Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

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)

What I would recommend, in moving quotes to WikiQuote, is to create individual articles on that Wiki-space (e.g., "Bart the Genius"). That way, there isn't a long list of clutter there. Then, just create a link to the appropriate Wikipedia episode article, and voila, problem solved. [[Briguy52748 21:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)]]

We already asked this question at Wikiquote. They prefer if we create season articles. They don't like articles for single episodes. --Maitch 22:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Presumably the link to the season page on WikiQuote could link to the episode's section? Though I see there's currently only one page on WikiQuote for the whole of The Simpsons. Ah, after examination, that one page is just transclusions of season pages - cunning...

Do you think someone could either write up notes on the 'preferred format' for moving quotes to WikiQuote and updating the episode page with the link, or just choose a 'reference episode' from which other episodes can follow the format. Ideally all episode pages updated should be done in exactly the same way, so notes or a reference article would assist with that --Mortice 22:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted a season and a half's worth of quotes - those should be on wikiquote. They are clearly marked in the history for anyone with an account over there who wants to take on the task. --Charlesknight 19:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to the trouble of removing the quotes, isn't it just as easy to copy/paste them on to the wikiquote page for the season involved? It only takes a moment to register an account on wikiquote, if you feel you need to. It seems like double the work to now hope that someone else will dig out the quotes from your history to put them onto wikiquote --Mortice 19:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what i thought. However, adding them to Wikiqoute is four or three times the work, as you have to check if its there, then move it, and all sorts of stuff.--ANDY+MCI=Andy Mci 19:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikiquote is a seperate (sister) project - all I care about is the standard of articles on Wikipedia and ensuring they complying with policy. Those quotes don't below here, if they never make it to wikiquote - well they were clearly not that important to people to start with. I'm a "standards" editor rather than someone who had a particular interest in any one subject. I'm spread thin as it is - I'm under no obligation to move them to wikiquote and it would take up time I could spend improving the quality of articles on wikipedia. A user above was using the same approach. Charlesknight 19:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually that's a bit harsh sounding - I'll attempt to move the material I removed over to wikiquote but I think it would be sensible if the project tried to do a bit more clean-up before creating new articles. --Charlesknight 19:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Over the past 2 days i've been moving / linking the quotes on the first 3 seasons. The pages that had some quotes on them I moved over to wikiquote (checking that there are no double-ups as well). The format is fairly simple: Just add {{wikiquote|episode link|episode name}} into External links on the wiki pages (see any pages in the first 3 seasons). A lot of the quotes need to be formatted according to the wikiquote Formatting of quotes but the ones i've moved so far I have been reformatting like this. If I have time, I'll move/link the quotes for all the episodes. --KillerCommz 09:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I've done it for a few episodes, if you want to do it for ever episode, this would be a very great help. Gran2 10:13, 14 January 2007 (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)

Where should Staff Rank in Importance?

I've been assessing the importance of SImpsons articles, and the staff has been tough, but here's what I've done. Opinions needed.

• High - Brooks, Sam Simon, Al Jean, George Meyer, John Swartzwelder, David Silverman
• Mid - Oakley, Weinstein, Reiss, Scully, Mirkin, Vitti, Conan O'Brian, Greg Daniels, Ian maxtone-Graham, David X. Cohen, Matt Selman, Mark Kirkland, Jim Reardon
• Low - The Rest

NOTE - The ones in italics are the ones I'm not sure about...

The issue:

• Should showrunners be High priority?
• Should the original staffers - Jeff Martin, Kogen, Wollodarsky, etc - be mid priority?
• Should some of the more prolific writers be given mid status? Which ones?
• Where do some of the early directors stand?

-- Scorpion0422 00:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we need a List of Directors?

I was looking through and I noticed that there is a List of writers of The Simpsons, but no list of directors. I was wondering if anyone thinks that there is a pressing need for one. -- Scorpion0422 05:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm doing this thing that I've typed to you about before (see next section) about list generation using a bot - perhaps Directors would be a good candidate (have to do some de-duplication I guess) --Mortice 18:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So could youmake the bot so it listed every director, plus the episodes they directed? -- Scorpion0422 18:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for updates to Season 18 pages for evaluating bot list generation

I'd like to add some templates to the pages of all the episodes (so far) in Season 18. These will have no visible effect, but are used by the bot ListGenBot to read data from the pages and compile lists.

This bot is currently approved for testing, so I am only proposing changing Season 18. The bot will generate pages containing the data on the episode pages, ordered by section or alphabetically - see User:ListGenBot/Details for full details.

I'm aware that many of the data items on these pages already have list pages, but I propose generating independent list pages from the bot and evaluate the worth of adding some of those lists (dynamically updated) to other pages.

My proposal is to make invisible updates to the Season 18 episode pages but the bot will only read these pages, it will make no updates, so there is no risk of corrupting existing episode data. I'll add the templates with HTML comments to explain their use.

I'll create list pages that the bot will maintain (probably as subpages of this page) until their worth is evaluated and there's a consensus to integrate them into other pages. If there is that consensus, I'll add the templates to all the other episode pages.

Please let me know if anyone has concern or wants clarification with this exercise --Mortice 18:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Like what kind of list pages are you thinking of? Most of the noteworthy lists are done. Or do you mean you could make it so that existing lists are automatically updated? -- Scorpion0422 18:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed after some browsing that the current list pages are quite well developed with details beyond just lists, but I think this process could help with either an alphabetic summary or per-episode lists. Take a look at User:MorticeTest/out#GuestStarsOnTheSimpsons which is an example of guest stars (from two copies of episode pages) in both list formats.

Yes, the 'charm' of this is that the bot (once fully approved) will run regularly to ensure the list is always up to date compared to the episode pages - new episode means all lists updated in sync with no other interference. And if needed I can tweak the way the bot generates the list to entirely reformat it (change sort order, for instance)

My thought for the purpose of this test (on the series 18 pages) is to put the template tags around 'everything' on those episode pages - air date, writer, director, couch gag, guest stars, perhaps some parts of the body text (trivia?) and see how the resultant lists look. The ones we decide are worthwhile we can deploy to the other episode pages --Mortice 19:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've experimentally edited the first 5 (so far) pages of Season 18 to add invisible bot tags (templates delimiting interesting data), and the lists generated can be seen on Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Example generated lists.

This page is currently a mess because it's an accumulation of every list that could be generated from the data on the episode pages, but if you pick thorugh it, there's some interesting things that could be used on other pages, such as list of directors or blocks of trivia grouped by page. All these lists can be generated per-season or across all seasons (same thing so far since only 5 episodes of one season have had the bot tags added).

Once the bot is running properly, newly created episode pages will be automatically added to all these lists within a few mins of creating the episode page (not yet because bot's in test).

You should find no visible change to the episode pages and you may find some use from the stuff on Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Example generated lists - let me know what you think --Mortice 23:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

For the guest stars list, go for it with the alphabetical one. But for the current list, the doesn't seem to list band members or anything, so I think just doing it manually is fine for the time being - the list is completed anyway. But for directors, go ahead for a bot-generated list. -- Scorpion0422 00:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Scorpion0422. I'll certainly keep tagging the 'guest stars' and 'directors'. By 'current list', I guess you mean the current guest stars page there? I'm quite happy not to change any of that - if you want you can copy the lists you want from that test page to wherever you think they need to go, and they'll be updated by the bot as long as you keep the 'start' and 'end' templates that are at the top and bottom of the list now.

