tell you people that age mistakes are made all the time, this doesn't mean that he is a different age from the others, as age mistakes are made to them as well? CAN'T YOU PEOPLE TAKE A BLOOMIN' HINT!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??! Grieferhate (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! YOU PEOPLE JUST CAN'T TAKE A BLOODY HINT, CAN YOU!!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!??!?! Grieferhate (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! Slow down! Take deep breaths. Don't worry. If the users try to change his age to 8 again, I'll just revert it, and explain to them on their talkpages. It won't be hard. Young Mr. Broflovski is on my watchlist. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phew! Thank you very much! I was getting worried nobody would take my side! Grieferhate (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.84.59.36 (talk) [reply]

Uh, where did the age "10" come from? (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.84.59.36 (talk) [reply]

Kyle is still 8 years old in the UK as we have not been shown the twelfth series yet, and in the episode Imaginationland, Sheila says that he is ' nearly 9', meaning that he is probably 9 by the time that series 12 is aired.

But you're totally missing my point - age mistakes are made all the time. Stan has referred to himself as 8 years old as late as Season 9. Cartman is referred to as 8 as late as Season 8, so if Kyle is referred to as 8 in Season 11, why does that make it any better to officially list him as 8 when listing Stan and Cartman as 8 is not? I think you're being completely unfair. Also, Sheila may have been calling Kyle "almost 9" metaphorically in telling him that he is too old to believe in Leprechauns. Sometimes a mother may say to a 15 year old "You're almost 15," to clarify how old he is. That doesn't necessarily mean he's 14 years old. Grieferhate (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Type[edit]

1)Is this information really relevant? 2) What's it doing in the personality section? The type of blood someone has usually doesn't affect their personality. 72.152.135.75 (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's trash and it's gone. --Captain Infinity (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pillerit olivat täällä... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.19.232 (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name Variations [?][edit]

I'm curious as to whether the article should expand a bit on the variable spelling of Stan's last name. It chooses Broflovski as the preferred Latin alphabet spelling, yet also mentions Brovlofski as appearing on the door of his father's law office, and also that it is derived from Brosloski.

Maybe the article should go into detail on the Slavic/Cyrillic origins of the name in question, and how its variations are simply the result of Latin transliteration. In Poland, for instance, a common spelling is Wroclawski.

--Please let me know what you think.

Pine (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religious views of the Broflovskis[edit]

Even that Gerald (Kyles' father) is wearing a yarmelke on his head and Kyles' mother is dressing as an orthodox Jewish women they seem to be Reformes: they don't keep Kosher (like in "Asspen" episode), they don't keep the Shabat and they definitely have left-wing point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.11.6 (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of major edit[edit]

Re: this edit
List of changes:

  • Slightly altered the lead, removing ref notes and elaborating on statements in lead with sourced info elsewhere in the article, as per MoS.
  • New infobox image straight from promotional source; added Matt Stone image.
  • Removed examples of his intellect and his devotion to Ike; these are very few among numerous other that are too many to mention. Article already mentions that he is smart and loves Ike, and the info is supported by sources, no need to also include episode cites to substantiate further.
  • Removed mention of his character rarely being portrayed as seeking a girlfriend; this was worded as if the show was obligated to do such a thing.
  • Rearranged article into a new format, and trimmed/removed slightly OR material from "Friends and Relationships" section, and incorporated the rest into new sections.
  • Added "In other media" section. (Not "References in Pop Culture"; actual SP-related appearances in other mediums and studies on the character)
  • Removed spam link to personal fanpage.
  • Removed "In-Universe" tag and added as much "real world" info I could find. I think it has to suffice for now because I've done an exhaustive search for weeks and have found little else in addition to what I've included here.

