Talk:Trilogy of Error

Thelonious and Lisa in this episode

Other pages on "The Simpsons" mention this episode as the one in which Lisa meets Thelonious, a pupil at the West Springfield Elementary School, who appears to have all the characteristics of "Mr. Right" for her. I hesitate to add this into the Synopsis on this page because I lack further details and have no access to the episode itself for review. I'd appreciate if some knowledgeable Wikipedian will fill this in; I'll follow the page for further editing. --Thanks, Deborahjay 04:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Also, it should be noted somewhere on this page that Frankie Muniz provided the voice for Thelonious.

438071

After Homer pours beer into the robot, the LCD screen displays this number. Would anyone happen to know the significance of this? It would be very uncharacteristic of them to put something in the show without a good reason for it. Good times —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.228.93.202 (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Cultural references

I'm pretty sure the plot of the story is mainly based on Run Lola Run, which also consists of three different versions of the same plot with completely different conclusions resulting on very subtle changes. Not only became the movie an international success around the time the episode was filmed, but also Lisa can bee seen at least once running down a street Lola-style with a very similiar Trance-music as in the movie playing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.217.196.44 (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

They aren't really that similar, this episode was different viewpoints of the same story while Run Lola Run was a story repeated from the same viewpoint with different outcomes. Clichecow (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but while there are differences in the plotlines, it clearly makes reference to it. For instance, when Lisa runs to school, the soundtrack from Run, Lola, Run is playing. I think that this should be mentioned in the "references" part... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.115.60.172 (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Expand

All I ask for is a way to expand the article without getting too overdetailed. As it's complicated I would prefer that someone with good expertise in controlling the correct amount of wording and an expert with this episodes plot would be a good choice to do it. -71.193.181.210 (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Or at least I've reworked the terrible grammar... Most other episodes need this too however! Help, "Bad Grammar Overload!"... LOL!Jubilee♫clipman 23:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Can someone make the picture smaller I don't know how to —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.222.249.181 (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SuperMarioMan 19:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • I have been bold and altered aspects of the prose where I considered it appropriate, mainly to ensure a formal tone and reword sentences which sounded awkward.
   • In the lead section, on the subject of Muniz's casting and Malcolm in the Middle, the clause "which followed the show during the season" is rather ambiguous — does "follow" mean that Malcolm in the Middle used to be broadcast after the slot for The Simpsons Season 12 episodes, or something else?
   • On the subject of MoS compliance, a definite problem is the plot synopsis, which currently borders on 900 words and is too long for a 25-minute episode. To follow the guidelines at Wikipedia: Manual of Style (television)#Plot section, a summary of about half this length (ideally no more than 500 words) should be the aim. A few sentences could, I feel, just be cut altogether — for example, the mentions of Flanders' "Son of a diddly!" line and the Mueslix cereal, since this added detail does not impact on the general plot of the episode. Furthermore, I would recommend placing the subtitles in the plot section ("Homer's Day", "Lisa's Day", "Bart's Day" and "Conclusion") in bold rather than code them as subsection titles, since this unnecessarily lengthens the table of contents. Also, character names should be wikilinked within this section.
   • Since just two exist, could the deleted scenes ("Production" section) be presented as prose rather than a bulleted list?
   • The working title of the episode appears to be either "Go, Simpsons, Go" (as stated in the lead section and the "Production" section) or "Run, Simpsons, Run" (in the "Cultural references" section). Which is correct?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Is there a potential reference for the statement in the lead section that the films Go and Run Lola Run have been "critically praised"? The reception for the film is rather irrelevant to the subject of this article, and could be removed.
   • References 4 and 9 are to TV.com and IMDb, both of which are generally not considered reliable. I suggest that these could just be removed from the article, since the two sites are only used to reference production and casting credits, which are attributable to episodes themselves.

Seems good now, they were apparently removed.--Iankap99 (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

1. • On reviewing the sources used, I am also doubtful of the reliability of references 15, 16, 19 and 20. The reviewing system of ReviewStream.com does not appear to be professional, the SimpsonCrazy citation is a popular poll, and there are probably critical sources available that are better than About.com.
   • References 2, 12, 14, 15, 18 and 20 include bare URLs, and should be expanded to include a title and other information for verifiability purposes, preferably using a citation template.

I fixed one, it doesn't seem like any are bare anymore.--Iankap99 (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

1. • Please ensure that dates are presented in a consistent manner throughout the references: 2, 4, 9, 11, 12 use the system MONTH/DAY/YEAR, while other dates are in digits.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   A range of plot, production, interpretation and reception information is included, but as previously stated, the plot section needs shortening for good balance.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No undue prominence is given to a particular commentator in the "Reception" section, although reliability of sourcing is a concern.

