Talk:List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20)

Labeled section transclusion

This page uses labeled section transclusion. Most of its content is transcluded from other pages, including List of The Simpsons episodes, and those other pages should be edited in order to keep the content synchronized. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Just a note that this technique has also been used to split List of Survivor (U.S. TV series) episodes. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Redirect

There is already an article about this, so I made the redirect. Keylonrocks7356 (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually no, the other article does noot contain seasons 1-11. This page was created because of problems with the post-transclusion size of the other article and it is a technical necessity for it to exist. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand the problem, but this is not the right solution. The * in the article title looks really weird. It would make more sense to name the articles based on the list of seasons they contain, e.g. (Seasons 12 onwards). SJK (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

No, that presents other problems that the current solution avoids. We discussed this at length at Talk:List of The Simpsons episodes#Time for a split? I actually proposed what you have. It would have been far more helpful if you could have discussed this instead of diving straight into an RM. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 17 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. — wbm1058 (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

---

List of The Simpsons episodes* → List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20) – The current name is very confusing, since it isn't clear what the * is meant to mean, and it looks like a duplicate of the article List of The Simpsons episodes. Since this article actually only lists the first 11 seasons, it is better named to make that fact explicit, which will avoid anyone else trying to redirect it to the article without the star again in the future. SJK (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I've amended the request to spell "seasons" in lowercase and use an en dash, per the consensus of discussion so far, and the request of SJK. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Now I've amended the request to include the first 20 seasons, per the change made in the content while this discussion was open. wbm1058 (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NCSPLITLIST, which gives clear guidelines. Not only you may get others trying to redirect, but the the * could also possibly confuse admins who may try to delete it per WP:A10. Zzyzx11 (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The claim about possible A10 deletions is invalid. WP:CSD#A10 applies to "recently created articles with no relevant page history". Those criteria immediately invalidate an A10 deletion as the article has a significant page history now and is no longer recently created. Regarding NCSPLITLIST, television episode lists such as this are always called "List of <foo> episodes". We don't actually have another of these articles that has become so large that it can no longer transclude all of the "<Foo> (season x)" articles. We're in uncharted waters here. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - This article exists purely out of technical necessity. At List of The Simpsons episodes, transcluding the (at the time) 26 season articles resulted in the article breaking the 2MB post-expand include size limit, and it was necessary to implement a number of hacks to keep the size below 2MB. (See this discussion) Ultimately we decided to split some of the seasons to another article to get the post-expand include size down so that we could eliminate the undesirable hacks. Ideally, as many seasons should remain in List of The Simpsons episodes so we decided to split only some of the earlier seasons out, and that had the desired result. This article will not always contain seasons 1-11. As the size of List of The Simpsons episodes increases, it will be necessary to move more seasons here to keep the size down, as was done here. Wbm1058, who split the article, chose this particular title so that it will not be constantly necessary to move the article every time we add a season. If we were to move it to List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–11) (not List of The Simpsons episodes (Seasons 1-11) ,which is an incorrect capitalisation of "seasons" and incorrectly includes a hyphen instead of an en dash), then when more seasons are added it will need to be moved again and both articles will have to be edited to avoid errors. The current name means none of this is necessary. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support move to List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–11). The star made no sense to me until I reached the bottom of the page. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

And when we have to merge in seasons 12, 13 etc? --AussieLegend (✉) 14:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Follow Angus' suggestion below. Group the tables in tens. In any case, the star makes zero sense. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The end result is messy at best. List of The Simpsons episodes has to become a disambiguation page. We then end up with a disambiguation page, List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–10), List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 11–20) and, as of now, List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 21–27). That's 4 pages in place of the two we have now. When season 28 is released, List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 21–27) has to be renamed to List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 21–28), then List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 21–29) and finally List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 21–30). And so on. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Continuing on my last post of following Angus' suggestion, the third page would merely need to be List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 21–present). Alex|The|Whovian^? 15:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that we'd now have four articles instead of two. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Why is that a problem? It seems like the most logical way to split this material. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