As always...please post gripes, thoughts, disagreements, suggestions, etc. Thanks. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've switched File:SouthParkKyle2.jpg with File:Kyle.svg because the svg can be scaled without losing quality, as opposed to the jpg, which is even lossy in its native resolution. Additionally, I've nominated File:SouthParkKyle2.jpg for a Template:db-f5 speedy deletion, if there are any disputes, just put Template:Hangon in the image summary within the next 7 days. Thanks, Cflm001 (Talk) 08:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the initial image with a fair use .png formatted version of the .jpg image mentioned above. The SVG image seems too "fan-drawn", and the .png image seems to better represent what the character actually looks like. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the svgs are better. See below. (I can't use a gallery since I think it's a copyvio)
  • File:KyleSouthPark.png In this image, Kyle's face colour is much too light (nearly yellow), his clothes look faded and his mouth is crooked and not symmetrical, it looks like somebody drew it then scanned it.
  • File:SouthParkKenny.png This one is just as bad as Kyle. His hood and gloves are textured, which does not accurately mirror what Kenny looks like in South Park episodes (i.e. they use solid colours). Also note the bad colour fade.
  • File:Stan2.png This is South Park, not The Simpsons... The svg has a much more realistic skin colour, and like Kenny, this image is textured.
  • File:SouthParkCartman.png This one is probably the worst. There is much difficulty differenciating between his skin colour and eyes, his clothes are much too faded (i.e. he wears a red jacket, not a pink one.) and although it is saved as a png, it still has compression artefacts.

See my point? Cflm001 (Talk) 09:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've continued this discussion on the South Park Wikiproject discussion board here since it concerns three other articles in addition to this one, and will probably get more views. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image[edit]

File:Kyle.svg
File:KyleBroflovski1.svg
Any opinions on which image should be used? (for more reference, please read the discussion directly above and the one here - SoSaysChappy (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kyle Broflovski/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

? Article covers any possible topic on the character. Very strongly referenced. Wonderfully sectioned. The main image's information could use a little improvement. I have a problem with the description page of this image. Also certain spacing through out the article. ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 07:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please suggest what kind of improvements the images and their descriptions need? I'm also uncertain about what you mean by "also certain spacing through out the article". Thanks. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you're looking for it, I'll give my second opinion. Everything's sourced and the sections appear to work well with the information inside them. Overall, amazing work. Just a few little nitpicks:

  1. The opening might need a third paragraph due to the length of the article.
  2. The last paragraph of "Role in South Park" should be expanded a lot more. I'd suggest giving examples of what exactly Kyle's said, like "For example, in the season 2 episode "so and so," after so and so he remarks "so and so." Something along those lines would help.
  3. Another thing needing great expansion is the video game sentence. Add some detail to what exactly he does in the game and that should work.

Hope I did this right, this is my first review. But anyways, those are my only issues. Good job. The Flash {talk} 22:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Cultural impact" section, a sentence reads "In the show's thirteen seasons, Kyle has addressed topics such as brotherhood,[3] excessive litigation,[35] hate crime legislation,[36] civil liberties,[37] profanity in television,[38] hybrid vehicle ownership,[39] and the economy.[40]" Would it be best to elaborate on this and move/incorporate it into the end of the other section you talked about? Also ...out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the issues addressed by the reviewer seeking the second opinion (the ones about the images)? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 05:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't suggest removing/moving it entirely, but still incorporate information of the like. From what I see there, one thing you can add is "Among these include...." and list some of the one's listed in "Impact" already and some more ones. Onto the images, I don't particularly see the issues with the the Matt Stone one, though the profile image might need clarification; from what I read there, it was digitally constructed from screencaps using Vector Magic, no? Elaborate more on it, if so, and that might be what the first reviewer is denoting. The Flash {talk} 17:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I addressed all of the suggestions, but only somewhat on the "Role" section. I feel if I list each example of when he's given a "moral speech", it might tread into (here comes that word!...) "fancruft" territory. And if only a handful are listed, on what grounds would they deserve inclusion in the article instead of the ones that aren't included? Any other ideas on this would be most helpful. Someone may want to touch on the expansion I did for the video game portion ...I've never been much of a video game player and am admittedly not the best person for writing descriptions of them. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, sorry it's taken me a bit to respond, anyways, good job with the VG descriptions, after all, they're only supposed to be brief rundowns of their role in it. That's good then. Now, in the "Role" section, what I really wanted to see was an expansion. I figured a good description of how he executed this worked, but seeing it now, this way works as well. I see what you mean by fancruft, we don't want that, so it's all been checked. checkY Everything checks out now, good job. Now, as this is my first review, do I need an agreement from the first review? The Flash {talk} 19:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's mandatory, but I'd contact the original reviewer, just in case. The more input, the better. :) - SoSaysChappy (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've messaged it too him; from my recent reviews, it's best to get the first reviewer's final say. The Flash {talk} 16:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finale[edit]

