Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Questions for Bill Oakley

The one and only Bill Oakley has agreed to do an IRC chat with us so that we can ask questions about things that we can use in articles. The transcript of this chat will hopefully be posted at NHC, which I think will be a good enough sorce. Failing that, we'll try The Simpsons Archive. Because not everyone will be able to make the chat (which hasn't been scheduled yet) Xihix and I have made a page where any member can post questions that can be asked. Remember, no fan questions, and due to a lack of time, try to limit it to ones that will help improve an article. That page is here. -- Scorpion0422 02:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"Cultural references" sections

I have an issue with many articles about specific Simpsons episodes. Is this the right place to talk about it? My issue is that many articles contain unreferenced "Cultural references" sections. There are so many articles that it would take forever to tag them with {citation needed} or even delete the unreferenced information. What's the best way to go about fixing this? • Supāsaru 16:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a good question, cause we have to deal with that all the time, IPs and new users adding random unsourced cultural references to articles. Lately after the new episode airs on Sunday, it has been semi-protected for a week, to try and cut back on that. If it is an older episode, specifically one from season 18 or earlier, that hasn't aired on a Sunday in a while, you can either delete the unsourced or use the {{fact}} or {{unreferencedsection}} if a lot or all are unsourced. I wouldn't recommend you delete all of them, if they are all unsourced, just use the second tag from above New episodes that aren't protected are probably going to have a lot of IPs readding stuff you delete, cause they think it needs to go there. Also, there seems to be less random ones when they are in paragraph form, as opposed to list form. Aside from all that, there unfortunately isn't much we can do. Ctjf83talk 20:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines

WP:FICT has been revised

WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live [1] Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. Ned Scott 22:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (serial works)

There is a proposal to split WP:EPISODE into a more general notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (serial works), and make the rest of WP:EPISODE just a MOS guideline. Please join in at WT:EPISODE#Proposed split of EPISODE and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (serial works). -- Ned Scott 22:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nelson's Fist Returns For Bart

Some guy just created this. I need to go, so could someone speedy delete it or something? Thanks. Rhino131 (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I reported TheFreshPrinceOfBel-Air0 (talk · contribs) to WP:AIV. Cirt (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You should add TheFreshPrinceOfBel-Air01 (talk · contribs) to that while you're at it. -- Scorpion0422 04:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Self-removed TheFreshPrinceOfBel-Air0 (talk · contribs) from WP:AIV, per comment from an Admin that he hadn't edited in 5 hours, I'll take a look at this latest incarnation. Cirt (talk) 04:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Was wondering, what was said on the now deleted page? The Nelson's Fist one. xihix(talk) 04:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for deleting it (And incredibly fast too!). As for Xihix's comment, It pretty much said it was the title of an episode of the 20th season and Nelson tries to kill Bart (I can't remember it all). In the end, Bart went to jail for 10 years. The guy who created it also put a sentence on Nelson's page talking about it. Rhino131 (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Update

I put both of those 2 FreshPrince accounts back up on WP:AIV, obvious vandalism only sockpuppets. Cirt (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

TheFreshPrinceOfBel-Air01 (talk · contribs) blocked indef, TheFreshPrinceOfBel-Air0 (talk · contribs) blocked three days. Cirt (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-English versions of The Simpsons

The page is an absolute mess and desperately needs references. For example, it says the show has only been dubbed in 14 languages and has no source for that at all. Anyone interested in cleaning the page up? -- Scorpion0422 19:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not for me Ctjf83talk 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
"Whoo, Sorry! Me no speaky Chini!" - Mr. Burns, A Hunka Hunka Burns in Love. --Simpsons fan 66 01:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A couple comments...

I've been working through a list of TV episodes that have made it to WP:GA, many which are Simpsons episodes, and yet to have any serious problems with these. However, I will offer a few comments to consider:

  • A lot of the images on the Simpsons episode pages use screenshots at 640x480 or larger. It should be noted that by WP:NFCC, low resolution images are preferred whenever possible. I've not failed any article for this, but I have tagged these with {{non-free reduce}}. You may want to check these on newer articles.
  • Something to ponder: is there any way to use collapsible fields for the infobox on the season episodes lists? Those infoboxes do get a bit long in the tooth, and if you could collapse that section, it would be nice (but knowing tables, you have to collapse it all or not.. but maybe you could break the box into a few separate tables? Maybe?)