I'm quite tempted to keep tagging all sections, just because most of the awkwardness of adding the tags is in visiting the pages so it would be most efficient to add the ten or so tags to the sections on each episode page. Any objection to that?

I'm making an update to the bot which will mean that, in effect, it will produce a list of the episodes that each director has directed, etc (in a more useful format than the one you've seen so far).

I'll put out a 'call for assistance' asking folk to take a season and add the tags to it (I'll have to produce instructions on how to add the tags). But first the bot needs to be approved --Mortice 20:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

While I'm having a little trouble following this discussion (technical details not my interest or forte) I'm more than willing to take a couple of seasons if it just means adding tags to each article. Natalie 03:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

So we just go through every episode capsule and stick tags to it? yeah sure.--ANDY+MCI=Andy Mci 08:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, just making similar edits (adding templates) to all ov the episode pages. You can see teh sort of thing that needs doing if you look at The Mook, the Chef, the Wife and Her Homer in edit mode and see the lines starting 'ListGenBot'. I'll write up some proper instructions on how to edit a page. It's great to hear there's people willing to help out :) --Mortice 12:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

For your interest, I've written up instructions on the edits that are required at Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Addling ListGenBot tags to episode pages but you'd better not do too much yet since the bot isn't approved so won't update the list pages yet, but I'd appreciate any comments on those notes. You can claim interest in handling a season too, if you like. Don't be put off by the length of the instructions, it's quite straightforward really :) --Mortice 22:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I might as well just do a few right now before i can't be bothered. I put my name on seasons 1 and 2, so i'll start that.--ANDY+MCI=Andy Mci 17:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've done the infobox for every episode up to The Call of the Simpsons, but i need to do homework now.--ANDY+MCI=Andy Mci 18:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well done Andy, I've spotted and fixed a bug in the bot (caused by leaving spaces on the end of the bot tags) so you should be able to see the results of your work now on Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Example generated lists. I'll run the bot periodically so you may see updates happening to that page later.

There is a problem you can see there - a few pages like Homer's Odyssey have multiple writers on seperate lines with an '&' on its own line - so on the generated page, the '&' is credited as being a writer! I think we can fix up problems like that later, either by using the format as on Moaning Lisa or just putting each writer on its own line --Mortice 18:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll help out by doing work on some of the middle seasons. I'll get started in an hour or so... -- Scorpion0422 23:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Scorpion - if you could edit your place into the list on Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Addling ListGenBot tags to episode pages it will stop clashing with anyone else --Mortice 20:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

ListGenBot is now Approved! So it's running 'continuously' and you should find once you update an episode, the lists on Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Example generated lists should update within a few minutes. We could also generate lists similar to the ones on that page but just for info about a single season, if anyone wants one --Mortice 20:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If anyone's editing a season, they can check the updates just to that season by clicking on the link next to the season at Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Addling ListGenBot tags to episode pages --Mortice 21:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Stereotypes in the Simpsons

I had this idea yesterday, for a list of all stereotypes in the Simpsons that are seen at one point or another. So there could be important to minor characters such as Groundskeeper Willie and Cletus under characters, and one time group things such as the school uniforms in Team Homer. I think this would be a decent article, if worked on. Does anyone else support?--ANDY+MCI=Andy Mci 18:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it could be fine, but maybe not really priority right now. It seems to me that most (nearly all) of the Simpsons related articles are in horrendous shape - excessively informal tone, too long, too in-universe - and these should be the first order of business. But that's just my opinion. Natalie 18:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, i guess. Can i make it and work on it slowly, and get help later?--ANDY+MCI=Andy Mci 18:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I'd be willing to help at some point in time. Natalie 18:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool, i'll start it now.--ANDY+MCI=Andy Mci 18:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help as well, in fact i think i may have started.Davie4264 16:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Query

The episode capsule The Cartridge Family contains this trivia: "As of this episode, everyone with the surname "Simpson", has fired a gun." No one reads discussions on the capsule pages, so I'm asking this here: when? I don't think Bart shot a gun until Bart the Mother (season 10), and I don't think Lisa or Mona have ever shot a gun. Natalie 02:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless she does in The Cartridge Family, its been a while since I've seen it, I don't she has fired a gun before hand. I'm also certain that Mona hasn't. Bart did in Homer the Vigilante though, so that's right at least. But if its completely proved wrong then edit it to say "except for Lisa and Mona", or just remove the whole thing. Gran2 13:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Since I got an answer here, I'll ask another question. Ned's mother keeps being named Mona on List of characters from The Simpsons. I don't remember her ever being given a name, and our own page on Ned says his parents have never been named. Does anyone else remember his mom being named? Natalie 01:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it most have been Sweet Seymour Skinner's Badasss Song.

Ned: Gee Homer, it's only because my parents where so hard on me.
Flashback
Ned: Whoopsidoodle
Dad: Oh man! Ned spilt ink all over my poems! He's putting us on the train to squaresville Mona.

It may have been another episode, but that's pretty much the quote. Gran2 07:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That is definitely the right episode and quote. There may be another one somewhere though.Davie4264 16:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for assistance - adding tags to episode pages

There's a project afoot to make some (invisible) updates to episode pages which will assist in generating lists of information for other pages, using ListGenBot.

If you would like to help out, there's details of what to do at Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Addling ListGenBot tags to episode pages, and a table there where you can claim interest in editing a particular season. Thanks --Mortice 21:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Season 2

I've been making some changes to the Season 2 page and I think it will be ready for a run at Featured List. My only concern is that it may not be considered notable enough. Anyway, take a look at the page and make any changes you deem necessary. -- Scorpion0422 21:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Bot List

The above proposal is super long, so I'm branching this off. I think we should add show runners to the info gathered by the bot. I've been listening to some of the DVD commentary recently, and the show runners are the same as the executive producers, and seem pretty important. They are also in the infobox (above writers), so I figure they should be listed too. Natalie 00:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I see Mortice has added show runners. Natalie 00:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Other character pages

While people are doing the more detailed-work on Homer, I'd like to start trimming the cruft-tastic lists on the other character pages: Marge, Bart, Lisa, Maggie, Ned, etc. If people know of other characters that are in bad shape, let me know. Natalie 18:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Episode capsules

The episode capsules are de-volving again (I've been adding the ListGenBot stuff, so I've been reading them). When I'm done with my other ListGenBot season, I'd like to revamp some of the capsules again: remove goofs, work some of the trivia and cultural references into the synopsis, simpler consistency stuff. Two things I was thinking about that may be more controversial: putting more information about the actual episode production (to avoid excessive in-universe-ness), and completely removing song lyriccs. I seem to remember from a previous discussion that these are of questionable copyright status and, to me at least, they seem excessive.

