Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons/Archive 4

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Kbdank71 in topic CfD Notice
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8
Latest comment: 16 years ago26 comments10 people in discussion

This wouldn't work for most of the secondary characters because they haven't been in enough episodes, But why not make categories to keep track of character-centric episodes. ie. "category:The Simpsons episodes featuring Homer Simpson" and then include a link to that category from the Homer page.

  • Pros
    • It would be an easy way to list Homer episodes without making a crufty list
    • It wouldn't count as category cruft if we only use it for major characters (family, Flanders, Burns, Moe, a few others)
  • Cons
    • It would hard to keep track of what episodes are added
    • Some may target the categories for cfd

Thoughts? Opinions? Complaints? -- Scorpion 17:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I was actually thinking yesterday, about suggesting a list similar in style to the guest star list, listed each episode, with the character(s) it was mainly centred around, even including the sub-plot. But this could be impractically, and cruftastic, but it would elimate the need from the "episodes about character" sections in any of the articles. The category idea, could work though. Gran2 18:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
A list would basically just be called cruft, but categories are more practical. If we do it, we should limit it to characters who have featured prominently in 10-15 episodes. -- Scorpion 18:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Keeping it the way it was in many articles is the best way to do it. It's easy for people to find if they are interested in the subject - consider, reading about Mr Burns and then learning the episodes he is in. It's better than making separate lists for each character, too. There are many characters who may have driven the plots of only a few episodes, like Apu, for instance. By keeping the "Episodes Featuring" section in the article, we can keep all the content but not have to make a list of a few episodes. --takethemud 19:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
As already established, such lists are considered cruft and they clutter the pages and they are frowned upon by Wikipedia. Using ctaegories, you can have a direct link right to the category from the character page and it eliminates page cruft, and there is no need to make a list cruft page. -- Scorpion 19:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea for any characters that have been featured in a lot of episodes - I'd even say 5 could be considered a lot for everyone other than the main family. And for those who've been featured in a few episodes, this information can be written in prose in the introduction to the character. Natalie 21:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I also think this is a good idea. --Maitch 21:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Thinking about it, it would be good for the episode capsules, as a majority of them do only have one category, so yeah, good idea. Gran2 21:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Very well, I'll start on categorizing tomorrow. I think takethemud has gotten started already. -- Scorpion 02:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a small nitpicky detail, should the categories be called:
"The Simpsons episodes featuring ______"
"Episodes of The Simpsons featuring ______" -- Scorpion 02:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't care either way, as long as it's consistent. Natalie 02:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Here are the characters I'm going to create categories for: Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa, Maggie, Grampa, Patty & Selma, Burns, Moe, Flanders, Apu, Skinner, Krabapel, Sideshow Bob, Milhouse, Nelson, Santa's Little Helper, Krusty others?
Debatable characters: Barney, Fat Tony, Smithers, Ralph, Itchy & Scratchy (there are 5 or 6), others? -- Scorpion 02:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
also, for those creating categories, please use full names: Homer Simpson, Ned Flanders, etc. Using plain Krusty should be fine. Basically go by what the official page names are. -- Scorpion 02:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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

  • The Mr. Burns category has been nominated for cfd. Assistance is keeping it is appreciated. -- Scorpion 14:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This information would be far more comprehensive if you used a list rather than a category. For instance, you could create a table listing all episodes (of a season, if it gets too long otherwise) and add columns for each character, and a checkmark if it appears in there (or total minutes of air time, if you really want). >Radiant< 15:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It's still list cruft no matter which way you look at it. What policies are these categories breaking? -- Scorpion 15:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Why would it be listcruft and not categorycruft? I don't care if somebody calls something "cruft", I care that the information is organized and accessible. A table such as the below lets me find episodes containing Bart but not Homer easily. It lets me see things by season. It lets me count which character occurs more often, or has more "focused" episodes. That's why it's more comprehensive than a category. >Radiant< 15:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Episode Homer Marge Mr. Burns Bumblebee Guy
E-I-E-I-Annoyed Grunt X X
Who Shot Mr. Burns X X X X
Kamp Krusty X X
I might just be repeating what other people are saying. I think that the "featured in" stuff should just refer to when a character has a very prominent role. For instance, Mr. Burns appears in "Diatribe of a Mad Housewife", in which he fires Homer in the first five minutes. A more appropriate episode to put in his list would be "Homer vs. Dignity", where he pays Homer to make a fool of himself. Just what I think the content should be.- JustPhil  15:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Good idea...but it may be confusing to some viewers. I would choose three important episodes that describe who the character is and what he/she does. --WTGDMan1986 (D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams) 14:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think a sort of reverse vehicle would be very useful - on the contrary, I think the secondary characters are the ones who should have an index of their appearances, because their sparseness makes them harder to locate and reference. The episodes in which Seymour Skinner is featured are endless... but when I was trying to identify which non-Treehouse of Horror episodes Kang and Kodos has been in, I didn't have a ready resource. Any thoughts? LeSaint 01:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Now What?

Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

I am amazed at how many people came out of nowhere to vote delete in the categories cfd. More people voted delete in that one than have voted delete in the past 5 cfds on that page. I never really got why people get so head up over categories and insist the "useless" ones get immediately deleted. The irony is that most non-Wikipedian users never see them and thus categories in general are wasteful, and yet, when we come up with a practical way to use them, it's "Over categorization" even though there is only one existing Simpsons ep category. I also enjoyed the irony that Takethemud turned on the categories and voted delete when the idea for them sprung from his whining about me deleting cruft filled lists from character pages. So, what do we do about episode lists? I really don't think lists are needed that much, they are clutter and subject to tonnes of useless edits, so I think we should just leave character pages without episode lists and have links to the character eps lists at SNPP. -- Scorpion 21:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I say we leave them in the articles. I disagree they are "cruft", "clutter", or subject to useless edits. The list on the Mr Burns page, for example, is remarkably stable and in the recent past has undergone very few edits. They take up room, that is true, but it is not extraneous information, and I would argue is extremely relevant to articles about these characters. Further, I take exception to you characterizing my discussion with you as "whining", which I consider to be a personal attack upon me. I was under the impression we engaged in a civil discourse about how to best maintain the information in Wikipedia. Given your recent sweeping deletions of that information from every article, without placing it elsewhere on Wikipedia, I felt that creating categories was the only way to preserve the content while appeasing you and drawing your slash and burn campaign to a close. Otherwise, I felt your edits would remove important information from Wikipedia that may be able to be incorporated elsewhere in the project. Thus, I created the category, even though I personally felt the list was best left in the articles. When it came up for deletion, I expressed myself through a vote as I am entitled to do. In the meantime, I am in favor of restoring for each character the list of episodes in which they play a substantial role in driving the plot and leaving the content in the articles until a consensus is reached, through discussion, about what to do with the information. My vote is to leave it in the article, and if that is not met with agreement by other editors, to create a separate page, listing each character and the episodes in which they star. --takethemud 21:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


I don't particularly like the look of the lists, and I think they break up the flow of the article. But having looked at a few of the character pages, I think there are only a few characters with this problem (Burns, Flanders, Grandpa). Obviously, one could argue that every Simpsons episodes is about the main family, and most of the secondary characters have had less than a dozen episodes about them or heavily involving them. So, any kind of category or list is completely unnecessary for the main family (because they're in all the episodes) or most of the secondary characters (can be put in prose). Given that, I'm okay with keeping the lists in a few select articles - those characters outside the main family (Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa, and Maggie) that have starred in more than 10 episodes. But I liked the categories idea better. Perhaps we can put this up for deletion review at some point soon.Natalie 23:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the main family should not have the episode lists for the reasons you stated, Natalie. So, your proposal would be for certain characters (Burns, Moe, Flanders, etc.) have the list, and for others with only a few episodes under their belt, include the episodes in the introductory paragraph? If so, I agree, except that I'd propose we lower the bar to, say, 3 episodes or less goes in the intro paragraph, more than that in a list. Otherwise, the intro paragraph may get to be a bit too long... --takethemud 23:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
As far as I remember, the ideal length for introductory sections is 2-3 paragraphs, so even a prose list of more than three episodes wouldn't be too much trouble as far as length goes. But as far as I know, Simpsons characters seem to be either featured in one or two episodes, or 50+ episodes. It's a pretty big drop-off. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Natalie Erin (talk • contribs) 00:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
Wow - that bot is fast. Natalie 00:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Character lists are not needed. Most characters from most other shows don't have lists, I don't see why Simpsons characters should be any different. If you really insist that there be a list, then link to an eps list from The Simpsons Archive. -- Scorpion 02:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Scorpion, do you have any interest in getting deletion review on the categories? If the general consensus is that these categories are never going to fly, than I wonder if there's any interest in knowing this information at all. Natalie 04:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

There's really no point. It was worth a try, but its obvious that people are against the category idea. -- Scorpion 04:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
In that case, I'm reading that as little interest in even knowing what episodes a character was featured in. Perhaps in that case, there will also be little tolerance for lists. Natalie 04:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The thing about that is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a fan site. We can link to a page, but I think that Wikipedia should be limited to character information and having a list really doesn't add much. -- Scorpion 04:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Natalie 05:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"Recurring jokes in The Simpsons‎" up for deletion

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I just wanted to notify people that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recurring jokes in The Simpsons‎ is up for deletion. --Maitch 13:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

So far so good. Six keeps to one delete. --The Dark Side 03:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Episodes featuring _____ lists

Latest comment: 17 years ago13 comments11 people in discussion

I think we should come to a final decision on such lists, because after our failed experiment with categories, we've sorta just gone in opposite directions on the issue. I think we should put it to a vote, and although there are only 5 or 6 members of the project who frequently post here, I'll post messages on the talk pages of active members and get more opinions.

The question: Do character articles need "episodes featuring this character lists". Vote Support if you feel that articles should have episode lists, and oppose if you feel they do not. -- Scorpion 05:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Small characters can/will have important episodes in their body text (and probably shouldn't have articles if they are so small as to have only a handful of appearances), and for large characters it would be virutally impossible to police such a list and define what 'featured' means. What potential usefulness would such a list be anyway? Major storyline issues in a character's history should be referenced by episode in the character's article body already anyway. TheHYPO 05:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It will take up too much space. --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 06:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As said, it can be in the text if it was an important episode for the character, so the lists arn't that important. I mean Roger Meyers page listed Trash of the Titans as his "notable appearances", kindly telling us that it was (non-speaking), thus proving it wasn't that important. So I say no. Gran2 07:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I don't think that character articles should have list as a rule, but do think that such lists can be valuable in certain situations, e.g. in cases of minor characters who are only featured occasionally. Ideally, all important episodes would be mentioned in the course of the article, but in practice it often doesn't work out that way. si»abhorreo»T 08:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - As I've written elsewhere (incl. on this page), I believe this is useful information and should be included on the character pages in a separate section, especially for those characters with 4-5 or more episodes under their belt. For characters with less than 4-5 episodes, I say keep the list in the body of the article. Alternatively, I'd say we should list the episodes in which they star in the "See also" section. Lastly, considering their unique role in the series, I'd say there should be an exception for Kang and Kodos. --takethemud 14:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Since this issue was brought up, the overall consensus has been that this information is unnecessary. Natalie 18:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per TheHYPO --The Dark Side 23:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Remark: if most people don't want such lists in the articles on the characters, other people are of course welcome to make such lists in a separate article, e.g. List of The Simpsons episode by main character or somesuch. That may be the best compromise. >Radiant< 11:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I think the episode listing should be there but only for smaller characters that play a main part. For example Nelson Muntz in Lisa's Date with Density is a main role so that should be on his page, but Homer plays some kind of major part in most, if not all, episodes so there should not be a list for him. Fr4zer 12:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Remark - I already opposed, but I would like to add that if a minor character has notable episodes that for some reason aren't notable enough to be noted in the body, "see also" is readily available for links to the article on specific episodes that might also be important. What I think is a better solution that people should strive for is to go in and start citing things in bodies of the character's article using Wikipedia's citation/reference system. For example as above: Nelson's article mentions dating Lisa, but the episode name is not given and the info point is not cited. If the information was cited, instead of occasional use of "in the episode [blah]," in the body. I suggest changing all such references to footnote references, and write the articles encyclopedicaly as if the stuff actually occured. TheHYPO 14:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree, that would be a Very Good Thing. Facts are often pulled out of thin air in Simpsons articles, the sort of thing you wont get away with in "general" articles. It would be quite a task to track down episode-specific references for existing information, though. In any case, I don't really think that this would fully address the issue here. All the episodes that would be mentioned in an episode list wont necessarily have any information pulled from them in the articles body. si»abhorreo»T 04:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think this would be a tricky thing to maintain - I'm sure at least half the episodes have at least one shot of Moe and Burns somewhere, so the page of episodes featuring either would be almost a list of all episodes. Then if you try to limit it to only episodes where they have a 'significant' role in the plot, you'll have a constant struggle (as we had with the Neologisms page) of people adding episodes that don't really belong. I quite like lists, but I'm a crufty kind of person and I guess I do appreciate the benefit of paragraphs of text as opposed to lists as being more encyclopedic. So for me, the best way to address this would be for the pages of minor/semimajor characters to list some prominent episodes where they've been involved in the plot (which I'm sure those pages already do)Sorry I missed the point there, the proposal is not for new pages, but I still think avoiding a formal list would be a good thing. BTW if you're considering real list pages, you could consider using ListGenBot to assist with page generation and auto-update --Mortice 19:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Video Game Appearances

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Many Simpsons characters have a section in their article devoted to "Video Game Appearances". These sections usually have the name of the videogame and then a few sentences about what role the character plays in the video game.

Question: Should character articles include a section devoted to discussing their appearances in Simpsons video games? If so, please write Support and briefly discuss your reasoning; If not, please write Oppose and briefly discuss your reasoning. Any ideas for what to do with these sections (e.g., delete wholly, moved name of game to see also section, etc) are welcome.... --takethemud 14:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Whole section on its own. Keep all of the info, just re-title to "appearances in other media" or "other appearances". This means it can include video games, comics, adverts, pther non simpsons shows/films, etc. A good addition to articles. Gran2 14:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I like Gran's idea. This will help with the in-universe perspective that dominates most of the character articles. Natalie 18:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Gran2. --The Dark Side 23:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per Gran2 -- Scorpion 02:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Guide to sources

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have written a guide to sources based on my experiences getting The Simpsons featured. Hopefully this will save a lot of time with adding the wrong kind of sources to the article and perhaps lead the way for another FA or FL. Feel free to add stuff. --Maitch 14:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Help with 'Round Springfield

Latest comment: 17 years ago20 comments3 people in discussion

Someone has finally given my some feedback for this articles GAC, with the problems mostly centering around what is highlighted in Maitch's source guide, the fact that I've used SNPP as a reference in the article, simply because there arn't any other avaliable internet sources. So any help with finding other sources and any other improvents to the article would be greatly appreciated. Gran2 15:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, mostly you use The Simpsons Archive for basic facts, which can also be found in the book The Simpsons: A Complete Guide to Our Favorite Family p. 173. --Maitch 15:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I took a second look on the article and I think you should get rid of any information that comes from The Simpsons Archive. You could delete the cultural references section. --Maitch 16:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather not delete the cultural references, but it is becomming increasingly likely, simply because od the SNPP refs. I spent about 20 minutes trying to find a non-snpp reference for the Kimba the White Lion thing, and there just wasn't anything else. I found a faniste for it, with masses of info on the show, but not a single word about The Simpsons. So, I suppose the cult refs are going to have to go, unless any one else has any good ideas? Gran2 18:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any ideas. Sometimes the book The Simpsons: A Complete Guide to Our Favorite Family has a few cultural references, but it doesn't have any for this episode. --Maitch 22:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The way I've come to understand it, SNPP is an acceptable source up until the FA level. For example, Homer Simpson passed with dozens of SNPP references and Homerpalooza was failed, but the reviewee (an admin) said nothing about the sources. It all depends on who the reviewer is. -- Scorpion 04:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the only reason why some people pass an article with SNPP references on GA level, is because people don't spend that much time reviewing these articles. I think it is a bad idea for us to exploit this and it only creates more work if a person decides to try and make a FA. --Maitch 12:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, really just how many episode pages can ever become FAs? They just don't have enough scope or importance to ever become FAs, so GAs are the only realistic level for most episode pages, maybe a few season 1 pages could. But we can try, and although I don't want to do it, we probably should remove the cultural references, if this reviewer won't allow SNPP refs. Gran2 12:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Even if we don't go for FA level I still think it is better to follow policy. There are actually two TV episode FA's ("Abyssinia, Henry" and "Pilot" (House)) so it is not impossible. --Maitch 13:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Well that ended my argument! The cult refs can go (the bleeding gums past and pics are fine), but we could use a recption section in its place. But this could be stupid as the only things we have to on a the viewer (if it can be found), the snpp reviews and the tv.com and imdb scores. Any other ideas for it? Or is it just stupid? Gran2 16:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Right here is a look at the version with a reception section, as opposed to cult refs. As long as we have the snpp link at the bottom they arn't that necessary. Now for getting rid of all of the other SNPP refs.

