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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Who is the person who, like Gil, bounces between various jobs, but seem to own noiseland arcade, as evidenced in one episode where he was showcasing Donkey Kong (but nobody turned up)...? Simply south 22:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to call the attention of members of this project to the recently revised guideline at WP:FICT, which now states that all sub-articles on fictional subjects must independently meet a new (stricter) notability ruling than what was in place prior to the new guideline. If enforced, the new guideline would likely result in the deletion and/or merging of hundreds of articles on fictional subjects, such as fictional characters, television episodes, fictional locations, etc. There is active discussion / disagreement related to this issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction), and in the interests of ensuring the topic is fully discussed by interested editors, I would invite members of this project to participate in that discussion (whether you agree with the new guideline or not). Fairsing 22:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I am new to this project, and I just wanted to briefly introduce myself. Well, I have been editing for around two years, and have been a die hard Simpsons fan for a few years now. I first became a fan of the series after deciding to watch season 15 from Treehouse of Horror XIV to the final episode of the season, Fraudcast news. I became hooked, and found myself watching it religiously, as well as buying the DVD sets when I can. Anyways, although I have found myself editing The Simpsons related articles on the side recently, I mostly contribute to automotive related articles. You can see an example of my work on the article Ford Taurus, which I consider to be my magnum opus. Anyways, I joined this wikiproject as I plan on focusing more attention to Simpsons related articles than before. My main plan as of now is to redo the Marge Simpson article, to make it more like Homer Simpson (which I did a minor restructuring on) as well as Troy McClure. I will go through Bart Simpson, Lisa Simpson, and Maggie Simpson, to also make sure that they look at their respective characters through a real world perspective instead of just inside the series, mainly so that the people at WP:FICT will have no reason to pitch a bitch and merge them. Anyways, that is all for now, I just thought I would drop in and introduce myself. Karrmann 01:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I might as well admit that I don't really have the time for anything other than minor editing on Wikipedia anymore. So, with that said I won't be finishing "Some Enchanted Evening" as promised. I have the work I have already done at User:Maitch/draft3. I hope that someone can make some use of it and hopefully bring it to FA standards some day. -- Maitch 16:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
In Strong_Arms_of_the_Ma it says that marge "more or less rapes homer". But that is all. How can that possibly be? It doesn't say anything about what happened or its aftermath or how people have responded to it. I don't have access to the episode, so could someone else please add some details about this. Imagine if any other character had been raped. The page would be at least half full of commentary about and related to the rape, but in this episode it gets a one sentence long reference. Not even a discription of what happened, just a side reference. What is going on here? The bellman 05:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a head's up, but Kamp Krusty has been nominated for GA. I tried to edit the project page, but have no idea how. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 23:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
References are what makes the Simpsons great. It's not just solely about the storyline; it's about their art of taking a world's culture and fusing it into a wonderful plethora of intertextuality. As a result, I'd like to contest the dot point to "minimise references". If anything, Wikipedia should be noting all possible references. I come here just for that. – 60.241.121.150 07:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Minimize trivia and cultural references. In many cases, they become cruft magnets and it is best to just get rid of them completely so that IP users don't continually add random stuff.
Here are a few suggestions for our article on A Streetcar Named Marge. If anyone has additional comments, feel free to add them.
After some searching, I don't think there actually was a review of the episode in the New York Times. The closest thing I've found so far is a September 24, 1992 article by John O'Connor about the Simpsons in general. It briefly describes the plots of "Streetcar" and "Kamp Krusty," and it's generally positive in tone, but I don't think it counts as an episode review. Of course, it's possible that the NYT wrote about the episode years later, so I'll keep looking. Zagalejo 18:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm almost satisfied with the article. However, there are a few other concerns that have come to mind. I'll list 'em here.
That's all for now. I'm also still trying to determine whether the Lorando article was the first to publish the lyrics. Zagalejo ^ 06:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about the play, but the cite video template is the correct template to use, there is no other. And if it does reach the main page, the image of Jon Lovitz should be fine. Gran 2 06:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Despite what Mike Reiss says, I can't find any evidence that the New Orleans Fox station pulled the Simpsons for a few weeks. Indeed, the Times-Picayune''s television previews continue to mention the Simpsons throughout the month of October. In light of this, I've done a little bit of re-writing in the "Controversy" section. Thoughts? Zagalejo ^ ^ ^ 20:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
In case someone asks at the FAC, I've dug up the Nielsen info for the episode in the US. It ranked 32nd among prime-time shows for the week (tied with The Golden Palace) and achieved a rating of 11.8, which means that approximately 11 million American viewers tuned in. (Source: Associated Press. "Nielsen Ratings/Sept. 28 –Oct. 4. 1992-10-07.)
Of course, it would be good to include this in the article even if no one requests it, but before I do, I was wondering: is similar info is available for international broadcasts? And something else I've though about: does anyone even know when the episode first aired in the UK, Canada, Australia, etc? Zagalejo ^ ^ ^ 07:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I am happy to say that I have cut the length of the page in half, but also added 10x as many characters to the page. Having huge sections for minor characters was ridiculous and in its present form, I think it is safe from deletion. I've noticed that several one-timers pages for other series (ie. Futurama, which ironically I based the page on) have been targeted for deletion as of late, so I think I've added enough real world info to get the page past the WP:FICT guidelines. I can guarantee that I forgot several characters, so anyone can expand the page, but please don't add characters that appeared in an episode for less than a minute, so no Guy Incognito, Lester & Eliza, Handsome Pete, Sideshow Raheem, etc, etc. -- Scorpion 0422 18:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
It begins... -- Scorpion 0422 02:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, the anti-fiction brigade has already started by going after a relatively notable character page, so we should decide which pages we should try to keep, and which ones we shouldn't even bother trying to save. Character pages mostly need to things to save them: real world info (ie. creation, voice, etc) and 2 independant sources that prove their individual notability. I have also included articles from the "location" category as well.
Please note that they are not necessarily arranged by who is most important to the show. They are arranged by which ones meet the guidelines better. Dr. Nick and Lovejoy aren't much more important than Moleman or Dr. Hibbert, but sources for Nick & Lovejoy would be more plentiful and easier to find.
With these characters, we probably would be able to find real world info, but I doubt we'd be able to find 2 reliable independant sources. These pages are easy merges.
For these pages, there likely ARE independant sources out there, we just need to find them first, but they could easily be merged into the recurring characters page.
These pages we should have no problem saving from any potential merging/deletions. Sources for these characters definitely exist, we just need to find them.
The pages that we really have no worries about, because they meet all criteria, or are notable enough that people won't even bother trying to get rid of them.
If anyone disagrees with one of my classifications, feel free to move it. So we should try and find sources for every character except the ones in "The Rest". An easy to find source would be the IGN "Top 25 Peripheral characters" article. -- Scorpion 0422 16:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I am currently getting The Simpsons, Season 9 with commentaries and everything, and I will have it in about four days or so. I'm planning to get every episode on Season 9 to GA status, and get Season 9 a Featured Topic. If anyone wishes to help later, feel free to. I'll start once I have the Season 9 DVD! :) Xihix 21:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been engaged in a bit of an edit war over The Simpsons Theme because a user thinks that the end credits version of the theme counts as a cover version of the main theme and keeps moving it into the cover section. While he is sort of correct, I think it is better off that we keep all information about the end credits theme in its own section because it avoids confusion and the main and end themes are different. Am I crazy for thinking this? Anyway, opinions on the matter are welcome. You can find a discussion about this here. -- Scorpion 0422 23:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to add the following external links to {{ Infobox Simpsons episode}}: SNPP capsule, IMDB profile, and Simpsons.com episode guide. I'm aware of the broken link problem, but I aim to get around that by making each a separate parameter, rather than having them work automatically off of the production code. I have everything coded already, and you can see an example of the result at User:Equazcion/Sandbox2. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks.
It looks like we may lose the current barnstar design because an administrator thinks I copied the doughnut from the Simpsons Movie poster. There was an older possible design that was basically the same, except that it had the word "d'oh" on it, instead of a doughnut. Maybe we should use that one. -- Scorpion 0422 20:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
We need to figure out how to format the Season pages - (The Simpsons (season #)). Most of them have the episode number, airdate, production code, and title. But some seasons (1,2,6,8,9,19) have director and written by, and season 18 has the rating. Please list your opinion on how you think it should be formated. Ctjf83 18:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm beginning to wonder if the page is really necessary - the big one is d'oh, and it has its own page. Most of the words there really don't have true proof of cultural significance, they just have "in ____ it was used" with no sources. And for some reason, people seem to think that being mentioned in another Simpsons episode, in a book about The Simpsons or being the title of a little known book or song automatically makes a phrase significant. Recently many "lists of significant words" have been deleted, including a list of Family Guy words and a list of words from the Colbert Report. Could we at least merge the page with The Simpsons? Because it also has a small list of words, and they are sourced. -- Scorpion 0422 18:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Done
I think the chalkboard gags and the couch gags pages, should link the episode to the production number code, which is already listed. Does anyone wanna help link, or have a way to make it quicker and easier? Ctjf83 00:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The article Homer Badman and at least 60 other pages [1] refer to The Simpsons: A Complete Guide to Our Favorite Family with a bad ISBN 0-00063-8898 Parameter error in {{ ISBN}}: checksum-1. That's one zero too many (which is why the lonely -1 trails behind the link). Less important, the hyphens are also in the wrong places. The correct one is ISBN 0-00-638898-1. Now, since there is an article about the book, a link to that page might do fine. Perhaps the (faulty) ISBN should just be dropped from all citations? Note that on Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Sources this title is given a completely different ISBN. It is also possible that this project could organize a library of sources in a different way, by defining a template of standard bibliographic references. Is anybody here thinking along these lines? Who is your librarian? -- LA2 01:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Great work! You're welcome to read my thoughts over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check. -- LA2 07:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
It's an absolute mess. The page has survived 2 AFDs, so we can't get rid of it, so we'll need to clean it up. I just did a slash and burn clean up and I removed some pretty ridiculous stuff. It's an important page and if properly sourced, it COULD be a really well done, informative page. Any ideas? -- Scorpion 0422 03:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The most recent episode saw Snake mention that people were vandalising his Wikipedia page, which could lead to people actually trying to vandalise it. It's already been semi-protected, but those with accounts older than a week can still edit. -- Scorpion 0422 00:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised actually, it took the anti-fiction brigade a lot longer to get there than I thought it would. -- Scorpion 0422 02:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
What constitutes listcruft for The Simpsons pages, and what doesn't? Both Scorpion 0422 and THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR agreed that a list of Bart's Prank Calls was listcruft, so it was deleted. If that is considered listcruft, why do we have the following listcruft pages - List of The Simpsons couch gags, List of The Simpsons chalkboard gags, a list of places the Simpsons have traveled to, a list of character's religions, among others. Who's to decide what we need to keep, and what needs to go..they are all just lists? Responses?? Ctjf83 19:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been working on the page, abd it's looking pretty good and I think it's about ready for an FLC. Could anyone take a look at the page and let me know what you think of the format? There are some awards that I have chosen not to include, you can find a list here (as well as a complete, more update list here), and I was wondering if there was anything I left out that should have been included. Basically, my inclusion criteria was any award with a Wikipedia page, but I'm open to anything with a reliable source. I am a little concerned about an FLC, because I had to cheat for some of them and use IMDB, such as the EMA awards, and which individual episode was nominated for an Emmy. If it comes down to it, we can use the commentaries as a source for which episode was submitted for an Emmy, but we will have trouble finding sources for the EMAs. For now, I'm going to leave it and if anyone brings it up, I'll remove the early three noms and just use the source that says the show won 6. -- Scorpion 0422 16:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
A while back, Gran2 and I compiled a list of episodes that should be our top priority and I figured I would post it here so that maybe some others who would like to work on some episodes might know where to start. Between the two of us, we've gotten over 40 pages to GA status, so if your favourite episode isn't listed here, it might be because it was already promoted.