But keep up the good work in this area. --MASEM 05:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tried before by making some of the sections collapsible, but I'm not good enough at it. Perhaps we could get an expert to come in and work on it. -- Scorpion0422 05:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Primary sourced plot summaries

Primary sourced plot summaries are accepted by consensus among experienced editors at WP:FILMS, among others, and have been accepted with multiple FAs. But a relevant thread has yet again been discussing this, at A Minor Quandary: Or, How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Primary Source. Cirt (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to mention the reason I posted this here was that they mention this with respect to articles about episodes of The Simpsons, specifically... Cirt (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Nancy Cartwright

Apparantly some publicists have complained about the page and have claimed there are many inaccuracies. Some of the stuff they removed can be seen here (this includes all mentions of her ex-husband and scientology, which is the only portion of the article that is well sourced). In fact, some of the stuff that was removed comes from her biography at Fox's promotional website. Anyway, I promised to clean the page up and source it, so if anyone would like to help, it would be much appreciated. -- Scorpion0422 03:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I can probably work on sourcing tomorrow, or perhaps Saturday. Just out of curiosity, how did you hear about the complaints? Natalie (talk) 04:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Mark mentioned on the talk page that there had been an OTRS complaint. I talked to Mark on IRC and he doesn't know much, except that this publicist had been asked to clean up her bio and the publicist had been annoyed when their edits were reverted. Mark's contacted them about it and he hopes to have more detail about the complaints soon. -- Scorpion0422 04:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Gotcha. Natalie (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The Principal and the Pauper on Peer Review

Please see Wikipedia:Peer review/The Principal and the Pauper/archive1. Cirt (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Canadian ratings

BBM has an archive of the top 20–30 highest rated programs of the week in Canada going back to January 2003 (season 14, episode 7) and The Simpsons often makes that list up here. This is good information for reception sections. –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The Featured topic criteria has recently been changed and requires that a topic have twenty percent of its articles featured. Both Simpsons topics The Simpsons (season 8) and The Simpsons (season 9) will need to get two more (four more overall) for a 6 total FAs and will have six mounts to do this. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 21:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

Did you just unilaterally change this yourself, or was there a significant period of discussion that came to a consensus for this major change? Cirt (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the relevant discussion is here: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_topic_criteria#Number_of_featured-class_articles, but I'm still not sure there was a consensus to do this just yet, or if this was just something being bandied about. Cirt (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Zginder (talk · contribs), apologies if I came off a bit brash above, it appears there has been some discussion on this for a while, and actually 6 months is not an unattainable goal for 2 FAs for season 8 and 2 more for season 9. Cirt (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Remedies / featured article potentials

In any event, Season 9 won't be too hard to address, I'm not sure about Season 8 as I did not participate in that featured topic drive. Zginder (talk · contribs) said above that we need 2 more FAs for each season. For Season 9, The Last Temptation of Krust is currently on WP:FAC, and I have just started a peer review for The Principal and the Pauper. Cirt (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 20% of 26 (rounded down) is 5, so we only need one more article for each topic. -- Scorpion0422 23:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, regardless, hopefully within 6 months Season 9 will have 2 more FAs, but I don't know about Season 8. Cirt (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Season 9 seems to be pretty close, but I have no idea what article we would do for season 8... Perhaps The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show. -- Scorpion0422 23:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) is a very good editor when it comes to FAs, and I asked for help with Hurricane Neddy, and I'm awaiting a response. Cirt (talk) 00:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Hurricanehink is an excellent editor when it comes to WikiProject Tropical cyclones articles. I doubt that he owns Simpsons DVDs and books and am unsure if he has ever contributed to anything Simpsons-related, with the exception of Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I just thought because that particular episode is Hurricane-related, he might take an interest. We shall see. Cirt (talk) 10:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Brother From Another Series looks pretty good, and The I&S&P Show wouldn't be to hard to expand. Gran2 10:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons DVD boxsets

I've recently noticed that several shows have been getting rid of their "DVD releases" pages by merging relevant info into season pages. If there are no objections, I would like to try to do the same. The vast majority of the page is a list of episodes, and all extras and other things can easily be added to a table in the article. I tried this out here and I think it looks pretty good. -- Scorpion0422 19:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me Ctjf83Talk 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Treehouse of Horror V PR