We have the episode list split from the main article to the episode list article. Then we have the episode list article split into 3 sub articles and turned into a disambiguation page. Those 3 sub-articles are then split into 10 separate sub-articles that are then transcluded back to them. All when we don't need so many articles. We're just going to confuse our readers. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Because it's less confusing then using a random star? You seem to have little faith in our readers - the article names are extremely obvious as to what they are for. I see nothing confusing there. I'm seeing arguments against naming the seasons in the title from you, but not arguments for using a random star that means nothing. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It is not a random character that means nothing, it's an asterisk, which is the most common pointer to a note. The note is on the navigation-bar for Seasons 12–27. However, I see that this may be confusing to some readers, as article titles are not a place where these pointers are expected to be found. I actually did have more faith that readers would understand that usage, it seems I'm wrong on that point. How about moving this to List of The Simpsons episodes­? Now, that does use a random character that means nothing, albeit one that readers are not likely to notice, so that title won't confuse them. Editors examining the source wikitext may be confused by that, but not readers, and as I understand it we give priority to readers. wbm1058 (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hah. That confused me even more, as to how you could have a non-existent "List of The Simpsons episodes" article an an existing "List of The Simpsons episodes" article, until I saw the code. I just don't see why groups of ten is a bad idea. (Then and again, why the split? List of Doctor Who serials seems fine with its 38 tables on one page.) This page is a mess anyways, with its ratings and its lead. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

As I explained above, the split was necessary because transcluding the first 26 seasons broke the 2MB post-expand include size. This means that some content wouldn't display and page load times were high. It was actually necessary to comment out some templates and other content in order to keep below 2MB. By contrast, List of Doctor Who serials| post-expand include size is only a little over 1MB. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Why 1 to 11 and not 1-10, 11-20, 21-present? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The page was originally created with the first 10 seasons and, as explained above, the addition of season 11 was a test of the expansion that we would eventually have to carry out. As you can see in the discussion I linked to, I actually proposed creating List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20). --AussieLegend (✉) 14:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – If you do this, please do not capitalize seasons as it's not a proper name nor part of one. Dicklyon (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment – WP:A10 does not apply here; this was created over two months ago, and A10 does not include split pages. I was expecting that a discussion of this sort might happen; surprised that it took this long for anyone to notice. This is not to be considered as a separate article; it is part of the List of The Simpsons episodes article. No other links to this should be created in main-space. The "Series overview" section still outlines the entire series; not some subset of it. This is intended to be a sort of seamless integration into List of The Simpsons episodes; think of this as a cache of that article's content that is only called up when the reader clicks a link that requires it. Would this be less, or more confusing if we moved it to something like List of The Simpsons episodes­ (I see that title would limit editing of this to administrators and template editors). Note that there is virtually no content on this page; it is essentially entirely transcluded content. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • We're no longer entirely in uncharted waters here; see List of Survivor (U.S. TV series) episodes. I was asked to implement this solution on Talk:List of Survivor (U.S. TV series) episodes. wbm1058 (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The asterisk is not intended to be literally part of the title. Rather, it is a pointer to a note explaining the technical limitations that preclude pulling up the full content of the list with a single click. But, if the note causes, rather than eliminates, confusion, it can be removed. wbm1058 (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • List of Pokémon episodes is another list that could benefit from this technique for splitting lists. It uses a method something like what's been proposed here, but is a somewhat-botched solution. The main title is a redirect to the first 13 seasons, rather than a disambiguation. In the "series overview" section, try clicking on a link to a season that's not among the first 13. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    • List of The Simpsons episodes­ would eliminate the problem of people who don't know what they are doing redirecting the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Support (with an ndash and lowercase "seasons"), as I am completely in agreement with AlexTheWhovian. The star makes no sense and is a horribly confusing way to disambiguate. If you need to expand the page to add more seasons, just rename the page to go along with the change in scope, or just enact Angus's suggestion of having three subpages. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