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   • Appears to be in a stable condition.

5. 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):

   • The article uses Wikimedia Commons images only, so no fair-use rationales are required. There is no requirement for an infobox image. However, one of the free images currently used could be moved from the "Production" section for balance: for example, Selman is mentioned in the "Reception" section, so his image could be used to add to that part of the article.

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • I shall place the article on hold for one week so that adjustments can be made, mainly to condense the plot summary, add information to existing references and locate reliable replacement sources where suggested. SuperMarioMan 20:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this article really needs more work and is far from GA status. If I were the reviewer I would have failed the article. NoD'ohnuts, I suggest you withdraw the article and submit it for peer review. Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I thank NoD'ohnuts, Queenieacoustic and Iankap99 for acting on most of the suggestions. The referencing, in particular, is now in much better shape. However, the plot section still needs some serious reduction if it is to meet requirements — at present, it offers more of a scene-by-scene breakdown than a summary. For example, in "Bart's Day", the sentence "To get there, Bart rides his bike and Milhouse rides Lisa's bike" seems to add unneeded detail which lengthens the section. I feel confident enough to pass the article if something is done here, so I'll keep this nomination on hold for a while longer — if the plot section has been sufficiently condensed after 48 hours, in my opinion it will have reached GA standards and I'll approve it. SuperMarioMan 19:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou Mario, I tried reducing the plot and eliminated 50-60 words. Currently it sits at around 690. That is much closer than the 900 it was previously at. I might not be able to finish it by tomorrow, so can I ask for an extension if it is not met by then?--Iankap99 (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, the article should not remain on hold for much longer. We'll see about it, but other problems have since been pointed out besides the plot. The clarification tags that Theleftorium has placed in the production section need to be addressed, since on second thoughts some statements are a bit vague. Then there is the additional sourcing problem (which affects the cultural references section) from Gran2 below. I apologise: not being a contributor to Simpsons topics, I wasn't aware of the status of The Simpsons Archive. I would address the added tags myself, but The Simpsons isn't something that I have on DVD. SuperMarioMan 19:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I added a source to cultural references. Now everything sentence is sourced, so I don't see a problem. I'll get to the other stuff. I'm not a simpsons editor either. I just saw an article on hold and decided to help out.--Iankap99 (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I got the plot down to 656 words, I'll see if i can do any better. Surely this is a complicated plot that contains three distinct plots, and warrants a slightly longer plot.--Iankap99 (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record, we don't use The Simpsons Archive as a source because it is a fansite and therefore not considered reliable. I'd love to be able to use it, but we can't. Gran² 22:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Closed

This article appears to be close to GA standard but, given a number of problems that other users have identified, I doubt that all requirements can be met in a reasonable timeframe to justify the "on hold" status of this nomination. It is a fine start, and although I am failing this nomination for now, the article can be re-submitted quite soon if the outstanding issues are addressed. Particular thanks, once again, to Iankap99. SuperMarioMan 01:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Trilogy of Error. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140119015845/http://www.snpp.com/episodes/CABF14 to http://www.snpp.com/episodes/CABF14
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.34st.com/node/1930?page=0%2C0

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Trilogy of Error/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Courcelles (talk · contribs) 19:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'll do this one. Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Last GAN was 8 years ago, so with respect to the reviewer back then, I plan to read and review this as a first-time GAN. Courcelles (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Okay, I'm actually shocked, a lot of the things mentioned in GA1 are still valid, especially the plot length and issues with references.

@Courcelles: Thank you for reviewing. Keep in mind that I did not nominate the first review but have decided to improve the article to give it another go in the review system. AmericanAir88 (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• "Bart has a wire" This could link somewhere for explanation, as I think "wearing a wire" is an Americanism.
• Plot summary is way too long for a 30 minute episode at over 500 words. Shortened as much as I can.
• " start each act since they had previously seen this." Previously seen... what?
• Ref 6 is unreliable
• Ref 7 and 14 are the same source, and I don't know how reliable it is. I fixed 7 but 14 is reliable as it is a reviewers opinion.
• ref 15 is dead.
• Needs information on the Nielsen ratings for the episode.
• ""Trilogy of Error" serves as a parody of thriller movies, Go and Run Lola Run." Where is this sourced? Sourced in production.

Courcelles (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Courcelles: Complete. AmericanAir88 (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay:

• Ref 6 looks like a fan site, and it is showing a 404 error.
• See if the Wayback Machine has a copy of ref 10?

Courcelles (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Courcelles: Took care of ref 6 and I could not find any archives of 10 so I deleted the references section relating to 10. AmericanAir88 (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Alright, passing. Courcelles (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)