Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

consistency in individual episodes

I have noticed that the entries for individual episodes are really inconsistent - some state how many times the episode has been shown in the US, sometimes cultural references is before trivia and sometimes after, cultural references is sometimes just called references (which is confusing). I would be willing to edit these all (slowly) to a consistent format, but I'd like some consensus on what that format should be. --Natalie 00:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've started working on consistency. Here's the basic format I've been using (In order of where it would be on the page):

• • Synopsis
  • Trivia
  • Cultural References
  • Anything episode specific
  • Awards (If applicable)
  • Goofs
  • Quotes
  • Airdates

I've reworked most of the Season 17 and Season 16 capsules. If anyone would like to help, then by all means please do because it's a HUGE job. ~Scorpion0422

I'm still not entirely sure what the official line is with the airdates. Do we list airdates outside the US? Do we give second, third, fourth airdates? I would suggest the answers would be 'Yes, but only in English-speaking countries' and 'No' (Some old episodes have been shown hundreds and hundreds of times, only the first airdate seems useful) but I'd still like to know what the policy is. I've got a list of UK Simpsons airdates for every episode from mid 1995 onward, and quite a few before that too. BillyH 18:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My personal opinion is to list one date: The date that the episode aired for the first time on Fox. That is the official first-run network and the official first-running of the episode. I know that second runs in 1989 were more important since there was no syndication of the episodes, but since it's 2005, do you think anyone coming to wikipedia is checking on second air dates? I think the first original airdate (I could be wrong, but don't they give the "official" airdate on DVD commentaries? I know DXCohen does on Futurama ones. I have never checked, but I assume those dates to be the firstrun Fox dates. TheHYPO 19:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That'd be fine. I'd just like some consistency, as at the moment there doesn't seem to be any...some articles have international airdates, some don't. BillyH 00:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I started working on a style a few months ago (see Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Style guide), but gave up due to being alone with it and instead focussed on the much other work there was to do. I would appreciate if we could collaborate on finishing the style guide. I personally prefer to only show the original air date. --Maitch 10:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with just listing the first airdate, at least in the US. As far as international dates go, I don't care either way. I'll start working on some of the older episode capsules. --Natalie 17:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

After several days, I have made it through all of the episode capsules. I have to go back and check about things that are episode specific, but the synopses, trivia, cultural references, awards, goofs, and quotes are in the right order and have the right names. And they all have a table of contents. Now, for my next project (drum roll)...

Also, a few episode capsules have a slightly different format for the cultural references. Most of them have a * and then a sentence or two explaining the references, but some have the things being referenced in bold followed by the reference. I don't care which one is used, but I'd like to go through and make them consistent. Thoughts? Natalie 23:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael Price

As it turns out, every time we linked to the Michael Price article, it was not the WRITER Michael Price (Unless, of course, he's a billionaire). So, I made a (small)page for him here: Michael Price (writer). (It needs work expanding) If you encounter any unchanged Michael Price links, please change them. Scorpion0422 22:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikia

This project might be a victim of its own success. Some of the articles are getting into very trivial information. Perhaps some of these pages, and some of the more trivial of the proposed new pages, should be moved over to WikiSimpsons? --M@rēino 17:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

TOC boxes

Some of the episode capsules are lacking table of contents boxes. I thought those were added automatically, so I don't know how to manually add them. Anyone know how? --Natalie 17:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the following episodes are missing the boxes (that I know about): Lisa the Beauty Queen, Marge Gets a Job, Marge vs. the Monorail. --Natalie 17:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Just check the script for other pages with tables, then copy and paste. The tables seem to hate me because whenever I add to one, it never shows. Oh, and thanks for helping with standardizing the capsules! -- Scorpion0422 20:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That's kind of my personal project of the moment, so if you have suggestions, just post them here or my talk page. I think consistency reflects better on Wikipedia as a whole, since print encyclopedias are generally very consistent with their format. --Natalie 21:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Try inserting __TOC__ the place you want the TOC. --Maitch 20:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia places TOC boxes automatically on any article with a certain number of headings (3 I believe). There is a code that prevents TOC from showing and Maitch mentioned the code that auto-adds it. TheHYPO 22:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Writers/Directors

I was looking through a list of the Writers and Directors and we have pages for MOST of the major ones (I recently created pages for Michael Price, Michael Carrington and Jeff Westbrook) but I was wondering if we should make ones for the minor writers and directors. I almost made a page for Alan Grazier, but I looked him up on IMDB and his only credits are 2 episodes of The Simpsons. So, should we make pages for ALL writers and directors or just the important ones? -- Scorpion0422 20:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should only create articles if we got something to tell about that person. --Maitch 20:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, if the article is only going to say that such and such wrote one episode of the Simpsons, it's probably unnecessary. --Natalie 00:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

template for episode capsules?