Thoughts? -- Scorpion 0422 23:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
It's back, and hopefully this one goes better than the one for season one. Anyone interested in helping out should visit this page. -- Scorpion 0422 02:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Done
Does anyone think The Simpsons Template should be on the bottom of the episode pages to make navigation easier? Ctjf83 21:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I put a bunch of characters names in a hat and my next character project will be that quirky peppy nightmare neighborino himself... Ned Flanders. Anyone want to help? My next project after him will be... The man who carries Onions on his belt (because it was the style at the time), Abraham Simpson. -- Scorpion 0422 04:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I finally got sick of having to edit two seperate pages every time I tried to fix something, so I merged the two halves of the project page into the main one and gave it a slightly different look. What do others think of it? -- Scorpion 0422 03:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
There is thread of discussion at the Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates about the numerous Simpsons episodes of FA status and why and such. Just a head's up. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 19:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I finally found a good source for the best musical moments from Rolling Stone magazine. Use where needed. [6] -- Scorpion 0422 04:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if the Comedy WikiProject is a parent to this WikiProject? Is it so and it should be noted on the WikiProject? ISD 20:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I've started a discussion here over an editors continual addition of an obscure reference without a source. He has reverted four editors a dozen times in 4 days, so I figured it was time to draw some kind of consensus, even though policy supports its removal. So could people please take a look at the discussion? Thanks, Scorpion 0422 22:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The page is now a GAC, but I think it could use a name change, so I proposed one. You can find the disucssion here. -- Scorpion 0422 01:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Done
To make navigation easier for between episodes of different seasons, I was thinking of suggesting this idea. In the episode's infobox, under where it says the season number and above the date where the season ran through, there would be a smaller selection of numbers which would represent each season. The season that it was on then would obviously be in black and unclickable, whereas the other seasons would be clickable. Sound any good? xihix( talk) 00:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
An IP has decided to add a link to LTS, a small forum dedicated to Lisa. He's been misinterpreting policy and is focusing on the one statement that kinda but doesn't really support him and is ignoring the 3 statements that definitely oppose it's inclusion. The discussion is here. Either way, I'm concerned that he will report this at the forum and then we'll get to deal with Meatpuppets, so could people please keep an eye on the discussion and the page and watch for any socks? Thanks, Scorpion 0422 07:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Is Little Pwagmattasquarmsettport located in Springfield's State? -- Simply south ( talk) 21:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
A user continually adds information about the song "Hullaba Lula" which was included on the CD as an unaired bonus track and is sung by Sideshow Bob. He claims he got the information from the booklet, which says the song was recorded for " Simpsons Tall Tales". However, once you listen to the song, it becomes quite clear that it's from Day of the Jackanapes because it contains the lyrics "I can't wait to kill Krusty today, Bart takes the wrap while I get away" and he also mentions explosives. So it's now turned into one of those silly "verifiability vs. truth" debates. I don't know about anyone else, but I hate knowingly including inaccurate information and even if it DOES have a source, it's still questionable. I have suggested that the song be listed on the page without an episode, but apparantly that makes me a vandal. Either way, could some folks chip in opinions at the talk page? Thanks, Scorpion 0422 23:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I feel like working on something new, but I'm not sure what to work on, does anyone have any suggestions? I feel like something I could have done in 1-2 weeks.
My first thought is Montgomery Burns as it would be challenge, but still manageable. I used to think that listening to all of the commentaries for major characters would be too difficult, but I managed to do it for Flanders. Also, I might be able to pick up some useful stuff for Waylon Smithers. -- Scorpion 0422 05:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering what people thought about including the jokes about them potentially being gay in the Background section of that article. And a user seems to think that the two sentences in the article right now aren't enough. If memory serves, there have only been three one-liners, and it seems to me that having a detailed paragraph about them in such a small section seems like undue weight. After all, it is such a small miniscule part of their characters because they have been in dozens of episodes and mentioning all three jokes in detail gives readers unfamiliar with The Simpsons the impression that this is actually important to their character, when it isn't. Besides, in most character articles, we tend to avoid one-off jokes unless it illustrates an important part of a character. As well, a large part of the justification seems to be based on OR and POV, for example, one reason given to me was that it "speaks to issues of Christian parenting of gay children and the irony that certain accepted forms of protectionistic parenting actually manifests in gay appearing characteristics" What do others think?
For those curious: this is what the article was like yesterday, this is the version where a random user decided to make almost the entire section about their sexuality, this is the version that mentions all three jokes in detail (but less detail and OR than the previous version) , and this is the most recent version. -- Scorpion 0422 03:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Done
If someone gets a chance this user deleted the years from a lot of the air dates of episodes for some reason, so if someone can revert them...i'd do it, but i'm late for work already! Ctjf83 13:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a proposition for overhauling the rather poorly laid out and messy List of characters in The Simpsons page with a new template to keep things nice and tidy. See the discussion here. .:Alex:. 17:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I am fairly new to Wikipedia as a writer but have used Wikipedia almost daily since it was first around. I recently got into an edit war with a user over a section called spoofs which would include continuity problems in each episode, ie, hair is strait in one scene and the camera changes, and the hair is curly. A lot of people follow The Simpsons episodes spoofs and I think it would be a valuable addition to each episode guide. You may or may not agree with me but I think it is part of the Simpson culture that they have those spoofs in each episode making them worth mentioning. Thank you for your time. -- Madscientist013 ( talk) 14:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
To answer your second question, a plot summary is a pretty straightforward reporting of what happened, so no inference is required. For spoofs, it usually requires original research to determine what exactly is being spoofed. Animation and continuity goofs are generally avoided because they are not particularly notable, and can be cruft. You may be able to find an alternative outlet that will accept this information. I think IMDb solicits content from viewers, for example. Natalie 22:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
user:Ed g2s has randomly decided to remove every nonfree image in the season 19 episode pages with the rationale "image not discussed in text". This could end up being a problem if he decides to continue it with other seasons because these anti-image folks always support each other and any argument we have will be over-ruled by them. The way I see it is that the lead images usually illustrate key plot points, and these key plot points are usually discussed in the text. Either way, everyone should keep an eye on the situation. -- Scorpion 0422 00:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
There has recently been a lot of activity from new users and IPs over the inclusion of the reviews of Robert Canning. For those unfamiliar with him, he is an IGN reporter and has been reviewing episodes for them for about a year now. As such, many season 18 and 19 pages have his opinions on them. Several users have raised issues with the inclusion of them, such as at here and here, and some IPs have gone as far as just removing his stuff from the pages. One reason given was "it's a little pretentious to put one guys review of an episode in the reception section" but in my opinion, one review is better than none, and if there were more reviews from other reliable sources, they would all be included but unfortunately there isn't a lot of choice out there. I think another part of the reason is that a lot of fans disagree with his opinions, because we have reviews from random people on some our GAs and FAs and nobody has ever tried to remove those. He is kind of an idiot, but like it or not he is a professional reviewer with a notable website known for its reviews, and they add notability to an article. Without them, the only sourced stuff on many of these pages would be the plot sections, and the WP:EPISODE guidelines say that articles where the only sourced information is the plot should go. Anyway, I am open to removing his reviews if others think they should go. -- Scorpion 0422 00:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. I personally think that since you(referring to whoever included the reviews) are just exploiting a loop-hole basically that the articles are, by Wikipedia standards, not notable enough to warrant not being deleted. However, I think deleting the articles would be a travesty as it is obvious that someone(or some people) has put a lot of work into the articles. I feel that every episode of the Simpsons is notable based solely on its place in the American culture and that the WP:EPISODE guidelines fall a little short in this respect. Anyway, while I think the reviews lower the overall quality of the article, if their inclusion is necessary to the existence of the article, I'm for leaving them in. Perhaps someone could work on improving the way in which they're included? - Gulp Dratsum ( talk) 02:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys. I would like to join your project, but how do I? Sorry if I'm any trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermario65 ( talk • contribs) 20:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to set up a random quote box, like the LGBT one on my page. i think it would be kinda fun to have a simpsons random quote on my page Ctjf83 talk 02:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll set up the template subpages for the randomized quotes, and we can then fill in the actual quotes later. At the moment at Portal:Scientology, there are 20 quotes that are randomly selected, with (3) shown at any given time. I made sure there was a balance between the POV of the various quotes, but with a topic much less controversial like The Simpsons I don't think that will be an issue. Cirt ( talk) 07:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC).