As far as putting more information about the episode production, I have seasons 4-8 on DVD, which of course have commentary that often discusses the production. I'm not sure where else to find that info, snpp, maybe. If someone has seasons 1-3 and would like to put that info in, that'd be great. And season 9 will be out soon (next week I think), so I can put that info in. Comments and suggestions would be appreciated. Natalie 18:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I know what you mean, some of the page I've been adding ListGenBot to, needed, and still do, serious work. As for Goofs, I agree partially, really just about the word itself. I mean, it is that good is it. Maybe we could change it to "Errors and inconsistances". As for some lyrics, maybe we could do something like the quotes should be with WikiQuote. He recently discover LyricWiki. Maybe we could but all of the songs on there. Although, unless they infringe copyright, I don't mind them on the episode pages. As for info from commentaries, I only have 4-7, although I will have a complete set by the years end! So I can only be a bit of help on that front. Gran2 19:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've basically been clearing every Trivia and most of the goofs sections I've come across. As for production information, with many episodes, there isn't enough info to make a whole section, so I've just been throwing it under the trivia section. -- Scorpion0422 19:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone had any connection with the WikiProject about songs? I seem to remember someone earlier mentioning that they were discussing the copyright implications of song lyrics at some point. I'm ok with having a short trivia and cultural references section, as well as any major goofs (like important unexplained continuity lapses) but a lot of the goofs are really silly, like "Nelson's hair is the wrong color". No one cares. But I would like to integrate most of the trivia and references into the main synopsis. So this is what I will start:

• add a one sentence episode description and what the episode name parodies (if applicable) to the intro
• integrate more important references and trivia into the synopsis
• make section titles and introductions consistent (I think the introductions should all say the exact same thing: "___ is the ___ episode from the ____ season of the Simpsons. The episode explores/deals with/involves/ _____. The title is a parody/pun on/reference to ____."

What I would like help with is adding more production info and trimming down the quotes. A couple of quotes (especially one-liners) seem fine, but some of them are getting to the point that they are recapping the whole episode. Natalie 20:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, taking in what everyone has said, and after listening to the episode's commentary, and copied the quotes on to wikiquote. I have come up with the most likely shape and sections of information: 'Round Springfield. Its not perfect, but its a great improvement on what it was, and could help with the other episode capsules. Gran2 15:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Season 2 is a FL candidate

So go here if you feel that it meets criteria. -- Scorpion0422 19:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mike Scully controversy

A while ago, there was a bit of a dustup at the Mike Scully article, wherein I was in favor of including mention of the distaste many fans seem to display for him, and another editor did not want any such mention. Eventually, there was a back-and-forth, and the other editor, who is also an administrator, protected the article. I left it alone with the hope that someone else would weigh in on the talk page, but nothing has happened. I'm not sure if I'm right or wrong here, but I figure that you guys here at the project should have a chance to weigh in. Croctotheface 10:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Having read through it, I see both of your views. I think I'm probably going to side with you. I think having both is the best way, if that can be done. But that aside I personally blame a certain IMG. But that's an entirely different matter. Gran2 20:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about adding ListGenBot tags to episodes

Hi all, thanks to all who are joining in with the ListGenBot tag updates to episodes.

In order to avoid clogging up this page with updates abou this, I've started a 'Discussion' section at the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Addling ListGenBot tags to episode pages -if you're taking part then please watch the page for updates (if you're not already).

Recent update involves adding a new tag for the 'Runners' listed on some episode pages - see that page for details --Mortice 23:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images?

Should the images used in this project, such as [[Image:Bart Simpson.png]], have image fair use rationale added?

I assume the pictures are useable because they're for illustration, but the 'copright' template added to the pic does say a fair use rationale should also be added. More info at Help:Image_page#Fair_use_rationale.

This came up because over on Hank Azaria someone removed the pics of the Simpsons characters that Hank voices, and I figure the pic use justification there is the same as it is here.

So do we need to update the pics pages (anyone recommend boilerplate text to be copied in?) or is it not needed (if so why not) or should we remove all the Simpsons pics (shame!) --Mortice 09:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Why it is Fair Use

I don't know whether this will help (I certainly hope it will), but in judging whether use of copyrighted material is "fair use", courts look to four things and take various other policy considerations into account. I've listed those four things below and below them I've outlined my reasoning as to why use of these images is fair use (including case reporter cites for the interested):

• (1) Purpose of Use (Is it commercial or nonprofit?)'
• (2) The Nature of the Copyrighted Work. (Fact or Fiction? Fact tends toward Fair Use)'
• (3) The Amount and Substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.'
• (4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.'
• Courts also look at policy considerations (Is the use productive? Does it promote creative expression as intended by the Copyright Clause of the Constitution?)

• First consideration, the purpose of use: If it's nonprofit and educational, as opposed to commercial, it tends toward fair use. Is Wikipedia nonfprofit and educational? Yes, it is. Is Wikipedia commercial? No, it is not. Therefore, use of this image tends towards fair use.
• Second consideration, the Nature of the copyrighted work: If it's factual it tends to Fair Use, if it's fictional, it does not. Courts have found photographs to be equally factual and fictional for purposes of this factor. See Nunez v. Caribbean International News Corp., 235 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2000). These images are like photographs in that they contain both a creative element (the art itself) but they also represent a fact (what a character looks like). I argue, then, that these images are neutral and therefore favor their fair use.
• Third consideration: Amount and substantiality: The more that is taken from a protected work, the less it will tend toward fair use. However, with photographs, if any less than the whole image is copied then the image will become useless. Courts have found that when this is the case, this factor is of little consequence to fair use analysis. See Nunez, 235 F.3d 18. Because these images would be useless if we copied anything less than the full image, this factor is of little consequence to a fair use analysis.
• Fourth consideration, effect on the potential market or value of the copyrighted work: Right now, there is no market for these images. The market is for the Simpsons cartoons - not images of the characters. We're not using video clips from the cartoons, we're using still images of characters. In order to find against fair use under this prong of the test, the harm to the market must be more than slight. Here, any harm to the market would be, at most, slight. If anything, I would argue, these images will tend to increase the market for the Simpsons cartoons and therefore benefit the market.
• Also, there are some important copyright considerations to keep in mind: Courts will tend to find fair use of a work if it is productive, that is, if it enhances the benefit that the public derives from the earlier copyrighted work. Here, we are being productive - by including these images along with the encyclopedia entry, we are providing a benefit to the public in the form of a free online encyclopedia.
• Courts also look to the underlying logic of the Copyright Clause of the US Constitution - it is to encourage creative expression. Here, use of these photographs encourages creative expression in that the Wikipedia community is creating an encyclopedia.