  1. The couch gag - Maitch, does the book make any reference at all to the couch gag? If not then SNPP will have to be used for this one.
  2. Phil Hartman as Lionel Hutz - As he is a de facto guest this doesn't really need to be mentioned, but if not then IMDB provides the same info.
  3. This raises a continuity error, as Milhouse already had his appendix out in "Homer Defined". - I put this in a while back,. but really isn't important and thus can go.
  4. The title is a play on both the jazz standard 'Round Midnight by Thelonious Monk and the similarly named film about an unappreciated jazz musician. - This BBC link provides the same info and is more official than SNPP [1]

This you would probably only need the one. Gran2 19:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The BBC page you have found is a great ressource. If you look at the bottom it is taken from the book "I Can't Believe It's a Bigger and Better Updated Unofficial Simpsons Guide" which is a reliable source. Use that source. It features a complete guest star list, the couch gag and some other bits that are useful. --Maitch 22:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
So we're using the book? It's only I don't know the page number. Gran2 06:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
You could just use the link. It seems like the BBC has made a deal to reproduce the material on their web page.--Maitch 17:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I doubled it up and used both, not going to hurt. Gran2 18:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, I think the version with the reception mentioned is better. --Maitch 22:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, Round Springfield is my least favourite episode... You can add that... And, the House Pilot is really a great article. Perhaps we should try to do the same with Simpsons Roasting, although any usable reviews would be 18+ years old, so there may not be a lot on the internet. Last Exit would be a good one too because it's been named Best episode ever by EW. -- Scorpion 23:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
We should perhaps do Last Exit, because it has been named the best episode. I think those episodes that could go all the way to FA, are those with an interesting production back story. --Maitch 17:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I think Some Enchanted Evening is one to add as well, seeing as from a production point of view it was the first, especially with the infamous first screening. Gran2 18:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Once again, having non-IMDB, TV.com or SNPP reviews will be hard, but that would also be a good one. -- Scorpion 18:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Two AFD's

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have nominated List of stereotypes in The Simpsons and List of Homer Simpson's lifelong dreams. --Maitch 16:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Robbie F

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I just thought I'd warn people to watch out for this guy. He's been merging character pages with no discussion (such as Lionel Hutz) and has been adding unencyclopedic nonsense to articles, for example:

So keep an eye out for this guy, and revert any nonsense he adds. -- Scorpion 20:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah the Gerald Ford one really did make me laugh, he deleted a massive section in Sideshow Bob's article as well. Gran2 21:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Homerpalooza

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I was wondering if some people wouldn't mind taking a look at Homerpalooza (which is on its 4th GAC nom) and giving me some helpful suggestions. I've gotten very lucky because I was able to find some good articles (ie. this one) that had stuff that wasn't elaborated on in the DVD commentary. -- Scorpion 19:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you should expand the summary. --Maitch 21:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The Production paragraph is a little choppy, since the paragraph really doesn't have a single subject. I would break after the writer visiting Lollapalooza at least, and maybe add a little more on the bad act break (quote from the episode commentary?Natalie 21:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)).
I'll work on that section a little more. But, for the production, I'm trying to limit the number of sections, which is why I grouped many under one heading. Perhaps I'll move the Rover Hendrix sentence to the reception section. As for the summary, I am opposed to long windy summaries that have every joke, and I prefer shorter ones that include mostly just the main points. The problem is that the second & third acts of the episode don't have a lot of main plot in them, so the summary is a tad short. -- Scorpion 02:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the summary is fine. You get a good sense of what happened without feeling like your reading a script. Natalie 02:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've made some revisions to the article. I think the reception section could use some cleanup, but I think the rest is pretty good. -- Scorpion 14:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Naming episodes

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

i have been reading a lot of the simpsons related pages and i've realised that while a lot of information is given on characters and references to previous episodes, the actual episode which the event happened is not linked to. Compared to other shows i find this strange, since a lot of work appears to already have been put in... --SleweD 12:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the character pages are pretty hit or miss - some of them have been worked on a lot recently, and others are huge piles of crap. As people spend more time cleaning up the pages, there will be more citations, which will include a link to the episode article. Natalie 14:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Kang and Kodos needs a lot of help. LeSaint 06:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Season DVD's

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I recently saw that Futurama DVD commentaries have been nominated for AFD and that they also mention The Simpsons DVD commentaries in the discussion. So I think it is a good idea to discuss what to with this page before it also gets nominated for AFD.

I find it a bit stupid that not all the information related to one season DVD is available the same place. This leads me to think that The Simpsons DVD boxsets and The Simpsons DVD commentaries should be merged. This would create a fairly long list, so I was thinking that it would be better to include all the DVD information in the season articles. Thoughts? --Maitch 17:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course the commentary information could also be merged with the episode articles. --Maitch 19:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the boxsets and commentaries pages should be merged. The page really isn't THAT crowded, and we could do all the information chart style. -- Scorpion 21:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Natalie 21:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Planet Simpson

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have finally created an article for Planet Simpson and it needs a lot of work. There's not a lot there right now. Any suggestions would be more than welcome. -- Scorpion 21:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles we should get deleted

Latest comment: 17 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion

I have been looking over the categories, and here are the articles I believe should be deleted with little discussion.

General

Locations

Writers

Directors

Look at their articles and you'll know why. At the very least, they need expanding.

More comin' -- Scorpion 23:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion notes

I nominated the writers & directors for AFD. There are other Simpsons writers (ie. Jace Richdale) who have small articles, but have been credited for multiple shows, were a producer for multiple seasons or wrote several episodes. More afds will be coming for some of the other stated articles. -- Scorpion 03:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow. I'm amazed that the articles in the general section have survived this long. Good job ferreting those out. Natalie 03:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that random editors create these, but don't add categories so they aren't easy to track down. The only reason I was able to find most of them is because I checked the Simpsons Stubs category. -- Scorpion 03:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thankfully, the Fasterossa was SDed, but Bimonscificon is up for AFD. Amazingly, this article survived a year and a half. -- Scorpion 05:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Spruce Moose is now up for deletion. That one may be a little troublesome because the article also details several other unrelated NN Spruce Mooses. -- Scorpion 05:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Springfield Isotopes and Sprawl-Mart are now up for afd. I am now done for the night. -- Scorpion 05:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
We should remember to redirect the deleted pages, because it is very likely that they will pop up again if we don't do it. --Maitch 11:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it looks like the Isotopes page may make it through. -- Scorpion 16:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, you can just suggest this in the AFD's. The problem is that most of these doesn't fit into one place (e.g. being mentioned in several episodes). --Maitch 16:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the Springfield Isotopes could be redirected, but bimonscificon and the Spruce Moose are such minor details of their respective episodes that they really hould just be deleted. -- Scorpion 17:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that Spruce Moose or Springfield Isotopes gets deleted, so it really doesn't matter. --Maitch 08:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons (season 17)

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

A while back The Simpsons (season 2) was tried for FL, but was rejected. Having discovered that The Simpsons (season 17) was a pretty good page last weekend, I've been cleaning it up and now its pretty close to FL quality. I think it meets most of what was objected with season 2, the summaries are a reasonable length and the lead is good (these were the reasons why this page stood out to me when I saw it). The images all have fair use rationales, the episode's are in quotes and it is referenced. It still needs work, and probably a good copyedit but I think it is close. Gran2 18:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The list is very nice, but Simpsons Channel can't be used as a source, so we should either drop the ratings info or find other sources. --Maitch 20:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, I was thinking that these articles perhaps should be moved to "List of The Simpsons season x episodes". --Maitch 20:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I thought Simpsons Channel would be a problem so yes if possible (although it will be hard) we could get other refs, but personally I'm in favour of just deleting them. I don't see why they were listed before the title anyway, the ratings arn't more important than the title. As for the "List of The Simpsons season x episodes", well i think they were before but the The Simpsons (season x) was chosen instead, I personally prefer the The Simpsons (season x) but if it is best we could change it to "List of" format. Gran2 21:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know, you'll probably have to add a ref to each episode and link to its page on the official site. It shouldn't be that hard to do, but just a heads up. I had to add individual refs to 100 sepate columns on this page in order to get it promoted to FL. It's pretty good right now. As for the ratings, you may be able to find them on the official Nielson website, but I never managed to figure out how to work that site... -- Scorpion 03:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I tried the nielsen website... And then moved on and just removed the ratings. Now for the refs for the episodes, I'm putting them next to each epsiode title, as it seems the best place. Gran2 11:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking. Wouldn't it be better with a screenshot for "Marge and Homer Turn a Couple Play". The promo kind of breaks the format of the list. --Maitch 12:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that or crop it, the other official images were cropped to fit better, I don't know why that one wasn't. Refs for each episode are now done. I've changed the ref for Kelsey Grammer winning an Emmy to a CNN one. The second ref from the Futon Critic didn't actually say what it was apparently meant to so I've changed it. But.. I changed it to a news article, which is fine, but the original thing doesn't exist anymore (at least I can't find it) so its can from Findarticles.com, I've put the original website name in the ref along with "at find articles.com". This shouldn't really be a problem, but if it is, finding another ref would be helpful. Gran2 12:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Cape Feare

Latest comment: 17 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion

I have now rewritten the article for this episode and nominated it for GA. I hope that it might be FA worthy, because I think it is about as good as Pilot (House). --Maitch 14:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Woah, that is very good. You inspired me to do yet another episode page. I agree this could be FA worthy. Gran2 09:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, I think it was considerably easier to do that episode compared to Round Springfield and Homerpalooza. I am working on Some Enchanted Evening now. There is a chapter dedicated to The Simpsons Spin-Off Showcase in the book Leaving Springfield. I don't know if you got it, but if do not have it I can take a look at it when you are done. --Maitch 15:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be, I've started work on Homer's Phobia as well, which is good because it won an Emmy, and I finally bought A Complete Guide to Our Favourite Family (took me long enough), and the other book would be helpful, thanks. Homerpalooza has passed its GA now, I really hope Round Springfield does soon, its on hold expired yesterday. Ah well. I'll carry on with these other two for now. Gran2 16:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Right Homer's Phobia is done, a large production section and a reception section that prvoed pretty easy to do especially as it won an Emmy. All it needs now is a few more images, I'll get these later, a bit of a check over and I'll nom it for GA. Gran2 20:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Didn't Homer's Phobia win some kind of gay awareness award? --Maitch 21:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I figured it out myself. This episode won several awards.
  1. Annie Award for Best Individual Achievement: Directing in a TV Production
  2. Emmy Award for Outstanding Animated Program (For Programming One Hour or Less)
  3. GLAAD Media Award (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, USA) for Outstanding TV - Individual Episode
  4. WAC Winner for Best Director for Primetime Series
The information is from SNPP, so we need to find some other reliable sources. --Maitch 21:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. [3]
  2. Done already
  3. Best I can find is IMDB which isn't that good is it?
  4. Just SNPP...

1/3 isn't that bad. Anyone else do better? Gran2 23:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As an update, I'm going to start on Last Exit to Springfield and eventually Marge vs. the Monorail Some random guy announced he wanted to work on The Joy of Sect, but I think he probably won't follow through on that. I'm glad Homerpalooza was finally promoted. I've been trying to get it to GA since December and finally it's been promoted. -- Scorpion 21:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations by the way. We now have the know how as to what we need to do in order to produce quality episode articles. I think we can fairly quick produce a bunch of GA's and perhaps a few FA's this way.--Maitch 21:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
So I'm guessing we can finally cross off part of "Define two manuals of style for the individual character and episode articles." then? Good work. Gran2 22:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, we have not actually written the manual yet and I don't think we have got the formula for characters either. If anyone is interested this old page (Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Style guide) was started at the beginning of this project. Perhaps we should update it. --Maitch 22:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Last Exit is almost ready for a GA run, but I don't think it would have much of a chance at becoming FA, because there isn't a lot of production info. Homerpalooza might have a shot, but it would need some work. -- Scorpion 23:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated Homer's Phobia, I had to use IMDB for theother awards, but that's better than SNPP. I did find the GLAAD reveiw of the episode though, so I added that. Gran2 09:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I have also updated the style guide a bit. Gran2 09:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

My idea for DVD commentaries

Latest comment: 17 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

{{SimpsDVD|Matt Groening, Al Jean, David Mirkin, Bill Oakley, Josh Weinstein and Mike Reiss|7}} At first I was stumped because I wanted to include who is in DVD commentaries on episode pages, but I couldn't figure out how without adding a sloppy triia-esque thing. Then I came up with this. It still needs work, but what do you guys think? -- Scorpion 01:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Natalie 01:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's how it works: {{SimpsDVD|participants|season (MUST BE IN NUMBERS)}}
so {{SimpsDVD|[[David Mirkin]], [[Bob Hope]] and [[Marge Simpson]]|5}} would become {{SimpsDVD|David Mirkin, Bob Hope and Marge Simpson|5}}
Comments? -- Scorpion 02:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well is it okay to use the images? Regardless I like it, it certainly cures the dvd problem. Gran2 09:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

We are not allowed to use fair use images in templates. --Maitch 15:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh. Well, I thought the images were a nice little touch, but we can just as easily remove them. -- Scorpion 16:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
What section should these templates be put in? --Maitch 17:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Wherever it fits/looks good in. I put it in the Cultural Refs section on the Homerpalooza article simply because it was the only place where there was enough room. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scorpion0422 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
I've just put it in the external links section, above the wikiquote template. Gran2 17:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The Simpsons DVD commentaries has been nominated for deletion. Gran2 22:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I refer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons#Season DVD's. --Maitch 22:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be nicer if the DVD commentary participants were included in the infobox instead of in a template at the bottom? --Maitch 22:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I gave it a try and you can see the results on the Homerpalooza page. -- Scorpion 14:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I prefer if there is a break between the names, but besides that I think this is the way to go. --Maitch 15:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis length

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

What is the ideal length of the synopsis for an episode article? I think we should define how long or short they should be in the style guide. I personally think that Homerpalooza is a bit short. Cape Feare could perhaps be slightly trimmed and 'Round Springfield is very long. I think that any Simpson related synopsis should be shorter than the lenth of Pilot (House), since that is an one-hour show. --Maitch 16:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the length of Homer's Phobia is about right, A Milhouse Divided does the same. Not overlylong, but summarising the plot and having a couple of bits of extra details. Gran2 16:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been evaluating the synopsis length of a few episodes. Pilot (House) is about 4000 characters. Those you mentioned are about 2500-2600 characters. Cape Feare is 2700 characters. Last Exit is 3700 characters. I think the ideal length is about 2600 characters. --Maitch 17:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the length depends on the episode. Homerpalooza doesn't have a lot in terms of main plot, so it has a short synopsis. Last Exit has amuch more involved plot and it has a longer synopsis. There really shouldn't be a set character count. -- Scorpion 17:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the number is only an ideal number and should only be something we should get as close to as possible. I'm not suggesting that anything else but 2600 characters is unacceptable. Last Exit to Springfield is really not that complex. It is all about not getting into too many details. --Maitch 22:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There have been very long discussions about this lately on WP:WAF. There are a few important things:

  1. An overly long or (even worse) scene by scene description is most likely a copyright violation of the original work. Make sure it stays a synopsis/summary.
  2. The amount of real world context in the article (ergo that which is not synopsis). That which has made a large impact on the real world, might require a more extensive explanation of the fictional world that created the influence.