  The asterisk is not intended for disambiguation; there has been no change in scope. The scope of both "articles" is the entire list, because this is, for all intents and purposes, a single list. There is no rational or "logical" reason for splitting the list, as there has been no substantive set of "eras" of the series identified. The only reasons for a split are technical. Titling this with a specific, and arbitrary, range of seasons, encourages editors to link to this specific title, which they should not be doing. wbm1058 (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Right, but it's a single list that is broken up into multiple pages, and those pages have to be titled something coherent. A * does not accomplish this. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

So you would prefer a messy solution because you don't like asterisks? It's not just 3 pages by the way. 31 pages will have to be edited/created. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that it would be a "messy solution." Instead, this page would conform to the guidelines of WP:NCSPLITLIST. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

All TV episode list pages are at "List of <foo> episodes". The episode lists from the season articles are transcluded to the LoE page. Readers looking for an episode list from the main series article currently have a single click to the episode list. Making List of The Simpsons episodes a disambiguation page as a result of moving this article will result in requiring at least two clicks. Each of the List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons x-y) articles will need individual series overview tables, or else the series overview table will have to be duplicated on each page. All 27 season articles will have to be edited to ensure that they transclude correctly to the new pages. Readers will be confused because it's the only episode list that does that. Not only is it messy, it's very messy! --AussieLegend (✉) 20:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Would you consider the title List of The Simpsons episodes­ to be coherent? It looks like the same title to readers, and that's intentional. wbm1058 (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

No! If it looks the same, that's going to confuse readers even more than the current title! I simply don't understand what's wrong with using WP:NCSPLITLIST. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

So, per that naming recommendation, we need to split List of The Simpsons episodes § Series overview as well, which would deprive readers of seeing the overview of the entire series on a single screen. Seasons 12–27 would be out-of-scope under the proposed title. wbm1058 (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

No, just leave everything the way it is now, except rename this article so it doesn't have a confusing asterisk. I don't have a problem with this solution at all. It's the name of the article that is problematic. I'm not trying to change any "scope" at all. The list with the asterisk covers "seasons 1–11" so it should be titled to reflect that. The overview is fine. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

As I've explained above, it was never the intention to leave this article with just the 11 seasons that are here now. As more seasons are released and the original page breaks the post-expand include size limit again, more seasons would be moved to this one, leaving the original below the limit. And yes, the series overview table would have to be split since seasons 12-27 are not part of 1-11. Even if we don't want that to happen it will, as editors not knowing the history come along, just has happened here when editors redirected the article without bothering to note that it didn't duplicate the original article. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that it's a technical solution, and I don't have a problem with the solution at all. It's the title that's problematic. Updating it shouldn't be as big of an issue as you are making it out to be: If you need to add another season, then update the article title to reflect that it's now "(seasons 1–12)." Or be proactive and add season 12, 13, whatever, so you don't have to make the move every year. Yes, it's slightly more work, but it goes a long way to help out our readers who don't know about the idiosyncrasies of Wikipedia's technical issues or understand what an asterisk means. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The aim here is to be as kind to our readers as possible, so we should only be moving as many seasons as is necessary to keep the post-expand include size down. We should be trying to make readers have to navigate as few pages as is necessary. That's why we only moved the first 11 seasons. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Dicklyon, "seasons" is not a proper name. wbm1058 (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but what are your thoughts on using List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–11)? That seems to be where this discussion is heading... -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Come on Wbml1058... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir and Tavix: your response to my questions below? I understand that some are confused by the pointer to the note, as that isn't generally done in titles. I'm not following how readers will be confused by a title that appears to be the same, without the asterisk. wbm1058 (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I also think that many editors will be confused about what is needed to change this title. It is much more complicated than a simple one-step page move. There is a lot of coordinated editing required, so as not to break some of the internal navigation and ensure the correct display of the contents. wbm1058 (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