Well, we've got a new repeat vandal out there and this guy is one of those pesky ones that can easily switch IPs. And his IPs are completely different every time, not nice and similar like the Hidden Message Vandal, whose addresses always began with 86. The good news is this guy only seems to like to hit a half dozen pages and seems to be adding the same stuff every time, which makes him easier to track. However, he seems to be on all hours of the day and has been back 5 seperate times today alone (all with the same IP, the admins refuse to ban it for some reason). The IP he's currently using is 124.178.173.231 although he's used several. His IPs are all registered to Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre and he's located in Perth, Australia. His favourite targets are:
So everyone put those pages on watch and check every single IP edit made to those pages. -- Scorpion 0422 03:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Portal:The Simpsons is on Portal Peer Review. Your feedback/comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/The Simpsons, before I eventually nominate the portal to be a Featured Portal Candidate. Thanks, Cirt ( talk) 04:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
It's going to be on the main page in a few hours, and there will likely be heavy vandalism. The page was for some reason unprotected a few hours ago and has since been vandalised several times. -- Scorpion 0422 19:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Television episodes#List of The Simpsons episodes. -- Scorpion 0422 04:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
It appears that the Featured Topic criteria was amended at some point, and now says that one third of the articles in a topic must be featured. In the case of Season 8, that means 4 of the Good articles should be raised to Featured Status, in order to prevent the removal of its status, as after the new year there is going to be a shakeout of Featured Topics no longer meeting the criteria. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 19:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Your Majesties, thank you for all your hard work. This award is for the project itself. When more people qualify to join please let me know. Best wishes, Durova Charge! 00:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
One of the anti-fiction brigade is questioning the pages notability. Is it worth trying to save, or should it be merged somewhere? There was a real version built and there is a DVD extra about it, so we could get some good info. -- Scorpion 0422 00:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
What is going on with this? it has been over 2 weeks since the last discussion and nothing has happened Ctjf83 talk 07:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Done Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Watchlist
Is it possible to make a Simpsons watch list like the LGBT watchlist or is it not feasible due to the large number of articles under the Simpsons Ctjf83 talk 07:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Cirt ( talk) 08:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
This user keeps track of The Simpsons watchlist |
{{User:Ctjf83/The Simpsons Watchlist}} if you would like to use this userbox Ctjf83 talk 09:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to stick with all capitals: FOX when referring to the network. Their own website has all capitals [7] so that is how we should list it on here Ctjf83 talk 08:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
when it is listed as that whole group...notice when it is stand alone, it is FOX Ctjf83 talk 19:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
{{Non-free use rationale | Description = | Source = | Article = | Portion = | Low_resolution = | Purpose = | Replaceability = | other_information = (optional variable, can be left out) }}
It's from Template:Non-free use rationale, and there is an alternate one at Template:Fair use media rationale. Personally I use this occasionally in addition to the traditional list of fair use rationale stuff, but I think you can also use it instead of that. Cheers, Cirt ( talk) 17:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC).
G'day
I have added information on the talk page of Strong Arms of the Ma about the Rape of Homer by Marge in this episode, however I do not have access to the original episode. Could somebody who does, validate the information that was provided on the talk page. Specifically how, and in what way Homer refuses Marge's advances (the exact word would be nice). Thanks. The bellman ( talk) 02:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
'Minimize trivia and cultural references. In many cases, they become cruft magnets and it is best to just get rid of them completely so that IP users don't continually add random stuff.'
WP:TRIV 'This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. - If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.'
I think your guidance above with removal of trivia and cultural refs is wrong. It's not 'best' to remove valid, sourced, interesting and relevant information either to the talk page or completely purely because it is presented as trivia or CR or under some other heading. This has happened in several cases. Removal of sourced information without any effort to add it to the main body of the article, or preserve it - even if it has to stay as trivia - is against the guidance and the spirit of Wikipedia.
I suggest a change to just 'Avoid use of additional fact or trivia sections sections unless absolutely necessary, discuss removal of said items and remove only at last resort' or something less drastic. (Unfortunately this being a wikipedia-wide issue, I cant see any easy way around it.) -- Jw2034 ( talk) 23:54, 21 December 2007 (GMT)
For those curious, this is what our article assessment chart looked like on December 31, 2006:
The Simpsons articles |
Importance | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Top | High | Mid | Low | None | Total | ||
Class | |||||||
FA | 2 | 2 | |||||
A | 1 | 1 | |||||
GA | 1 | 1 | |||||
B | 6 | 26 | 15 | 8 | 55 | ||
Start | 2 | 28 | 415 | 64 | 27 | 536 | |
Stub | 5 | 22 | 84 | 53 | 164 | ||
Unassessed | |||||||
Total | 11 | 60 | 452 | 156 | 80 | 759 |
And this is what it looks like now:
The Simpsons articles |
Importance | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Top | High | Mid | Low | None | Total | ||
Quality | |||||||
FA | 2 | 9 | 7 | 1 | 19 | ||
A | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |||
GA | 2 | 6 | 59 | 67 | |||
B | 4 | 17 | 9 | 4 | 34 | ||
Start | 1 | 32 | 385 | 69 | 3 | 490 | |
Stub | 1 | 23 | 108 | 19 | 151 | ||
Assessed | 10 | 66 | 484 | 182 | 22 | 764 | |
Total | 10 | 66 | 484 | 182 | 22 | 764 |
Pretty good. I'm actually surprised that we had an overall article gain, because we merged over 30 character pages and lost dozens of cruft lists, locations and other trivial things. However, we gained about 20 episode pages and dozens of random crew members, so I guess it works out. The reason our number of B class articles went down is because several were promoted to GA, but the main reason is that I was a pretty bad reviewer in those days and I considered anything with a large trivia section to be B class. And for those curious, the 2 Featured quality articles we had at the end of last year were The Simpsons and List of The Simpsons episodes, while the GA was Homer Simpson. All other Simpsons GAs, FAs and FLs were promoted in 2007. -- Scorpion 0422 21:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
That's a good point. Maybe we should make a list of the most important targets for next year. Our nearest FA prospects, articles we really should try and improve etc. From my perspective The Simpsons Movie is almost there and will almost certainly be an FA by the end of 2008. And after rewriting it earlier, with a bit more work we could get Hank Azaria to FA, because it isn't that different from Cillian Murphy in length. As for targets? All of the season pages, more episodes and characters, if I get around to starting it Phil Hartman and maybe James L. Brooks. Any other ideas? Gran 2 23:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I would like to say to the newcomers of this project. We have in the past been accused of vote rigging whenever our articles are up for FA status or something else. People are upset if the votes comes from people from the same WikiProject. Therefore I would like you to stop doing it in the future and I hope nobody notices it in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Treehouse of Horror (series). -- Maitch ( talk) 16:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
This is really weird and sounds far fetched, but it might be possible that a Simpsons insider has been editting Bob Anderson's page, or it could just be a coincidence.
On July 28, 2007, the IP 66.151.166.5 edited Bob Anderson's article [9] and added several episodes, including " I Don't Wanna Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" and one called " Dial "N" for Nerder", neither of which had aired. At the same time, the user added the title to The Simpsons (season 19) as well as the production code KABF06 [10] which was reverted by me a few hours later. I finally noticed the edits to Bob Anderson on October 14 and removed both [11] but the same IP returned and readded them [12]. As it turns out, the IP was correct because Bob Anderson did direct I Don't Wanna Know Why the Caged Bird sings. This IP was located in Littleton, Colorado and has made several edits to Wikipedia, to a variety of entertainment related pages (including Wes Archer [13]) both before and after July 28 with the most recent edit being December 15.
Today, a different IP ( 12.72.9.108) appeared and readded the same information [14]. This one was located in Los Angeles, which is what has been making me suspicious. Unlike the first IP, it has never editted before. The episode title he has been adding is "Dial N for Nerder", which has not been announced, although a similar title called "N is for Nerder" was mentioned by Nancy Cartwright in an article. The first IP added the title "Dial "N" for Nerder" while the second added "Dial 'N' for Nerder", which indicates that the user didn't just revert to the previous version.
So what do you think? Is it just a huge coincidence and the editor is simply a vandal who made a lucky guess, or is it some kind of insider? -- Scorpion 0422 19:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I think I may have started a wikivirus. When I first learned about the Fair Use rationales, I copied the one from the Cape Feare image. Unfortunately, this rationale included "It illustrates the rake sequence discussed in the article and the lengths the producers would go to in order to fill time." I thoughtlessly added this text to a fair few images before I realised my error. Since then it seems to have spread to a dozen or so images throughout season 4 and other seasons. I apologise for my error. People might want to check the rationales on their favourite articles to see if they have been affected. -- Simpsons fan 66 03:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Does The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson seem like it needs a Themes section? I understand that Cirt made two fantastic ones for the episodes he contributed to, but really is a lack of a major theme in the episode, especially one that has no references for. I will be finishing up the Reception section today or tomorrow and then reference everything, and it should be ready. xihix( talk) 23:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I just remembered a question I was going to ask earlier. For the main image, should I keep the promotional art? It has it's fair use stuff, but it's not the usual promo art I see (Matt's name is usually on there). Should I replace it with an image from the episode? xihix( talk) 03:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like you all to take the time to consider converting Template:The Simpsons characters to the navbox format. Currently we need more opinions to decide. The discussion can be found here. -- Maitch ( talk) 10:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Over the next three months there will be quite a lot of images tagged for lacking rationales, or lacking the name of the article the image is used in. See WP:TODAY and User:MiszaBot/Trackers/CAT:DFUI. I spotted a few Simpsons images, so if you guys have a standard rationale for your episode images, could you deal with these ones?