Of the four considerations taken into account, Three of them (purpose, market effect, and Nature of the work) support the finding that use of these images on Wikipedia as fair use. The other consideration (amount and substantiality) is of little consequence in this analysis. Thus, the four statutory considerations support a finding this is fair use. Further, the underlying policy considerations of the Copyright Clause and copyright law both support a finding that use of these images on Wikipedia is fair use. Based on these factors, use of these images on Wikipedia is fair use ' takethemud 10:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that info, I had though their use on the pages were probably fair use due to the 'for illustration purposes'. My concern was about the lack of justification on the picture page, as is requred by the 'copyright' template on most of these pages. So should I paraphrase the above and add it to all the Simpsons picture pages? --Mortice 13:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. By illustration purposes I take it you mean critical commentary, discussion, scholarship, research, and teaching (which use on Wikipedia provides). The use of copyrighted works for these purposes meets the threshold for being "fair use". Just because you are using something for scholarship purposes doesn't mean it's automatically fair use. Fair use is a case-by-case analysis. That's where those four factors I discussed come in. I don't know what you have to do to satisfy Wikipedia's standards. If you have to say briefly why it's fair use say: "Use of this picture in Wikipedia is Fair Use. It is being used for critical commentary, discussion, scholarship, research, and teaching. Evaluating its use further using the statutory factors in 17 USC § 107, I find the following: The use here is not-for-profit, which favors fair use; the original work is neither factual nor fictional for fair use analysis and that favors fair use; that a substantial portion of the work was used is inevitable due to its being an image and is therefore of little consequence for fair use analysis; and there is no adverse effect upon a potential market for the protected work, which favors for use. Furthermore, use of this image is productive as it enhances the benefit the work provides to the public, and it encourages creative expression on Wikipedia. Together, these factors support the assertion that use of this image is fair use." takethemud 16:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add something like that text to some of the pics - would be nice to be 'legitimate' :) --Mortice 17:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

A Plea for Why we NEED Miscellaneous Facts & Trivia Sections

Many of the Simpsons articles have miscellaneous facts and trivia sections. I noticed on the Homer page, a trivia section was removed when the page was edited to bring it up to date and make it a "Good Article." This is good because it streamlined the Homer article and made it "more encyclopediac." But, in the process, Wikipedia lost information about Homer that could have been included on another page dedicated solely to listing miscellaneous facts about him (his email address, social security number, etc.) The main Homer article could have linked to this List page. This would have preserved the information about Homer that had been included on his page and it would have also allowed the article to be revised.

If you look at the Mr. Burns page, you'll see there are long lists on that page: (1) References to his old age; (2) Organizations he belongs to; (3) References to his health; (4) References to his state of mind; (5) Real Life & Fictional Models for his character; (6) List of Episodes starring Mr. Burns. This says nothing of the hodgepodge of miscellaneous facts in the biography section of his article (social security number, telephone number, his vulture collection, etc.)

Clearly, the article is unwieldy and needs to be edited. But in the process of editing it, I think it'd be a mistake to delete this information in an effort to "streamline" the article or to make the entry "more encyclopediac."

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said: "It would be dangerous for persons trained only to the law to constitute themselves final judges of the worth of illustrations, outside of the narrowest and most obvious limits. . . If they command the interest of any public, they have value and the taste of any public is not to be greeted with contempt." (paraphrased)

Much as Mr Holmes urged the judiciary to act with restraint when judging the value of artistic works, Wikipedia editors should also act with restraint when judging whether something should be excluded from Wikipedia's pages. If something is included on Wikipedia, it's safe to say that at least one person finds something notable enough to be included. And if one person finds it notable enough to add it to Wikipedia, how many more readers who go uncounted find that same bit of knowledge to be interesting and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia? I dare say that many do. And if many find something worthy of inclusion, why should it be excluded from Wikipedia because others disagree? By deleting information some deem to be irrelevant, we are taking information away from those who believe it to be relevant.

Outside of the "narrowest and obviously limits" of relevance (vandalism, falsities, and the like) would it not be wise to opt to include information about Mr. Burns and the other Simpson characters in Wikipedia and not destroy its content? Is it not preferable to organize seemingly erroneous information (through redirects, new articles, lists, etc.) and give it a rightful place among the other articles of Wikipedia, rather than to delete it and deprive the world of the benefit of having the information at its disposal?

I do think so, and that is why I am in favor of creating lists about Simspsons character like Mr. Burns, where all of the information contained in those lists could be included? Then, the main article could be whittled down, links to the list page(s) included in the article, and then no information would be lost in the process. takethemud 10:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)takethemud

I think we definitely need trivia and cultural references on episode pages, opposing the thing somehwere about merging it into the synopsis. People looking for random trivia don't want to trawl through lots of text to find what they're looking for.--ANDY+MCI=Andy Mci 16:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Homer had no trivia section when I started on it. Anyway, I like trivia sections. I've been battling this one guy in almost every episode page because he tries to remove the sections. But, those are episode pages where the trivia can't be worked into the synopsis. It can be in character pages. If something is important enough, then we can find room for it, but all of the main characters have been in 380+ episodes, so what makes one piece of trivia more important than another? This doesn't mean that we should go and clear the trivia for all characters RIGHT NOW, but unfortunately, if we want a page upgraded to GA, it needs to lose the trivia section, because apparantly, it is policy. And I looked at the Burns article, and sections can be created for all those bulleted list sections. -- Scorpion 16:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitely, lots of people passing throughonly read these sections. And in episode pages they are ncessities, providing ALOT more information. So yes, I certainly agree. Gran2 17:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

On SNPP, they have a character file on all the main characters, which lists various trivia. Perhaps we could link to the appropriate character file in the external links. That would provide a place for people to find the trivia, without cluttering up the character article. As far as the episode capsules, trivia and cultural references definitely have their place, but on some of the episode capsules its getting a bit ridiculous. Natalie 18:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't like trivia sections. Trivia is unorganised facts. I would prefer if people worked these facts into the article rather than listing them disjointed at the bottom of the article. Whatever people says we still have to remember that this is an encyclopedia.--Maitch 13:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that integration of trivia sections into the articles is preferable and it should be our first choice. But, some things may be incapable of integration and would be destined to be the "unorganized facts" in the trivia sections that you referred to. We should recognize this as a truism. So the question becomes, what do we do with the leftover unorganized facts that couldn't be integrated into the article? By making a list page of these unorganized facts that really can't be worked in to the article, we'll improve the articles (by not having an trivia section), while at the same time, preserving all of the content elsewhere on Wikipedia, in an list-like format. We should always opt to include rather than exclude information where it may be worth keeping in. Otherwise, we run the real risk of deleting information that we should have left in. . . Your thoughts? takethemud 13:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If facts can't be worked into the article then they are not worth keeping. --Maitch 14:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

While I'm usually more inclusionist than not, in the case of the characters I agree with Maitch. An episode capsule usually only has a few bits of trivia and maybe a half dozen cultural references. The characters, however, having been the subject of nearly 400 episodes, have pages and pages of random trivia. It's too hard to figure out what to include. Is Homer's email address more worthy of inclusion than the fact that he once grew four hairs on the top of his head? Is it more important to know that Marge was a cop in one episode or that she went to jail in one episode? It could easily end up being longer than any other the other Simpsons lists, and I just don't see it being that helpful. Natalie 15:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This point is quite salient. There must be a threshold for inclusion. If a certain piece of trivia does not assert its notability compared to any indiscriminate fact about a character, then such an item should not be included in the encyclopedia. Croctotheface 22:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Help needed for a new list

Some of you probably already know that I have been trying to get The Simpsons through the FAC process. This seems very likely to fail, but I will continue to work on the article and probably return with a new attempt in the next year. One of the problems with the article is "unreliable sources". In the "Animation" section we have an infobox, which shows an overview of the overseas animation studios. This is based on one of the "unreliable sources", so I have to remove the infobox, because the information is not available anywhere else. I kind of like the infobox, so I thought of a way to keep it. What if we made a list of which episodes the overseas animation studios has made? It can be based on this website. Of course this list will never be featured, but who cares about that. I would like to focus on the main article, so I don't have the time to produce a new list. I was then wondering if anybody would like to make this list for me. --Maitch 21:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm busy with Christmas stuff at the moment, but I'll see if I can. However, I'm not sure exactly what format or how you want it done, so perhaps its best if you do it, then I'll help with the formatting.