I think around the 2000-3000 chars is a proper amount for a synopsis. Don't forget that the episode of House you pointed at is also the Pilot episode and as such "sets the seting". This is one of those things that can require a more extensive summary. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:The Simpsons cast members

Latest comment: 17 years ago20 comments4 people in discussion

User:Lugnuts has recently decided that guest starring in a single episode of the show constitutes as being part of the cast and has started adding a bunch of guest stars to the cast member category. We can not come to an agreement, so some opinions would be appreciated. Are guest stars regular cast members? -- Scorpion 19:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Dan Castellnetta, Harry Shearer, Hank Azira, Julie Kanver, Yeardley Smith, Nancy Cartwright, Tress McNielle, Pamela Hayden, Russi Taylor, Marcia MG, Karl Weidergott, Maggie Roswell, Phil Hartman, Doris Grau, Marcia Wallace, etc.

Are the main cast.

But: Kelsey Grammar, Jon Lovitz, Albert Brooks, Jan Hooks, etc. should all be included.

I've probably missed a few, but my main point is, no one shot guest stars. Gran2 20:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Scorpio is obviously wrong, as per the merging/moving of the cast members CfD result [4] Now look at say, Sam McMurray's page and you'll see him in categories for each show he's guested in. Scorpio is just nitpicking on the terminology over cast member and guest cast member. I don't see how populating The Simpsons cast members category with all guest people is any worse than this [5], or this [6], or this [7], or this [8], or this [9]. I think the whole point of the CfD was that people wanted to retain the categories of guest/cast members and not just have some list. Lugnuts 20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • So what? Just because it happens in those categories means we have to do it! They are NOT main cast members and they should not be listed as main cast members. Hence why they are not here. Make a new category called "guest stars who ahve appeared on The Simpsons" or something.-- Scorpion 20:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
      • So what are the odds of the first 5 categories I randomly picked being wrong?! The category for guest stars already existing for those shows and have been renamed/merged! Lugnuts 20:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I quote from the closing statement of the CFD: Guest roles do not count, even if they appear more than once. --Maitch 20:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Is this better? [23]

How long do you reckon before someone goes CfD on it, poindexter? Lugnuts 20:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I never said you should do a category like that. I just said they BELONG in a guest star category as opposed to a CAST MEMBER category. You really are acting like a baby here. -- Scorpion 20:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Make a new category called "guest stars who ahve appeared on The Simpsons" or something -- Scorpion 20:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reads like make a new category called "guest stars who have appeared on The Simpsons" to me... D'oh! Lugnuts 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"Hall of famer Whitey Ford has come out onto the field to try and plead for some sort of saniety." Calm down Lugnuts. This really isn't something to get so worked up about. I think Scorpion is right about the cast member catrgory. The separate guest star one is good (van johnson good) and is the best way to solve the problem. Gran2 22:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Another writer

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just discovered that another low key Simpsons writer has a page. Allen Glazier wrote 2 episodes and according to IMDB, has done nothing else. I that instead of going for an afd here, maybe we should merge the page with List of writers of The Simpsons, that way anyone searching for him will at least be led to the right area... -- Scorpion 04:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just for those curious, I have been some reassessment of articles, and I have changed my criteria. I almost created a special assessment page, but this is a relatively small project, not like WP:albums or books or television and all of the articles have been evaluated.

Many of the articles are listed as mostly books and video games, but I have decided to make some changes. Here was my criteria before:

  • Top: Family, MG, show, blah blah blah
  • High: main characters, Sam Simon, James L. Brooks, Al Jean, David Silverman, seasons, important locations, important lists, credits stuff, 6 main cast members
  • Mid: Episodes, more important writers & directors, show runners, secondary characters, semi-important locales, a few lists, other cast members
  • Low: Directors, writers, other characters, animation studios, in-universe stuff, locations
  • None: Video games, one-time writers, guests voicing recurring characters, minor cruftish stuff

But, I have changed the last three to:

  • Mid: Episodes, show runners, Swartzwelder, Kirkland, Vitti, secondary and ALL other characters with pages, semi-important locales, a few lists, other cast members
  • Low: Everything directly from the shows universe that does not fit mid, high or top and everything that was made because of the show (books, video games, CDs, etc), ALL writers/directors and other crew who were not EPs or mentioned above who have been credited with multiple episodes OR have had a producer credit, also includes producers (Sakai, Sirkot, etc)
  • None: one or two time writers, guests voicing recurring characters, phrases not invented by the show.

Thoughts? Comments? -- Scorpion 05:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it hurts making an assessment sub page. --Maitch 15:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There's Something About Marrying

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I just stumbled upon this episode. I haven't seen it, i'm not gonna to any time soon. However, if someone in the Lead writes: "one of the most controversial episodes", it might be a good idea to explain WHY. Add links to mediasources that discussed this episode etc etc etc. Instead, I get all kinds of information that I could have gotten from watching the episode, and that I truly don't care about (i would prefer to just watch the episode). And somebody please edit down that HUGE list of quotations. Remember we are writing an Encyclopedia here people, not an episode guide. I hope a Simpsons editor will make this article more useful to me then it is now. Thank you in advance, whoever you might be. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I just read on the Television rating system page it also won an Emmy, but I can't seem to digg up any sources that confirm this. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
That would be because it didn't. As for the state of the page, we are slowly working on it, a majority of the early season pages are good. Gran2 14:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It was nominated for a WGA award, but didn't win (the winner was another Simpsons episode). We have been very focused on improving the episode articles these last month. For examples take a look at Homerpalooza or Cape Feare. So far we have been dealing with the early episodes, since there is much more information available on those. The quotes should just be moved to Wikiquote. --Maitch 15:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Good to see that the project has such enthousiastic and GOOD contributors that can give articles such a good overhaul. I hope this article will also see that in the future. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

More CFDs

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Now somebody has decided to nominate the Simpsons Directors and Simpsons Writers categories. I don't see why people waste their time with nominating categories. Wikipedia is supposed to be about articles, not categorizing articles. One line articles like the Chris Clements article or Allen Glazier can go months without being noticed, but even useful categories can be targeted for deletion. You can find the CFDs here. They're the 8th and 9th ones down. -- Scorpion 08:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, I think we need a list of The Simpsons directors. --Maitch 10:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Scorpion 00:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Martha Quimby

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

A user has just created this article - probably a fan, given the name. I'm of the opinion that there is nothing to say about Martha Quimby that can't be included in the Mayor Quimby article, but I would like some consensus before redirecting this to Mayor Quimby. Natalie 19:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, nothing that merits its own article, just redirect. The user who started it seems to have an infatuation with the Quimbys, his username for one thing, and that he has already created a Freddie Quimby page today, which has now been deleted. Gran2 19:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that. He has also double listed Krusty on the List of characters page, which is a constant problem (yet another reason to make it alphabetical). I sent him a talk page message about the double listing - maybe I can direct him toward this project so he doesn't waste his time creating pages that are just going to be deleted. Natalie 19:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll nominate it for speedy. It doesn't even seem worthy of having a redirect. -- Scorpion 20:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything in the deletion log for Freddie Quimby (there was a Freddy Quimby a few days ago that was speedied), are you sure there was a page? And, check out this page which that user also created. -- Scorpion 20:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
From his talk page "Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia by creating the page Freddy Quimby. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted." So I assume he did. He also removed your speedy tag (I put it back), and said that Lionel Hutz was dead. Gran2 20:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Why does Martha Quimby redirect to List of recurring characters from the Simpsons, where she's not even mentioned? Ok to redirect to Mayor Quimby? LeSaint 06:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Criteria

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Well, I've had to deal with undiscussed merges several times over the past 2 days, so I think we should come up with a criteria for inclusion, so that in merge discussions, one can say "fits guidelines as decided by the Simpsons WikiProject".

Here's what I think: In order to qualify for a page, a character must meet one of these guidelines:

  1. Must be central to at least 2 episodes. Under this criteria, Manjula would qualify for a page.
  2. Must have made speaking appearances in at least ___ (50?) episodes. Under this criteria, Bumblebee Man and Wiseguy would qualify.
  3. For one-timers, must have been extremely central to plot and made an appearance that is referenced in several later episodes or in comic books. Frank Grimes and Hank Scorpio meet this one

Thoughts? -- Scorpion 22:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

CfD Notice

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Note: Although the above category doesn't in fact exist, it is the header under which the discussion is located, so the discussion link will work. --BlueSquadronRaven 05:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquote

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

All of the episode pages contain links to Wikiquote, and yet none of them work because it's stored by seasons. So we need to make redirect pages. Unless someone says we shouln't for some reason.--Andy mci 16:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Portal

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Well, the Portal was hideously outdated and I have updated it. Perhaps we as a WikiProject should get into a routine of updating it every now and then.. ie. A new Did you know every week, a new featured episode once a week, etc etc. -- Scorpion 18:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I've noticed that for a while, but not got around to doing anything about it, good job. I'd be up for updating it, as we have pretty much ignored it. Gran2 19:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Need opinions on a REALLY annoying IP user at The Wife Aquatic

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Some IP user has been adding some stuff about a goof involving a blanket. Feeling it was insignificant, I removed it with a bunch of other crufty trivia items. Unfortunately, the IP user has figured out how to undo edits and has undone every edit made to the article and accused me of removing it because I'm jealous that he discovered it first. Unfortunately, he has the upperhand because I have to worry about 3RR violations whereas he does not (he even threatened to report me, which makes me think it's entrapment... Perhaps I'm a little too paranoid). So, I guess the question is: Is the goof worth noting? -- Scorpion 19:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I have come to the conclusion that almost no goofs are worth noting, unless they're major plot holes or similar. I definitely think that any and all "sight goofs" (something changing color, moving position, etc) are not worthwhile because they are super cruft. I don't think, however, that just telling the IP what the WikiProject thinks is going to help, so maybe they should be invited to this discussion. Natalie 19:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
You can read the whole of what they say on the talk page. Perhaps we should entrap them... One of you guys revert his edits and when he undos them, nail him with 3RR and we won't have to worry for 12 hours... -- Scorpion 20:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll undo his recent thing. Invitations to join the discussions usually work, as in my experiances it makes them mysteriously vanish. But as for goofs, they are not needed. The only truly major plot goof I have ever known is the whole farmhouse burning down and magically re-appearing again thing... Gran2 20:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
In Moe'N'a Lisa, there's a goof about an animation error, and there's a link to a gif to prove it, I've never been sure about that one, so I let it go. -- Scorpion 20:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

UPN Vandal strikes here

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The UPN vandal just joined the project, he joined under an IP address, with the name Lil' Demeo (talk · contribs), his user page is completely copied, names and all, from AAA! (talk · contribs)'s page. I reverted it, but this is just a reminder of how irritating this guy is. Gran2 20:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Cape Feare GA nomination

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I was thinking, is there something fundamentally wrong with Cape Feare? It has been on GAC for ages and two Simpsons episodes that were nominated after it have been promoted. --Maitch 20:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's just the way things work. People see "Homerpalooza" or "Homer's Phobia" or "Marge vs. the Monorail" and say "Oh boy! The Simpsons". When they see "Cape Feare" they think of the movie. Just wait, some of the articles on that page have been nominated since January. -- Scorpion 20:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least it is first in line now. --Maitch 20:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Since it appears that the Simpsons directors category will be deleted...

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Should we rename the "Category:The Simpsons crew members" to something else? -- Scorpion 16:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That category might be deleted as well. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Category:TV crew by series. --Maitch 17:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Alright, then what category should we put crew in if that category is deleted? -- Scorpion 17:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point. These people don't want any categories for TV crews. --Maitch 17:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I get it, but the Simpsons crew should be under some sort of Simpsons related category, considering that 95% of the writers and directors with pages have them almost solely because of their involvement with the show. -- Scorpion 17:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Not according to the people who wants it deleted. They prefer lists. --Maitch 20:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

copyediting

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

i noticed on the "things you can do" section, the main simpsons article needs copyediting. i'd be more than happy to do it, but before i get started, i want to know what exactly needs to be changed and why it's up for copyediting, despite having FA status. please respond. in the meanwhile, i'll print it out and start correcting on paper. --ThrowingStick/Talk 19:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I think this is only on the to do list, because it hasn't been removed. I think the prose is okay, although I won't rule out any mistakes. --Maitch 20:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Spellling and grammar? I'll get that. --ThrowingStick/Talk 00:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Episode articles

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

There are a few episodes that violate the naming conventions at WP:NC-TV that say the articles should be the episode title by the showname when they conflict with something else, e.g. Rosebud (The Simpsons). However, these articles all have (The Simpsons episode) at the end, e.g. Rosebud (The Simpsons episode), while they should not have the word episode according to the guideline. I tried moving these pages to the proper name, but that is already being used as a redirect. There are eight pages like this, and I would like an admin to move them to the proper title. You can contact me if you want to know which ones they are. Thanks. bmitchelf•T•F 03:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It was decided here that the pages should be moved to (The Simpsons episode). -- Scorpion 03:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
May I ask why? bmitchelf•T•F 04:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
May I ask why as well ? A disambiguator is NOT intended to be descriptive. The policy is to add the showname and only add additionally "episode" if the name of the episode is the name of a character or other "show"-element as well. I would very much advice you to read WP:TV-NC again and not go against formal guidelines because you think "it looks better". --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Read Wikipedia_talk:WIkiproject_The_Simpsons/Archive2#Disambiguation_used_in_episode_articles for previous discussion. --Maitch 17:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to add that WP:TV-NC was made after this was decided. I personally don't care what the format is. --Maitch 18:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
On 11th November we moved all of those episodes to (The Simpsons episode). It's in a talk archive i think--Andy mci 19:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Project evaluation

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

I have organized our project page a bit and still think it could a lot less cluttered. While doing this I have thought about what we have managed to do and what remains to be done. All the articles are tagged now and assessments of the quality and importance have been done. Our most important article The Simpsons has been promoted to FA and the article Homer Simpson, which is of top importance, has been promoted to GA. We got five episode GA's, which is probably the best for any show on Wikipedia. So what needs to be done?

  1. Move the quotes to WikiQuote as well as damage control for out-of-control episode articles.
  2. Get every single of our core articles at least up to GA.
  3. Organize character lists.