Is there a template for Simpsons episode capsules? If not, would someone be willing to make one? Since the show has been renewed for the 19th (or 20th?) season, we're probably going to need it. --Natalie 03:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the capsule format? See above. -- Scorpion0422 19:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking for along the lines of a template for episode capsules in general, that would have the headings and such already there. I've seen some episode capsules of other shows that have empty categories. That lead me to think maybe there was a template or some such thing that the creator was using. --Natalie 03:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"My Big Fat Geek Wedding"

In the infobox for "My Big Fat Geek Wedding" there's a list of the episodes in season 1, even though this episode is in season 15. I looked at other season 15 episode capsules, and they do not have this problem. I looked at the template in the edit box and it looks fine, so I'm stumped. So if you know why this is happening, please fix it when you have a minute. Natalie 22:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed [1] --Mikli 11:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Wish for Lists

Is there any chance to create the two following lists:

• List of references to Germany made by The Simpsons
• List of references to the internet on The Simpsons

--Mikli 11:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at the list of Cars article mentioned above and I have to say, I think this is going wikioverboard. This isn't a Simpwiki - and someone definately should consider a simpwiki for 17 years of content to catalogue, but Wikipedia is a general knowledge source, and I really don't think there is a massive public interest in a list of cars on the simpsons. Noone but the most specialized interest person is going to goto that list, and I think similar of the proposed lists above. I personally think it's too trivial a topic for wikipedia content. TheHYPO 11:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Please create this over at http://simpsons.wikia.com, we should try to limit these kinds of list on Wikipedia. --Maitch 12:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard Sakai

I recently made a page for Richard Sakai (which needs expanding) and I actually found an image of him. The page with the image has one of those annoying no right click thingies. Normally I could get the image no problem, but I have a new computer with none of the right programs. So, if anyone could please get this image and put it in the Richard Sakai page, it would be greatly appreciated.

here's the image: here

The image is copyrighted and therefore can not be used for the article. --Maitch 16:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

New Category?

I was wondering if I should create a new Simpsons category, something along the lines of "Simpsons Guest Stars" or "Simpsons Voice Actors", or a better name. Basically, the catergory would include every guest star, regular cast member, irregular star, etc. So, is there a need for it? And what should it be called? -- Scorpion0422 01:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

We already got Category:Simpsons cast members. --Maitch 12:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

List of products in The Simpsons

Is anyone moderating this list? I think it needs a criteria like the Neologism list has. IE: I think the list has two options - Either make it a complete bulleted list - no explainations. Just point form bullets in true list form. Or else, limit the article to recurring products or brands. If every throwaway product is going to get an entry on the list, the article is going to get massive and unbearable (basically, useless). TheHYPO 04:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a new user has been expanding it these last few days. Maybe it would be a good idea to discuss it with him. I think the best solution would be to only mention recurring products or brands. --Maitch 07:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've dropped him a line and deleted a few items from the list - in particular, realworld items like "english muffins", generic products with a store name like "splitsville ice cream sundaes" (sundaes eaten at Splitsville ice cream), and a few other non-products. I still think that one-time references shouldn't be included but I'm not going to delete them straight up yet. TheHYPO 21:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Joining

Can i join? I really like the simpsons,and I edit stuff a lot.

Membership request

Hi! I would like to be a member of this WikiProject.

You are one already. Just put the Simpsons Wikiproject on your name and your AOK.

Need some help

I don't know how to merge or redirect, so could someone do this for me? These need to be merged (or redirect the GBA page to the regular Road Rage page): The Simpsons Road Rage (GBA) and The Simpsons Road Rage. The GBA version is the SAME game: there is no need for a seperate page for it. The Simpsons games box will also needed to be updated: since it lists both Road Rage games. Why in the world was the same game allowed on the Simpsons games box in the first place?! Multiple versions of games don't get seperate pages, but somehow Road Rage got away with it for a while. RobJ1981 00:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

One time characters?