As for the Simpsons losing its FAC, that Colin guy was the only reason why the Guest Stars list didn't become featured. He seems to hate The Simpsons and both times, sources was his main reasoning. I hate it when people fail an article based entirely on lack of sources and ignore it's content, but there's little we can do. I have no idea why SNPP isn't an accepted source, because it's a great site. -- Scorpion 04:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Simpson family trips

I created this article a few weeks back. Since then I've been the only one working on it. So far it hasn't been deleted, and I take that as a good sign. However, since I'm the only one doing anything with it, is this article relevant at all? --The Dark Side 02:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure how relevant it is, but you have a good start there. Perhaps you should list fictional locations and real American locations seperately. And perhaps the article should be renamed Travelling in The Simpsons or something because its not only family trips and also so it fits in with outher theme articles, like Politics in The Simpsons, Education in The Simpsons and Religion in The Simpsons.

How you can improve it:

• Remove all the spoilers tags.
• Some of the sections you have right now ar basically synopsises of the episode, shorten them.
• List who went where for each section instead of just having redirects.
• Seperate the fictional and real places.
• The article could also use a little more organization
• Add a lead
• Don't list episodes right after the name of the country

-- Scorpion 03:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good! Thanks for the advice. --The Dark Side 03:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

So only list cities and countries? Not places like Itchy & Scratchy land? --The Dark Side 03:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I did some thinking, and I think we should change the format, like this

==Europe== *France **Crepes of Wrath - Bart travels to France as part of a student exchange trip **Bart Mangled Banner - The Simpson family flees to France *England **Regina Monologues - The entire family plus Grampa travel to England to find Grampa's long lost love *Sweden **Homer's Barbershop Quartet - Homer and the Be Sharps tour there ==Asia== *China **Goo Goo Gai Pan - Entire Family plus Selma travel there to adopt a baby for Selma *Japan **Etc, etc

what do you think? -- Scorpion 04:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The Simpsons is featured

Title says it all. At last! Gran2 16:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait... Who promoted it? I took a look at the history and the guy who added the featured tag wasn't an admin and I was under the assumption that it should be an admin who promotes an article.

It was Raul654, they guy who runs the whole FA process. Gran2 07:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Either way, congrats to Maitch for putting forth a lot of effort in the article. Today featured status, tomorrow the world! -- Scorpion 01:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The next step is that we need to defend the article from vandalism and trivia, so it doesn't get demoted again. --Maitch 14:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Burns

Alright, so I went through the Mr. Burns article and tried to clean up the "State of Mind" section by making it into a few paragraphs. I'm hesitant to cut the content out of the article and replace it with what I've made up without first getting input about it from others. So, maybe interested persons will take a look at these paragraphs, edit them as they see fit, and when they are acceptable, we can replace the State of Mind section with an edited version of this (minus the bullet points which are there only to differentiate the entry from the rest of this talk page):

• Mr Burns commonly uses phrases and expressions that have fallen out of common use, including score (meaning 20 years), twain (meaning two), post-haste (meaning quickly), petroleum distillate (meaning gasoline), gay (meaning jolly), dean (meaning principal), fourth form (meaning fourth grade), ahoy-hoy (meaning hello), jumping box and picto-cube (both meaning television), dictabelt (meaning tape recorder), and the New York Nine (meaning New York Yankees).

• Mr Burns also displays mannerisms which are considered outdated, such as writing with a quill pen, driving a Stutz Bearcat while wearing a Victorian motorists' outfit which includes hat, driving gloves, and goggles, carrying a mace for self defense, driving without regard to traffic laws in the manner of early 20th century motorists, and using an antique view camera to take photographs.

• Mr Burns seems unaware of 20th century political and social developments, such as Fidel Castro replacing Fulgencio Batista as the President of Cuba, Siam changing its name to Thailand, the Belgian Congo changing its name to the Congo-Kinshasa, Prussia being absorbed into the German Empire, India gaining its independence from the British Empire, New Mexico entering the United States, Idlewild Airport changing its name to JFK Airport, the disbanding of the Negro Leagues, the desegregation of the Major Leagues, Joe DiMaggio no longer being a rookie, the extinction of the dodo bird, the discrediting of phrenology, the demolition of the Polo Grounds, the ceasing of publication of Collier's Weekly, believing tires need to be revulcanized, thinking cars are still operated by levers, believing mail may still be delivered by autogyro, and the occurrence of the 1939 World's Fair.

• Mr Burns commonly refers to deceased persons as if they were alive, including Sir Donald Bradman, Stewie Dempster, Vic Richardson, Al Jolson, Tallulah Bankhead, Louise Brooks, Honus Wagner, Cap Anson, and Mordecai Brown.

• Mr Burns believes some social institutions and inventions are novel or nonexistent, such as musicals about "the common cat" and "the King of Siam", the Packard automobile, the Fire Department, ice cream, vending machines, recycling, strip clubs, the DuMont, the stereopticon, the Crimean War, the word"into", silent films like the 1929 Lulu, and the synonymity of ketchup and catsup.

what does everybody think? takethemud 17:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's good, but a lot of it is just lists in text form that noon really want's to read. really you should only have the 3 or 4 most important things if you ask me, instead of listing all kinds of crap about names changing and country borders.--ANDY+MCI=Andy Mci 13:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of the things could come under the heading Anachronisms, things tha Mr Burns Uses that are out of date such as his Bearcat or using a quill, just a suggestion but that could tidy some of it up.Davie4264 16:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Episode pages that make the grade

Now that Homerpalooza has been nominated for as a GA candidate, I've decided to list all of the episode pages, that are... well the best. These are obviously the ones that should be still improved so that they can become GA and FA standard, as well as providing some sort of definitive guidelines for all episode pages.

So, scanning down the B-class Simpsons articles category I see:

• Bart the General
• Deep Space Homer
• Homer's Enemy
• Homerpalooza (former GA nom)
• Krusty Gets Busted (former GA nom)
• Last Exit to Springfield
• Life on the Fast Lane
• Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire
• The Crepes of Wrath
• Who Shot Mr. Burns?
• 'Round Springfield

Any others that should be included? And which is closest to a nomination? Gran2 10:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason I nominated Homerpalooza is because I thought we needed some precedent in terms of episode pages. If it makes GA status, then we have something to go on and we can model all pages after it. Also, the reason I picked it is because I had just listened to the DVD commentary and thus I had some good info and sources for the article. Sourcing is EXTREMELY important, and several of those articles have statements that can't be backed up by SNPP or DVD commentary. I don't know if it will be promoted, it may not be considered notable enough, but I figured I'd try it. -- Scorpion 17:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Homerpalooza has failed its GA. Apparently the lead wasn't long enough, and the synopsis missed the point, or something like that. I think it was fine, but what do I know?! Anyway, any ideas to which page to try next? I personally feel that 'Round Springfield, Last Exit to Springfield, Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire, and Who Shot Mr. Burns, and of course Homerpalooza are the closest. Gran2 17:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to continue working on Homerpalooza. I don't get why he failed it immeidately and didn't put it on hold and give some time to fix it. He only had minor, easily fixable complaints. The same guy assessed the Homer article and he was very helpful in helping me fix it.