I think these are our main goals right now. Thoughts? --Maitch 14:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You should see the Pokemon WikiProject, they have 3 FAs and 20 GAs. I almost wish we could just start over with most of the pages, because so many random users just keep adding random non-notable facts that most of the character and episode pages are just big messes. The goals seem pretty good, If I was smart, I would have removed every quotes section while I was adding the DVD commentary info to 200 episode pages a while back. I'll use AWB and remove as many as I can because I have VERY slow internet and AWB speeds things up considerably. -- Scorpion 19:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The graph says 2 FAs and 19 GAs, but anyway I get the point. I think we could get some ideas for turning our own character pages into FAs from the Pokemon project. Besides deleting the quotes we also need to setup a link to WikiQuote and a corresponding section to the episode. This is a lot of work. --Maitch 20:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


Pokémon articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA Total
  FA 1 2 1 4
  FL 2 1 3
  GA 16 7 20 14 57
B 7 6 15 9 37
C 3 16 14 23 56
Start 12 24 64 100
Stub 12 12
List 9 5 17 25 56
Category 80 80
Disambig 12 12
File 179 179
Project 9 9
Redirect 3 9 3,378 3,390
Template 23 23
Other 7 7
Assessed 37 47 95 158 3,688 4,025
Total 37 47 95 158 3,688 4,025
They must have lost an FA... Anyway, I have removed eery quotes section I could find. Although, it is possible that I missed some. As for the PCP, most of their GAs are Pokemon articles, so I think they just picked a format and every article that gets changed to that format is nomed for GA, it's what we've been doing with the episode articles. -- Scorpion 20:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, if we wanted to, we could turn every episode released on DVDs into GAs - well, at least you and Gran could, I would still be stuck with my Cape Feare GAC :-) --Maitch 21:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of which, Homer's Enemy is now a GAC. Input on the article is welcome. And I've been trying to get Cape Feare reviewed. I've been reviewing several GACs myself, and I've always been leaving a message asking if people could return the favour and review the article, but so far there have been no takers. -- Scorpion 23:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, Cape Feare has finally been promoted. Homer's Enemy needs an end spoiler tag and I'm a bit disappointed that there is not more material. The books Planet Simpson and Leaving Springfield had a chapter each on this episode. I think it could be one of those episodes that could be turned into a FA, but anyway I'm sure that it will pass GAC in its current state. --Maitch 14:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The article was originally quite longer, but it ended up sounding more like an analysis than anything. If anyone has anything to add, feel free to do so. -- Scorpion 16:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Category

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think we need a new category for the Simpsons in which we would put all real life products in. Then we could put the albums, publications, and video games subcategories in it as well as the DVD articles. I am unsure of what to call it. "The Simpsons media" or "The Simpsons products" are the frontrunners. -- Scorpion 19:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons merchandise? maybe. If not then I think products is best. Gran2 21:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Week?

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I think we need a collaboration of the week, likle other projects. The Pokemon project does that and they have dozens of GAs. Naturally, I think our first collaboration should be Bart Simpson. The article really needs some sources and some more back info on the character.

I personally will also be trying to get Deep Space Homer and Simpsons Roasting up to GA status. On a side note, perhaps we should a "what users are working on section" so that people will know and can help out if they wish. -- Scorpion 20:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, definitly a good idea, this should help us get a few more GAs at least. Gran2 21:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I think a collaboration would be great as I don't want to take on a big project like that alone. Bart Simpson is the obvious choice. I think the time limit should be greater than a week. --Maitch 20:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I changed my mind. I think the main family character pages needs a lot of work fast and the best way to do would be with a short collaboration. So I propose that we make next week Bart's week and then do Lisa the following week, followed by Marge and then Maggie. If the articles are not good enough we can go through the cycle once more until they all are GA. --Maitch 17:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What is wrong with having favourite quotes in articles? Simply south 21:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Because its against policy, they belong on wikiquote. Gran2 22:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

voting

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It has been open for 4 months and 15 users have voted, so I figured now is as good a time as any to close it and tally the results. But, there really wasn't a clear consensus, only a handful of episodes received more than 1 vote. As a result I think we should do a second round where every episode that received a vote in the previous round is represented and we pick [b]five[/b] episodes as opposed to three. Then, the results won't end up being the same. The new voting thread can be found here. Hopefully, enough people will vote so that this round doesn't also take four months. -- Scorpion 07:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Article Creation and Improvement Drive

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have nominated Bart Simpson to be the ACID collaboration because I figured that it certainly wouldn't hurt to get some outside help. It may take a while before it goes through though. -- Scorpion 19:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire

Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

I have been fixing up the article and I nominated it for GA status, but the article could be a lot more than it is. So, if people know of any interviews or stuff that have good info for the page, please feel free to add it. -- Scorpion 00:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Of the top of my head I remember them saying in the DVD commentary that they got a lot of letters, which applauded them for highlighting the issue of abandoned race dogs. This could go in the reception section, which is a bit thin. I can't remember much more material. Are we going for FA with this article? If so I could do some research, but I don't have all that much time to spare. --Maitch 17:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
We could, but I was thinking Homer's Enemy would also be a good one. -- Scorpion 18:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I personally am going to nominate Homer's Phobia, provding Cape Feare passes. And either this and/or Homer's Enemy would be good. Gran2 18:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Homer's Phobia is probably the article most likely to become a FA. The reason I asked about Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire becoming was that it is an important episode, but we may not have enough material for it. --Maitch 18:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
We could eventually try for an FA for it as there are so many old interviews out there that we probably would be able to put something good together for the page. -- Scorpion 20:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
It's great that we're working so hard on the episode pages, but I think for the time being, we should start focusing on the family members. I recently did a mass cleaning of the Maggie Simpson page but it still has a long way to go. -- Scorpion 20:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
So are we going to collaborate on Bart Simpson next week? --Maitch 20:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I was actually thinking that we should work on Marge, Lisa or Matt Groening. I submitted it to be the collaboartion on the week and I wanted to wait and see if that went anywhere before working on it. -- Scorpion 01:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's do Lisa Simpson then. I think she is more important than Marge and the Matt Groening article is fairly decent. --Maitch 12:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
This episode should be GA Status. It was the very first Simpson episode to be 24 minutes, and on primetime. --Bo18 1:47, 19 May 2007
It already is. Gran2 15:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Matt Groening

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I recently read this article and finds it pretty good. I think that if we spend just a little bit of time on it, it could become a GA. --Maitch 18:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll see what I can do. -- Scorpion 20:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Night

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I have made a page for the Ullman short "Good Night" because I figured that it is individually notable since it marks the Simpsons debut on network television. It needs work though. -- Scorpion 19:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Is that really needed? All you did was copying information from The Simpsons shorts. I don't think it needs to be a separate article. --Maitch 19:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I copied info for the time being, but I'm going to work on it. I figured being the first appearance of the family is pretty notable. I wasn't sure about it either because 1) it opens the possibility that people will create pages for the other Ullman shorts and 2) a lot of the info would be copied. Give me a few days to work on it, then we'll see. BTW, check out this page, which was created so that Simpsons Roasting wouldn't have any red links (thats what the edit summary says). I've asked the creator to nom it for speedy. -- Scorpion 20:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
A while back I worked on The Simpsons shorts. The goal was to bring to the standards of a featured list, but I got bored. Anyway, I don't believe there is anymore to say. --Maitch 20:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I actually looked at this page while it was being vandalized. refresh and something weird comes up. i reverted it all.--Andy mci 09:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Travelling in The Simpsons proposed for deletion

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Travelling in The Simpsons is proposed for deletion. If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. Someone put it up because they feel the page is "total listcruft and indiscriminate". --The Dark Side 23:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it? I now see nothing mentioning deletion on the article or its talk page. I do not think it's a standalone topic for an article - it's a curiosity, but on its own, I can't discern why this theme (among all their other prominent themes) warrants its own article. Clearly much knowledge and time was spent on this work, and I don't want to see it wasted. Let's determine where it can best be merged, perhaps? LeSaint 01:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Monitoring articles

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I was thinking about how we could monitor all of the articles related to this project without bumping up our watchlist to 800 pages. I managed to find a solution with this link: Special:Recentchangeslinked/Template:SimpsonWikiProject. The beauty of this solution is that it keeps updated as long as our pages are tagged. I had to delink some of the links in the to-do list in order to reduce the clutter, but it is worth it considering it is now possible to keep track of those IPs who makes crap edits. --Maitch 17:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that will make things considerably easier although it seems that it isn't very up to date because I've made changes to several Simpsons related pages and none of them are mentioned there. Several pages have become even more chaotic than before after last nights episode, especially Cletus, the recurring characters and Chalmers. Also, watch for possible new pages for the new kids. It sounds like a long-shot, but you wouldn't believe some of the pages that have been created in the past (Dolores Montenegro, Esquilax, Iggy Wiggum, Señor Spielbergo, Carstairs family) AND, there also were pages for EVERY SINGLE ONE of Cletus's kids from the Twisted World of Marge. [24] -- Scorpion 17:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The worst I can remember is an article for the store "Shøp". I don't know it is not completely up to date. Usually it takes time to update the cache when templates are involved. --Maitch 18:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Forget it, it doesn't work the way I thought it did. If we can make a page that links to all our pages, then we can make it work. --Maitch 18:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a new link: Special:Recentchangeslinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/All articles. This should work for all articles. The problem is that there are too many edits to monitor. --Maitch 19:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh boy, at least 300 Simpson related pages were edited during the last 24 hours. That is crazy. We don't stand a chance to monitor all those edits. --Maitch 19:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yokel Chords

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

One guy keeps adding that The Simpsons is a racist show because they depicted a raccoon being hung. He claims it's a huge controversy because a couple bloggers and his friends are offended. I say it's not a controversy unless it's called that by major news outlets. He says I'm a vandal. Am I just crazy here, or is this not notable? Help would be greatly appreciated. -- Scorpion 18:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that, its not notable, unless (as you said) a major news outlet reports it. If that does happen "which I sincerly doubt it will", then add the blogger thing back in and say "some bloggers noted this before (news corporation) reported it". Or something like that. But until that day, whenever it may be, I doesn't merit inclusion. "Cletus is, quite obviously, hanging the raccoon. This is an obvious allusion to the persecution of African-Americans who were often referred to with the derogatory, racial slur "coon" or "raccoon".? "This is an obvious allusion", and this is "obvious POV" if ever I saw it. And blogs are not a reliable source. So no, it doesn't belong in the article. Gran2 19:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Uh, yeah. This needs to be reported by a major news outlet before it's in the article. Natalie 20:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

This is just a quick question refering to something I'm going to add to the lead of Homer's Phobia. Are we counting Simpson and Delilah as the first homosexual themed episode? Or is that Homer's Phobia? Gran2 17:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that episode homosexual themed, but I think you should mention that The Simpsons already had used gay characters. Smithers comes to mind and Simpson and Delilah was probably the first episode on TV to feature two men kissing. --Maitch 18:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Smithers isn't gay, he's a Burnsosexual. Perhaps you should mention that it's the episode entire based around homosexual themes, but past episodes had included some moments, ie. Simpson and Delilah. -- Scorpion 19:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Before I add this in:

It was the first episode to revolve entirely around homosexual themes, with the later episodes "Three Gays of the Condo" and "There's Something About Marrying" the second and third respectively. Homosexuality had been hinted at before in the previous episode "Simpson and Delilah", the character of Karl (voiced by Harvey Fierstein) was shown kissing Homer. The regular character Waylon Smithers is often shown to have romantic feelings towards Montgomery Burns.

Okay? Gran2 19:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not bad, but hows about this:
Although there had been several references to homosexuality in the series up until then, Homer's Phobia was the first episode to revolve entirely around homosexual themes. In the previous episode "Simpson and Delilah" the character of Karl (voiced by Harvey Fierstein) was shown kissing Homer, and the regular character Waylon Smithers is often shown to be in love with Montgomery Burns.
what do you think? -- Scorpion 19:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I've used yours, with:

The later episodes "Three Gays of the Condo" and "There's Something About Marrying" would again center around homosexuality.

Tacked on the end. Gran2 20:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ralph Wiggum (song)

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I'm not sure if this is our territory or not, but I was wondering if anyone thinks this article is necessary. It apparantly wasn't released as a single and the article doesn't contain any information that isn't in the article for the album it's featured in. The creators justification for the articles existance is the fact that it is the only song based entirely on Simpsons quotes (or so they claim).

I also think this article will be a big cruft magnet because people will start adding what episode every single quote is from. I had tried to merge the page, but the creator objected so I left it alone for the time being, and I'm trying to decide whether or not to go for an afd. -- Scorpion 05:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I'd leave it if I were you. I don't see any harm in it being there, as cruft can be reverted. Gran2 07:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that article is entirely in the realm of the Bloodhound Gang. It has little if anything to do with earnest/encyclopedic/legitimate documentation of the Simpsons, Ralph Wiggum, etc., and in no way differs from the endless other pop culture vehicles which reference or sample the Simpsons. It's not something The Simpsons did, in other words. Perhaps worth a reference in an appropriate index of Simpsons references, but not our territory... LeSaint 01:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with LeSaint. I don't think it is within the scope of this project. If we are going to include stuff that makes references to The Simpsons, then we will get thousands of pages. --Maitch 12:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Frank Grimes

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Somebody has decided to go after Frank Grimes again and nominated the page for afd although they make it clear that they merely want it merged. I think Grimes is a pretty notable character and is certainly deserving of a page. He was more central to his one episode than dozens of secondaries have ever been. -- Scorpion 00:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

True that he is rare in that an entire episode was dedicated to him the first time we met him. But has he been mentioned.... two or three times since then? In Homer's words, "Whatever happened to that guy?" Do we have any implemented guidelines re: what constitutes a character worthy if his/her own article? LeSaint 06:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Character pages

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Just so people know, I think we should merge the following pages:

  • Declan Desmond -> Recurring characters
  • Drederick Tatum -> Recurring characters
  • Fallout Boy & Radioactive Man -> fictional characters
  • Hank Scorpio -> One-timers
  • Roger Meyers -> recurring characters
  • Bleeding Gums Murphy -> Recurring characters
  • Marvin Monroe -> Recurring characters
  • Herb Powell -> Simpson family
  • Squeaky Voiced Teen -> Recurring characters

I also thought maybe we could put Maude, Rod & Todd in a Flanders family page and Kirk & Luann VanHouten in a VanHouten family page. Thoughts? -- Scorpion 00:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and what about Jacqueline Bouvier -> Bouvier family ? Thesetrixaintforkids 01:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. I was also thinking Agnes Skinner, the Sea Captain and Bumblebee Man could also be merged. -- Scorpion 01:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I really like the idea of all the VanHoutens, etc., redirecting to a family page. It seems a logical approach to me, but if we're going to do it with those families, I see a need to do it with the others.... we really need to be consistent in character page organisation. LeSaint 06:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Declan Desmond -> Recurring characters - yes
  • Drederick Tatum -> Recurring characters - yes
  • Fallout Boy & Radioactive Man -> fictional characters - yes
  • Hank Scorpio -> One-timers - no, but you better do it to stop people complaining
  • Roger Meyers -> recurring characters - maybe, but i'm edging towards no
  • Bleeding Gums Murphy -> Recurring characters - no
  • Marvin Monroe -> Recurring characters - maybe
  • Herb Powell -> Simpson family - ...yes
  • Squeaky Voiced Teen -> Recurring characters - no

I wish we could just give everyone a page, that would be alot easier. Gran2 06:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Also I saw that the Crazy Old man has an entry on the Retirement Catle page, meaning that he can be cleared of the the recurring list. If we create more pages like that, Van Houten family, Wiggum family, Police force etc. We could simply merge characters there. Gran2 12:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: I disagree on merging Fallout Boy and Radioactive Man because they have been the subject of comics produced by Bongo. Fallout Boy is also the name of a band, so it should at least be a disambiguation page. Therefore, I'm going to revert that merge. FrozenPurpleCube 22:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

General style sheets

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've been looking at some of the other WikiProjects, and a lot of them have style sheets for the different articles that fall under their project. I've been thinking we need some style sheets, even though most of our articles are consistent. I thought we could make one for the episode capsules, single character pages (Homer, Marge, etc), family pages (the Van Houtens, etc), and lists. I don't know if their are any other categories we would want to consider. Thoughts? Natalie 16:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

We have started one at Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Style guide, but it is nowhere near complete. I think the real problem is that while now know how to do episode articles, we are still not sure how to do character pages, family pages and lists. --Maitch 14:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

FAx2

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Cape Feare is now an FA! Good news for us all, as I think that Homer's Phobia and Last Exit to Springfield will both pass as well. Great job Maitch, and to us all. Gran2 12:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've actually kinda given up on Last Exit, I don't think I can get enough production info. I've basically just been improving other pages. The next one I'm going to try to get to GA status is Lisa's Wedding. Either way, good job Maitch and thanks to CanadianCaesar (although I doubt he'll see this) for his assistance. -- Scorpion 12:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I am fairly confident that Homer's Phobia will make it as well. Last Exit needs some more work. I know some stuff that could be added, but I don't have the time right now. --Maitch 13:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
As Homer's Phobia's peer review seems pretty dead I think I'll nominate it for FA in a while, once I've given it one last checking over. Gran2 15:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Jon Lovitz

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I padded out his Simpsons appearances chart, to the best of my ability. Please let me know if I forgot anyone. Also, fyi, there is dispute on his talk page as to whether he should be in the Simpsons Voice Actors category. LeSaint 00:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Lists about Mr. Burns

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I just noticed this page. Is there any need for it? It just seems like cruft that could easily be found at the Simpsons archive or some other fan site.-- Scorpion 16:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, not needed, I seem to recall it being made to ease congestion on the Mr. Burns. Gran2 16:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
In fact, I don't see why the redir, as it now exists, shouldn't be deleted. I don't see anyone typing in "Lists about Mr. Burns"... --Valley2city‽ 03:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Lisa's Wedding

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm currently working on getting Lisa's Wedding up to GA status and I remembered that it was named the gretest episode in a poll on Sky One. However, the only source I could find is in Planet Simpson. I would prefer to have an online source, so I was wondering if anyone knew if such a source existed. -- Scorpion 22:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't find anthing at first glance, Planet Simpson should be fine if you cite the pg number. It also won the vote for best episode, or episode to be aired, on BBC2 here in the UK. I remember that, but my personal memories can't be used can they! Ah well.. Gran2 20:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Who Shot Mr. Burns?