Do they really need pages of their own? If a page doesn't exist already: I think a page for one time characters should be made. I think it's just useless that one time (or even a few appearances) characters have pages, when they could easily be merged all into one page. Remember people: this isn't a Simpsons Wiki. Page after page of one time characters is fancruft to me. I'm a big Simpsons fan, but I know Wikipedia doesn't need an article for every character ever in the Simpsons. RobJ1981 20:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please post examples of such one-time characters having pages. I personally don't see any major reason for even a list of one-off characters. Besides the Simpsons universe and fandom, I don't think most of those characters have any significance to "real life" and would need a lot of convincing to see it other than fan info. TheHYPO 02:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is some Mindy Simmons, The Mexican Fighting Tree, Frank Grimes and Xt'Tapalatakettle. I'm thinking of just redirecting all of those to: List of one-time characters from The Simpsons and making a short description (if they aren't listed already). With the two objects, it will just be a redirect obviously. RobJ1981 00:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

While I have no reason to think anyone would ever need to "look up" Mindy Simmons (nothing can't be derrived from the article on her episode. Any notes like "She appears in another episode dispite being fired" can be a trivia on the episode. Fighting Tree is pointless as a throwaway Joke. Grimes also is mainly as his own episode. There needn't be articles for them, nor even need there be a list. There would be thousands of one-time characters. A list is somewhat pointless and fancrufty imo. Oops, I forgot my other point. I don't think "The Head" belongs in the same category though. It isn't a character, it's an object, and it has somewhat come to be a staple on the show (for a good portion of its history it was seen every time there was a basement scene - which btw is a unique continuity aspect that is rare on the show. Most other items would simply never appear again. I think it's a valid mention somewhere. I don't think the article bears instant deletion to some list. TheHYPO 00:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

While I do not endorse these articles, I do think that people actually look them up. I mean, if people are creating these articles then at least the creator think that they are useful. I personally think that every one off character/object/misc. should be merged with the corresponding episode article. The important thing is that we don't just delete the articles, but that they are being redirected, so that there won't be another guy creating the same article. --Maitch 10:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because someone creates an article doesn't mean it's not pure "fancruft", as it were. On a Simpsons Wiki? Certainly applicable, but on wikipedia... Anyhoo, I think the list of one-shot characters that exists is itself pretty fancrufty and would be infinitiely long if someone actually went around and catalogued all characters who appear in one episode. TheHYPO 15:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood me. When I say "merged" I of course mean that the fan cruft should be deleted. Sometimes this would be to simply replace the whole article with a redirection. --Maitch 15:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There was already a merge debate over Frank Grimes and it was decided that he was an important enough character. The Mexican Fighting Tree and the Olmec Head should be merged. And I Mindy Simmons should be merged. The list REALLY needs cleaning up though. In the secondary characters page, there are several one-timers (and vice versa). Same with the animals page. I think Santa's Little Helper and Snowball II are important enough to the show that they deserve their own page. (Heck, SLH has had more episodes about him than Maggie!) -- Scorpion0422 18:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Tagging talk pages and assessing articles

Wikipedia Assessments within AWB. Click on the image to see it in better resolution

Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.

The plugin has two main modes of operation:

• Tagging talk pages, great for high-speed tagging
• Assessments mode, for reviewing articles (pictured)

As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.

For more information see:

• About the plugin
• About support for "generic" WikiProject templates
• User guide
• About AWB (AutoWikiBrowser)

Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. --Kingboyk 14:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Something weird about Principal and the Pauper's page.

Just a heads up you guys. I'm not usually a part of this project, but I noticed that some episodes have been extremely vandalized lately...by whats probably a bunch of disgruntled fans. They tend to be the least liked episodes. The Prinicpal and the Pauper for instance is actually gone! It was completely deleted!