In case anyone was wondering, Image:Aabf13.jpg got missed because the name of the article " Maximum Homerdrive" is on the page (the link at the bottom of the page is automagically generated by the software, and doesn't count). Nevertheless, Image:Aabf13.jpg also needs a rationale. Hope that helps. Carcharoth ( talk) 10:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Right now, we have a half a dozen active project members, a half a dozen contributing irregulars. Is it time for some kind of official coordinated collaboration effort? I mean, we always say "____ needs work", but then nobody really gets the ball rolling on improvement, so perhaps it's time for a collaboration everyone can vote it. Of course, collaborations often lose steam, they shoot out of the gate but then eventually users get tired of them and they kind of die off, especially the ones for the smaller projects. However, it might be worth a shot, and if we can get a couple of articles improved because of it, then it might all have been worth it. So, what does everyone think? -- Scorpion 0422 18:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't this be its own little Featured Topic? Cirt ( talk) 00:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC).
So how are we going to go about doing this then? I think we should make an official collaboration page to go alongside the FTD page, but make the first five collaborations members of the family. Then, we might be able to get a few non-regulars to get involved. -- Scorpion 0422 22:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Most of you are aware of this, but people have been adding cruft about Maggie speaking in The Simpsons Movie to the voice section of her page. The section in question is meant for real world info about her voice and contains info about who voices her and the reception of those actors (although I admit that it's far from perfect). Since the release of the movie, several IPs have been adding a statement along the lines of "During the closing credits of The Simpsons Movie Maggie says "Sequel", the first time she has spoken in front of other characters". However, I do not believe that it really warrants mention, because it's giving a small post-movie joke undue weight, and it doesn't provide any real world info. Even if you add who voices her, why does it warrant mention over the other times she's spoken in the series, and to list every time would be listcruft. It doesn't belong anywhere else in the article because it doesn't provide any overall info about the character. I have been pestered several times and called a totalitarian by an editor who seems to think it belongs based solely on the fact that a bunch of IPs who have no knowledge of Wikipedia policy have been adding it. There has been a prior discussion about it here. -- Scorpion 0422 00:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This may just be a Mike Scully thing (hopefully), but do the other show runners have better commentaries? When I was doing The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson, I was amazed at how much good stuff Bill Oakley was saying, om contrast to Scully's lack of detail on the production on the other episodes I did. xihix( talk) 03:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I finally continued my work on Some Enchanted Evening (The Simpsons), but I have come to realize that I can't finish it since I only own the region 2 DVD. On the region 1 DVD there is an additional commentary on the deleted material, which might give some good background information. I am therefore asking if someone who owns the region 1 DVD can write the Some Enchanted Evening (The Simpsons)#Deleted scenes section for me. -- Maitch ( talk) 11:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The Last Temptation of Krust has recently been passed as a Good Article, and is currently undergoing a Peer Review. Any comments/feedback on how to further improve the article's quality would be most appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Last Temptation of Krust. Cirt ( talk) 09:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [15]. -- Maniwar ( talk) 01:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Can we get some improvement on this immediately? It's been used for advocacy just because it's one of the freak cases where notability is not established. Will ( talk) 00:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
With the GA folks currently doing sweeps to root out the bad articles, I am fairly sure that Homer Simpson would be delisted. He's such an important character and yet his page is short, not comprehensive and needs clean up. I did a copyedit today and added some stuff about culturak influence, but the page needs more, especially in the creation and development areas. The Role in The Simpsons section is also a big mess. If we all pitch in, and find some sources, we could have the page up to GA standards soon enough. -- Scorpion 0422 17:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to be honest, I am sick and tired of seeing The Simpsons brought up in every single discussion about episodes. We have have 70 GAs and yet people still use Simpsons episodes as an example and say that the mergists should come after us. So perhaps it's time to shut the whiners up and merge the less notable episode pages with the main season pages? I was thinking that we could leave seasons 1-10 alone and focus on seasons 11-19 and merge the pages that likely won't have any chance of becoming GA. For example, an episode like Brawl in the Family is unlikely to ever get beyond just being a plot section with some unsourced trivia and CRs at least, not until the DVD comes out, which won't be for a while. So in those cases we could merge it, then recreate the page when more info comes out. We could leave some episodes: premieres, finales, award winners, controversial episodes, high profile episodes, and merge the rest from that era. If we do that, people might be less inclined to come after the classic era episodes (which are the notable ones). However, the problem with selective merging is the IPs and newer users. They'll come in and say "____ has a page, so why not ____" so it really is the "merge all or keep all" kind of situation. So what do others think? -- Scorpion 0422 00:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
To put my two cents in, I would oppose merging anything. I know my opinion does not count as much as others, but I might as well try. I agree it is pointless to merge them and bring them back later. All episodes are notable, and just because they don't have DVD's yet or are not part of the "good" seasons is not a valid reason for merging. To be honest, I am really annoyed with all the crappy wikpeida "rules" out there. A article has to meet certain "criteria" or else it is not good enough for Wikipedia. I am sure you all are thinking along the lines of no sources=no article, when I am thinking no sources=who cares? And if little known episodes from season 8 and 9 can become Ga's, why not episodes from season 15 or 16? What if this had taken place before 8 and 9 were released, I am sure we would want King of the Hill to be merged. Disagree if you want, but I vote no merge. Rhino131 ( talk) 02:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
For those curious, this is what a user is saying at WT:TELEVISION and has brought up several episodes, including Bart the General. He comes off as a user angry and out to make a point because the episodes of his favourite series were merged. -- Scorpion 0422 03:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I really wouldn't mind merging the majority of seasons 11-19, I mean I know they wouldn't have to be GAs, but if it stops us being used as an example then great. And as said, they can also be un-merged at a later date... Gran 2 15:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
So right now, it appears that:
Is this a fair assessment? Either way, it doesn't appear that any kind of consensus will be reached. I would love to keep every episode page, but it isn't as simple as saying "the project wants to keep them". We would need to start adding real world info to episode pages and adding assertions of notability.
On a side note, it's nice to see a project discussion that involved more than 3 or 4 people (we haven't had one of those in a while). -- Scorpion 0422 20:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Did anyone read this lovely little comment? We've had little to do with this entire episode debate, and yet people still seem to criticize us. -- Scorpion 0422 14:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Gran2, I'd just go ahead and make season 1 all GA'd. You may be making a point in a way, but WP:POINT simply says not to disrupt Wikipedia in a negative way. Making GA's, as far as I know, isn't negative. xihix( talk) 21:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding my comment on that discussion, I hope I didn't stir up any unnecessary trouble. xihix( talk) 00:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep an eye on this discussion and every time Pixelface complains about a specific episode, hurredly source it. It took me 20 minutes to get Lisa's First Word done, so it's not that hard. Google News is a good method of finding reliable sources, it also doesn't hurt to specifically search sites like EW or IGN which don't show up in Google News. Yes, it kind of is making a point, but it isn't disrupting Wikipedia and it's helping to clean up and source pages. -- Scorpion 0422 23:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
We shouldn't let one little punk ruin our project and our episode pages Ctjf83 talk 00:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep a quickie list here, below. Cirt ( talk) 00:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson has recently been passed as a Good Article, and is currently undergoing a Peer Review. Any comments/feedback on how to further improve the article's quality would be most appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson/archive1. Cirt ( talk) 06:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC).
I have nominated this list for deletion. -- Maitch ( talk) 13:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering, would anyone else be up to weekly IRC chats? Each time, we could discuss articles, future callaborations, work that is necessary, or in a time like right now, the whole "Notable Episodes" discussion. We could accomplish a good amount working together at a certain time, and where we can actively discuss at the same time. Since this is a small WikiProject, we'd need a schedule of when we would do this, of course. Also, we could use the freenode sever that all of Wikimedia uses. See WP:IRC for information on how to get on the server and junk. There's also a free Java alternative if you don't have an IRC client of your own. What do you guys think? xihix( talk) 01:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
They discuss his age in several season 7 episodes, I just need one so I can use it as a source for Homer Simpson, which was GA reviewed. It will be delisted in 7 days if the review conditions aren't met. -- Scorpion 0422 22:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been keeping a close eye on it, and I'll provide updates here on some of the more interesting things so that people don't have to sift through the entire discussion.