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Just so people know, I split the article up into two seperate pages. The reason the two were merged in the first place is because of similar content, but I have made both pages completely different. Just about the only thing similar between the two are the leads. I wasn't sure what to call the pages, so I went by what they are called in the DVDs. -- Scorpion 02:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Good job, about time we did that. Gran2 07:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I like the fact that they are split up, but it seems odd to me that the discussion about the clues in part 1 immediately gives away the answer. I think a listing of the clues without the spoiler would be much more useful.Dantonel 16:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Treehouse of Horror V

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Right after LW passed I thought it'd be good if we did a TOH episode, and so I've done this. Now the rest of the article is fine (or so I hope) but I was wondering about what we should do with the "spooky Halloween" names. I mean that's how they are credited but I don't know. Currently I have them in the infobox, but not the lead, whcih I thought seemed the best idea. Any views? Gran2 20:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe just note it in the lead, "The writers, by credited "spooky name" are ____, ____, ____" and add a link to each one. -- Scorpion 16:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Nice article, but I would leave them out. Basically, I don't think we should try and retell jokes. --Maitch 18:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you could make them a list article, maybe List of Simspons cast spooky names or something, then each section is TOHI, TOHII, TOHIII, etc... and just make it a simple list of the person's real name and spooky name... - Adolphus79 19:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I was thinking, maybe we could create/suggest a Simpsons Barnstar? I mean there is a TV one, but then there is a more specific Doctor Who one. Not to mention the Harry Potter, Star Wars and Pokemon ones. It might also help us get a few more productive participants. I mean I don't know whether we should, or really how to go about it, but any ideas? Gran2 12:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. We have a very long list of participants, but most of them are not very active in project activities. Also, if we could convert some of those people who add trivia and stuff to decent editors, we wouldn't have so much work to do. --Maitch 20:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
As of right now, there aren't that many active participants, but I wouldn't have a problem with creating a barnstar. -- Scorpion 05:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
A Simpson's Barnstar would be awesome... - Adolphus79 19:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Supervising directors

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have created a List of directors of The Simpsons and I was going to note the Supervising directors and other animation related staff, but I couldn't find a listat the Simpsons Archive. And IMDB isn't always the most reliable source when it comes to specific jobs. -- Scorpion 17:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

FAx3

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I just wanted to congratulate Gran on Homer's Phobia becoming a FA. I believe now that this project is the leading television show project on Wikipedia. The Pokemon project only has two FAs and one of them is about to loose its status. --Maitch 20:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I do believe it is the leading project now, and we should continue to get more and more GAs, and some FAs, as our formula for episode pages is now considered spot on. Gran2 21:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
They still have more GAs than us... But not for long. -- Scorpion 03:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

wewt...

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Gratz on all the work everyone, and welcome all the new project members... sorry I disappeared for a while, I was moving, and now currently only have limited internet access... hopefully now I'll be editing at least semi-regularly... if there is anything ya'll want me to work on, let me know... - Adolphus79 02:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back. You could help us get some more episode GAs if you like. -- Scorpion 03:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Welcome back. The project is in better shape than before you left, but there are still a lot of pages to clean up or get to GA/FA status. --Maitch 15:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I think you left before I joined, but its good to see that there is someone else who can help us. Gran2 15:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

/me cracks knuckles... Yeah... it's good to be back... still getting caught up after being gone almost 9 months, you guys have done an awesome job with the project... I was surprised to see how much has been done... Wewt on the FAs and GAs... I'll try to get working again (even if I'm stuck on dialup atm), I noticed a couple Top importance articles that are still low on the quality scale... - Adolphus79 19:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm on dialup too. You get used to it after a while. I'd love to see more character articles reach GA and FA status, but sourcing is very important. I do work on the Maggie article from time to time. -- Scorpion 19:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Images...

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Just wondering... why don't we make a 'Category:The Simpsons images', and tag each of the images with it? - Adolphus79 21:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems that there is: Category:The Simpsons images, but not many images are tagged wih it. Gran2 21:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
hmm... cool... well I'll have to take a look at that then... - Adolphus79 22:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Season 8 episode list

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I am participating in your drive to make season 8 a featured topic (btw I think it is bold to pick the season with the largest number of episodes) with getting The Simpsons (season 8) up to featured status. I have looked into it and the episode list task force at the television WikiProject recommends using {{Episode list}}. If you go through the other featured episode lists you will see that they are using it. We are using our own template, which is basically the inverse of {{Episode list}}. I have done a test so you can see what it would look liked if we switched templates at User:Maitch/draft1 or you can see the List of South Park episodes.

The question is, should we switch template? --Maitch 14:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

From the point of view of being uniform yes, it gives it a better chance of passing, but personally the Episode list template doesn't look very good to me. But there we go, I think we shoudl probaly switch. Gran2 15:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
We chose Season 8 because it has an FA, 3 GAs and another one close to FA status. As for your qustion, I like the Simpsons template better and if we change it, it would change the standardization of the season pages. -- Scorpion 16:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that Episode list is designed to be flexible, yet optimized for inclusion and protected from editing (because of the huge amount of inclusions). It also allows to quickly remove all the Fair Use images if concensus on that is ever to be reached, which actually is a again under debate atm. However, using your own template probably won't hold you from reaching FA status, but I think it would be something that would come up: "if it's so similiar, might as well use the general one". --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I would basically like to add the writers and directors to the list, so the format has to change anyway. The other template already allows this, but the style is different. --Maitch 20:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

SNPP Capsule Issues 28/03/07

I altered the main template for the Simpson's epsisode Infobox to change the capsule links within the infoboxes to use the .html file extensions proceeding the production code defined within the Episode's wiki. I have not tested an excessive amount of episodes yet but the ones I tested did work, notably the ones that did not work before the change. Particularly episodes Kamp Krusty and Homer the Heretic did not work prior to this change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myden (talk • contribs)

7-11 & Kwik-E Mart...

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I just heard on Attack of The Show that in response to The Simpsons Movie, 7-11 is going to rename several of their stores to Kwik-E Mart... has anyone else heard this, or possibly seen it somewhere so we can source it and add it to The Simpsons Movie and Kwik-E-Mart? - Adolphus79 23:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiki-newbie has posted one of The Simpson Movie's talk page. Gran2 18:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have Nancy Cartwright's Autobiography?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Because I am wondering if this piece of trivia from Simpsoncalifragilisticexpiala(Annoyed Grunt)cious is true.

"Julie Andrews was the original choice to portray Shary Bobbins but Nancy Cartwright mentions in her autobiography that after hearing Maggie Roswell's reading, the producers cast her in the role instead. "

And while I'm at it, does anyone know of a source for this: "In the "Making Of..." feature on the Kill Bill Volume 2 DVD, Quentin Tarantino can be seen wearing a t-shirt with his Simpsons likeness and quote pictured on the front."

I don't think this is mentioned in the DVD commentary, but in one Season 8 episode commentary (I can't remember which), they mention that a big name gues star was brought in for a Season 8 episode but replaced. I have also heard this rumour on various sites, but I need a good source. -- Scorpion 19:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons FAR

Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion

The Simpsons has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

The Simpsons is up for FAR, the only problem cited, no sources for the images. We need to find these pretty quickly for it to achieve its TFA target date. Gran2 20:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should all stop working on season 8 and fix this problem as fast as possible. --Maitch 20:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
As they are mostly official artworks, would it just be easier to re-upload every one from a different source? Gran2 20:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I think so. I have already done this for the Simpsons monopoly set. --Maitch 20:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The first image kinda looks like this one. --Maitch 20:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that is the image, but just with a background, and no Groening signiture. Gran2 20:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
And I was thinking, couldn't the main image simply be the traditional "The Simpsons" title card? Gran2 21:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I found a source for the original image. I prefer it to the title card. --Maitch 21:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay that's good. Gran2 21:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think I'm done for today and I won't have any time tomorrow. Every image now has a source except Image:Simpsons on Tracey Ullman.png and Image:Simpsons cast.png. If you could find the sources for those or replace them I would appreciate it. --Maitch 21:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've done the Tracey Ullman image, I hope the source is okay. As for the other one, I cannot find it anywhere, apart from here and a site that has just copied the entire page. Gran2 11:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

All the images now have a source. --Maitch 09:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


Homer's Enemy

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I think the article is just about ready for a run at FA status, even though there were few peer reviews. Can others please take a look at the article and make adjustments where you see fit? Barring any major objections, I am going to nominate the article tonight. -- Scorpion 16:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking the refs should all be in the citeweb formart, and some minor things with the refs need to be changed. For example the Simpsguide ref and BBC are the same thing, and should probably be combinded like in Homer's Phobia, aside from that its fine, and hopefully will pass. Gran2 16:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
LIke I said, if you see anything wrong, then by all means fix it. I'll work on the citing. -- Scorpion 16:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I changed a couple of things, nothing major. Gran2 16:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you should try and get rid of that black bar in all of your screenshots. If you can't figure out why it is there you can always crop the image. I use a freeware software called "Image Fix and Enhance", which does the job. --Maitch 16:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. As for why it's there, I have no idea. I use VLC Player. -- Scorpion 17:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I use VLC too and don't get the black bars. Maybe you should ask User:TheDJ why it does that. He is a developer of VLC. --Maitch 17:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
If the blackbar is there, then it's there because it's in the original digital video. Try using "crop" from the menu. I'm not sure if that works, but perhaps. And let's not turn my userpage into a helpdesk :D I'm fine with everyone knowing that, (that's why i put it there, because sometimes i edit media articles and then I feel it's important to show my "bias"), but that doesn't mean I'm gonna answer VLC questions all over the place. I just happened to run into this because Simpsons is on my watchlist. happy editing, --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Restaurants in The Simpsons

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was looking at Springfield (The Simpsons), and noticed the mess of restaurants clogging up the bottom of that page, so I split them off to their own list. If someone with sources could, we should get as many of them cited as possible. - Adolphus79 21:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


Matt Groening

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I have recently been involved in an edit war because an editor that I have had many previous conflicts with doesn't think Matt Groening belongs in the Simpsons (and Futurama) category. This guy is easily the least mature editor I have ever seen because he has been calling me a vandal and citing some discussion that I am pretty sure never happened. Anyway, I just wanted some opinions from others about whether or not Groening belongs in the Simpsons category. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scorpion0422 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

most definately... - Adolphus79 04:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Without a doubt, he belongs in the category, unless there's a policy, or any other form of rule, in which he has to be out of it. But really I don't see what's wrong with it, it makes no sense to me. Gran2 07:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
i think so to. a series creator is different from a mundane cast/crew member, especially since this is his career defining work. i would revert again. despite what he sez about 3RR, he's already done three reverts first, so a fourth in 24 hours would be a violation of WP:3RR on his part. if he edits again within 24 hours of his first revision you report him there. also you could report him for incivility, as his edit summary where he called your edits "vandalism" is a violation of WP:NPA (see definition of word at WP:VAND).
there were a lot of "similar" discussions at WP:CFD over the last month or two, but theres no specific policy. use strength in numbers from this project to protect the article until a discussion is begun involving everyone. all he's doing is saying "decisions X and Y were made, therefore decision Z is supported by consensus".62.6.144.228 07:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
You should take a look at the messages that guy left on my talk page. It's pretty humourous. -- Scorpion 15:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I added the cats again, and left a note on the talk page where the discussion should've been instead of this edit war... we'll see if these guys get the point... - Adolphus79 15:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Main page update

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It's not official, but Raul told me point blank that he plans on using charles Darwin as the TFA on April 19, so I have changed The Simpsons to May 20 or July 27 and changed Cape Feare to July 27. If we could, I'd like to still have Cape Feare on may 20, but have the Simpsons on July 27, but there may be concerns that it would be advertising. -- Scorpion 02:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think May 20 is better for The Simpsons than July 27. I don't think we should get our hopes up getting our episode articles on the front page. Neither Abyssinia, Henry nor Pilot (House) has been on the front page. --Maitch 09:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar Update

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Since we seem to have decided that we want a barnstar, we need to decide on a few things:

  • Do we want a WikiProject Award or just a user barnstar? According to the criteria, "If your award is a Barnstar, an award for a WikiProject, or some other related award, then you must propose it to the Community by following the steps below." But, we could just create a general Simpsons award.
  • The design. I'm working on one right now. It's basically a yellow barnstar with an animated donout in the middle and the word d'oh near the top.
  • The name. I was thinking "The Star of D'oh" or something along those lines.

Thoughts? -- Scorpion 04:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great! But I'm thinking it should be a Wikiproject award, and thus we should propose it through the correct channels. Gran2 06:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually looking at it, I don't think it matters, because the Firefly barnstar is listed on both of those pages. So it would be "Awarded to those who make outstanding contributions to The Simpsons related articles, and Wikiproject: The Simpsons" Some thing like that. Gran2 07:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me... we should make it a WikiProject barnstar though, and follow the proper channels just to be safe... IMHO, the personal user awards can be handed out by anyone for just about anything, whereas the project barnstars mean you are an asset to that project... - Adolphus79 21:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Right barnstar awards and proposals has been deleted, we can add the star to the awards pages, and then start giving it out. Gran2 06:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

First line in Info box?