Keep a look out for that. They may be episodes that suck by many opinions but thats bias that has no place on this website.--68.233.141.149 13:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not gone. You have just misspelled it. The correct link is The Principal and the Pauper. --Maitch 14:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

(I know, I haven't posted here in a while)Not exactly. Its really weird, but when I pulled up this page I got this.

http://img468.imageshack.us/img468/8677/patpkx7.jpg

I spelled it correctly as you can see, followed every link to it and even did a search and followed those links and I always got this. But then I logged in, and I got the page like normal. This never happened with any other episode and I even tried this on two separate computers and the same thing happened. If I checked edit this page I still saw all the scripting, its just the page itself wouldn't show until I logged in. What do you make of that? It looks like some kind of really bizzare scripting thing. Does that have to do with the so called delay in updating the database? Because I've never seen anything like that before. It was just this episode from what I could tell, all the others worked fine logged in or not. I even cleared the cookies and temp internet files on my computer and it still happened. It doesn't happen now whether I'm logged in or not but I'm genuinly curious as to what that was. --Kiyosuki 19:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Too much trivia and quotes on Simpsons episode pages

I've noticed several episode pages have too much trivia and quotes. Some trivia is fine I suppose, but when it's huge... it's just out of hand. Either put the trivia in the article somehow (without a trivia section, or a similar section), or just delete the information. I'm a Simpsons fan as much as the next person, but pages don't need huge trivia lists for a 20-something minute episode. As for quotes: they shouldn't be long either. Just add them to WikiQuotes (if they are that important), then post the Wikiquotes tag on the episode article.RobJ1981 17:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox and format

I don't like the colors of the main page. Actually I don't like using colors at all,but if most people like them, at least we should use "Simpsons colors" and not randomly choosen colors.--201 19:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to more simpson-like colors. The Templates box was making the article too wide.

WikiProject The Simpsons

Shortcut	WP:SIMP WP:SIMPSON WP:SIMPSONS
Portal	The Simpsons
Wikimedia Commons	The Simpsosns
Parent project(s)	Television
Project banner template	{{SimpsonWikiProject}}
Userbox	{{User WikiProject The Simpsons}}

List of Catchphrases

Does anyone think there should be a list of catchphrases of Simpsons character?
E.g. Bart: Eat my Shorts; Homer: D'oh!; Marge: Mmmmm; Burns: Excellent
Taipan198 13:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There was. It was moved to Wikiquote where it belongs. --Maitch 13:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Several problems on Simpsons episode articles that need to be addressed

• Trivia: way too much of this is going on in articles (Treehouse of Horror articles are good examples). Stop with the fancruft already, each Simpsons episode is 20 something minutes... there doesn't need to be half a page of trivia. Put the important things in the article, and leave out the little things. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan's guide to every little note.
• Quotes: way too long. Put quotes on WikiQuote, don't make long lists on episode pages.
• Cultural references: way too long as well.

I think people are being way too crufty when it comes to articles: fancruft, quotecruft, triviacruft, etc. It's fine to be a fan, but don't let your personal favorites influence what you post for the article. Episode articles don't need every little detail: post it on a Simpsons wiki or a fansite of some sort, not here. RobJ1981 20:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The trivia problem continues. Wikipedia isn't a guide to trivia. WP:TRIVIA and Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles clearly explain the role of trivia on Wikipedia. Hopefully the problem is fixed. I would think the Simpsons project would care about something like this. RobJ1981 01:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You would be surprised how hard it is to fight trivia. There are only a few decent Simpson editors on Wikipedia and they are up against thousands of people adding trivia every single day. --Maitch 13:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion: How about instead of deleting entire sections or adding that tag, why don't you go through the Trivia yourselves. That Lobot guy obviously knows very little about The Simpsons. However, if you add the tags, I'll edit the trivia down to a "reasonable" amount. -- Scorpion0422 13:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I would be willing to help edit the trivia down, but what would a reasonable amount be? Obviously the completely irrelevant stuff (i.e. "This episode has a minor similarity to the November 1976 issue of the National Lampoon" in Two Cars in Every Garage and Three Eyes on Every Fish) should go. I also think the goofs should go, unless they're major. Natalie 20:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Groundskeeper Willy

SCTV's Angus Crock Vs Groundskeeper Willy. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2090-1835981,00.html

He's similar and his voice may be based on him, but Willy is not based on him. Listen to the DVD Commentary for Principal Charming. The commentators say that despite all the fan debate on who the character is based on, he was not originally written as being Scottish. He was just a generic angry janitor who was turned Scottish because of the voice Dan Castellaneta used. -- Scorpion0422 22:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
• User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
• User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
• User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 23:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Snowball II

I decided that Snowball II (and the other cats) are important enough to have their own page, so I created a new one called Snowball (The Simpsons) (for lack of a better title). All of the Snowball pages redirect there, so I don't think there will be too much confusion over the title. If anyone has a better name, feel free to change it. The Swedish Wiki calls the Snowball page "Snowball I-V", but I thought that was too confusing. I considered calling the page "The Simpsons Cats", but decided the current title is better.

