This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
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.
Thoughts? Opinions? Complaints? -- Scorpion 17:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. -- Kbdank71 14:54, 9 May 2008 (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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
This you would probably only need the one. Gran2 19:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I have nominated List of stereotypes in The Simpsons and List of Homer Simpson's lifelong dreams. -- Maitch 16:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
Kang and Kodos needs a lot of help. LeSaint 06:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
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 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)
I have been looking over the categories, and here are the articles I believe should be deleted with little discussion.
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)
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)
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)
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)
1/3 isn't that bad. Anyone else do better? Gran2 23:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
{{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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
How long do you reckon before someone goes CfD on it, poindexter? Lugnuts 20:57, 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)
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)
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:
But, I have changed the last three to:
Thoughts? Comments? -- Scorpion 05:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Thoughts? -- Scorpion 22:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
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. -- BlueSquadron Raven 05:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Well, at least it is first in line now. -- Maitch 20:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Should we rename the "Category:The Simpsons crew members" to something else? -- Scorpion 16:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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?
I think these are our main goals right now. Thoughts? -- Maitch 14:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Pokémon articles by quality and importance | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | |||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | Total | |
FA | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | ||
FL | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||
GA | 14 | 6 | 14 | 8 | 42 | |
B | 8 | 7 | 12 | 8 | 35 | |
C | 3 | 16 | 12 | 27 | 58 | |
Start | 13 | 23 | 67 | 103 | ||
Stub | 15 | 15 | ||||
List | 10 | 5 | 19 | 28 | 62 | |
Category | 72 | 72 | ||||
Disambig | 12 | 12 | ||||
File | 149 | 149 | ||||
Project | 8 | 8 | ||||
Redirect | 3,388 | 3,388 | ||||
Template | 23 | 23 | ||||
Other | 8 | 8 | ||||
Assessed | 36 | 48 | 81 | 155 | 3,660 | 3,980 |
Total | 36 | 48 | 81 | 155 | 3,660 | 3,980 |
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)
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)
What is wrong with having favourite quotes in articles? Simply south 21:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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? Gran 2 17:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
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? Gran 2 19:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The later episodes " Three Gays of the Condo" and " There's Something About Marrying" would again center around homosexuality.
Tacked on the end. Gran 2 20:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
Just so people know, I think we should merge the following pages:
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)
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)
I wish we could just give everyone a page, that would be alot easier. Gran 2 06:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. Gran 2 12:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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? Gran 2 20:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
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? Gran 2 12:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
/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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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 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. Gran 2 20:16, 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)
All the images now have a source. -- Maitch 09:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
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 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)
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).
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)
Since we seem to have decided that we want a barnstar, we need to decide on a few things:
Thoughts? -- Scorpion 04:03, 6 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. Gran 2 06:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The anniversary is next Thursday. Should we do some special? -- Maitch 11:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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. Gran 2 06:16, 21 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)
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)
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)
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. Gran 2 19:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
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. Gran 2 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Our old friend User:Diamond Joe Quimby is at it again Daphne Charles Burns... Gran 2 21:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
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? Gran 2 15:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
K Chicken7 07:28, 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)
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)
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)
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 Gran 2 17:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Scorpion 0422 08:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
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? -- Scorpion 0422 18:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
How far are we from a featured portal? -- Maitch 12:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
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! George C 15:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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))
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 JPS talk to me 16:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Scorpion 0422 23:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. Gran 2 20:02, 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. -- Scorpion 0422 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:
-- Scorpion 0422 20:15, 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)
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. -- Scorpion 0422 20:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. -- Scorpion 0422 00:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Scorpion 0422 00:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
The new rule is included in WP:EPISODE:
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)
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)
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? -- Scorpion 0422 02:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Scorpion 0422 03:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
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!) -- Scorpion 0422 23:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)New citation y'all can use. Alientraveller 16:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Maxa megalon 2000 02:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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. -- Scorpion 0422 02:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. -- Scorpion 0422 01:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
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.