IMO, that shouldn't be a barrier for making this move. When we edit, we need to put the readers first, as they are the reason we edit. If something is a little more work for us, but improves the experience for our readers, then we should absolutely make that happen for them. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Forcing our readers to have to navigate multiple pages in order to find what they are looking for does not improve the experience for them. They should have to navigate as few pages as is necessary. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Continuing the above conversation. So, can we leave List of The Simpsons episodes as is, or does that need moved to List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 12–present)? Would we leave behind a redirect, so that List of The Simpsons episodes redirects to List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 12–present)? We would probably discourage direct links to the parenthetical titles, as I'd expect that eventually List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 12–present) will move to List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 13–present), without leaving behind a redirect. This may all be doable, but there is a very small set of technically-minded editors who can pull it all off without introducing errors. See List of Pokémon episodes, which I mentioned above. That's currently a bit of a mess. wbm1058 (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The best option would probably be just to move seasons 12-20 here and update both articles, as you did when you moved season 11. If people are insistent on getting rid of asterisks then this article can then be renamed List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20) and we'll never have to rename the article again. Twenty seasons should be below the 2MB limit, and I think we should be trying to minimise the number of articles that we force readers to have to go through (that's one of the reasons why we transclude episode lists). --AussieLegend (✉) 05:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support The idea of disambiguating in groups of 10 seasons, so we get List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–10), List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 11–20), List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 21– ). The "star" was confusing when I first arrived here, as I wasn't sure how the list was supposed to be split. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 22:12, April 17, 2016 (UTC)
• Support I too was confused with the asterisk. Support with lowercase and ndash. EvegrreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support, move to List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–11). --Morten Haan • talk • skin draft 23:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I don't feel strongly about the whole "seasons" vs. "Seasons" thing, and it seems the majority support lower case, so I am happy to go along with that. (Not sure about process – do I or someone have to amend the current requested move template, or create a new one?) SJK (talk) 10:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Same goes for the en dash versus hyphen. If the majority support the en dash, I'm fine with that, and happy to see my proposal amended to incorporate that too. (I'd even amend it myself but not sure if I'm supposed to do that.) SJK (talk) 11:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

    Done. I think WP:IAR covers this, if we have a local consensus here about these more minor points. wbm1058 (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support any more descriptive title, including proposed one. Current arrangement looks like some kind of awkward temporary solution. Both parts of list should have descriptive titles.--Staberinde (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• Note: - In order to negate the need to rename this list every time the main episode list breaks the post-expand include size limit (once a year), this article now includes seasons 1–20. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

That is good, overall it would be logical to have title of first half in "1-20" and title of second half in "21-present" format.--Staberinde (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