As for the next page, Who Shot Mr. Burns will be tricky because it nees a tonne of sources (plus, I believe the article should be split back up into two pages). I think Last Exit or Simpsons Roasting should be next. Take your pick, and I'll try to help by relistening to the DVD commentaries and adding what I can. -- Scorpion 18:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Scorpion, you mentioned briefly that Who Shot Mr. Burns should be split back up into two pages. I think this should be considered a lot, as it should be better. Clues would go on part 1's page and suspects and ways to figure it out would go on the part 2's page.--Andy mci 20:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to carry on with Round Springfield and Last Exit, as they are the ones i've been working on the most, and I'll take a look at Simpsons Roasting. I've got a complete set of season DVDs now, in England at least (so no season 9). And I finally got Power DVD on my laptop, so I can get more pictures. Gran2 18:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I use VLC snap to capture images. It's free and it's very easy to get DVD images (although they have a black line down the left side). 'Round Springfield is actually my least favourite episode, but I'll help out with Last Exit. Don't forget that EW and the author of Planet Simpsons said that episode was their favourite, although the writing staff seem indifferent to it... In Synopsis terms, I think shorter ones are more preferred (a la Homerpalooza), so you may need to do some shortening. -- Scorpion 18:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I need to listen to the commentary again, I can't remember anything the say in it.Gran2 18:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Bart Simpsons Guide to Life

I feel that the "The Rest Of The Book" section could do with a bit of expansion. I'm willing to do it, but any disagreements or ideas? Shealer 13:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. No objections here. -- Scorpion 14:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've added and edited what I can, if anyone else can improve, please do. Shealer 14:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have the book too and I tihnk it needs more than just a list of chapters to take up half the page. Cheers to 2007! User:Sp3000 23:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

New userbox

I've been considering creating a new user box for Simpsons fans, but I can't figure out what slogan to put on it. Here's what I'm thinking:

• This Uswer Embiggens Wikipedia with his/her cromulent editing
• This user is gay for Moleman (Frontrunner, but I don't know if its allowed)
• This user can see your doodle (Meh, and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be allowed)
• This user welcomes our New Insect Overlords
• This user calls the Big One Bitey

Suggestions? -- Scorpion 16:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

They're all good! I mean you could have countless ones, like "This user lives in the clerk building" and "This user is a cheese eating surrender monkey".

So in other, I say do them all. Gran2 17:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the last two, but the very last is the best. I think the first one is not very good because a lot of people don't realise embiggens and cromulent are neologisms. I don't really think i would want to put a userbox on my page saying i'm gay for an old shrivelled up guy. So go Bitey!--Andy mci 17:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

We could try several, but Wikipedia has a policy about no fair use images being used in those userboxes, so most of them would have text as the "image" part. And, I've changed my mind and I think Insect Overlords is the best, any other suggestions? Maybe we can find a non-fair use picture of an Opossum and use the Bitey one as well... -- Scorpion 19:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What do people think of this:

AntsThis user, for one, welcomes our new Insect Overlords.

-- Scorpion 14:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Its on my page. Good job. Gran2 22:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

How about "this user is a kwyjibo"? --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 21:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Here's another new one. Using pink reeks of typecasting, but I think it looks not bad. What do others think?

HansThis user is Gay for Moleman.

CBGThis is, without a doubt, the worst userbox ever!

Here's my less than perfect stab at one, i couldn't believe this wasn't alreday a userbox. It will probably turn out that there is and I've missed it.... Ah well, feel free to edit the colour scheme. And as for the "gay for moleman", although I'm not crazy about the subject matter... It does look pretty good. Gran2 20:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

New article ideas

I was recently watching Season 9 on DVD, and I got 2 ideas for new articles. We already have four "theme" articles that are devoted to four common themes: religion, politics, education and travel. Well, perhaps we should make pages for sports and the environment because there have been many episodes about both topics, The Simpsons has won several Environmental media awards, and dozens of athletes have guest starred so we could probably make good ideas for both. And, I think they are more common episode themes than education or travel. So, what do others think? -- Scorpion 01:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem. Sport certainly seems like a good idea for an article. Gran2 07:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the Springfield Meltdowns! --The Dark Side 02:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding content

You guys, there's a LOT of stuff in these articles that needs to be cleaned up regarding some of the gags and how "literal" they are in relation to the show. We have a lot of "facts" listed about characters that were mentioned once as a passing gag in a single episode, then never mentioned again....but its listed as though it were concrete...Heres a quote from the Mrage Simpson profile page: She manages to feed her entire family with only twelve dollars a week. (She pads Homer's food with sawdust). She also prepares various commemorative hams, including an emergency ham, a condolence ham, an earthquake ham and a celebration ham." These are not necessarily solid fact regarding Marge, as character, as say, "Marge is a housewife who spends most of her time caring for Maggie."...I think some of the real absurd ones need to be removed...theres been a huge fight about this on some of the Metalocalypse "back pages", yet it doesnt seem to be addressed here...Thesetrixaintforkids

I couldn't agree more. --Maitch 17:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnacle Bay

I'm considering making an article for Barnacle Bay, which is from The Wife Aquatic. Yes, it is a one time thing, but it was central to the episode and there are several locations that serve more as backgrounds that pages. Thoughts? Complaints? -- Scorpion 16:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty of space left in "The Wife Aquatic" article. Write a section in that article and redirect Barnacle Bay. --Maitch 17:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Maitch. If Barnacle Bay shows up again, it will be easy enough to split the article. Natalie 16:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure about it, that's why I asked. -- Scorpion 16:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Natalie 06:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Broadcast info

Some of the more recent epsiode capsules have broadcast information. I know a few months ago it was generally agreed that this information is extraneous, but I want to make sure that everyone is still in agreement. Natalie 01:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Ratings maybe... In fact if ratings are listed, and cited they should be kept, to be used in a "recption" or "reaction" section. But the broadcast info should go. Gran2 07:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Family pages

Do we really need family pages for The Vanhoutens, Wiggums and Flanderses? The pages basically duplicate information from individual articles and the various families have their own sections in the list of characters. I can understand there being one for the Simpson family (because there are a tonne of family members) and maybe even the Bouvier family, although it needs a MAJOR cleanup. So, should we merge those pages, nominate them for afd or leave them? And while we're at it, is this page really necessary? -- Scorpion 16:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Couples could be improved, but may need to be moved to a better name. Van Houten can go. Which probably means the Flanders and Wiggum ones can as well. Gran2 16:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, afd would be too big of a headache (and really unnecessary) because the afd page has been filled with inclusionists as of late, so should we just do a merge then? -- Scorpion

I didn't even know that couple's page existed, but I think it should go. The families' pages are kind of iffy - if there's a possibility that the page can say more that the short entry in the character lists, then the page could theoretically be useful. But so far, it seems like there's a whole lot of duplicate information. Merge would probably be best, since the old article name should redirect anyway, and it would avoid problems with the crufty types.Natalie 16:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Couples is up for a Speedy Delete, the other familes were merged, and I added a cleanup and expand template on the Bouvier page. -- Scorpion 16:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Having actually read couples all the way through, that really can go, speedy (as you have). But the families, merge for now at least. Gran2 16:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the Simpson and Bouvier family pages should be merged, because there is some duplicate information, and the Bouvier page could use a facelift. -- Scorpion 16:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Dolph