Thoughts? Opinions? Complaints? -- Scorpion 17:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. -- Kbdank71 14:54, 9 May 2008 (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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
This you would probably only need the one. Gran2 19:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I have nominated List of stereotypes in The Simpsons and List of Homer Simpson's lifelong dreams. -- Maitch 16:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
Kang and Kodos needs a lot of help. LeSaint 06:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
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 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)
I have been looking over the categories, and here are the articles I believe should be deleted with little discussion.
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)
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)
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)
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)
1/3 isn't that bad. Anyone else do better? Gran2 23:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
{{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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
How long do you reckon before someone goes CfD on it, poindexter? Lugnuts 20:57, 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)
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)
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:
But, I have changed the last three to:
Thoughts? Comments? -- Scorpion 05:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Thoughts? -- Scorpion 22:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
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. -- BlueSquadron Raven 05:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Well, at least it is first in line now. -- Maitch 20:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Should we rename the "Category:The Simpsons crew members" to something else? -- Scorpion 16:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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?
I think these are our main goals right now. Thoughts? -- Maitch 14:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Pokémon articles by quality and importance | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | |||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | Total | |
FA | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | ||
FL | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||
GA | 14 | 6 | 14 | 8 | 42 | |
B | 8 | 7 | 12 | 8 | 35 | |
C | 3 | 16 | 12 | 27 | 58 | |
Start | 13 | 23 | 67 | 103 | ||
Stub | 15 | 15 | ||||
List | 10 | 5 | 19 | 28 | 62 | |
Category | 72 | 72 | ||||
Disambig | 12 | 12 | ||||
File | 149 | 149 | ||||
Project | 8 | 8 | ||||
Redirect | 3,388 | 3,388 | ||||
Template | 23 | 23 | ||||
Other | 8 | 8 | ||||
Assessed | 36 | 48 | 81 | 155 | 3,660 | 3,980 |
Total | 36 | 48 | 81 | 155 | 3,660 | 3,980 |
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)
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)
What is wrong with having favourite quotes in articles? Simply south 21:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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? Gran 2 17:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
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? Gran 2 19:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The later episodes " Three Gays of the Condo" and " There's Something About Marrying" would again center around homosexuality.
Tacked on the end. Gran 2 20:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
Just so people know, I think we should merge the following pages:
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)
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)
I wish we could just give everyone a page, that would be alot easier. Gran 2 06:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. Gran 2 12:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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? Gran 2 20:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
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? Gran 2 12:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
/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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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 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. Gran 2 20:16, 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)
All the images now have a source. -- Maitch 09:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
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 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)
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).
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)
Since we seem to have decided that we want a barnstar, we need to decide on a few things:
Thoughts? -- Scorpion 04:03, 6 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. Gran 2 06:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The anniversary is next Thursday. Should we do some special? -- Maitch 11:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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. Gran 2 06:16, 21 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)
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)
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)
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. Gran 2 19:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
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. Gran 2 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Our old friend User:Diamond Joe Quimby is at it again Daphne Charles Burns... Gran 2 21:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
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? Gran 2 15:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
K Chicken7 07:28, 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)
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)
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)
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 Gran 2 17:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Scorpion 0422 08:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
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? -- Scorpion 0422 18:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
How far are we from a featured portal? -- Maitch 12:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
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! George C 15:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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))
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 JPS talk to me 16:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Scorpion 0422 23:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. Gran 2 20:02, 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. -- Scorpion 0422 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:
-- Scorpion 0422 20:15, 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)
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. -- Scorpion 0422 20:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. -- Scorpion 0422 00:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Scorpion 0422 00:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
The new rule is included in WP:EPISODE:
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)
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)
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? -- Scorpion 0422 02:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Scorpion 0422 03:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
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!) -- Scorpion 0422 23:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)New citation y'all can use. Alientraveller 16:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
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. -- Maxa megalon 2000 02:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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. -- Scorpion 0422 02:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. -- Scorpion 0422 01:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)