So far there hasn't been a lot of mention of The Simpsons and PixelFace has only mentioned it once. One of the more interesting proposals so far has been this one in which PixelFace suggests that every single episode page on Wikipedia be put up for afd. I also suggest reading some of the comments in this section as Masem brings up some good points. -- Scorpion 0422 05:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that some wikiprojects have advertisments, like this one from wikiproject video games
Should we have one? -- Simpsons fan 66 03:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
What do you guys think about this? I made it to show what it could possibly look like. xihix( talk)
I added a border around the image to give it a definite area, if you get what I mean. xihix( talk)
Is the border good now? xihix( talk) 20:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I did this as what it would look like. I am aware of the TV fuzzing up, but I have to leave at the moment and do not have time to look too much into it. I will do so when I arrive back. xihix( talk) 22:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Final version? xihix( talk) 03:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to call some attention to the early seasons' articles. I just took a look at a couple of random season 2 articles and they're not in great shape. They could all use some basic cleanup like removing goof sections, removing whitespace, and removing blatant nonsense that survives and builds up because no one pays attention to these. These early seasons are all the more important now that the new episodes suck so much :) Anyway just thought I'd let you know. Cheery-o. Equazcion •✗/ C • 13:03, 23 Jan 2008 (UTC)
I think we should delete any "ages" section in any article, or any mention of ages, as they always contradict each other. any thoughts? Ctjf83 talk 04:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I got a response from Bill Oakley on NoHomers.net, when I asked him for a picture! He also said some other things. Please come into IRC AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, and I'll talk to you in there more about this. xihix( talk) 23:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
One issue is that if he is willing to give us insider information, we wouldn't be able to use it because it wouldn't be verifiable. I was just talking with some users on IRC, and some suggestions were:
So not a lot of options, and each one would be asking a lot from him. I think we should mention that anything he tells us would not be useable, (lets not give any suggestions yet because we don't want to scare him away) and see if he has any ideas. -- Scorpion 0422 04:43, 29 January 2008 (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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Who is the person who, like Gil, bounces between various jobs, but seem to own noiseland arcade, as evidenced in one episode where he was showcasing Donkey Kong (but nobody turned up)...? Simply south 22:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to call the attention of members of this project to the recently revised guideline at WP:FICT, which now states that all sub-articles on fictional subjects must independently meet a new (stricter) notability ruling than what was in place prior to the new guideline. If enforced, the new guideline would likely result in the deletion and/or merging of hundreds of articles on fictional subjects, such as fictional characters, television episodes, fictional locations, etc. There is active discussion / disagreement related to this issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction), and in the interests of ensuring the topic is fully discussed by interested editors, I would invite members of this project to participate in that discussion (whether you agree with the new guideline or not). Fairsing 22:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I am new to this project, and I just wanted to briefly introduce myself. Well, I have been editing for around two years, and have been a die hard Simpsons fan for a few years now. I first became a fan of the series after deciding to watch season 15 from Treehouse of Horror XIV to the final episode of the season, Fraudcast news. I became hooked, and found myself watching it religiously, as well as buying the DVD sets when I can. Anyways, although I have found myself editing The Simpsons related articles on the side recently, I mostly contribute to automotive related articles. You can see an example of my work on the article Ford Taurus, which I consider to be my magnum opus. Anyways, I joined this wikiproject as I plan on focusing more attention to Simpsons related articles than before. My main plan as of now is to redo the Marge Simpson article, to make it more like Homer Simpson (which I did a minor restructuring on) as well as Troy McClure. I will go through Bart Simpson, Lisa Simpson, and Maggie Simpson, to also make sure that they look at their respective characters through a real world perspective instead of just inside the series, mainly so that the people at WP:FICT will have no reason to pitch a bitch and merge them. Anyways, that is all for now, I just thought I would drop in and introduce myself. Karrmann 01:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I might as well admit that I don't really have the time for anything other than minor editing on Wikipedia anymore. So, with that said I won't be finishing "Some Enchanted Evening" as promised. I have the work I have already done at User:Maitch/draft3. I hope that someone can make some use of it and hopefully bring it to FA standards some day. -- Maitch 16:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
In Strong_Arms_of_the_Ma it says that marge "more or less rapes homer". But that is all. How can that possibly be? It doesn't say anything about what happened or its aftermath or how people have responded to it. I don't have access to the episode, so could someone else please add some details about this. Imagine if any other character had been raped. The page would be at least half full of commentary about and related to the rape, but in this episode it gets a one sentence long reference. Not even a discription of what happened, just a side reference. What is going on here? The bellman 05:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a head's up, but Kamp Krusty has been nominated for GA. I tried to edit the project page, but have no idea how. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 23:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
References are what makes the Simpsons great. It's not just solely about the storyline; it's about their art of taking a world's culture and fusing it into a wonderful plethora of intertextuality. As a result, I'd like to contest the dot point to "minimise references". If anything, Wikipedia should be noting all possible references. I come here just for that. – 60.241.121.150 07:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Minimize trivia and cultural references. In many cases, they become cruft magnets and it is best to just get rid of them completely so that IP users don't continually add random stuff.
Here are a few suggestions for our article on A Streetcar Named Marge. If anyone has additional comments, feel free to add them.
After some searching, I don't think there actually was a review of the episode in the New York Times. The closest thing I've found so far is a September 24, 1992 article by John O'Connor about the Simpsons in general. It briefly describes the plots of "Streetcar" and "Kamp Krusty," and it's generally positive in tone, but I don't think it counts as an episode review. Of course, it's possible that the NYT wrote about the episode years later, so I'll keep looking. Zagalejo 18:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm almost satisfied with the article. However, there are a few other concerns that have come to mind. I'll list 'em here.
That's all for now. I'm also still trying to determine whether the Lorando article was the first to publish the lyrics. Zagalejo ^ 06:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about the play, but the cite video template is the correct template to use, there is no other. And if it does reach the main page, the image of Jon Lovitz should be fine. Gran 2 06:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Despite what Mike Reiss says, I can't find any evidence that the New Orleans Fox station pulled the Simpsons for a few weeks. Indeed, the Times-Picayune''s television previews continue to mention the Simpsons throughout the month of October. In light of this, I've done a little bit of re-writing in the "Controversy" section. Thoughts? Zagalejo ^ ^ ^ 20:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
In case someone asks at the FAC, I've dug up the Nielsen info for the episode in the US. It ranked 32nd among prime-time shows for the week (tied with The Golden Palace) and achieved a rating of 11.8, which means that approximately 11 million American viewers tuned in. (Source: Associated Press. "Nielsen Ratings/Sept. 28 –Oct. 4. 1992-10-07.)
Of course, it would be good to include this in the article even if no one requests it, but before I do, I was wondering: is similar info is available for international broadcasts? And something else I've though about: does anyone even know when the episode first aired in the UK, Canada, Australia, etc? Zagalejo ^ ^ ^ 07:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I am happy to say that I have cut the length of the page in half, but also added 10x as many characters to the page. Having huge sections for minor characters was ridiculous and in its present form, I think it is safe from deletion. I've noticed that several one-timers pages for other series (ie. Futurama, which ironically I based the page on) have been targeted for deletion as of late, so I think I've added enough real world info to get the page past the WP:FICT guidelines. I can guarantee that I forgot several characters, so anyone can expand the page, but please don't add characters that appeared in an episode for less than a minute, so no Guy Incognito, Lester & Eliza, Handsome Pete, Sideshow Raheem, etc, etc. -- Scorpion 0422 18:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
It begins... -- Scorpion 0422 02:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, the anti-fiction brigade has already started by going after a relatively notable character page, so we should decide which pages we should try to keep, and which ones we shouldn't even bother trying to save. Character pages mostly need to things to save them: real world info (ie. creation, voice, etc) and 2 independant sources that prove their individual notability. I have also included articles from the "location" category as well.
Please note that they are not necessarily arranged by who is most important to the show. They are arranged by which ones meet the guidelines better. Dr. Nick and Lovejoy aren't much more important than Moleman or Dr. Hibbert, but sources for Nick & Lovejoy would be more plentiful and easier to find.
With these characters, we probably would be able to find real world info, but I doubt we'd be able to find 2 reliable independant sources. These pages are easy merges.
For these pages, there likely ARE independant sources out there, we just need to find them first, but they could easily be merged into the recurring characters page.
These pages we should have no problem saving from any potential merging/deletions. Sources for these characters definitely exist, we just need to find them.
The pages that we really have no worries about, because they meet all criteria, or are notable enough that people won't even bother trying to get rid of them.
If anyone disagrees with one of my classifications, feel free to move it. So we should try and find sources for every character except the ones in "The Rest". An easy to find source would be the IGN "Top 25 Peripheral characters" article. -- Scorpion 0422 16:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I am currently getting The Simpsons, Season 9 with commentaries and everything, and I will have it in about four days or so. I'm planning to get every episode on Season 9 to GA status, and get Season 9 a Featured Topic. If anyone wishes to help later, feel free to. I'll start once I have the Season 9 DVD! :) Xihix 21:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been engaged in a bit of an edit war over The Simpsons Theme because a user thinks that the end credits version of the theme counts as a cover version of the main theme and keeps moving it into the cover section. While he is sort of correct, I think it is better off that we keep all information about the end credits theme in its own section because it avoids confusion and the main and end themes are different. Am I crazy for thinking this? Anyway, opinions on the matter are welcome. You can find a discussion about this here. -- Scorpion 0422 23:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to add the following external links to {{ Infobox Simpsons episode}}: SNPP capsule, IMDB profile, and Simpsons.com episode guide. I'm aware of the broken link problem, but I aim to get around that by making each a separate parameter, rather than having them work automatically off of the production code. I have everything coded already, and you can see an example of the result at User:Equazcion/Sandbox2. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks.
It looks like we may lose the current barnstar design because an administrator thinks I copied the doughnut from the Simpsons Movie poster. There was an older possible design that was basically the same, except that it had the word "d'oh" on it, instead of a doughnut. Maybe we should use that one. -- Scorpion 0422 20:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
We need to figure out how to format the Season pages - (The Simpsons (season #)). Most of them have the episode number, airdate, production code, and title. But some seasons (1,2,6,8,9,19) have director and written by, and season 18 has the rating. Please list your opinion on how you think it should be formated. Ctjf83 18:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm beginning to wonder if the page is really necessary - the big one is d'oh, and it has its own page. Most of the words there really don't have true proof of cultural significance, they just have "in ____ it was used" with no sources. And for some reason, people seem to think that being mentioned in another Simpsons episode, in a book about The Simpsons or being the title of a little known book or song automatically makes a phrase significant. Recently many "lists of significant words" have been deleted, including a list of Family Guy words and a list of words from the Colbert Report. Could we at least merge the page with The Simpsons? Because it also has a small list of words, and they are sourced. -- Scorpion 0422 18:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Done
I think the chalkboard gags and the couch gags pages, should link the episode to the production number code, which is already listed. Does anyone wanna help link, or have a way to make it quicker and easier? Ctjf83 00:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The article Homer Badman and at least 60 other pages [1] refer to The Simpsons: A Complete Guide to Our Favorite Family with a bad ISBN 0-00063-8898 Parameter error in {{ ISBN}}: checksum-1. That's one zero too many (which is why the lonely -1 trails behind the link). Less important, the hyphens are also in the wrong places. The correct one is ISBN 0-00-638898-1. Now, since there is an article about the book, a link to that page might do fine. Perhaps the (faulty) ISBN should just be dropped from all citations? Note that on Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Sources this title is given a completely different ISBN. It is also possible that this project could organize a library of sources in a different way, by defining a template of standard bibliographic references. Is anybody here thinking along these lines? Who is your librarian? -- LA2 01:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Great work! You're welcome to read my thoughts over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check. -- LA2 07:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
It's an absolute mess. The page has survived 2 AFDs, so we can't get rid of it, so we'll need to clean it up. I just did a slash and burn clean up and I removed some pretty ridiculous stuff. It's an important page and if properly sourced, it COULD be a really well done, informative page. Any ideas? -- Scorpion 0422 03:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The most recent episode saw Snake mention that people were vandalising his Wikipedia page, which could lead to people actually trying to vandalise it. It's already been semi-protected, but those with accounts older than a week can still edit. -- Scorpion 0422 00:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised actually, it took the anti-fiction brigade a lot longer to get there than I thought it would. -- Scorpion 0422 02:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
What constitutes listcruft for The Simpsons pages, and what doesn't? Both Scorpion 0422 and THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR agreed that a list of Bart's Prank Calls was listcruft, so it was deleted. If that is considered listcruft, why do we have the following listcruft pages - List of The Simpsons couch gags, List of The Simpsons chalkboard gags, a list of places the Simpsons have traveled to, a list of character's religions, among others. Who's to decide what we need to keep, and what needs to go..they are all just lists? Responses?? Ctjf83 19:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been working on the page, abd it's looking pretty good and I think it's about ready for an FLC. Could anyone take a look at the page and let me know what you think of the format? There are some awards that I have chosen not to include, you can find a list here (as well as a complete, more update list here), and I was wondering if there was anything I left out that should have been included. Basically, my inclusion criteria was any award with a Wikipedia page, but I'm open to anything with a reliable source. I am a little concerned about an FLC, because I had to cheat for some of them and use IMDB, such as the EMA awards, and which individual episode was nominated for an Emmy. If it comes down to it, we can use the commentaries as a source for which episode was submitted for an Emmy, but we will have trouble finding sources for the EMAs. For now, I'm going to leave it and if anyone brings it up, I'll remove the early three noms and just use the source that says the show won 6. -- Scorpion 0422 16:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
A while back, Gran2 and I compiled a list of episodes that should be our top priority and I figured I would post it here so that maybe some others who would like to work on some episodes might know where to start. Between the two of us, we've gotten over 40 pages to GA status, so if your favourite episode isn't listed here, it might be because it was already promoted.