This review was compared next to the Good article criteria

Well-written
Factually accurate and verifiable
Broad in its coverage (idea for improvement)
Neutral
Stable
Supported by Images

83% definitely ready for GA status ---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 01:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um..."Article covers any possible topic on the character." And now... " Broad in its coverage (idea for improvement)" ...and this coming after the coverage was expanded per the 2O review. ???? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further inspection shows the article may go to deep into detail.
What detail needs to go? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creation: "Kyle is composed of simple geometrical shapes and primary colors" does that really need to be double referenced?
Ref 12 is the source for "geometrical shapes", ref 15 is the source for "primary colors". I personally think, aesthetically, footnotes are awkward when appearing mid-sentence and not following punctuation. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article, at certain points, tends to describe episodes too much.
Removed some episode descriptions that weren't really essential. The only other episode descriptions exist to elaborate on one of the more the critical aspects of his character (he's the "Jewish kid", which often comes into play), and to describe one of the statements of "real world" notability made on the show (the creators' views on censorship and political correctness). - SoSaysChappy (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template for the infobox seems kind of messy
"Seems kind of messy" how? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
---Scarce |||| Talk -Contrib.--- 05:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback[edit]

I'm dropping by as discussed on the GAN talkpage, to share some thoughts on the article. Thank you to The Flash who I see has already provided a second opinion. Another perspective can't hurt, and could have some things that may've been missed. The Flash brought up some very good points above. Having gone through the article, I've mainly concentrated on images, and sourcing.