This is still a subpage of the main episode list, so List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20) shouldn't be a subpage of List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 21–present). That would be inconsistent with the current naming format, not to mention confusing for readers. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support with lowercase, ndash as what is used for List of Case Closed episodes (seasons 1–15) which is used for its 25 seasons and 800+ episodes. You can do 1-10, 11-20, 21-present, and it's close enough to the decades: 1-10 covers up to 1989–99, 11-20 covers 1999–09, 21-present is 2009–present. I don't know how seasons that span two calendar years count in terms of shows from a certain decade, but if you want to separate by decade you can do that too. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per AussieLegend and Wbm1058 - this is an odd situation, in that the "article" here is never intended to be viewed on its own. This page with the asterisk is essentially just a subsidiary and secondary page, not a traditional Wikipedia WP:SUBPAGE. As such, its name is largely an internal matter for that article. It sounds like the maintainers of this FA have come up with this solution, and it is working, while this move request is a bit of a solution looking for a problem, that will just make maintenance harder, as the exact cut off point between the two pages is a moving target.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Amakuru: I just want to point out that the maintenance and moving target issues have been solved. AussieLegend has moved the first 20 seasons to this page. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh well, consider me a neutral then maybe. Striking oppose. If the technical issues are manageable, and there seems to be a strong feeling that this needs changing, than let me not stand in the way... I just didn't want us to cause a lot of problems when the issue seemed to have been already worked out.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's clear that folks haven't taken to my novel idea for the title. Though I wonder if I'd thought of slipping in an invisible character earlier anyone would have noticed. One valid point nobody has raised is that this scheme only works kind of elegantly for the dynamic online version of the encyclopedia. If someone makes printed copies with these titles, then not so elegant. Anyhow it's clear that consensus desires the more conventional title and there is no point in stringing this along. I'm thinking that the internal asterisk-links can be kept, and don't need to be changed when the point of split changes; if the asterisk redirect is just updated to point to the correct title. The main thing to be careful of here is not to break the internal navigation in the TOC and overview tables. I trust nobody will object if I move this; I'll see if it can be done with minimum fuss. wbm1058 (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Your first comments were actually spot on. It would still be preferable not to give this page the illusion of being a separate article, because it's not. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I think all links should still be to List of The Simpsons episodes, and not to seasonally disambiguated titles. Either List of The Simpsons episodes is kept as-is, and only this title with the asterisk is changed, *or* List of The Simpsons episodes redirects to List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 21–present), *or* List of The Simpsons episodes is a broad-overview of the list, i.e. just the lead and Series overview section. It cannot be a {{disambiguation}} page! I tried to start a discussion about this, but you were my only response so far. Repeat, the seasonally-disambiguated page(s) should be orphans but for links from List of The Simpsons episodes. wbm1058 (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, no, I forgot, we do need to update all the links because transcluded content can't be redirected, or can it? Oh well, if the links have to be updated the source code is going to get uglier, but I guess we're forced to live with that. wbm1058 (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Based on previous experience, the way that {{episode list}} works will require that all episode entries in the first 20 season articles be updated, as they need to point to the page that the content is being transcluded to. That is unless the conversion from {{episode list}} to Module:episode list changed that. A quick test in preview mode indicates that it didn't. Oh well, that just means changing 441 episode entries. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess AWB makes it less painful to implement, but yes we'll need to replace those little tidy asterisks with hundreds of " (seasons 1–20)" strings. I suppose I thought of using asterisks partly to avoid that. I guess since you expanded this to 20 years, that means we will be good for another ten years, at least. Who knows what platform Wikipedia will be on ten years from now, or whether the series will still be running. But replacing one character with 16 (I think the en-dash counts as two bytes) – 16 multiplied by a couple hundred or more – means we will be that much closer to the limit. We might even need to cut it to less than 20 to get back inside the limit. wbm1058 (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Yes, it's a lot of work! The sooner the better. Current state is enigmatic and doesn't satisfy the basic requirements of WP:AT. Can't see what the fuss is about, frankly. Andrewa (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything in WP:AT that indicates this title doesn't satisfy any requirements. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent. I can't see how the current title is even remotely recognizable. It's a list of Simpsons episodes, certainly, but would anyone possibly guess what the * means? Nor is it natural or precise. Andrewa (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

"(seasons 1–20)" is not particularly concise. The title is supposed to be precisely "List of The Simpsons episodes", which is more concise. "(seasons 1–20)" isn't natural either, as it represents an arbitrary split of the contents for unnatural technical reasons. The idea behind this "split" was that it was supposed to still be considered a single article with just one title "List of The Simpsons episodes". I can make the asterisk go away, in a way that no readers, and few editors would notice: By moving this to List of The Simpsons episodes­, the title is still the same as it's always been (yes, there's a bit of "magic" there). – wbm1058 (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

...and that's even worse as it's purposefully deceptive, not to mention the fact that it fails Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Text. At least with the asterisk, one can tell that they're on another page and it's at least somewhat easy to navigate.-- Tavix ^(talk) 02:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