This looks to be close to FA status so I've started a PR for it. Just letting you know. Buc (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it has a ways to go. It isn't structured very well and it could use more production info. -- Scorpion0422 01:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to agree with Scorpion. Whole the Production part is meaty in information, I don't really see a basis in the prose. It's hard to explain, but taking a look at the other FA episodes will show you what I mean. xihix(talk) 01:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that was one of the earlier GAs I did and it's not the best one in the world. I think Homer at the Bat is the nearest FA episode that we have. Gran2 15:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Why not nominate it then? Buc (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Still looking for comments. Buc (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Article views

For those curious about how much traffic Simpsons articles get, this is a list of the Top 10000 most viewed articles in February, and these are the rankings of the Simpsons articles that made it: (that I noticed)

I'm a little surprised that Lisa's article isn't there and Matt Groening's is - Bart's article gets a LOT more vandalism. I also didn't realize that new episode pages got that many views. There probably would have been a lot more articles on the list back in July or August. If it were a Top 20000 list, there would likely be a lot more characters on there because many articles had more than 20000 views in February. If anyone wants to see the number of views per day of any article from the last four months, you can visit this link [2] -- Scorpion0422 18:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Receptions

Does anyone wanna go through TVSquad.com and ign.com and put in receptions from the episodes with me? Ctjf83Talk 19:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

FAC notice

CR guidelines

Following up on a discussion that took place at Talk:Dial 'N' for Nerder, we agree that we'd like to see some Simpson-specific guidelines on the notability of cultural references. I'd like to make a rough draft proposal:

  1. No songs should be listed unless they are extensively parodied and mentioned more than twice in the episode.
  2. Something that was merely a one-time visual gag and wasn't referenced in the show should not be included.
  3. In-jokes of the Simpson staff should not be included unless they're notable enough to have actually received press coverage.
  4. Couch gag and chalkboard should be referenced in the infobox only and not have a separate entry in the CR section.

Any thoughts? The Dominator (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think official guidelines are needed or are necessary. My rule of thumb has been that if it lasts longer than a few seconds and has a reliable source, then it should be included. -- Scorpion0422 03:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds all good to me! I usually list Simpson staff appearing in episodes in the Production section...where I think they belong, as apposed to the CR section. Ctjf83Talk 03:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Scorpion, the guidelines aren't really for established members and Simpson contributors cause we sort of know what's OK to put in and where the line is, this is more for new users who aren't being disruptive and evidently want to help, but don't really understand everything. We can always point them to the guidelines and say: this is how we do it. I think it's better than just pointing them to WP:OR and WP:V which 99% of them don't read anyway. The Dominator (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, you know all the IPs and new users add random stuff that is pointless to add Ctjf83Talk 03:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I highly doubt that newer editors would be concerned about the guidelines in any way, they usually ignore WP:NOR, which is an official Wikipedia guideline so why would they suddenly listen to a guideline approved by a few project members? And a lot of it is subjective, a 10 second clip of a song or some kind of ref sung by a character may have an impact on the plot. Personally I think all songs that are played should be mentioned because they are usually a lot easier to pick out. -- Scorpion0422 03:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
but if we set project guidelines, we can delete ones that don't meet the standards easier than just deleting them because we want to Ctjf83Talk 03:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I kind of have a feeling that they would read these guidelines if they were made, probably because they'd be simple and specific. WP:NOR is an official policy hence very generic and I've had IPs that I've pointed to it come back and quote the policy completely out of context. I don't think it really matters whether it's an official policy or not, IPs won't really care. And another thing, I think that 99% of the time songs are completely unnotable and track listings for episodes are discouraged under episode guidelines. Some instances are notable, for example in N for Nerder, the Rocky theme playing at his funeral, but the only thing that makes that notable is that it is a very well known song, it has no significance to the plot, however, therefore should not be mentioned. The Dominator (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement?

People may recall that Xihix made an advertisement for our wikiproject. Here is the latest version.