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I was looking through some Futurama character pages, and they have an option in the infobox called "first line". I was thinking we could do it with The Simpsons characters because in some cases (ie. Sideshow Bob) the characters first line isn't until after their first appearance. This could lead to some edit wars though, over some such as Smithers (first line in Simpsons Roasting, first appearance in Homer's Odyssey), Maggie, SLH, Snowball, etc. Thoughts? -- Scorpion 15:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me --Rubber cat 23:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, as you said, it could cause some EW, but I see nothing wrong with, good idea. Gran2 07:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

DVD Commentary Participants/Show Runners in infobox

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I was looking through some of the episode pages, and noticed the a lot of them have info on show runners and who commentated on the DVDs of the episode. I feel that these bits of info are redundant and generally are not needed. For the show runners, that info is usually on season pages (or the main page), and it's just redundant to recycle that info over and over when they mostly oversaw a range/season anyway. It just clutters the infobox. For the DVD commentary tracks, this info can become dated quickly when the DVDs become obsolete, and it isn't really all that relevant to the episode as to who/what showed up in a track. I just don't think it is essential information and I suggest that these elements be removed from the articles. Biggspowd 18:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. When will the DVDs become obselete? I plan to keep mine for a very long time, and even if they are all re-released (which won't be for years) then they won't re-record the commentaries, so I fail to your argument there. They were added so that "The Simpsons DVD commentaries" need no longer exist. And I fail to see any argument against including the show runners. Some seasons (like 8) have several episode with Jean and Reiss as show runners as opposes to Oakley and Weinstein who are for the rest. Also, you have to take every page as if you know nothing about the subject, and haven't ever read any related pages. So both of the things would be informational. Gran2 19:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not appreciate the extremely rude tone. I was merely giving a suggestion as I question if this information should be included on the pages. I really don't think that commentary listings should be included in infoboxes for a number of reasons:
  • There are no other episode templates that I know of that include this.
  • If a page for DVD commentary was deleted, that should say something about their notability in WP. That means that a commentary is not very notable, and it can possibly date the article. And who appeared on a commentary has very little to do with the episode itself. In fact, a lot of those commentaries have participants that had nothing to do with any part of the episode's production.
  • We should provide overviews of article, not put every little crufty thing on it.

I am strongly against including this info in the articles, and looking at the talk archives, I did not see any mass acceptance for it. And I may possibly help out with removing the info and cleaning it up so that the simpsons articles will be of a higher standard. Biggspowd 23:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

    • Your logic about no other show having this information is highly flawed, because few other TV series's have DVD commentary for every episode. Part of the reason is that we intend to convert every episode page to this format, and thus a lot of the information comes from the commentaries. As such, we felt it was fitting to list all the participants. And part of the reason we let the commentary page be deleted is because we figured out a better way. There is no harm in having the commentary info on every page, so let's leave well enough alone. As for the showrunners, it's necessary info. And what do you mean that we are providing every crufty piece of information? We're in the process of eliminating all of the trivia sections. It's not like we're listing every time Homer says "d'oh" or every time Maggie falls down like some Simpsons sites. -- Scorpion 00:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Also Biggspowd, if you think that THAT was in a rude tone and was meant to ridicule or offend, you are very much mistaken. I could have done that, but didn't, I don't actually see how that message can be taken as offensive. Gran2 07:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

More CFDs

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Now the category sharks have decided that they want to go after the categorization of episodes by season. see the discussion here. -- Scorpion 15:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Importance

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why is Mr. Burns the only secondary character who has received "top" importance status? I suggest "high" at best, if that's where the majority of secondary characters lie. I also don't think that Springfield (The Simpsons) is a top importance article. The setting is important, but it's not like if I were creating The Simpsons articles from scratch, Springfield would be the among the first dozen I'd create. TheHYPO 20:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The importance really isn't that important, but if you feel that they whould be taken down to high status, feel free to do so. -- Scorpion 01:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Springfield's state

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is in TERRIBLE shape. I hate to put down the work of others, but it is filled with OR, Cruft, unverifed facts, POV and all that fun stuff. I am basically going to do a slash and burn clean up and remove most of the speculation about what state its in. Wikipedia is not a fansite, so is there really any need for as much speculation as there is? I think merely a couple paragraphs noting the mystery over its location would suffice. -- Scorpion 01:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations team!

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

We have passed the Pokemon WP in number of GAs and FAs. 3.5% (27) of tagged articles are GA or higher, and I'm willing to bet that that is one of the highest percentages of any of the WikiProjects, although there are no easily comparable numbers. Another 6.5% are B class, which means that 10% of all Simpsons related articles are B class are higher. And, there are more GAs, an FA, an FL and hopefully an FT on the way, so lets all keep up the good work. -- Scorpion 17:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ooh good news, although we have to be weary, The Simpsons is getting dangerously (well slightly dangerously) close to FARC. But lets keep it up!. Gran2 18:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Well good news I guess, but we have to deal with the FARC. The main issue is the "Plots" section. I have rewritten it at User:Maitch/draft2, but I'm to tired to look it over now. I wonder if you could clean it up. --Maitch 18:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that's fine, gave it a quick read through and there was nothing glaring "I'm a mistake!" at me. Gran2 19:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
It is now moved to the main article. Let's hope the prose is "brilliant" enough. --Maitch 11:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

20th year anniversary

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The anniversary is next Thursday. Should we do some special? --Maitch 11:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

(Ah crap! I have school that day!) Yeah definitly. But I have no idea as to what, I'll get thinking. Gran2 11:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Bart Simpson is up for WP:ACID... Again

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I have renominated the article. Last time it made it to 17 votes then just sort of faded out. Hopefully it will get more votes this time around. See the section here -- Scorpion 15:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

On a side note to that, whatever happened to our un-offcial weekly article improvement drive? We were going to do Lisa weren't we? Gran2 15:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Let's just finish something we have started and complete the featured topic drive. I will get back on the season list soon unless the FARC takes more time. --Maitch 15:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar Designs

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Here are some test Barnstar designs. Everyone take a look and tell me which one you like best, or if you think I should go in a completely different direction.

 

     

Thoughts? -- Scorpion 15:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the fourth one (Test 5) best, I don't really the idea of using words on a barnstar. Nice donut image by the way. Gran2 15:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I also like the fourth one of those, but I was also thinking that we could use the Walk of fame star. --Maitch 15:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The reason I added D'oh is because with the donut, it's not easily identifiable. People might think its a Foods barnstar or something. As for the walk of fame image, I might like the idea if it was a really good picture, but I think we should go with a graphic. -- Scorpion 15:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I'd prefer to go with the traditional barnstar graphic. On the page of awards it will say "for good work on The Simpsons related" or something like that. And everytime its given will be for something Simpsons related won't it? Gran2 15:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
So I'm going to create a proposal right now and if somebody in the future objects to this image, then I'll change it. -- Scorpion 16:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Done. See the page here. -- Scorpion 16:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Squishee

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I just noticed that there are a bunch of Simpsons-related food pages that aren't really notable on there own. I merged Flaming Moe (cocktail) with Flaming Moe's, nominated Khlav Kalash and Crab juice for deletion, but there is one I'm not sure about. Squishee has its own (small) page and I think it may be notable enough, since it appears in many different episodes and is well-known. Although it does need work. Perhaps it could be merged with the Kwik-E-Martor go back into its section at List of products in The Simpsons. -- Scorpion 23:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be merged with the List of products in The Simpsons. --Maitch 08:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Yep makes sense. Gran2 14:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll merge it then. Lets hope that its not contested, because odds are that it would be kept if it went through an afd. -- Scorpion 14:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Long plots in episode articles

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

It seems to be a trend now: that a lot of the newest season episodes are massively long when it comes to plots. If you check through my contributions: you will see the articles, as I've put a plot tag on them. Shouldn't it be a summary, and not a guide to the whole show? Considering all Simpsons episodes are around 20 minutes, there shouldn't be massive plot guides. Remember: encyclopedia, not an episode guide to just about every note in the show. RobJ1981 00:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

We try to keep them short and only containing key plot points, but random users continually expand them and add specific jokes, so we really have a hard time keeping up. It's the same reason why some pages have huge trivia sections. I hardly see why we are to blame for this. We try our best to keep them short, but we have a hard time keeping track of 400 episode pages. -- Scorpion 00:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I never put the blame on anyone, I was giving a heads up... so people could try to fix the ones I've found at least. RobJ1981 00:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
We are aware of this, but we can't police all the episode articles. If you put a tag on it, it might be fixed someday. --Maitch 08:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I used AWB to track down the episode articles with a plot tag on them and have included them on the to do list. Hopefully somebody will do something about them. If you tag another article, I would appreciate it if you would update the to do list. --Maitch 10:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Cultural References

Latest comment: 17 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion

I have been shown that cultural references sections are a regular and accepted part of the episode articles. Why? If the reference is a major part of the episode(such as in Cape Feare), it should be fine to point out. But it's just every minor "Oh, look at that!" point that can be sourced; it's no different than pointless trivia added by anons to the many trivia sections of this site. Anything that is important should be able to be integrated into another section of the article. Nemu 01:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, it's better to actually try to IMPROVE an article, as opposed to doing a slash and burn clean. In the case that caused you to come here (Future-Drama), there are four cultural references. Generally, I only try to list music, really noticeable references, and references that are alluded to extensively. We are trying to clean up and source every article, but its not easy because we have random IPs who add heaps of pointless references to deal with. -- Scorpion 01:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I like cutting better due to the fact that it helps clear the way for people that actually feel like putting effort into the article. By not having the section in the first place, you drastically decrease the cruft added to articles. Anyway, that's beside my main point. That is that even the sourced information is pretty pointless in most cases. Nobody should care about a random song or scene; only major additions to episodes should matter (like my example). If something is major, it should go into the development section rather than a CR section Nemu 01:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
A synopsis is for plot information only, we do not go into specifics there because it disrupts the flow, and generally we keep the synopsis to an overview and try to keep jokes out. -- Scorpion 01:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Which is why I stated to place the information into the development section. If an episode article cannot have that at one point or another, it probably shouldn't have an article. Nemu 01:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
And like I've said, we're in the process of cleaning up/working on every single article, but there are 400+ episode pages so it takes some time. So I don't know what you want us to do about it besides try our best to get to every episode. We have improved several pages already and gotten about 20 classic era episode pages to GA status, so were getting there. -- Scorpion 02:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
You're still missing my point. I'm talking about the practice of creating and keeping CR sections. You're in the process of cleaning them up, but I'm asking why they exist in the first place. Besides main plot points that could be merged with development sections, it's all essentially trivia (sourced, but still trivial). Nemu 02:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Because an encyclopedia is supposed to be about giving information. Cultural references give that because a person might say "hey, what song was that?" and come on and voila, there it is. In other words, people might actually be looking for that kind of stuff. They are different from trivia sections because how many people would say "I wonder if thats the first time Professor Frink has been referred to as Dr. Frink..." -- Scorpion 02:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Yet, "what song is that?" is exactly like "who was that random cameo in that movie/book/video game?" in a piece of media that has various cameos and references. It's basically just the rational of trivia sections, except it limits it to sourced info. Nemu 02:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess nothing I can say will convince you. Please point out a policy that specifically says we can't have cultural references sections. -- Scorpion 02:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The whole "nothing states against this specifically" argument doesn't work too well in general (and personally, I hate it). Combing points from WP:TRIV, WP:NOT, and WP:N can lead to the fact that trivia sections are to be avoided; if they must exist, the information should be notable. It's something like that. It's more up to users to decide it, so I guess I'll wait for input from other members of this project. Nemu 02:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Because each episode contains many, many cult refs, there a major part of the show. And so they are informative. And we don't just list pointlss things like, "Milhouse walks past a Tetris poster", and they are all sourced. So I see nothing wrong with them at all. Gran2 06:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The same exact claim is made about trivia all the time. If something is major, I see no harm. Just because someone can watch one of the DVDs with commentary and see that "Homer's hat and singing of "Three Little Maids From School Are We" from The Mikado during the car trip to Terror Lake alludes to I Love Lucy." doesn't make this little piece of trivia important, just sourced. Once again, things that make up a large part of a plot are fine, but if they're important they should be placed in a development section. Otherwise we're just glorifying trivia. Nemu 11:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
You're the first one that objects to having sourced information. Two articles has passed FAC without anybody saying a word. So the concensus is that these sections should stay. --Maitch 13:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts on this are: cultural references are yet another form of trivia in many cases. Wikipedia isn't a guide to trivia. Massive culture sections need to go, period. RobJ1981 20:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that a lot of the sections need clean up and I'll see what I can do. I'm just against the complete removal of such sections. -- Scorpion 20:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Another thing is that the Culture Reference sections are extremely hard to read. They look like a bunch of jumbled up paragraphs. I've been personally working to bullet them but any help would be appreciated.141.156.231.174 19:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm no, bullet points are not good. Prose is better, and it really isn;t hard to read. Any bullet points in GAs will be reverted. Gran2 20:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons Movie needs cleanup

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I just wanted to point out the article is just turning into a text guide to the trailers/clips (word by word in some cases). I'm not sure what to do about this. The article shouldn't be a cluttered trailer/preview guide of everything shown in clips. The article needs to be cleaned up sooner rather than later. Leaving it until the movie actually comes to theaters would be a mistake, as the article should be decent before the movie comes out. RobJ1981 20:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you completely, but somebody already tried to remove them, which lead to a huge debate on the Movie talk page in which one editor did everything he could to keep the quide stuff. In the end, everyone gave up. You could try to clean it up if you wish. -- Scorpion 20:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I've removed all of the trailer transcripts that were there, as they, like quotes and pretty much copy vio. Some of the other trailer section should probably go to. As Scorpion said, clean it up as you wish, any help is good help. Gran2 20:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to move Krusty → Krusty the Clown

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Krusty article (formerly named Krusty the Klown) should be moved back to Krusty the Clown. All other character articles state the character's full name, and I don't believe this is an exception. Please share your opinions at Talk:Krusty#Requested_move. –Crashintome4196 19:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Old nominations

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've been looking to see which pages have been nominated for FA, FL and Ga in the past. The characters list, guest star list and season 2 are the ones I remember being nominated, but this really shocked me.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ralph Wiggum

And it actually got a support!

Anyway, no really reason for this it just amused me, so I thought I'd bring it up. Gran2 19:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Snake (and Homer) image

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A guy keeps insisting on changing the image of Snake to one thats tiny, it is not clear, Snake does not were brown so it not a good representation of the character, and most importantly it has no source whatsoever, meaning it cannot be used. The other image provided is all of these things, but the guy keeps changing with no explanation given. It also is the same guy who is intent on changing the image of Homer from the perfectly fine offcial artwork, to something he's drawn himself. Gran2 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Closing the night off (for me anyway)

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Our old friend User:Diamond Joe Quimby is at it again Daphne Charles Burns... Gran2 21:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

How to add external link to character page

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I want add this guide on how to create a duffman costume to Duffman's page but I wasn't sure how to do it following the style guide. --Hadees 04:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Does that help? Gran2 15:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Maybe proposed logo

I was just thinking that maybe we need a logo for our project, because all the other projects do and it can represent the projects. I'll try and make one. Chicken7 15:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

We do Image:Simpsons tv icon.png, but you can try and make a better one if you like. Gran2 15:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What about the donut image? Can we use that?(On the right) If so reply here or n my talk page and I'll fix everything.(Project page, templates, etc.)Chicken7 07:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No, because that's a copyrighted image, you can't us a non-free image on templates. Gran2 07:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

K Chicken7 07:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

To be exact you can only use copyrighted material in articles. That is why our current logo doesn't look that flashy. --Maitch 07:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

K. I'll apply the donut logo to all the wikiproject articles, not the templates. Is that Ok?Chicken7 08:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, its not an article, so no. If you drew one yourself it would be alright but not a copyrighted image. Gran2 08:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Why do you do it anyway, when we have told you not to do it? --Maitch 08:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

$pringfield (Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Legalized Gambling)

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Some guy keeps trying to move that page to $pringfield, saying that the shorter name is the best. However, I think we are supposed to go by whatever the official title is, as opposed to which is shortest, and this title is on the DVDs, official site and in the copyright database. -- Scorpion 14:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the long title is the correct title. Who cares if the shorter name looks better? Thatisn't the correct title so the page shouldn'r be called that. Gran2 14:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
On the season 5 Simpsons DVD collection, The episode is called $pringfield. Bo18 1:59, 19 May 2007

Another FAR?