OK already. I was hoping for a little bit of WP:IAR spirit here, but it's clear we're having none of that. wbm1058 (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I just don't understand why you continue to peddle a title that one else likes. Thanks for making the move, by the way. I'm glad this whole ordeal is finally (almost) over with. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Perhaps all those who voted to support the move should look at it now, before I try to fix everything. The page is horribly broken. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I just don't understand why you continue to peddle a title that one else likes There are damn good technical reasons that editors here seem oblivious to, or don't want to understand. As expected, the much longer article title has increased the post-expand include size by about 400kB. It's now only 96kB from breaking the limit. As long as nobody makes any substantial edits to this page, or List of The Simpsons episodes, we should be okay, but it's entirely possible that seasons will have to be removed and the page moved again in the future, something that wasn't necessary with the previous title. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Post move

I don't imagine this is the end of this by a long way!

It's not good to have pages that are near the size limit. We need to have a proactive strategy for breaking the content up into smaller pages that is robust... part of which is, there shouldn't be a foreseeable need to refactor by splitting or resplitting the list into different date ranges.

With me so far? Andrewa (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

We did have a proactive strategy, but the consensus forced on us has messed up our ability to flexibly adjust the number of seasons contained on a single page. Now we are locked in to having 20 seasons here, I suppose, without unnecessary extra effort to change that. Plus, now this page is becoming a discussion fork of Talk:List of The Simpsons episodes, which it wasn't supposed to become, under the old title that clearly indicated it was not a separate article, but rather a "cache page" of the main list. So you just have to deal with the fact that the page can be slow to load. wbm1058 (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Wonderful. Now that we have made it too obvious that this is a separate page, we need to patrol for novices trying to edit it. Really, there shouldn't be much reason for anyone to edit this, as virtually all content is transcluded from elsewhere. The point of this set up was to make it appear to most readers that this was just all part of the same article: simply "List of The Simpsons episodes", disambiguation not required. Now we have a title which pseudo-disambiguates, which is unsurprisingly confusing to some editors. wbm1058 (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Not just novices, we have more experienced editors who don't really understand what we have had to do here. As for the fork issues, perhaps we need a banner after this section directing editors to Talk:List of The Simpsons episodes to avoid decentralised discussion. If only you could fully protect part of a page. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

That premise makes no sense. If you conceal the fact that it's a separate page, you'll have people trying to edit it thinking it is the main page. At least this way they are aware where they're at. I would bet there's less confusion this way. Just deal with the, what, one confused person per month? There's worse problems to worry about... -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. Why would people think this is the main page, or that List of The Simpsons episodes* was?

I would bet there's less confusion this way. - My experience editing thousands of TV related articles is that you'd lose that bet. People think this page is just another season page, when it isn't. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there's less confusion having the page titled this way than hiding it behind an obscure or invisible title. The fact that you have edited other articles is irrelevant, as that is not the same situation. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Repetition in episode summaries

Why does every episode have a huge amount of repetition. To show what I mean, consider [[1]] in which the 1st and last paragraphs are virtually identical.

And the repetition is in almost every episode I have looked at. Gordon Findlay (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Your link is broken. I can't figure out what you're trying to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaWhiskeyTango911 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I think Gordon was trying to link to The Seemingly Never-Ending Story. I'm not finding the "virtually identical" paragraphs though. Talk:The Seemingly Never-Ending Story is a better place to discuss seemingly-never-ending plot summaries. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see that "the episode won the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Animated Program (For Programming less than One Hour)" in the lead section is identically repeated in the Awards and nominations section. The lead section is supposed to summarize the contents of the rest of the article. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 2 June 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No support has been raised. (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 15:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