How Can I help?

Hi, i'm a member of Wikiproject the Simpsons, but i cant really do much. I cant really be bothered adopting articles and researching for stuff, and all i have done is minor edits to things that i see are wrong or could be slightly improved. can anyone tell me what i should do to help?--Don't click this. 14:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation used in episode articles

I would like to bring to the memebers of this WikiProject attention some inconsistency I have found in relation of the disambiguation used in episode articles. Currently we have:

• Some Enchanted Evening (The Simpsons episode)
• Old Money (The Simpsons episode)
• The Front (The Simpsons episode)
• Rosebud (The Simpsons episode)
• Fear of Flying (The Simpsons episode)
• Radioactive Man (The Simpsons episode)
• King of the Hill (The Simpsons episode)
• Sleeping with the Enemy (The Simpsons episode)
• Fat Man and Little Boy (The Simpsons episode)

I feel that the correct to term to use is "The Simpsons episode" rather than just "The Simpsons" because "episode" specifies exactly what it is, rather than just saying it is somehow associated with The Simpsons. This with also bring it in line with other articles. For instance Basketball (The Office episode) and The End (The Beatles song). -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Natalie 04:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we should mvoe all those--veon 08:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I really hope that someone makes a bot that can fix redirects some day...--veon 09:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

How do i find a list of articles linking to something?--veon 10:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

OK it looks like we are in agreement, I will move those articles now. Veon, in relation to your query, on the left hand side of the page just under the search bar you will see the link "What links here". -- Ianblair23 (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the links to Some enchanted evening and old money, but the rest may take a long time.--Veon 17:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Pages of lists - a good idea?

I've been dabbling for a while with List of songs featured in The Simpsons, and was wondering if it would be appropriate to start a list of movies references on The Simpsons. I thought, these are already on the episode pages, so could be copied to a single page.

But then I got to thinking - what's really 'encyclopedic' about doing that. What, in fact, is encyclopedic about List of songs featured in The Simpsons, it doesn't discuss the issue at all, it's just a list. And the same can be said of List of neologisms on The Simpsons about which a lot has been written.

Fancruft aside, do these list pages go towards helping the whole WikiProject become more encyclopedic and closer to 'Featured' status? Would anyone flipping through an encyclopedia find benefit from these lists?

I think the alternative is to merge them into individual episode articles and delete them as individual pages, and I expect there are other 'list' pages that would benefit from the same treatment (not, however, List of one-time characters from The Simpsons and similar, which are much better organised pages). I notice that the pages I'm suggesting ditching aren't included on the template {{Simpsons characters}} which says something about their status.

But this would be a big change, so I think needs some discussion and agreement. Other projects must have gone through the same phases? So what are your thoughts? --Mortice 16:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that these are useful articles on the simpsons, and should not be deleted.--Veon 16:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that I find lists like that useful for finding specific facts or satisfying curiosity. George C 17:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Lists have a place on Wikipedia, but caution is important to make sure people don't go overboard. My understanding of the discussion about List of neologisms on The Simpsons is that the problem is not with the existence of the list, but rather with the definition of neologism and the fancrust-y entries on the list. I think lists are best if they function somewhat like an index or similar. I know categories can serve this function, but not every reader (especially newer readers) even know categories exist, much less how to use them. Natalie 19:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes you're right about the neologism page issue, the problem there is that it's a receptical for whatever junk people throw into it (I've proposed a restructuring there as well). I guess the list of songs is just an index - it would be nice if we could just use categories and have done with it (guess the cagegories would be 'songs used on simpsons' and 'songs used in episode **' on the song page, then import the cats list into the episode page, if that can be done - only for songs with pages)... I might muse on an alternative approach that achieves a list page but by a more organsied mechanism...