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

List of episodes of The Simpsons was recently put up for FA review by an editor, but the nomination wasn't completed and was removed. However, I do not think this is the last we will hear of the matter, so what can we do to improve the page? Sourcing is probably the major one, but that shouldn't be too hard. Any ideas? I will also mention this at the WP:TV episode lists task force page. -- Scorpion 01:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the nominator's userpage, it didn't strike me that he seriously had any idea what he was doing. Anyway, what's really wrong with the list? Its exactly like List of The Batman episodes and List of Smallville episodes, both recently promoted FL. The offcial site sources everything perfectly, and we have another source for any of the future episodes. Maybe we could add the writers and directors, and maybe we could add a few more sources, but I don't actually see how it can be improved that much. Gran2 06:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no need to list writers and directors. I was thinking that the main problem was the season 18/19 sections, some of the episode names are unsourced. I just wanted to make sure that we were prepared should this guy actually learn how to properly nominate a page for FAR. -- Scorpion0422 06:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Right, I've referenced every episode after Marge Gamer, as that is the newest one in the offcial site. The only one not referenced is except for "He Loves To Fly And He D'oh's". Gran2 06:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
According to NoHomers, that title came from a script that was up for auction on ebay, which is why there isn't a page for it yet. So, it may be difficult to find a source. If it comes down to it, the title can be removed. -- Scorpion0422 06:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
If it isn't in the copyright databse and there is no other reliable source, I think we should hold of on it for now. Gran2 06:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay he's done it properly, but he's "arguements" are completely unfounded. Hopefully this won't last very long. Wikipedia:Featured article review/List of The Simpsons episodes Gran2 17:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been moved to the list review page. Gimmetrow 18:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

New layout

Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

I've decided to test out a new layout for the main page (that I copied from WP:OLYMPICS, who in turn copied it from various other projects) so if others could take a look and give any suggestions, it would be helpful. -- Scorpion0422 08:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess it is located at User:Scorpion0422/Big page o' messin around. I like it. It is easier to find stuff, but I didn't like the very bright yellow colours, so I changed them. Any comments for that? --Maitch 09:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Very nice, could we centre the navi box? It looks a bit strange off to the left. Aside from that, its a big improvement. On a side note Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals is about to be deleted in favour of people just adding awards, so we can just add the barnstar. Gran2 10:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The colouring looks MUCH better. I've never been good with colours and I was very tired. So, are we in agreement that the new page looks better? -- Scorpion0422 14:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but I think we need a space for peer reviews, FACs, GACs and articles for deletions. --Maitch 15:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Yep, and yes to what Maitch said above. Gran2 15:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
GACs and FACs can be added to the right column, afds can be added to the left one. -- Scorpion0422 17:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I tried to make my own version, but I would like to see your idea. --Maitch 17:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Your version looks pretty good. Perhaps something could be added to the left column to make it a little bit longer. -- Scorpion0422 17:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The barnstar? Gran2 17:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we should move it to the left and rename it to "Announcements" like in WP:MILHIST#Announcements_and_open_tasks.--Maitch 17:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar update

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have made some changes to the star and have created a template:

  The Simpsons (Annoyed Grunt)-star
{{{1}}}

Which can be given by using this code: {{subst:The Simpsons Star|message ~~~~}}

What do others think? -- Scorpion0422 18:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, good job. Aside from presumably us three, Adolphus79 and Natalie, is there anyone else that deserves the barnstar straight off when its put into force? Gran2 18:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I have added the star now. You can see it at the bottom of this page. It is now called "The Simpsons [Annoyed Grunt]-Star". Feel free to change it if you dislike it. -- Scorpion0422 15:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images require rationales

Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

You guys need to run, don't walk, and put fair use rationales on all your fair use images. Otherwise they are quite likely to get deleted. Each image needs to have an explicit rationale for each article it is included in. The per-episode articles are easy to rationalize: it is a screenshot that illustrates the work in question and has no free replacement. it will be more difficult to justify having the images on the lists of episodes. I am not going to delete any of them - this is just a warning that others follow the policy very close to the letter, so you need to bring your images into compliance. CMummert · talk 17:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the images on the episode lists pages are going. So as long as we just don't revert the'r removal we'll be alright. Ah well... Gran2 19:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The images on the individual episode articles can be rationalized, but if there is not an actual fair use rationale on each image then people who care about such things may still delete the images. CMummert · talk 22:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess this is something that needs to be done, so I propose we split the work between us Gran, Scorpion and me. We have to check six seasons each, unless someone else wants to get in on the action. I will start my working on season 1-6 now. --Maitch 16:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Seasons 17 and 18, and obviously 8, are done. Gran2 16:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I just completed season 1. --Maitch 16:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I just completed season 2. Blood Feud is missing an image. --Maitch 17:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I just completed seasons 3-6. Bart's Girlfriend, Bart's Comet, Homie the Clown and A Star Is Burns are missing images, because they were deleted for missing fair use rationales. --Maitch 17:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
17 fully done, 9 done. Gran2 17:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I am also going to do season 15 and 16. --Maitch 18:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Now done. These episodes are missing images: Marge vs. Singles, Seniors, Childless Couples and Teens, and Gays, Milhouse Doesn't Live Here Anymore, The Wandering Juvie, Catch 'Em If You Can, Simple Simpson, A Star is Torn. --Maitch 18:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Supporting each others articles

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I just wanted to let you know that from now on I will not support Simpson articles during a FAC. I don't want people to think that this project is systematically exploiting the system in order to promote its own articles. I would advise you guys to do the same. --Maitch 16:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I read Sandy's "helpful" comments as well, and so its probably for the best. Gran2 16:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I found those comments more than a little ridiculous, but it is probably for the best. I've seen articles fail despite overwhelming project support. In fact, the only thing stopping Homer's Enemy from being promoted (according to Raul) is AndrewLevine's comment that was made before all the copyeditting. So, project support isn't as big of a deal as he says. -- Scorpion0422 16:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

How far are we from a featured portal? --Maitch 12:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, my guess from glancing at the FP criteria is pretty far. Gran2 20:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Episode names — How should they be formatted?

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The names of episodes referred to in articles seem to be presented in different ways. Some are written in quotation marks — "Mayored to the Mob" — with links, and some are written in italics — Mayored to the Mob — and some are just links — Mayored to the Mob. Personally, I think that the italics option works best, but I know that in any case editing all The Simpsons-related articles to look this way would be difficult. Maybe there is a set standard for this already. If there is, please let me know! GeorgeC 15:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

We use quotes, if a link is any different it should be changed. All episode pages should be in quotes, as per the WP:MOS. There's you answer. Gran2 15:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
OK thanks. I should have known to look there GeorgeC 15:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

It looks like we are going to loose the FA status of the main article. The main objection is prose, so I cannot make it better myself. I have asked User:JameiLei if he could do a complete copyedit, but it might not be enough. So what do we do now? --Maitch 08:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

We get copyedits done. That seems to be the only issue, so if it does lose it FA status, we improve the prose, and anything else that we can, and then re-submit. Gran2 10:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't been of much help, but I've had a busy (and tiring) last couple weeks, so I haven't had time to do a lot of in depth work. I'll take a look at it as well. -- Scorpion0422 16:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
It's been delisted. Good luck everyone in improving the article to current FA standards. LuciferMorgan 11:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Simpsons Template

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

does anyone think that every episode should have the main Simpsons template on the bottom, to make navigating between Simpsons pages easier?? (Ctjf83 04:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi folks. Would anyone here like to briefly help out at Psycho (1960 film)? There is a section about The Simpsons that is in need of references. I guess you guys might have appropriate refs to hand? Cheers. The JPStalk to me 16:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, for the Brother from th Same Planet one, I actually cannot find anything. The BBC is usually good for cult refs, but for this [25] it doesn't mention the Psycho ref. Neither, does the Richmond ref. I'm pretty sure the DVD commentary for the episode and/or the deleted scenes on the season 4 DVD mentions it though. The shower scene now does have a ref though. Sorry I couldn't be a complete help, hopefully one of the others can. Gran2 17:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Springfield Police Department

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I just discovered this page and I was wonderinf if it is really needed. It has been in existance for several months and nobody categorized it. -- Scorpion0422 23:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Weren't we planning on doong this a while back? Maybe we could merge Eddie and Lou with it or something. Gran2 05:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Merge or delete - either way the article definitely shouldn't exist. Natalie 06:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Characters

Latest comment: 17 years ago26 comments4 people in discussion

How many of the characters really deserve in depth coverage? How many can have enough out of universe information to warrant an article? The only ones that seem to have the possibility of enough information include the main family and larger characters like Flanders and Burns. The rest seem to have notes here and there or nothing at all. If it is only possible to give their major appearances and list one or two creation points, do they need articles? TTN 21:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of the characters clearly meet the WP:FICT guidelines and the list of recurring characters is large enough as it is without adding more to it. -- Scorpion0422 23:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
It states that encyclopedic treatment is needed for characters to require articles, which links to WP:WAF. WAF is pretty strong in pointing out that out of universe information is needed. Only a few characters seem to reach that point. TTN 23:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The WP:FICT guidelines also say that the pages can be split off if a mass page (ie. List of recurring characters on The Simpsons) is too big. Although, some could be merged into other pages, ie. Eddie and Lou could go to Springfield Police Department. -- Scorpion0422 23:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
You're only taking the second part of the sentence. The encyclopedic treatment causing it to become too large is the reason for a split, not just plot information. The only splitting would have to be done is on the character list level. TTN 23:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, you can do whatever you like, but I will oppose you on many of them and I will find real world stuff to add so that they would survive an afd. -- Scorpion0422 23:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
If you can find real world stuff that warrants an article, great. Though, I was hoping to do this with this project because there isn't an effective way to do it otherwise. TTN 23:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I am willing to hear you out though and there are some that I would support, so which pages do you think could be merged? -- Scorpion0422 23:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Anything that really doesn't have a chance of expanding into enough real world information to manage an article should be merged. Though, to start off, characters like Troy McClure, Bumblebee Man, and Superintendent Chalmers would work. They all have bits of information, but they can easily be integrated into a list entry. TTN 00:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Wait and see what others say, but I know for a fact that real world info is out there for Bumblebee Man and Troy McClure but I wouldn't have a problem with Chalmers being merged. -- Scorpion0422 00:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Waiting is fine with me. There no real alternative. TTN 00:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
There used to be Flanders family and Van Houten family pages, perhaps those could be recreated and Maude, Rod and Todd could be merged with the Flanders page and Kirk and Luann can go to the Van Houten page. Ned and Milhouse would keep their seperate pages. -- Scorpion0422 00:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm in the middle of doing McClure's page in an out of universe style (see here: User:Gran2/Sandbox) see please don't merge that. Chalmers, and in my mind Bumblebeeman can go. Gran2 06:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We are almost always in the process of merging character pages. It is a lot better than it used to be, but we are not done. I was thinking that we could merge relatives into the most used character page. E.g. merge Maude, Rodd and Todd in the Ned Flanders article. The same could be done for Apu. Btw Gran, I like what you did to the Troy McClure article. --Maitch 10:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot about this. Instead of bothering with a merge list, there may as well just be a keep list. I'd start it off with:

Off the top of my head, those seem to be some of the more important characters (or ones that just have enough information in McClure's case). Go ahead and add more or remove any as needed. TTN 19:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I would add:

And probably some more, but those are just off the top of my head. Gran2 20:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Grimes, can anyone explain why that is still kept? I don't see one bit of important information that isn't already covered in Homer's Enemy. It's basically just a repeat geared slightly more towards Grimes (though not that much) The stuff about his "cameos" easily fits on a list. TTN 20:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said before, I wouldn't oppose remaking a Flanders and Van Houten family page and merging every related page but Ned and Milhouse. Also, Eddie & Lou could go to Springfield Police Department, Jasper could go, Jimbo & Kearney could go to the students page, and Sideshow Mel can go. Radioactive Man is a trickier one to decide, because he is the main character in a series of real life comic books. -- Scorpion0422 20:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have gone through the entire list of characters, and these are the ones I have no problem with merging:

-- Scorpion0422 20:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I was going for what not to merge, so it just will be easier to say "merge the rest." TTN 20:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Eh, may as well add a list. TTN 20:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

How many of the small characters like Cletus, Snake and Kent Brockman actually have enough possible information? Are they being kept because they certainly have the possibility of information or because of speculative sources? I don't have access to the DVDs or anything, but I really can't imagine more for Cletus than a couple small things that he is based off of, which really wouldn't be good enough for an article. TTN 15:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I am opposed to getting rid of Brockman because I know there is a lot of info out there (ie. The Overlord meme), Snake and Cletus I am indifferent to. However with Cletus, there are a LOT of pages that redirect there (somebody created a page for every single one of his kids) so it is a tricky one. If you wish to merge Cletus or Snake go ahead, but I think they are major enough characters to warrant pages. -- Scorpion0422 15:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Real world information is the only real thing that can define an article. Importance was sort of thrown out the window with the inclusion of McClure anyways. If we can only describe a couple of minor points, it's better to just leave it to a general description. Do you think you could place the ones that you find iffy back in undecided? They can be looked at in a case by case basis. TTN 15:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep

Merge

Undecided

  • Radioactive Man (The Simpsons character) - This is a tricky one because he is big in the comic books and it is reflected on his page, so he does meet the Real world context requirement.
    • Should stay. He is a minor character on The Simpsons, but he is the star of his own comic book series. This makes him notable. I also think that the page should be renamed to Radioactive Man (comic book), since it is both a comic book in the Simpsons universe and in real life. The article is largely about the comic book and not really the character. Fall out boy could be merged into this. --Maitch 16:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Frank Grimes

With these tougher standards, I have a hard time justifying why Grimes should have a page when other similarily notable characters do not, so I would no longer oppose merging the page with Homer's Enemy. -- Scorpion0422 20:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Roger Meyers

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The longstanding article Roger Meyers was changed to a redirect--to an article that doesn't mention Roger Meyers, Jr. at all, by the way--by TTN. I restored it and TTN promptly redirected again. I'm not a member of WikiProject The Simpsons, and I don't want to get into an edit war with TTN. But it seems to me that, whether the article stays or goes, it should be a matter of discussion here, though, or on the article's talk page, rather than a unilateral decision by TTN.--ShelfSkewed Talk 22:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"No consensus" is never a valid reason to revert a redirect (unless it's blatantly obvious that it is wrong). You should only revert if you feel that the content is worthy of being kept, and you are willing to state why that it should be kept. And at the point that it is at, a discussion like this is better. TTN 22:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason why he can't have a page as he played a large role in every episode he appeared in, especially if pages like the Springfield Isotopes are acceptable. -- Scorpion0422 23:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
That just goes under WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and a flaw in the AfD system. Just do a quick merge proposal after the AfD is over, and you'll probably be able to redirect it without a hitch. TTN 23:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Springfield Isotopes

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was hoping to be finished with this by now, but a single user (who follows me around and opposes everything I try to do) has decided to try to keep the page. It would be much appreciated if a couple people could go here and support a merge. -- Scorpion0422 00:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

List of celebrities in The Simpsons

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was wondering if anyone opposed the creation of such a page. There are more than enough characters that could go there and it would remove some from the recurring page, which is already pretty full. -- Scorpion0422 00:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't normally chip in on WikiProjects, but I think characters Kent Brockman and Rainier Wolfcastle are popular cariactures who don't need merging, because really quality articles can be created for them. Alientraveller 09:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Episode coverage

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The WikiProject Television episode coverage taskforce have recently been working on a review process for episode articles. There are a rash of articles about individual episodes which fail notability, and are unlikely to ever reach such requirements. Many contributors are unaware of the specific guidelines to assess notability in episode pages: Wikipedia:Television episodes. We have expanded these guidelines to make them more helpful and explanatory, and we invite you to read the guidelines, and make any comments on its talk page. After much discussion, we have created a proposed review process for dealing with problem articles. See: Wikipedia:Television article review process. We invite discussion of this process on its talk page. General comments about this whole process are welcome at the episode coverage taskforce talkpage. Thanks! Gwinva 10:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Plot length

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I wanted to note that they have change the requirements of a plot length, so that it now can max be 10 words per minute. This would mean that Cape Feare plot should be 50% shorter. --Maitch 12:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. 10 words at most for each minute of the episode? Surely Cape Feare is fine? Gran2 15:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The new rule is included in WP:EPISODE:

As a rough guide, this amounts to no more than ten words per minute of screen time. For example, a 45 minute episode would warrant no more than 450 words.