---

List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20) → List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–15) – Although the idea of splitting the Simpsons episode pages last year was a very good idea, I personally feel as if the pages should be more even as the series was renewed through season 30 back in November. If there are more seasons after season 30, then we can appropriately continue to split this article up, but that is something to worry about in over two years from now. Again, my main reason for this move request is to make the episode guides more even. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:91C0:B17C:7195:720C (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The page was split for technical reasons and covering seasons 1-20 is the optimal result, as was discussed at last year's RM. There is nothing to be gained by moving articles and content every time a new season is added. As it stands now, we don't need to split the main article again until season 41 and this article doesn't need any significant changes even then. It's simply not possible to keep the pages "even" anyway. 28 seasons have aired. If we move this to 1-15, then the other article will contain 13 seasons. At the end of next season it will have 14 seasons. It won't be until season 30 that the pages are "equal" and then, if season 31 happens, the pages will be uneven again. It has to remembered that every time the page is moved content has to be moved from one article to the other.It's a lot of unnecessary work to achieve what the nominator wants and it doesn't achieve it anyway. I'm pinging Wbm1058 as his input is really required here. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Blocks of ten would make more sense. Excellent. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. It would be nice to be able to reconfigure the number of seasons included on this page without the need to change the page title. I also had lengthy episode list articles in mind when I made my wishlist proposal m:2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Categories/Editing#Administrator- and Page mover-editable display titles, that make more than cosmetic changes to the title last year, though I didn't mention this use case when selling my proposal. Alas, the proposal didn't gain much traction, and, as with my use of an asterisk to obtain a short title variant for caching long episode lists, seems to have gone right over many editors' heads. A long title including the disambiguation (seasons 1–xx) exacerbates the technical transclusion limit problem that made it necessary to split the page. I have no confidence that the drive-by IP making this proposal knows how to move this page to their proposed title without breaking things. Sorry, I could go on about this some more, but further ranting on the topic of what "makes more sense" would be pointless. wbm1058 (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Repeating series overview

It is counterintuitive to have seasons 21-33 repeat in this overview, because the lemma specifically "selects" seasons 1-20 (plus the fact that 21-33 are given in List of The Simpsons episodes). --84.135.124.109 (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Consensus to add storyboard artists again

Hello. Can we all make an agreement on adding the storyboard artists back? I'm sorry I keep talking about this, it's just since all of these users have removed all storyboard credits from all 33 seasons so far (not to mention the movie and the shorts) feels disappointing. I took a LONG time to get the correct credits per episode. Some notable storyboard artists that worked on the include Steven Dean Moore, Jim Reardon, Dominic Polcino, Dan Povenmire, Adam Kuhlman, Brad Ableson, Cyndi Tang, Kevin O'Brien, John Mathot, etc. Some of them became full-time directors, Dan Povenmire later created Phineas and Ferb, and the others later on worked on other shows like for example Cyndi Tang also worked on Family Guy. Not to mention by the time the new season starts, I will look at the credits closely to find the storyboard credits per episode when I try to catch it. But you have to approve it before I can do that. Can you please let me add the storyboard artists back for this series? I really took forever doing this. Not to mention some of the storyboard artists later did other notable work. If some of the artists didn't work on this show, they could've never met other better stuff. I promise not to add anything else other the board artists. And please don't revert back to the way it was before I added it after I add the storyboard artists again. It doesn't matter if the storyboard artists were credited either in the opening credits or closing credits, it's just that majority of storyboard credits are primary children's shows not primetime. I really took forever adding these credits. So can you make an agreement to restore my edits from all 33 seasons to include storyboard artists? Thanks. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

As said repeatedly, you do not have a consensus to add storyboard credits on the episode tables. There was an agreement last year to not include them and nothing has changed. — YoungForever^(talk) 00:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

 Note to all editors: There is no consensus to include them, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#"Storyboard artists/animation directors" in episode lists and a discussion from last year Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 33#"Storyboard" parameters. — YoungForever^(talk) 00:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Tables are hard to read

The background color of the cells is the same as the text color. This happens regardless of OS or browser, so it must be a markup error. 68.132.4.11 (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)