Here's an update on my proposal, using categories to better manage the list of songs:

• To any song featured in an episode, we'd add it into a category relating to the episode - for instance, on the page for Rock the Casbah we would add the category[[Category:Songs on the Simpsons episode 'Natural Born Kissers']]
• To any song known to be on an episode but we're not sure which, we would add

[[Category:Songs on episodes of The Simpsons]] until that's corrected to the right episode

• All these categories [[Category:Songs on the Simpsons episode 'episodename']] would be added to the category [[Category:Songs on episodes of The Simpsons]]
• Each episode page would have added a line such as "For a list of songs, please see

[[:Category:Songs on the Simpsons episode 'Natural Born Kissers']]"

• The page List of songs featured in The Simpsons would be replaced by some introductory paragraphs and the line "For a list of songs, please see

[[:Category:Songs on episodes of The Simpsons]]". I suspect we'd have to keep the 'original songs' section and not sure about the 'parody songs' section

Pro's:

• When a new song is added, it will be added to the episode page and List of songs featured in The Simpsons automatically
• The list will get a consistent format, automatic alphabetic ordering etc

Con's:

• Not sure what we do about songs that have no page, although that's less than 10% of the ones listed on List of songs featured in The Simpsons
• It would reduce but not remove the list on List of songs featured in The Simpsons
• For non-wikipedia-regulars, the category page is a little less aesthetic than a customised list of pages
• Some of the songs on the page currently have comments such as who sings them, not sure we'd be able to retain those - could also consider a 'songs sung by bart' type category too, tho most of the songs listed are background

Is it worth the effort? --Mortice 23:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Bart Simpsons Guide to Life

Bart Simpson's Guide to Life

I expanded on the page. theres alot more info there now. i'm sure it could use some editting since i don't do too much editing on wikipedia. feel free to. i made a good base for further editing

Good job--Veon 17:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for managing song lists on Simpons episodes

I'm proposing changing the way we manage lists of songs in episodes. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Proposal for managing song lists on Simpons episodes which has a full explanation of the proposal. Please leave comments there --Mortice 22:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Some standard which character gets an article?

I think we need to decide shich character should get an article and who shouldn't. I have no problem with minor characters having articles, but if Lucius Sweet has his own, so should Dredrick Tatum. Here's how I see it:

Yes = Deserves own article, No = does not.

• Lucius Sweet - No (only made 1 minor appearance and a cameo)
• Duffman - Yes
• Tatum - Yes
• Artie Ziff - No
• Wiseguy - If Squeaky Voice Teen has his own, so should Wiseguy
• Superintendant Chalmers - Yes
• Roger Meyers Jr - Yes
• Roger Meyers Sr - No
• Mexican Fighting Tree - No
• Frank Grimes - Yes (extremely important character)
• Hank Scorpio - Yes ("" "")
• Aristotle Amadopolis - No
• Everyone in One-Timers - Perfect (the only character (apart from the ones mentioned above) who *may deserve their own article is Lindsey Naigle)
• Mindy Simmons - No
• Cecil Terwilliger - No
• Fat Tony - Yes
• Clancy Bouvier - No

Thats my opinion on some of the more debated people. Thoughts? Comments?

This seems good. I think the general rule should be that if you can't say more than a paragraph about the character, that info should go on List of characters from the Simpsons (which needs its own cleanup), not its own article. Natalie 15:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree, except the thing about that is that somne of the characters who made EXTREMELY brief appearances have several paragraphs in the one-timers section (Aunt Gladys). And, unless they are only mentioned, I think they either belong in one-timers or recurring. THe general list should just be a list, it shouldn't have stuff about some characters and nothing about others. -- Scorpion0422 15:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

True. Then again, the Aunt Gladys entry is basically a recap of the episode (and the last full paragraph is not about her at all). But you're right that the short descriptions should go in recurring or one-time. Natalie 15:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Artie ziff should get a page because he's a recurring character who stars in every episode he appears basically. he plays the same role as sideshow bob basically, but hasn't appeared nearly as frequently. plus there's lots of info we've learned about him . Burnqq 03:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I really feel that Superintendent Chalmers deserves his own page, his current description on Springfield Elementary more than qualifies. Leopold cut even go with him. I'll do it myself if there are no objections? Gran2 15:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Like I said above, I have no problem with Duffman, Tatum, Wiseguy or Superintendant Chalmers getting their own pages, so go ahead. -- Scorpion0422 16:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The list of characters