  • Images:
    • The first image seems appropriate. It is not solely decorative in my view, acting as a recognizable visual cue, clarifying and supporting geometric illustration style and characteristic costume—both covered in significant detail within the article.
      • In the non-free use rationale source description you say the 'original image was ... traced and re-drawn' - by whom? It's probably worth clarifying. (This makes it a derivative work, but it's used as a non-free image in any case, so that's okay.)
      • The source information reads "Original .jpg image intended for free distribution found at Comedy Central Press." Saying 'intended for free distribution' could be confusing, since it doesn't mean released under a free license. It's probably easiest to point out the photo is courtesy: Comedy Central, coming from their site's Press section for promotional purposes. The 'Other Information' field ties in here. I think going over the text of those two fields together to eliminate any repetition or contradictory points will help.
      • You've said "Vector Graphic" under Low resolution. The {{Non-free use rationale}} documentation suggests using text "SVG will be rendered at low resolutions" for the Low resolution field; up to you.
      • Also, your answer to "Replaceable?" is "Only with other images that qualify as grounds for fair use". The question is a bit unclear, it actually means 'Is it replaceable by any free-use images?". You'd typically answer 'No', briefly giving your reasoning.
      • The rationale "better illustrate[s] the character" is somewhat weak. While I believe the image is used under a valid fair-use basis, a stronger rationale would be good. This "Dispatches" article on Reviewing non-free images has useful advice and may be of use.
These non-free use rationales have never been easy for me. Take a glance to make sure I did everything right. I'm still confused about the "Replaceable?" field; wouldn't any image of this characters technically not be free? Could it be replaced by any suitable non-free alternative? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 11:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, dropping in by request. @SuperFlash101: Still your review, I'm just replying to a couple've finer points asked about image use. :)
The changes you made are right on track. Good job. Okay, onto the "Replaceable" field. In the rest of the rationale, you explain how you limit as much as possible the extent to which you use the non-free material, and that the use will not affect the owners of that commercial property profiting from it down the line. Alongside that you state what's depicted and why it's being used.
The "Replaceable?" field, is for explaining why no free equivalent could reasonably be obtained or created to provide the same understanding provided by this image. If a free alternative could do the job just as well, then there wouldn't be a valid basis of non-free fair use. Here, it's not probable they'll relinquish all the associated copyright and trademark rights into the public domain, so no free alternative will come along in the forseeable future. In contrast, say there's an article on a recent non-animated television episode. A non-free screenshot of an actor during an episode, assuming no unusual costume or makeup is involved and discussed in the article, could be replaced with a free image of the actor such as a fan's snapshot outside an awards show or a picture taken by a fan in the street. I've tweaked the field wording accordingly; feel free to adjust.
You're on the right lines with the purpose statement (the valid "allows for identification of the character"), though to improve it you need to tie it to the article more, explaining what it depicts, beyond just the character in general, and why it's necessary to use it. So, for example, further illustrating key design decisions covered in the article, and playing a significant role in the reader understanding that coverage. I've given it a stab; feel free to change it. –Whitehorse1 10:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second image may not meet the non-free content criteria. It appears to be used for illustrating the distinctive "Jewfro" hairstyle discussed in the article; the term "Jewfro" is wikilinked to an article. Aside from the hairstyle, the image is generally the same as the first image and thus likely does not provide extra information unavailable here or in the wikilinked article (which has its own free-use image).
  • The prose is very good. I've done a copyedit of the article, generally to improve phrasing or remove redundancies. If I made any errors due to unfamiliarity with the topic, please feel free to fix them.
    • One thing I noticed is the use of qualifiers ('commonly', 'tends to', 'frequently', 'often'), a lot. These are vague and reduce the impact of writing. In this case this may be something hard to avoid, but please take another look at the use of these.
    • Some other thoughts:
      • Kyle and his role as the lone Jew has received many references… This is phrased awkwardly.
      • You refer to the 1999 feature film in the lead, but don't name it there. It may be worth doing so, as you give details about it such as year of release and length.
      • After the lead, the article's first section begins in an in-universe style (though the section title might be out-of-universe). Although as the section continues, a real-world perspective is introduced, this may still be worth tweaking.
      • Gerald appears to be a caring and rational father The phrasing suggests uncertainty. Is he?
      • The opening sentence of paragraph two in 'Personality and traits' section repeats points from the 3rd paragraph of the 'Role in South Park' section.
      • His commentary on these issues have been interpreted as statements Parker and Stone are attempting to make to the viewing public. Awkward phrasing. Also, interpreted by whom?
      • Those who share a common political stance with those expressed by Kyle and other characters Is a word missing before 'those'? (Also suggest adding a 'who' before 'prefer in the next sentence?)
Fixed most of this. Would you suggest rearranging the "Role in South Park" section so that the IU info comes after some of the RW stuff? (the IU provides a basic backdrop; he's in 4th grade, has Jewish upbringing, etc.). I removed the "His commentary...", as the reader can determine that for themselves (based on all the info about books written about the show, etc.) - SoSaysChappy (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. It's a harsh world out there; ease them into the RW stuff. *g* It's brief, plus it provides context. Looking at that, I agree with your removal too. Those points are kinda implied by the other bits anyway. –Whitehorse1 10:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Good Article should be built and referenced using reliable third-party secondary sources, with primary sources appropriate in certain circumstances. The sourcing looks good. Here are my thoughts / suggestions on some individual reference sources:
    • You could add the work title 'Encyclopedia of World Biography' to the Advameg, Inc., source data.
    • The 'digizine' reference authored by Stephanie Jorgl is a dead link for me.
    • The YouTube reference, a video with the creators, should be either free use (a fan's recording at a fan conference for example), or the official YouTube account of whoever produced it (e.g. those being interviewed or conducting the interview). I don't know whether it is or not. In other words, please check to make sure you aren't using a source violating any copyrights.
    • I'm unsure if the InsideCRM (#34) reference is a reliable source (having reputation for accuracy & fact checking). It is used though as a supporting reference in a sentence with multiple other reliable sources, is not used to support any particularly unusual claim, and so I'd say it's probably okay. Ditto '"The Cornell American", a campus newspaper.
    • Missing the ISBN on the South Park and Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today source.
    • You can wikilink Open Court Publishing Company on the Richard Hanley title; up to you.
    • I'm ambivalent whether TeenHollywood.com is a reliable source. It's a commercial org, but not a news company; their About Us pages though state much information is provided by the celebs and their agents themselves, and that their network hosts several official site of celebs, giving examples. It is used as 1 of 3 citations on a single sentence and may not be vital anyway.
    • The New Times Los Angeles is as far as I can gather a (now-defunct) published newspaper, and so is acceptable as a source.
I removed the Advameg and YouTube sources, as the were additional refs to reliable sources already in place. The InsideCRM source actually is the sole source for one specific bit (that Kyle presented a monologue about profanity in TV), so I will try to find a suitable replacement. As far as TeenHollywood is concerned, I'd consider it reliable, since the article is an interview with the show's creators (see similar discussion/review) - SoSaysChappy (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fair enough and sound to me. The ultimate decision is in the hands of your erstwhile & swift reviewer, but those're my 2 cents at least. (I'm always happy to give my opinion. ;) –Whitehorse1 10:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it. Nice article! :) –Whitehorse1 23:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the extra input (and your help regarding the discussion about...well, you know). I'll definitely try to attend to this within the week (if no one else does). - SoSaysChappy (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final review[edit]