Thoughts? -- Scorpion 0422 23:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
It's back, and hopefully this one goes better than the one for season one. Anyone interested in helping out should visit this page. -- Scorpion 0422 02:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Done
Does anyone think The Simpsons Template should be on the bottom of the episode pages to make navigation easier? Ctjf83 21:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I put a bunch of characters names in a hat and my next character project will be that quirky peppy nightmare neighborino himself... Ned Flanders. Anyone want to help? My next project after him will be... The man who carries Onions on his belt (because it was the style at the time), Abraham Simpson. -- Scorpion 0422 04:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I finally got sick of having to edit two seperate pages every time I tried to fix something, so I merged the two halves of the project page into the main one and gave it a slightly different look. What do others think of it? -- Scorpion 0422 03:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
There is thread of discussion at the Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates about the numerous Simpsons episodes of FA status and why and such. Just a head's up. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 19:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I finally found a good source for the best musical moments from Rolling Stone magazine. Use where needed. [6] -- Scorpion 0422 04:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if the Comedy WikiProject is a parent to this WikiProject? Is it so and it should be noted on the WikiProject? ISD 20:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I've started a discussion here over an editors continual addition of an obscure reference without a source. He has reverted four editors a dozen times in 4 days, so I figured it was time to draw some kind of consensus, even though policy supports its removal. So could people please take a look at the discussion? Thanks, Scorpion 0422 22:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The page is now a GAC, but I think it could use a name change, so I proposed one. You can find the disucssion here. -- Scorpion 0422 01:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Done
To make navigation easier for between episodes of different seasons, I was thinking of suggesting this idea. In the episode's infobox, under where it says the season number and above the date where the season ran through, there would be a smaller selection of numbers which would represent each season. The season that it was on then would obviously be in black and unclickable, whereas the other seasons would be clickable. Sound any good? xihix( talk) 00:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
An IP has decided to add a link to LTS, a small forum dedicated to Lisa. He's been misinterpreting policy and is focusing on the one statement that kinda but doesn't really support him and is ignoring the 3 statements that definitely oppose it's inclusion. The discussion is here. Either way, I'm concerned that he will report this at the forum and then we'll get to deal with Meatpuppets, so could people please keep an eye on the discussion and the page and watch for any socks? Thanks, Scorpion 0422 07:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Is Little Pwagmattasquarmsettport located in Springfield's State? -- Simply south ( talk) 21:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
A user continually adds information about the song "Hullaba Lula" which was included on the CD as an unaired bonus track and is sung by Sideshow Bob. He claims he got the information from the booklet, which says the song was recorded for " Simpsons Tall Tales". However, once you listen to the song, it becomes quite clear that it's from Day of the Jackanapes because it contains the lyrics "I can't wait to kill Krusty today, Bart takes the wrap while I get away" and he also mentions explosives. So it's now turned into one of those silly "verifiability vs. truth" debates. I don't know about anyone else, but I hate knowingly including inaccurate information and even if it DOES have a source, it's still questionable. I have suggested that the song be listed on the page without an episode, but apparantly that makes me a vandal. Either way, could some folks chip in opinions at the talk page? Thanks, Scorpion 0422 23:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I feel like working on something new, but I'm not sure what to work on, does anyone have any suggestions? I feel like something I could have done in 1-2 weeks.
My first thought is Montgomery Burns as it would be challenge, but still manageable. I used to think that listening to all of the commentaries for major characters would be too difficult, but I managed to do it for Flanders. Also, I might be able to pick up some useful stuff for Waylon Smithers. -- Scorpion 0422 05:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering what people thought about including the jokes about them potentially being gay in the Background section of that article. And a user seems to think that the two sentences in the article right now aren't enough. If memory serves, there have only been three one-liners, and it seems to me that having a detailed paragraph about them in such a small section seems like undue weight. After all, it is such a small miniscule part of their characters because they have been in dozens of episodes and mentioning all three jokes in detail gives readers unfamiliar with The Simpsons the impression that this is actually important to their character, when it isn't. Besides, in most character articles, we tend to avoid one-off jokes unless it illustrates an important part of a character. As well, a large part of the justification seems to be based on OR and POV, for example, one reason given to me was that it "speaks to issues of Christian parenting of gay children and the irony that certain accepted forms of protectionistic parenting actually manifests in gay appearing characteristics" What do others think?
For those curious: this is what the article was like yesterday, this is the version where a random user decided to make almost the entire section about their sexuality, this is the version that mentions all three jokes in detail (but less detail and OR than the previous version) , and this is the most recent version. -- Scorpion 0422 03:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Done
If someone gets a chance this user deleted the years from a lot of the air dates of episodes for some reason, so if someone can revert them...i'd do it, but i'm late for work already! Ctjf83 13:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a proposition for overhauling the rather poorly laid out and messy List of characters in The Simpsons page with a new template to keep things nice and tidy. See the discussion here. .:Alex:. 17:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I am fairly new to Wikipedia as a writer but have used Wikipedia almost daily since it was first around. I recently got into an edit war with a user over a section called spoofs which would include continuity problems in each episode, ie, hair is strait in one scene and the camera changes, and the hair is curly. A lot of people follow The Simpsons episodes spoofs and I think it would be a valuable addition to each episode guide. You may or may not agree with me but I think it is part of the Simpson culture that they have those spoofs in each episode making them worth mentioning. Thank you for your time. -- Madscientist013 ( talk) 14:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
To answer your second question, a plot summary is a pretty straightforward reporting of what happened, so no inference is required. For spoofs, it usually requires original research to determine what exactly is being spoofed. Animation and continuity goofs are generally avoided because they are not particularly notable, and can be cruft. You may be able to find an alternative outlet that will accept this information. I think IMDb solicits content from viewers, for example. Natalie 22:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
user:Ed g2s has randomly decided to remove every nonfree image in the season 19 episode pages with the rationale "image not discussed in text". This could end up being a problem if he decides to continue it with other seasons because these anti-image folks always support each other and any argument we have will be over-ruled by them. The way I see it is that the lead images usually illustrate key plot points, and these key plot points are usually discussed in the text. Either way, everyone should keep an eye on the situation. -- Scorpion 0422 00:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
There has recently been a lot of activity from new users and IPs over the inclusion of the reviews of Robert Canning. For those unfamiliar with him, he is an IGN reporter and has been reviewing episodes for them for about a year now. As such, many season 18 and 19 pages have his opinions on them. Several users have raised issues with the inclusion of them, such as at here and here, and some IPs have gone as far as just removing his stuff from the pages. One reason given was "it's a little pretentious to put one guys review of an episode in the reception section" but in my opinion, one review is better than none, and if there were more reviews from other reliable sources, they would all be included but unfortunately there isn't a lot of choice out there. I think another part of the reason is that a lot of fans disagree with his opinions, because we have reviews from random people on some our GAs and FAs and nobody has ever tried to remove those. He is kind of an idiot, but like it or not he is a professional reviewer with a notable website known for its reviews, and they add notability to an article. Without them, the only sourced stuff on many of these pages would be the plot sections, and the WP:EPISODE guidelines say that articles where the only sourced information is the plot should go. Anyway, I am open to removing his reviews if others think they should go. -- Scorpion 0422 00:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. I personally think that since you(referring to whoever included the reviews) are just exploiting a loop-hole basically that the articles are, by Wikipedia standards, not notable enough to warrant not being deleted. However, I think deleting the articles would be a travesty as it is obvious that someone(or some people) has put a lot of work into the articles. I feel that every episode of the Simpsons is notable based solely on its place in the American culture and that the WP:EPISODE guidelines fall a little short in this respect. Anyway, while I think the reviews lower the overall quality of the article, if their inclusion is necessary to the existence of the article, I'm for leaving them in. Perhaps someone could work on improving the way in which they're included? - Gulp Dratsum ( talk) 02:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys. I would like to join your project, but how do I? Sorry if I'm any trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermario65 ( talk • contribs) 20:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to set up a random quote box, like the LGBT one on my page. i think it would be kinda fun to have a simpsons random quote on my page Ctjf83 talk 02:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll set up the template subpages for the randomized quotes, and we can then fill in the actual quotes later. At the moment at Portal:Scientology, there are 20 quotes that are randomly selected, with (3) shown at any given time. I made sure there was a balance between the POV of the various quotes, but with a topic much less controversial like The Simpsons I don't think that will be an issue. Cirt ( talk) 07:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC).