Branching off the above discussion, the list of characters from the Simpsons needs help. I agree with the above comment that the list should just be the name, and maybe a few-word description (i.e. Lenny: co-worker of Homer). Also, various people are listed repeatedly. I want to start cleaning up this list, but would like others opinions before I go on a mad deleting spree. Natalie 15:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, two "family members" from non-canon episodes (Treehouse of Horror) are listed in the family. This seems wrong to me. There should at least be something noted that these are non-canon, but I think they should just go to some other part of the list. Natalie 15:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, each character should have a short sentence about them, but some have a smnall paragraph. The list should just be a list with short descriptions. All descriptions should go in the one-timers or recurring pages. Asd for Hugo and the other family member, just add that they are non-canon. -- Scorpion0422 15:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Lionel Hutz Image Preference

This is an image preference between offcial artworks and screen captures. Ok, so obviously you would say official artworks, like on Homer's page, which is great. But what I mean is on pages like Lionel Hutz, where the 'offical artwork' isn't that good and is inaccurate. So what do we do? A simple google search provides some other offcial looking artworks, and there are plenty of screencaps you can get yourself. So would that be better than what is there? Gran2 17:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, a new image is definitely needed there. I don't know how many official images there are of Lionel Hutz, but I think for major characters, official images are preferable to screencaps. UPDATE: I found an image for Hutz, its not official, but it looks good. -- Scorpion0422 17:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Guest Stars up for Featured List

I have decided to nominate the List of guest stars on The Simpsons to become a featured list. Feel free to vote for it if you feel it meets the criteria. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of guest stars on The Simpsons -- Scorpion0422 21:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Simpsons Alma Maters

I've put in an article request for a list of Simpsons characters by Alma Mater. I figure, there are easily enough characters in the series with affilations to real colleges and universities that such an article could be whipped up. E.G. Burns at Yale, Sideshow Mel at Cornell, Edna Krababble (sp?) at Bryn Mawr etc... Or a general Education in The Simpsons article that includes the fake universities, plus Springfield elementry and others --Xtreambar 04:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd have no objections, I don't know a great detail on the subject other than Springfield Elementary and other minor one offs. But yeah, if you want to do it yourself, or someone else does, be my guest. Could end up being quite a detailed and good article. Although maybe see what some other people have to say first as well though. Gran2 22:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if Politics and Religion have articles, I think Eduction could have one. There is probably enough material from The Simpsons to have a pretty decent article.. -- Scorpion0422 22:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's an interesting page I found on The Simpsons Archive -- a list of Ivy League references in The Simpson http://www.snpp.com/guides/ivy.html . --Xtreambar 22:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to create a page so that we have something to work with and everyone can add to it from there. It'll be done in about an hour. -- Scorpion0422 22:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Would it be OK for me to assess some of the unassessed articles?

I think I could do a lot. Trosk 04:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ask an administrator. I'm not sure what the policy is on such matters. -- Scorpion0422 04:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It is okay. Sysops doesn't have to do everything. --Maitch 12:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Education in The Simpsons

I just finished the article, so please take a look and add stuff. It needs a LOT of work, but it has a decent start so any help is greatly appreciated. -- Scorpion0422 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

Are they allowed on individual episode pages? Someone keeps deleting them from the episode pages and I'm not sure if they should be deleted. --The Dark Side 01:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think they are generally frowned upon and a few quotes are allowed, but then you get the whole "which quote is more important than the other?" thing, so most people just clear the entire sections. -- Scorpion0422 01:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought the general theme was 'move all quotes to WikiQuote'? --Mortice 18:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes according to the project page, a task is move quotes from articles here to WikiQuote. It seems like the project forgot about that. If you look at many episode articles: huge quotes lists clutter the article. I've removed some, with a note of take it to WikiQuote. The history remains, so just go to that revision and then copy+paste to WikiQuote when needed. RobJ1981 19:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Featured Articles