Alright, I think this article is ready to pass, but there's a problem I just spotted - the entire second paragraph in the "In other media" section is unsourced. Can someone fixed it? I'll be able to pass this if that's fixed, I believe. The Flash {talk} 16:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find sources for the "Stone performs as Kyle on tracks for Chef Aid: The South Park Album and Mr. Hankey's Christmas Classics" ? Also, for the books, wouldn't it be easier to put them as "References," then change the current Reference section into "Notes." That way, you can just use "Arp; Devlin (2006) p. 23" in stead of "Arp, Robert (Editor); Devlin, William J. (2006-12-01). South Park and Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today. Blackwell Publishing (The Blackwell Philosophy & Pop Culture Series). pp. 23. ISBN 978-1-4051-6160-2." Those are my suggestions to clean this up further. The Flash {talk} 20:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All righty...done and done. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Refs now formatted and neater, I'm now happy with them. Final go-over to see if it passes:
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Information on the movie and it's soundtrack is unsourced in the Media section
    Got it - SoSaysChappy (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I've fixed some small, extremely tedious reference issues, but the media section needs the other citations. Great job, all in all, though. The Flash {talk} 23:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article now passed. The Flash {talk} 01:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, and thanks for the review! - SoSaysChappy (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SVG character images[edit]

Please see this discussion at WikiProject South Park regarding the use of hand-made SVG images vs. official images. —Noisalt (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doogie Howser M. D. reference?[edit]

"You know, I learned something today...", the beginning of Kyle's speech at the end of some episodes, could be a reference to the show Doogie Howser M.D., couldn't it? I just read that the title character of that show used to summarize what he learned "during the episode" at the end of every (?) episode. But that is just speculation, and I didn't try to check that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.62.222.15 (talk) 10:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling[edit]

Throughout the "Conjoined Fetus Lady" episode, "Ike's Wee Wee", and other media during that time (e.g. many issues of Nintendo Official Magazine in the UK), Kyle's last name is clearly stated as Broslovski. This is easy to reference, and therefore should be mentioned in the article. If this receives no feedback within a week, I will add it myself. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, the page for his parents says their name has also been variously spelled Broslovski, Brovlofski or Broflofski... Mezigue (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And another one: Broslofski. The amount of variations is a bit ridiculous, but for the sake of completeness I believe each one should be stated in order to avoid confusion for those who may accustomed to seeing/hearing it spelt a certain way. I, for one, grew up hearing it as Broslovski/Broslofski in my first years of watching the show, and was confused as hell when I first started seeing the Broflovski/Broflofski spelling everywhere. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Kyle Broflovski. 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 17:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kyle Broflovski. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 04:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Kyle Broflovski. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kyle Broflovski. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Middle name[edit]

Stone and Parker joked around the quadro having the same middle name (Tiberius). Should that be put as a note in the pages of the four mains of south park 73.111.120.83 (talk) 05:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

Is the fictional part in the lede sentence really necessary? I would assume it's pretty obvious that Kyle is a fictional character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.44.68 (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Yes, it's important. From the manual of style: If the article is about a fictional character or place, make this clear. Tollens (talk) 02:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kyle_Broflovski&oldid=1214694424"