Well, we've got a new repeat vandal out there and this guy is one of those pesky ones that can easily switch IPs. And his IPs are completely different every time, not nice and similar like the Hidden Message Vandal, whose addresses always began with 86. The good news is this guy only seems to like to hit a half dozen pages and seems to be adding the same stuff every time, which makes him easier to track. However, he seems to be on all hours of the day and has been back 5 seperate times today alone (all with the same IP, the admins refuse to ban it for some reason). The IP he's currently using is 124.178.173.231 although he's used several. His IPs are all registered to Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre and he's located in Perth, Australia. His favourite targets are:
So everyone put those pages on watch and check every single IP edit made to those pages. -- Scorpion 0422 03:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Portal:The Simpsons is on Portal Peer Review. Your feedback/comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/The Simpsons, before I eventually nominate the portal to be a Featured Portal Candidate. Thanks, Cirt ( talk) 04:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
It's going to be on the main page in a few hours, and there will likely be heavy vandalism. The page was for some reason unprotected a few hours ago and has since been vandalised several times. -- Scorpion 0422 19:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Television episodes#List of The Simpsons episodes. -- Scorpion 0422 04:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
It appears that the Featured Topic criteria was amended at some point, and now says that one third of the articles in a topic must be featured. In the case of Season 8, that means 4 of the Good articles should be raised to Featured Status, in order to prevent the removal of its status, as after the new year there is going to be a shakeout of Featured Topics no longer meeting the criteria. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 19:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Your Majesties, thank you for all your hard work. This award is for the project itself. When more people qualify to join please let me know. Best wishes, Durova Charge! 00:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
One of the anti-fiction brigade is questioning the pages notability. Is it worth trying to save, or should it be merged somewhere? There was a real version built and there is a DVD extra about it, so we could get some good info. -- Scorpion 0422 00:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
What is going on with this? it has been over 2 weeks since the last discussion and nothing has happened Ctjf83 talk 07:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Done Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Watchlist
Is it possible to make a Simpsons watch list like the LGBT watchlist or is it not feasible due to the large number of articles under the Simpsons Ctjf83 talk 07:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Cirt ( talk) 08:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
This user keeps track of The Simpsons watchlist |
{{User:Ctjf83/The Simpsons Watchlist}} if you would like to use this userbox Ctjf83 talk 09:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to stick with all capitals: FOX when referring to the network. Their own website has all capitals [7] so that is how we should list it on here Ctjf83 talk 08:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
when it is listed as that whole group...notice when it is stand alone, it is FOX Ctjf83 talk 19:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
{{Non-free use rationale | Description = | Source = | Article = | Portion = | Low_resolution = | Purpose = | Replaceability = | other_information = (optional variable, can be left out) }}
It's from Template:Non-free use rationale, and there is an alternate one at Template:Fair use media rationale. Personally I use this occasionally in addition to the traditional list of fair use rationale stuff, but I think you can also use it instead of that. Cheers, Cirt ( talk) 17:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC).
G'day
I have added information on the talk page of Strong Arms of the Ma about the Rape of Homer by Marge in this episode, however I do not have access to the original episode. Could somebody who does, validate the information that was provided on the talk page. Specifically how, and in what way Homer refuses Marge's advances (the exact word would be nice). Thanks. The bellman ( talk) 02:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
'Minimize trivia and cultural references. In many cases, they become cruft magnets and it is best to just get rid of them completely so that IP users don't continually add random stuff.'
WP:TRIV 'This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. - If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.'
I think your guidance above with removal of trivia and cultural refs is wrong. It's not 'best' to remove valid, sourced, interesting and relevant information either to the talk page or completely purely because it is presented as trivia or CR or under some other heading. This has happened in several cases. Removal of sourced information without any effort to add it to the main body of the article, or preserve it - even if it has to stay as trivia - is against the guidance and the spirit of Wikipedia.
I suggest a change to just 'Avoid use of additional fact or trivia sections sections unless absolutely necessary, discuss removal of said items and remove only at last resort' or something less drastic. (Unfortunately this being a wikipedia-wide issue, I cant see any easy way around it.) -- Jw2034 ( talk) 23:54, 21 December 2007 (GMT)
For those curious, this is what our article assessment chart looked like on December 31, 2006:
The Simpsons articles |
Importance | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Top | High | Mid | Low | None | Total | ||
Class | |||||||
FA | 2 | 2 | |||||
A | 1 | 1 | |||||
GA | 1 | 1 | |||||
B | 6 | 26 | 15 | 8 | 55 | ||
Start | 2 | 28 | 415 | 64 | 27 | 536 | |
Stub | 5 | 22 | 84 | 53 | 164 | ||
Unassessed | |||||||
Total | 11 | 60 | 452 | 156 | 80 | 759 |
And this is what it looks like now:
The Simpsons articles |
Importance | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Top | High | Mid | Low | None | Total | ||
Quality | |||||||
FA | 2 | 9 | 7 | 1 | 19 | ||
A | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |||
GA | 2 | 6 | 59 | 67 | |||
B | 4 | 17 | 9 | 4 | 34 | ||
Start | 1 | 32 | 385 | 69 | 3 | 490 | |
Stub | 1 | 23 | 108 | 19 | 151 | ||
Assessed | 10 | 66 | 484 | 182 | 22 | 764 | |
Total | 10 | 66 | 484 | 182 | 22 | 764 |
Pretty good. I'm actually surprised that we had an overall article gain, because we merged over 30 character pages and lost dozens of cruft lists, locations and other trivial things. However, we gained about 20 episode pages and dozens of random crew members, so I guess it works out. The reason our number of B class articles went down is because several were promoted to GA, but the main reason is that I was a pretty bad reviewer in those days and I considered anything with a large trivia section to be B class. And for those curious, the 2 Featured quality articles we had at the end of last year were The Simpsons and List of The Simpsons episodes, while the GA was Homer Simpson. All other Simpsons GAs, FAs and FLs were promoted in 2007. -- Scorpion 0422 21:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
That's a good point. Maybe we should make a list of the most important targets for next year. Our nearest FA prospects, articles we really should try and improve etc. From my perspective The Simpsons Movie is almost there and will almost certainly be an FA by the end of 2008. And after rewriting it earlier, with a bit more work we could get Hank Azaria to FA, because it isn't that different from Cillian Murphy in length. As for targets? All of the season pages, more episodes and characters, if I get around to starting it Phil Hartman and maybe James L. Brooks. Any other ideas? Gran 2 23:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I would like to say to the newcomers of this project. We have in the past been accused of vote rigging whenever our articles are up for FA status or something else. People are upset if the votes comes from people from the same WikiProject. Therefore I would like you to stop doing it in the future and I hope nobody notices it in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Treehouse of Horror (series). -- Maitch ( talk) 16:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
This is really weird and sounds far fetched, but it might be possible that a Simpsons insider has been editting Bob Anderson's page, or it could just be a coincidence.
On July 28, 2007, the IP 66.151.166.5 edited Bob Anderson's article [9] and added several episodes, including " I Don't Wanna Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" and one called " Dial "N" for Nerder", neither of which had aired. At the same time, the user added the title to The Simpsons (season 19) as well as the production code KABF06 [10] which was reverted by me a few hours later. I finally noticed the edits to Bob Anderson on October 14 and removed both [11] but the same IP returned and readded them [12]. As it turns out, the IP was correct because Bob Anderson did direct I Don't Wanna Know Why the Caged Bird sings. This IP was located in Littleton, Colorado and has made several edits to Wikipedia, to a variety of entertainment related pages (including Wes Archer [13]) both before and after July 28 with the most recent edit being December 15.
Today, a different IP ( 12.72.9.108) appeared and readded the same information [14]. This one was located in Los Angeles, which is what has been making me suspicious. Unlike the first IP, it has never editted before. The episode title he has been adding is "Dial N for Nerder", which has not been announced, although a similar title called "N is for Nerder" was mentioned by Nancy Cartwright in an article. The first IP added the title "Dial "N" for Nerder" while the second added "Dial 'N' for Nerder", which indicates that the user didn't just revert to the previous version.
So what do you think? Is it just a huge coincidence and the editor is simply a vandal who made a lucky guess, or is it some kind of insider? -- Scorpion 0422 19:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I think I may have started a wikivirus. When I first learned about the Fair Use rationales, I copied the one from the Cape Feare image. Unfortunately, this rationale included "It illustrates the rake sequence discussed in the article and the lengths the producers would go to in order to fill time." I thoughtlessly added this text to a fair few images before I realised my error. Since then it seems to have spread to a dozen or so images throughout season 4 and other seasons. I apologise for my error. People might want to check the rationales on their favourite articles to see if they have been affected. -- Simpsons fan 66 03:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Does The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson seem like it needs a Themes section? I understand that Cirt made two fantastic ones for the episodes he contributed to, but really is a lack of a major theme in the episode, especially one that has no references for. I will be finishing up the Reception section today or tomorrow and then reference everything, and it should be ready. xihix( talk) 23:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I just remembered a question I was going to ask earlier. For the main image, should I keep the promotional art? It has it's fair use stuff, but it's not the usual promo art I see (Matt's name is usually on there). Should I replace it with an image from the episode? xihix( talk) 03:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like you all to take the time to consider converting Template:The Simpsons characters to the navbox format. Currently we need more opinions to decide. The discussion can be found here. -- Maitch ( talk) 10:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Over the next three months there will be quite a lot of images tagged for lacking rationales, or lacking the name of the article the image is used in. See WP:TODAY and User:MiszaBot/Trackers/CAT:DFUI. I spotted a few Simpsons images, so if you guys have a standard rationale for your episode images, could you deal with these ones?