Should Dolph have his own page, or should it be merged with the Springfield Elementary School Students page? I think Jimbo and Kearney are different and individually notable enough to warrant their own pages, but Dolph is very rarely seen alone, so perhaps he should be merged. He's certainly less developed that Uter or Sherri & Terri. On a related note, do Sherri & Terri deserve their own page (I merged them with SESS a while back)? Thoughts? -- Scorpion 19:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

These are all kind of iffy... I guess I don't really care either way, if others have strong feelings about it. Natalie 20:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to merge Dolph with the students page because there's really not a lot of content there except for POV and quotes - if anyone disagrees with this, then feel free to revert it. And just as an update, I tried Couples for SD, it failed (apparantly there was a source... I didn't see one), I tried to redirect it... Some administrator reverted my edits. So, now it's up for afd. -- Scorpion 13:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Characters

I've spent the morning correcting redirects (ie. Many link to episode pages, the main character list) and you'd be amazed at some of the characters that at one point had pages (Sid (The Simpsons)). I think we should finally decide who is notable enough to have a page and who isn't, because the recurring page is getting very crowded. First, I merged some character pages:

Birch Barlow, Aristotle Amadopolis and Lucius Sweet are now in the one-times page. The Leader (The Simpsons) is now in the Movementarianism page. Now the only one-timers who do have pages are Frank Grimes and Hank Scorpio.

Now, there are 35 characters on the recurring page and we could probably easily make it 100 if we had every minor character. My thoughts:

• Wiseguy - If the Squeaky Voiced teen has a page, then so should he
• Manjula Nahasapeemapetilon - She's not a common character, but she has been central to several episodes
• Lindsey Naegle - I think she's notable enough to warrant a page.
• Drederick Tatum

Thoughts? Is there anyone that does or doesn't need their own page? -- Scorpion 15:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd add Eddie and Lou for there own page, in the same manner as Patty and Selma, plus anyone who gets to long, and maybe Judge Snyder and Jacques, whose is actually on one time. And Miss Hoover should probably have her own. Gran2 15:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Eddie & Lou or Jaques, but not Judge Snyder. And, Miss Hoover used to have a page, but I merged her. There wasn't a lot to her page. And, the one-timers page is getting big too... -- Scorpion 15:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As always I prefer one-time things to be in the episode article. That's why I propose that Movementarianism is merged into "The Joy of Life". --Maitch 15:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Don't you mean The Joy of Sect? I'd have no problem with it. I just thought it was a well written article. -- Scorpion 15:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I was about to correct it, but you beat me to it. If it is well written, then it will still be well written in the episode article. --Maitch 16:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, I'll merge it. And what do you think about reucrring character pages? Are there any that don't that do deserve one and any that don't that do? UPDATE: I actually merged it to Religion in The Simpsons - I figured it could use more content. -- Scorpion 16:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't like the character lists, because it is not clear who goes into what list. I've been trying a couple of time to set up inclusion criterias, but people doesn't like that. The way I see there are two possible ways of doing the lists:

1:

• List of characters from The Simpsons: A complete list of every character mentioned on the show (even minor one-time characters) with one sentence of information about the character.
• List of recurring characters from The Simpsons: Every character who has had a speaking part for at least two episodes.
• List of one-time characters from The Simpsons: Every character who has had a speaking part in one episode.

2:

• List of characters from The Simpsons: Every character who has had a speaking part for at least two episodes.
• List of recurring characters from The Simpsons: Redirected to List of characters from The Simpsons.
• List of one-time characters from The Simpsons: Every character who has had a speaking part in one episode.

I like the second solution best, because it doesn't clutter the main list with stuff like Unnamed "cousins", related to the Simpsons because their dog is the brother of Santa's Little Helper --Maitch 16:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the characters list is getting a little ridiculous, but I think having a general list of characters who have had speaking parts is somewhat important and it should be kept seperate from the recurring list. -- Scorpion 16:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

So I take it that you prefer the first solution. --Maitch 16:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the lists are getting pretty cluttered, but there's not a lot else we can do. I guess I do go with Number 1, because I think having a general no-descriptions list is important. A general character list would end up being cluttered and very long as well. What I'm more after is setting a standard for characters having individual pages. -- Scorpion 16:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we should probably follow Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). --Maitch 17:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Whichever of the two ways we decide to do character lists, clutter is going to be a problem. The show has been running for 18 years with hundreds of guest stars, and there are many fans out there. I have been watching List of characters from the Simpsons to prevent double listing and excessive trivia, and it's definitely a problem. Personally, I think we should list characters alphabetically by last name, so people won't be so inspired to add a character because they think he/she's not on the list. If we do list people alphabetically, we should do a list of recurring characters and a list of one time characters. If not, I think we should keep the one long list, and then have a list of recurring characters. Natalie 03:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think (after some discussions) that most people like the List of characters from the Simpsons to be one giant list, so I think you're right that it is better to list people alphabetically like the List of Shakespearean characters. But I still think that it is a good thing to limit the list to characters with a speaking part. Perhaps if we get this list under control the rest will be easier. --Maitch 14:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Planet Simpson

I'm making a page for the book and I had started it, but I can't continue it tonight and saved my progress here and I'll eventually move it to it's own mainspace page. If anyone would like to add to what little I have so far, please feel free to do so. I don't have any experience writing book pages, but basically what I'm going to do with the page is list what the book is about and give brief summaries on what each chapter is about. -- Scorpion 02:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem with WOS page?

Started a page on the Simpsons action figure line from Playmates - not sure why it's been flagged, I know I only have limited access from work so my pages are always a little rough ... can you review and give me comments?

World of Simpsons

It seems to be an important part of the Simpsons legacy - no other seroes has ever launched a 5-year succesful line so late in its run (the 11th season) plus very few other lines outside of starwars and maybe star trek have even ranged as deep as the Simpsons line - over 200 characters from the series ...

I apologize I did not join or ask you to review first. I was unaware of your project to corral all of the Simpsons info. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jbelkin800 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Well, your article is a little rough, but that is probably because you're not so familiar with the Manual of Style. People are pretty quick to tag new articles, so I wouldn't pay much attention to it. I am sure that it will not be deleted. I just need to know if you by any change copied the text from somewhere else. Wikipedia can not have copied material. --Maitch 14:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been doing some aditional work on the page in my spare time. I think it is looking better, but I would like to here from other wikipedians for things I should add. I'm not done yet on the pictures of the series, but I don't really have enough time right at the moment to upload pictures. I will reccomend a site to go to for pictures, if someone else wants to upload them. [1], click on the WOS figures link and then you will be redirected to photos of the figures. They are great promo pics and that is where I have been getting mine! So, tell me what you think and feel free to give me some ideas! Thanks!!! Supergeeky1 11:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

CFD notice

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 14:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

While were on the subject of CFD, is there a need for this category: Category:Jewish Simpsons characters? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scorpion0422 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Oy vey, no! Natalie 19:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

So... Should we nominate it for CFD? -- Scorpion 01:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so. Natalie 01:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 14:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

And, I'd like to say that it's unfair to mass nominate the Simpsons cast category with a bunch of useless cast categories for less notable TV shows and films. -- Scorpion 02:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