I think it looks awesome. We had a slight problem with the blurring television/background, but I asked Gurch to fix this. I'm not sure if the blurring has completly dissapeared (can anyone else see it?), but it is only a minor defect. The advertisment has been added to WP:BANNER, so we should get some publicity now! I just want everyones opinion on two things, should we consult more people to try and get rid of the error, and is the advertisement ready for distribution to all members (ie: any more suggestions before it goes public)? --Simpsons fan 66 06:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks fine. Cirt (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't notice an error, and it looks great! I love the goofy letters!! Ctjf83Talk 06:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Great! Scorpion? Gran2? Xihix? Any thoughts? --Simpsons fan 66 09:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The only thing I'd change is that I'd add a period after "Join WikiProject The Simpsons", because that is a complete sentence. Zagalejo^^^ 00:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I already thought we'd decided on this. It looks fine to me, good job. Gran2 07:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I think it looks good, but a period like Zagalejo suggested would be great. -- Scorpion0422 13:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
A period as in a full stop? --Simpsons fan 66 22:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Zagalejo^^^ 23:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok then. Xihix, do you think you could add a period at the end of Join Wikiproject The Simpsons? --Simpsons fan 66 03:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

FAC

Treehouse of Horror V has been nominated. Buc (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Treehouse of Horror V Equazcion •✗/C • 18:25, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Could really use some help guys! Buc (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A Streetcar Named Marge

Hi. I just wanted to get a discussion going in response to some recent additions to the Streetcar Named Marge article.

If I may be blunt, I think we can do without the third paragraph of "Writing" and most of the second paragraph of "Animation". I just think the information in those sections is too trivial. The regular "Plot" section of the article never reaches the same level of detail, so I don't see why we need to spend so much time describing the deleted/modified scenes. Plus, the changes described really aren't that dramatic, and probably wouldn't be all that interesting to someone who's never seen the episode.

But that's just my opinion. I'd love it if others could chime in and try to prove me wrong. Zagalejo^^^ 18:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have trimmed both paragraphs down to include less detail. -- Scorpion0422 18:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It's looking better. Still might need a copyedit, but I'll have to re-watch the animatic to make sure I know what I'm talking about. Just curious, is the DVD extra the entire animatic, or just clips from it? Zagalejo^^^ 18:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It's about 17 minutes long and contains most of the major story points. -- Scorpion0422 21:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Bill Oakley update

Xihix is away for a few days, but he got a response from Bill. In our most recent e-mail, we sent five FAs to him to look over (Homer's Enemy, Homer's Phobia, The Simpsons, Treehouse of Horror (series) and Troy McClure) and he responded.

According to Xihix: "He also asked about the questions and what to do. I responded that I will be back on Saturday to tell him what you guys want to do, so until then, decide upon yourselves what. Look at the screenshots here."

Anyway, as you can see from the e-mails, he said an IRC chat would be fine, but sending him questions via e-mail would be better for him. Again, we run into the RS issues though. He also didn't mention any images. I was hoping he would give us a quote we could stick on our page as a pit of bragging/promotion, but the closest he came is "this article is perfect". -- Scorpion0422 02:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If we're getting all this input from him, WP:DOH really should work on the article Bill Oakley, at the very least fix up the sourcing problems (completely unsourced at the moment) and other glaring stuff. Cirt (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Part of the problem is reliable sourcing, unfortunately there isn't a lot about him out there, but I'll look for some sources. -- Scorpion0422 02:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Rod & Todd Flanders

I really think that Rod and Todd Flanders should have their own page. I think I'm gonna start one soon, anyone wanna join me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior4321 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

We used to have a page like that: [3]. But it was merged to Flanders family. Zagalejo^^^ 20:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
They used to have a page, but it was merged into Flanders family because of the WP:FICT guidelines. If you can find any proof of real world notability for them, then by all means go ahead, but otherwise the page should stay merged. -- Scorpion0422 20:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Another Oakley update

I contacted Bill Oakley myself and he responded. He didn't say anything about images, but I think he would rather answer questions via e-mail rather than during an IRC chat. I told him that would be okay and that we would hopefully send him our question list within a week, so if you have any to add, please do so soon. -- Scorpion0422 01:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So what are we going to do about it being an unreliable source. --Maitch (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Get it posted at WikiNews, I was told it would probably be useable once the page is fully protected. -- Scorpion0422 16:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Krusty the Clown‎

I decided to work on Krusty's article, and cleaned up and sourced the Role in The Simpsons section. It is still rather rough, so if anyone could look at it, it would be much appreciated. I think everything important is mentioned in that section, but the rest of the article still needs expanding. -- Scorpion0422 16:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

s04e11 GAN on hold

Qst's good article nomination of "Homer's Triple Bypass" has been put on hold. I basically deleted the reception section because it was irrelevant so one needs to be written. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"New Kid on the Block" is also on hold for similar reasons. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Zwieback

The more devoted fans might appreciate this: Zwieback. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:02, 9 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Ah, "Homer the Smithers" a very underrated episode. Gran2 14:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal:The Simpsons/Upcoming episodes