In case anyone was wondering, Image:Aabf13.jpg got missed because the name of the article " Maximum Homerdrive" is on the page (the link at the bottom of the page is automagically generated by the software, and doesn't count). Nevertheless, Image:Aabf13.jpg also needs a rationale. Hope that helps. Carcharoth ( talk) 10:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Right now, we have a half a dozen active project members, a half a dozen contributing irregulars. Is it time for some kind of official coordinated collaboration effort? I mean, we always say "____ needs work", but then nobody really gets the ball rolling on improvement, so perhaps it's time for a collaboration everyone can vote it. Of course, collaborations often lose steam, they shoot out of the gate but then eventually users get tired of them and they kind of die off, especially the ones for the smaller projects. However, it might be worth a shot, and if we can get a couple of articles improved because of it, then it might all have been worth it. So, what does everyone think? -- Scorpion 0422 18:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't this be its own little Featured Topic? Cirt ( talk) 00:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC).
So how are we going to go about doing this then? I think we should make an official collaboration page to go alongside the FTD page, but make the first five collaborations members of the family. Then, we might be able to get a few non-regulars to get involved. -- Scorpion 0422 22:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Most of you are aware of this, but people have been adding cruft about Maggie speaking in The Simpsons Movie to the voice section of her page. The section in question is meant for real world info about her voice and contains info about who voices her and the reception of those actors (although I admit that it's far from perfect). Since the release of the movie, several IPs have been adding a statement along the lines of "During the closing credits of The Simpsons Movie Maggie says "Sequel", the first time she has spoken in front of other characters". However, I do not believe that it really warrants mention, because it's giving a small post-movie joke undue weight, and it doesn't provide any real world info. Even if you add who voices her, why does it warrant mention over the other times she's spoken in the series, and to list every time would be listcruft. It doesn't belong anywhere else in the article because it doesn't provide any overall info about the character. I have been pestered several times and called a totalitarian by an editor who seems to think it belongs based solely on the fact that a bunch of IPs who have no knowledge of Wikipedia policy have been adding it. There has been a prior discussion about it here. -- Scorpion 0422 00:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This may just be a Mike Scully thing (hopefully), but do the other show runners have better commentaries? When I was doing The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson, I was amazed at how much good stuff Bill Oakley was saying, om contrast to Scully's lack of detail on the production on the other episodes I did. xihix( talk) 03:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I finally continued my work on Some Enchanted Evening (The Simpsons), but I have come to realize that I can't finish it since I only own the region 2 DVD. On the region 1 DVD there is an additional commentary on the deleted material, which might give some good background information. I am therefore asking if someone who owns the region 1 DVD can write the Some Enchanted Evening (The Simpsons)#Deleted scenes section for me. -- Maitch ( talk) 11:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The Last Temptation of Krust has recently been passed as a Good Article, and is currently undergoing a Peer Review. Any comments/feedback on how to further improve the article's quality would be most appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Last Temptation of Krust. Cirt ( talk) 09:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [15]. -- Maniwar ( talk) 01:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Can we get some improvement on this immediately? It's been used for advocacy just because it's one of the freak cases where notability is not established. Will ( talk) 00:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
With the GA folks currently doing sweeps to root out the bad articles, I am fairly sure that Homer Simpson would be delisted. He's such an important character and yet his page is short, not comprehensive and needs clean up. I did a copyedit today and added some stuff about culturak influence, but the page needs more, especially in the creation and development areas. The Role in The Simpsons section is also a big mess. If we all pitch in, and find some sources, we could have the page up to GA standards soon enough. -- Scorpion 0422 17:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to be honest, I am sick and tired of seeing The Simpsons brought up in every single discussion about episodes. We have have 70 GAs and yet people still use Simpsons episodes as an example and say that the mergists should come after us. So perhaps it's time to shut the whiners up and merge the less notable episode pages with the main season pages? I was thinking that we could leave seasons 1-10 alone and focus on seasons 11-19 and merge the pages that likely won't have any chance of becoming GA. For example, an episode like Brawl in the Family is unlikely to ever get beyond just being a plot section with some unsourced trivia and CRs at least, not until the DVD comes out, which won't be for a while. So in those cases we could merge it, then recreate the page when more info comes out. We could leave some episodes: premieres, finales, award winners, controversial episodes, high profile episodes, and merge the rest from that era. If we do that, people might be less inclined to come after the classic era episodes (which are the notable ones). However, the problem with selective merging is the IPs and newer users. They'll come in and say "____ has a page, so why not ____" so it really is the "merge all or keep all" kind of situation. So what do others think? -- Scorpion 0422 00:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
To put my two cents in, I would oppose merging anything. I know my opinion does not count as much as others, but I might as well try. I agree it is pointless to merge them and bring them back later. All episodes are notable, and just because they don't have DVD's yet or are not part of the "good" seasons is not a valid reason for merging. To be honest, I am really annoyed with all the crappy wikpeida "rules" out there. A article has to meet certain "criteria" or else it is not good enough for Wikipedia. I am sure you all are thinking along the lines of no sources=no article, when I am thinking no sources=who cares? And if little known episodes from season 8 and 9 can become Ga's, why not episodes from season 15 or 16? What if this had taken place before 8 and 9 were released, I am sure we would want King of the Hill to be merged. Disagree if you want, but I vote no merge. Rhino131 ( talk) 02:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
For those curious, this is what a user is saying at WT:TELEVISION and has brought up several episodes, including Bart the General. He comes off as a user angry and out to make a point because the episodes of his favourite series were merged. -- Scorpion 0422 03:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I really wouldn't mind merging the majority of seasons 11-19, I mean I know they wouldn't have to be GAs, but if it stops us being used as an example then great. And as said, they can also be un-merged at a later date... Gran 2 15:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
So right now, it appears that:
Is this a fair assessment? Either way, it doesn't appear that any kind of consensus will be reached. I would love to keep every episode page, but it isn't as simple as saying "the project wants to keep them". We would need to start adding real world info to episode pages and adding assertions of notability.
On a side note, it's nice to see a project discussion that involved more than 3 or 4 people (we haven't had one of those in a while). -- Scorpion 0422 20:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Did anyone read this lovely little comment? We've had little to do with this entire episode debate, and yet people still seem to criticize us. -- Scorpion 0422 14:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Gran2, I'd just go ahead and make season 1 all GA'd. You may be making a point in a way, but WP:POINT simply says not to disrupt Wikipedia in a negative way. Making GA's, as far as I know, isn't negative. xihix( talk) 21:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding my comment on that discussion, I hope I didn't stir up any unnecessary trouble. xihix( talk) 00:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep an eye on this discussion and every time Pixelface complains about a specific episode, hurredly source it. It took me 20 minutes to get Lisa's First Word done, so it's not that hard. Google News is a good method of finding reliable sources, it also doesn't hurt to specifically search sites like EW or IGN which don't show up in Google News. Yes, it kind of is making a point, but it isn't disrupting Wikipedia and it's helping to clean up and source pages. -- Scorpion 0422 23:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
We shouldn't let one little punk ruin our project and our episode pages Ctjf83 talk 00:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep a quickie list here, below. Cirt ( talk) 00:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson has recently been passed as a Good Article, and is currently undergoing a Peer Review. Any comments/feedback on how to further improve the article's quality would be most appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson/archive1. Cirt ( talk) 06:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC).
I have nominated this list for deletion. -- Maitch ( talk) 13:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering, would anyone else be up to weekly IRC chats? Each time, we could discuss articles, future callaborations, work that is necessary, or in a time like right now, the whole "Notable Episodes" discussion. We could accomplish a good amount working together at a certain time, and where we can actively discuss at the same time. Since this is a small WikiProject, we'd need a schedule of when we would do this, of course. Also, we could use the freenode sever that all of Wikimedia uses. See WP:IRC for information on how to get on the server and junk. There's also a free Java alternative if you don't have an IRC client of your own. What do you guys think? xihix( talk) 01:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
They discuss his age in several season 7 episodes, I just need one so I can use it as a source for Homer Simpson, which was GA reviewed. It will be delisted in 7 days if the review conditions aren't met. -- Scorpion 0422 22:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been keeping a close eye on it, and I'll provide updates here on some of the more interesting things so that people don't have to sift through the entire discussion.
So far there hasn't been a lot of mention of The Simpsons and PixelFace has only mentioned it once. One of the more interesting proposals so far has been this one in which PixelFace suggests that every single episode page on Wikipedia be put up for afd. I also suggest reading some of the comments in this section as Masem brings up some good points. -- Scorpion 0422 05:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that some wikiprojects have advertisments, like this one from wikiproject video games
Should we have one? -- Simpsons fan 66 03:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
What do you guys think about this? I made it to show what it could possibly look like. xihix( talk)
I added a border around the image to give it a definite area, if you get what I mean. xihix( talk)
Is the border good now? xihix( talk) 20:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I did this as what it would look like. I am aware of the TV fuzzing up, but I have to leave at the moment and do not have time to look too much into it. I will do so when I arrive back. xihix( talk) 22:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Final version? xihix( talk) 03:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to call some attention to the early seasons' articles. I just took a look at a couple of random season 2 articles and they're not in great shape. They could all use some basic cleanup like removing goof sections, removing whitespace, and removing blatant nonsense that survives and builds up because no one pays attention to these. These early seasons are all the more important now that the new episodes suck so much :) Anyway just thought I'd let you know. Cheery-o. Equazcion •✗/ C • 13:03, 23 Jan 2008 (UTC)
I think we should delete any "ages" section in any article, or any mention of ages, as they always contradict each other. any thoughts? Ctjf83 talk 04:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I got a response from Bill Oakley on NoHomers.net, when I asked him for a picture! He also said some other things. Please come into IRC AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, and I'll talk to you in there more about this. xihix( talk) 23:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
One issue is that if he is willing to give us insider information, we wouldn't be able to use it because it wouldn't be verifiable. I was just talking with some users on IRC, and some suggestions were:
So not a lot of options, and each one would be asking a lot from him. I think we should mention that anything he tells us would not be useable, (lets not give any suggestions yet because we don't want to scare him away) and see if he has any ideas. -- Scorpion 0422 04:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)