I was looking through our stats and its kind of embarassing that we only have 1 featured article (which is a list, and thus easier to become featured) and 1 good artcle. Other projects (such as Project Nintendo) have a dozen of each. I think we, as a project, need to pull together and try to edit articles and get all of our Top priority articles up to GA or even better, FA status. I'm assuming that apart from the 2 GA/FA articles, the 5 Simpson family members are Top priority and thus we should focus on them. Perhaps we should do Homer first. So, what does everyone think? Should we pull together and get the Simpson family and othet Top importance articles upgraded. And what are all 10 of the Top priority articles? -- Scorpion0422 07:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I took a look and I'm pretty sure the 10 Top importance articles are:

• Homer
• Marge
• Bart
• Lisa
• Maggie
• Springfield
• Matt Groening
• The Simpsons Movie
• Simpsons Episodes (FA)
• The Simpsons (GA) -- Scorpion0422 07:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I definitly agree with this. So yeah top priority pages: The Simpsons, Springfield, The Simpsons Movie, The Simpsons Family, Homer, Bart, Marge, Lisa, Maggie (other characters?) The Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire, any other episodes? Anyway, we need to try and get a lot more articles to featured status. Gran2 07:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been doing a little importance evaluating and I've bumped a few of the more major characters up to high, Al Jean, Brooks and Simon to high, Burns to Top and every other EP/long time writer to mid. Any complaints? -- Scorpion0422 07:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong, keep it up! Gran2 07:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I assessed a bunch of articles and I think that with a little tweaking List of writers of The Simpsons and The Tracey Ullman Show shorts (which is modelled after the list of episodes) could make a successful run at becoming featured lists. -- Scorpion0422 09:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As you know I'm working on getting The Simpsons to FA and it's close to getting there, but it still needs some work. Even though we have written a lot about Homer Simpson there's a long road to FA. The article lacks an out-of-universe perspective and a lot of citations. I'll probably be easier to make many of our lists featured. Also consider the episode lists for the individual seasons (e.g. The Simpsons (season 1), The Simpsons (season 2) etc.). --Maitch 12:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for getting lists made into FA and as soon as Guest Stars is accepted/declined, I'm going to start working on The Ullman Shorts and getting it ready. But, that does seem to be cheating a bit because it is quite a bit easier for lists to become featured and 3 featured lists isn't anywhere near as big an accomplishment as 3 featured articles. I'm proposing that as a project, we pick one page and within a month have it ready and waiting to become featured. Homer seems the most obvious candidate (Apart from THe Simpsons, but as Maitch said, its already close) but I'm open to suggestions. And, are any articles ready (as they are now) to take a stab at becoming Good Articles? I thought Maggies page was the closest of the 5 family members (although she also needs work). -- Scorpion0422 16:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that while we have many participants, there are just a very little group of people who actually does something productive. The very fact that you have to fight trivia and vandalism on a daily basis scares anybody who wants to make positive contributions. I would take the easy route, because I can't see any other article than The Simpsons reaching FA without getting better participants. --Maitch 17:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

We should move through the pages of importance, everyone editing them to get them better. It would help if there is an order to it, and one that is easy to remember e.g.

Main characters first, by age:

1. Homer
2. Marge
3. Bart
4. Lisa
5. Maggie

Then do the creators, in order of importance

1. Matt Greoning

No idea about beyond this because i don't know about their varying importance. Then these articles, which in order of importance.

1. Mr. Burns
2. Chief Wiggum
3. Apu Nahasapeemapetilon
4. Kwik-e-mart
5. Nelson Muntz

And more. Feel free to edit this post to add/remove/rearrange pages at will.--ANDY+MCI=Andy Mci 16:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is fine - the main family members should be priority, and doing it in order of age makes as much sense as any other order. I'm not really sure about the other characters, although I would add Ned Flanders on that list, since he's in nearly every episode. Natalie 19:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll make a subpage with the to do for the Featured Articles.--ANDY+MCI=Andy Mci 20:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive?

Is it time to archive this page yet? Seems long to me... Natalie 19:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering the first archive was WAY shorter than this page is now. Yes, it is time. Gran2 19:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hell yes.--ANDY+MCI=Andy Mci 19:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay then. Having looked at how to archive a talk page, I have just discovered that there are different possible procedures. Assuming there are no reasons not to, I'll do the cut and paste kind (seems easiest). Natalie 19:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)