To respond to that, albeit a bit late, no it's not. You see, the Simpsons having something in wikipedia makes other shows wanting to have the same things. It's a precedent. The idea of these recent CFD's on categorization per performance is that it's getting annoyinginly obtrusive on some of the more notable persons with articles. As such the idea is that wikipedia is better served with "Lists of <people> by <performance>"-articles instead. To further see why this is not a useful way of categorization, envision that one of these people would introduce themselves. He would say: "Hi, my name is ... i'm a television producer" or sometimes: "Hi, my name is ... i'm a television producer on The Simpsons" (because that's his current work). He would not say: ""Hi, my name is ... i'm a television producer of The Simpsons, Alias, Lost, Knight Rider, and i wrote episodes on almost all those series as well." By tackling important series as The Simpsons, the community is setting precedents that will allow them to fully deal with what apparently at the moment many see as an important problem. It's the way wikipedia works, and I think it's good. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Character pages

While Bart and Homer have been cleaned up, Marge, Lisa, Maggie, Mr. Burns, and essentially all the other character pages are still super cruft-y. Slash and burn? Natalie 22:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's not throw caution to the wind and "slash and burn" these other character articles. When it comes to minor characters, like Mr Burns, it will be different than editing an article about Homer or Bart. With supporting characters like Mr Burns, Ned Flanders, Reverend Lovejoy, and many, many others, there is a section on their page devoted to episodes in which they play a substantial role in driving the plot. Editors of the Simpsons pages will eventually have to decide whether these sections will remain in the article or whether they will go the way of the "Miscellaneous Trivia" sections and be banished to the land of wind and ghosts. Certainly, other issues will arise with minor characters that didn't arise with Homer and Bart... so let's not make huge, sweeping edits, delete massive amounts of information, etc, until there is some consensus on how to format and style the minor character articles. --takethemud 04:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, I've cleaned up the Mr Burns article quite a bit. I did not take much content out, but I reformatted the entire article. The information is all listed where it should be and is much more concise now than it was before. In comparing it to the Bart Simpson article, the Mr Burns article actually seems a bit more readable... --takethemud 05:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the trivia section from Marge Simpson and moved the few things that are actually worth mentioning to another place in the article. --Maitch 17:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have also removed a lot of trivia from Lisa Simpson. I wish that this project could get to a point where we don't have to do damage control all the time. --Maitch 17:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Just so were clear, we're getting rid of quotes sections, "episodes character is featured in" sections (although I'm going to leave some in for some of the secondaries for thye time being), trivia sections and most other cruty list stuff? -- Scorpion 17:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds about right. --Maitch 17:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll do some secondary characters. Many pages are huges messes, such as the Flanders page (I removed 10,000+ characters and it's still a mess) -- Scorpion 18:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a minor note, I left the allusions to Smithers sexuality section intact on the Smithers page. I figured it could be made into a decent section later, and eventually I'll clean it up and just leave the more notable references. I also left the list of Troy McClures films. -- Scorpion 18:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Another question: Some pages have links to character files at Last Exit to Springfield. It's a reputable site, but is it link cruft? -- Scorpion 18:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as Flanders goes, the crufty lists are gone but the article has tons of uncited statements, like "He is a devout Christian, and is often used to satirize Christian fundamentalism, as well as the cloying "niceness" of doggedly upbeat born-again evangelicals" and "one episode of Itchy & Scratchy was enough to more or less permanently scar Rod and Todd". I'm going to bop around the internet to find some actual sources about Ned, which shouldn't be too hard, since Christians love him. I'll post links here. Natalie 20:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed the discussion, but why are we getting rid of the sections which list the episodes that characters are featured in? For secondary characters who don't drive every episode (as the Simpson family always does) but only drive the plot of a handful of episodes (like, say, Apu or Flanders), this is a useful category. I don't see it being akin to a list of miscellaneous trivia or quotes. What say you all? --takethemud 02:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think so far, we're leaving the episodes that secondary characters are featured in, and just removing it for the main family. Natalie 03:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have been clearing most episode info sections, mainly because I just saw them as cluttering cruft. Plus,the episode listing for some were ridiculous, ie. Carl had Mountain of Madness and Homer's Enemy as episodes he was central in. If you wish to readd them for some characters, go ahead, but we should probably try to reach some consensus on them. -- Scorpion 03:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Those removals make sense, since Mountain of Madness isn't about Carl, but perhaps if there was one episode that focused on Carl the information could be included. Most of the time, maybe even all the time, this info could be worked into the article as prose. For exampe: Carl Carlson is a character of the animated series the Simpsons, voiced by some guy... Carl is featured in the episode "Some Episode About Carl". There are only a few secondary characters that have been the features of more than one episode (Skinner, Apu, Flanders), but these characters still have less than 10 episodes, so prose could still work. Natalie 04:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats what I was thinking, because most of their major episode appearances are noted in the main article, so whats the need for a section. Perhaps we should consider categories. Maybe we could have a "Category: Simpsons episodes featuring Homer Simpson" and add it to each ep in which he plays a large role. Although, said categories would probably be deleted, but it may be worth considering. -- Scorpion 04:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. I think a consensus can be reached on the secondary characters. And for the Simpsons family, including them by way of a separate list might be good, seeing as at least one of them features in every episode. --takethemud 12:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Last userbox, I promise

• From Principal Charming, one of the most under-rated Simpsons episodes:

d'oh!This user is a possible Homer Sexual.

• Also, it certainly wouldn't hurt to have boxes that are Lisa, Marge and Maggie oriented. Then we'll have userboxes for all 5 family members. Any suggestions? -- Scorpion 20:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well Fr4zer has done some mediocre ones for Superintendet Chalmers and Moe. But as the other guys well...

• SUCK | This user shot Mr. Burns.
• LISA | If anyone wants this user, they'll be in their room. What kind of userbox is that?

No idea for Marge though. Gran2 21:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made a sub page for userboxes, so now we don't have to worry about cluttering the main WikiProject page. One idea I had for Maggie is:

• MS | This user attended the Ayn Rand School for Tots. -- Scorpion 19:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Season 19

The first small bits of information have already been starting to come out and I've had to prevent a user from creating a Season 19 page. I've got the potential page on watch and I'll nominate any attempts to create a page for Speedy delete. But, when should we allow one to be made? I think it should be when the first Season 19 episode (which would probably be THOH18) is confirmed, either through interviews or the copyright database. Thoughts? -- Scorpion 03:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I say not yet, unless there is more than a paragraph's worth of verifiable information. Natalie 04:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, if all we got are titles and air dates, then we don't need a season 19 article, because that information could be in the list of episodes. We should therefore wait for information like confirmed guest stars and plots. --Maitch 20:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Theme articles

The politics in the Simpsons article is up for afd here, but perhaps we need to come up with a consesus on theme articles in general. There are currently 5 theme articles: politics, religion, education, media and travel (and I'm working on Environment and Sports theme pages) and I think it doesn't hurt to have them. They contain important information so that you don't need to clog up the main Simpsons page with it. But, they have as of late become cluttered and filled with POV and OR, but they shouldn't be that hard to clean up. Thoughts? Opinions? -- Scorpion 05:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, these pages lack the out-of-universe perspective that so many Simpson articles doesn't have. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to make a summary of everything that happened on The Simpsons. I don't think that you should create more of these unless you have sources other than primary sources. --Maitch 20:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)