Cape Feare is about 400 words, so it needs to be shortened to 220 words, if we go by this guideline. The same goes for almost every single episode article we got. --Maitch 13:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Any reason we need a SNPP Workers page?

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Earlier today someone created an SNPP Workers page, moving the Charlie and Mindy Simmons entries from their respective pages (I've since put them back), and adding entries for Homer, Carl and Lenny (though these entries do nothing more than link back to each character's respective page). Further, there are no entries for Burns, Smithers, or anyone else. Personally I don't see why this page needs to exist, considering Springfield Nuclear Power Plant already lists all employees and associates. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? -FeralDruid 17:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Note the user also modified Template:Simpsons_characters to link to the new page. -FeralDruid 17:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Nope, there is no need for the page at all. I suggest just redirecting it to the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant page, without a discussion. It has no really purpose, so that seems to be the best option. Gran2 17:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Good suggestion, and... done. Also reverted the corresponding template change. -FeralDruid 17:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Martin Prince

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have been involved in a dispute with an editor who seems to think that the page needs long sections devoted to his sexual orientation, his "deaths" and inventions. What do you guys think? -- Scorpion0422 02:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly indifferent about the sxual orientation section. But the death section is just crap, why does he need a section about one of his deaths in a THOH episode? It has no relevance to the character at all, its non canon. Gran2 07:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Simpsons Realities

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I just noticed this page and I'm not sure if the website in question is notable enough for a page. In its present form, it lacks any sort of assertion of notability and I nominated it for speedy deletion, but I just figured I'd see what others think. -- Scorpion0422 03:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The only Simpsons sites that are notable are NoHomers and The Simpsons Archive, which have pages. I hadn't heard of this site until I saw that page, and the page showed me it had no actual notability. So this can go in my view. Gran2 06:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Good news, everyone!

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Yes, I know, wrong show. Same creator though...

Based on the comments made here, we don't have to worry about the Simpsons episode pages becoming a target in the recent episode purge, at least not for the time being. And this is thanks, in large part, to the Season 8 FT drive (Yay!) -- Scorpion0422 23:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Good good, we need to get back to episode pages though, we haven't had a new GA in ages, I mean I've been a bit sidetracked. Gran2 05:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

About notability criteria

Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, I want to know how did you reached to establish that ALL simpson's episodes should have its own article on wikipedia?--Andersmusician VOTE 16:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

We didn't, they just do, but as we having many episode GAs, 3 FAs and a FT os episode pages, no one seems to mind. Gran2 16:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
And many of the newer ones have survived an AFD. I think they meet eligibility requirements. -- Scorpion0422 21:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I wonder why, Is The Simpsons an ultra high-audience program in the US?--Andersmusician VOTE 00:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it high audience, but it's a pretty influential show. -- Scorpion0422 00:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, and I suppose that's been sourced, maybe that's why we don't have an "article-per episode" at WP:YUGIOH, thanks anyway --Andersmusician VOTE 01:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
So what is it your saying? That we should delete 40 GAs and 3 FAs just because you think Simpsons episodes aren't notable enough? -- Scorpion0422 03:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
haha I don't want them to be deleted (and not just because I like the simpsons ), I just wanted to know how is this being watched in the US, for looking forward to analise with the same criteria on WP:YUGIOH to see whether we create or not one /article-per episode......--Andersmusician VOTE 18:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Refer to WP:EPISODE in regards to what requires an article. I believe I redirected the Yu-Gi-Oh! episodes a while ago, so you shouldn't bother with them. TTN
You really can't compare them because new episodes of The Simpsons air during primetime in the US, whereas Yu-gi-Oh is syndicated (I think). -- Scorpion0422 18:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
yeah all right, understood all specially WP:EPISODES manual, won't bother you anymore but I'll join this project now.regards --Andersmusician VOTE 00:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Welcome aboard then. We could use some help with the (somewhat defunct) Featured Topic drive in which we're trying to get every season 1 episode to GA status. -- Scorpion0422 01:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

How might I go about fixing the userbox? subst'ing to my user page shows there's an error in the CSS that keeps the border from appearing (border:black 1px; should read border: solid black 1px -- the solid is necessary for the border to actually draw). -FeralDruid 21:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I know how to fix it, I just don't know where it is. :) -FeralDruid 21:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
No idea, it worked fine for me, so it seems strange. Gran2 14:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Episode Lists on Episode Pages

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Throughout the Season 2 pages, "Blood Feud" links to the disambiguation page rather than the episode. How can I fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthrcer (talk • contribs) 08:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed it. Gran2 14:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

New top ten

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I just found a new top ten from Vanity Fair, which could be used for our episode articles. Link --Maitch 20:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, Alientraveller's already added it to each of the ten episodes. Gran2 20:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Yay, another source. And what is the status of the season 1 drive? It seems to have slowed to a stop. I've been pretty busy this summer, but hopefully I'll find some time to work on some pages. -- Scorpion0422 20:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I've really been focusing on the movie page (should be a GA after its release with any luck), but I'll get around to another episode page soon enough (either Krusty Gets Busted or Call of the Simpsons. Gran2 21:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite busy right now, but maybe I will get some free time in a few weeks. --Maitch 21:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I`m going to start work on the season 1 page here, I still have a lot of work to do on it (At the moment, I have nothing started), but I do not own the book that was used as a source for the season 1 page. So if somebody can add page numbers when I have more done, it would be much appreciated. -- Scorpion0422 21:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The 33 funniest Simpsons cameos ever

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • "The 33 funniest Simpsons cameos ever". The Times. 2007-07-05. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

New citation y'all can use. Alientraveller 16:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Merges/Redirects

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed the other day that a lot of articles on lesser characters and locations are being merged or redirected. It concerns me that many of these actions are taking place without any discussion at the talk pages of the articles being merged/redirected or the targets of the merges/redirects. This especially concerns me when the articles in question have been previously nominated for deletion and kept (Frank Grimes), or when the article is "merged", but no content or even mention, is added to the target article (Springfield Police Department). I found with little effort a number of articles merged or redirected without any merge templates added or discussion taking place beforehand. Some of these articles have had over a hundred edits over a number of years, which I think merits more than four people discussing them en masse on a Wikiproject talk page. I've made a chart.

Article Article history Merge/Redirect Target Note
Lurleen Lumpkin 41 edits over 3+ years List of one-time characters from The Simpsons
Hank Scorpio 151 edits over 3+ years List of one-time characters from The Simpsons was rated mid-level importance by the WikiProject
Birch Barlow 36 edits over 1+ years List of one-time characters from The Simpsons merge was actually discussed, but nine months before actually ocurring
Lucius Sweet 38 edits over 1+ years List of one-time characters from The Simpsons
Sideshow Mel 75 edits over 4+ years List of celebrities in The Simpsons was rated mid-level importance by the WikiProject
Drederick Tatum 25 edits over 4+ years List of celebrities in The Simpsons was rated mid-level importance by the WikiProject
Bumblebee Man 70 edits over 4+ years List of celebrities in The Simpsons was rated mid-level importance by the WikiProject
Duffman 71 edits over 4+ years List of celebrities in The Simpsons was rated mid-level importance by the WikiProject
Declan Desmond 40 edits over 2+ years List of celebrities in The Simpsons was rated mid-level importance by the WikiProject
Scott Christian 10 edits over 9 months List of celebrities in The Simpsons
Bleeding Gums Murphy 183 edits over 4+ years List of recurring characters from The Simpsons was rated mid-level importance by the WikiProject
Helen Lovejoy 53 edits over 4+ years List of recurring characters from The Simpsons merge was actually discussed, but six months before actually ocurring
Cookie Kwan 16 edits over 3+ years List of recurring characters from The Simpsons was redirected after a VfD in 2004
Lindsey Naegle 50 edits over 2+ years List of recurring characters from The Simpsons merge was actually discussed, but eleven months before actually ocurring
Agnes Skinner 149 edits over 2+ years List of recurring characters from The Simpsons was rated mid-level importance by the WikiProject
Constance Harm 104 edits over 1+ years List of recurring characters from The Simpsons
Marvin Monroe 108 edits over 1+ years List of recurring characters from The Simpsons
Jasper Beardley 120 edits over 1+ years List of recurring characters from The Simpsons was rated mid-level importance by the WikiProject
Eddie and Lou 51 edits over five months List of recurring characters from The Simpsons was rated mid-level importance by the WikiProject
Marvin Monroe 108 edits over 1+ years List of recurring characters from The Simpsons
Springfield Retirement Castle 82 edits over 2+ years List of fictional places on The Simpsons not mentioned in target article
Springfield Police Department 20 edits over 3 months List of fictional places on The Simpsons not mentioned in target article
Frank Grimes 446 edits over 4+ years Homer's Enemy AfD in March 2007 resulted in "keep", with admin note that "Any further merge proposals (outside of this AfD, in the future) should take place on the talk page"; was rated mid-level importance by the WikiProject
Roger Meyers 100 edits over 1+ years The Itchy & Scratchy Show is rated mid-level importance by the WikiProject

Of course, I'm not saying that all of these articles should exist, or that merging or redirecting them isn't a good idea. And some of these articles clearly don't merit as much attention as others. I'm just thinking that in the future it couldn't hurt to advertise the discussions with the proper tags, so that users interested in the articles know that they're at risk, a notion that seems somewhat counter-intuitive after they've been around for a while. And perhaps in the future when articles are "merged", the target article could contain some actual merged content. --Maxamegalon2000 02:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting list. Add a few more sources, make it an FLC and you might finally get a featured article to your name. 400+ Pokemon articles are in the process of being merged. Why don't you go bug the PCP and leave us alone? I will address a few things:
  1. In many cases the durations of article existance are misleading. ie. Frank Grimes was gone awhile, then recreated a year ago.
  2. In many cases, merges were discussed here.
  3. WikiProject Importance is unimportant, because about 6 months ago, every character article was changed to mid class.
  4. Many of the pages DO fail WP:FICT standards.
  5. In some cases, there were merge tags, but merges were unopposed.
  6. Stop following me around.
Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time. -- Scorpion0422 05:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. This may be the case, though the example you give was actually recreated two years ago, and all but seven of the edits have been made since then.
  2. That's more or less my point. When merger discussions take place on this page, the only people who see them are the ones who visit this page often. I hope that in all cases, merges were discussed somewhere, and that, unlike the Frank Grimes AfD, the result of the discussion was at least not the exact opposite of what occurred.
  3. That's very possible, although not all of the articles I list here were mid class.
  4. Many almost certainly do, but I think it naive, if not cocky, to assume that such a determination should, or even can, be made en masse by four individuals on a WikiProject discussion page without any indication at the article or its talk page.
  5. None of the pages I list here had a merge tag when the page was merged.
  6. If my intention was to follow you around, I would be making contributions to other pages you edit along themes unrelated to the ones I always seem to be bringing up when you accuse me of following you around. If my intention was to deal with you specifically on this issue, Scorpion, I would have mentioned you by name or contacted you at your talk page.
As always, I lament our inability to be civil in our interactions, and hope that others are also willing to contribute to the discussion. --Maxamegalon2000 05:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Russ Cargill

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Should Russ Cargill have his own article or should he be part of the List of one-time characters in The Simpsons? For those who don't know, he's a major character in the movie. - .:Alex:. 18:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I re-directed the name weeks ago to make sur I knew if someone created an article. So no, he doesn't qualify for a page, but he does fully deserve a section on the one time list. Gran2 19:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Done and done. Might need a little editing though... - .:Alex:. 19:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Article The Simpsons cited as a source

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In the article It Doesn't Suck!, a review of the movie The Simpsons by Frank Houston in the July 27, 1997 of the Riverfront Times, the article The Simpsons is referred to as a source, specifically for President Bush's comparison of the Simpsons to the Waltons. The writer also specifically refers to "The Simpsons" extensive - no, exhaustive - Wikipedia entry". Thought you all might like to know. 207.160.66.129 13:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I take it he means exhaustive in a good sense. Very nice. Gran2 17:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I find it interesting that schools ban the use of Wikipedia as a source ([26] [27] [28]), while the media and other sites (such as about.com) continue to reference Wikipedia. -FeralDruid 17:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

New template proposal

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I propose a new template: Template:Simpsons animal.

Why? Because several animals have an infobox however some of them have values which can't possibly apply to them. I propose a new template with the unnecessary values removed, certain ones changed to be more appropriate and a "Status" box for adding the appropriate status of the creature. You can view the template here. If the template can't be accepted then I would like to discuss a possible solution. - .:Alex:. 18:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't see any harm in it, good idea. Gran2 18:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it is useless, besides SLH and Snowball, no animals appear regularly. Also, how can you tell that Blinky, Stampy, and Jub-Jub are male? There is no refrence to their sex at all. Also, what is the point of the "relatives" section? I'm sure none of the animals have any, and there is no reference that Blinky is related to other mutilated fish. I think the template should be removed, as it is unnecessary. Ctjf83 03:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

And now, the fallout

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Everyone should keep an eye out for people adding "vital" new information from the Movie to various character articles. I've already removed a section devoted to Ralph's sexuality and one devoted to Nick's death. Either way, just be prepared to remove large sections about the Movie from many pages. There has already been an attempt to create a Russ Cargill page. -- Scorpion0422 02:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons Theme Song merger

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've suggested the The Simpsons Theme Song article be merged with the The Simpsons opening sequence article. The discussion can be found here Talk:The Simpsons opening sequence at the bottom. Please, anyone interested can provide input there. Thanks Wikidudeman (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Helen Lovejoy

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think that Helen Lovejoy and her "Will someone please think of the children?" needs a page, when Scorpion 044 and TTN no.

--User:Voltex115 (user talk), 10 August 2007 (UTC)

She does not deserve her own page. She hasn't been centric to any episode, and has pretty much no out of universe information. Gran2 20:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
And what makes her more popular and notable than many others on that page? Alientraveller 22:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral page moves.

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There seems to be alot of activity creating new character pages, and removing them from list of recurring characters. Looking at the user pages of those involved makes me think the users are friends in real life. Just a heads up that people need to keep an eye out for these changes against consensus. To those involved: please discuss changes on the talk page before you make them. -- Diletante 17:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

We merged all of the characters that fail WP:FICTION as the cannot be written in a out of universe way. But some people just can't seem to let go, particularly for Helen Lovejoy... Gran2 17:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Article Reassessment

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I reassessed the entire B class article category, and I have reassessed several pages to start class:

It's a shame too, because many of these articles are of high importance to the project.

I know the standards for B class articles are much easier than GAs, but these articles had few sources, little real world info and were basically a jumble of trivia. I did add one though, The itchy & Scratchy Show. I think the key is having a sourced section of real world info, the Groundskeeper Willie article is still far from perfect, but it has a well-sourced background section, so I left it. -- Scorpion0422 01:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Simpsons/Archive_4&oldid=1184990636"