This subsection of Portal:The Simpsons needs to be updated. If it seems that this section is consistently being neglected and not updated frequently enough, perhaps an easier fix would just be to remove it. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not that it's being neglected, it's just that there isn't a lot of frequent news. -- Scorpion0422 03:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It currently refers to an "Upcoming episode" - for March 30, 2008, and we are in April now. Cirt (talk) 05:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, Kearny and Dolph

I noticed that these articles were merged into the List of Students article, but the only discussion I found was on Talk:Kearney Zzyzwicz, which was only about merging Kearny, Jimbo and Dolph into one and with a slight consensus against any merging/redirecting. Furthermore, the redirecting of the articles was done by TTN, who has since been forbidden to redirect any articles for overzealousness. I've done very little work on the project so I didn't make any changes, but I wanted to bring this to everyone's attention. McJEFF 03:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fair. Would you mind linking me to the debate? Not because I want to overturn it or contest it or anything like that, only for the sake of curiosity. McJEFF 04:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons/Archive 4#Characters and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons/Archive 5#Character pages - What should stay and what should go are the two largest merge discussions that ocurred here. -- Scorpion0422 04:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Study on collaborative writing

I am doing a study on collaborative writing on Wikipedia - I hope to present the results at Wikimania this year. If you would like to be interviewed over email, please leave a note on my talk page or email me. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Lost Our Lisa on Peer Review

Lost Our Lisa on Peer Review. Your comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Lost Our Lisa/archive1. Cirt (talk) 09:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) gave some helpful comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Lost Our Lisa/archive1, would appreciate help from anyone active in this project in addressing some of them, if you have a chance. If not, no worries, I'll take a look as well and see what I can do. Cirt (talk) 05:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone claiming to be Al Jean edits Wikipedia

[4] and his Ip is actually owned by 20th Century Fox in Los Angeles, so it could be him. Whoever it was was removing vandalism from an IP who has a history of adding fake crap to pages, like saying Homer and Agnes Skinner are based on Al Jean's parents, Frank Grimes is based on Matt Selman and Smithers is based on Mike Reiss. Jean has complained about vandalism on his page on the commentaries, so we should keep an eye on his page in the future.

As well, someone added Reid Harrison as the writer of Papa Don't Leech a week before the episode aired, so watch out for that too. -- Scorpion0422 01:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Al Jean? Could we ask him? Get confirmation somehow? --Simpsons fan 66 11:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Xihix? Where are you?

Does anyone know where Xihix is? In his last edit, [[5]], (Wednesday 19th March) he said he was going to Washington DC until Saturday, 22nd March. Has anyone heard from him outside of wikipedia, or know whats going on? --Simpsons fan 66 11:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I talked to him on IRC a week ago, he says he checks things every other day but hasn't had time to edit. -- Scorpion0422 12:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, awesome. --Simpsons fan 66 07:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars cultural references

Here's a RS with a list of references to Star Wars in the Simpsons. It might allow you to add a ref to a bunch of episodes if you like. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, cool! I used to own the issue of the magazine with the original article, but I lost it! Zagalejo^^^ 17:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks! Gran2 17:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Merging episodes revisited

When we last discussion merging episode articles for the later seasons, we decided to wait for the ArbCom case to finish. The recent ArbCom case is now closed and it didn't give us anything useful to go with. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes didn't give us any answers as well. So I think we should make a decision on our own now.

I've been thinking about this for a while and I have come to the conclusion that I want The Simpsons WikiProject to be a shining example of what Wikipedia is all about. We certainly can't do that for the later seasons as we don't have any sources. There are no DVD's or books that give us any information. All in all we are going to have hundreds of crappy articles, which people then can point at as an example of how bad Wikipedia is. I think the way to go is to turn the into a season article like Smallville (season 1), which is a FA (that's right not FL). If we have some bits of information that is too small to warrant an article, we can then write it under the season summary. If one episode is very special and holds enough information, we can just keep that as an episode article, like they did with Pilot (Smallville).

The conclusion is that I'm all for merging some of the later seasons. We can later discuss which. What do you guys think? --Maitch (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, most of the latter seasons could easily be merged. Some episodes are notable (as said, we can list which episodes we keep if/when we have consensus) but a majority of them ("Pray Anything" for example) are not and can really be merged. After all, if at any point somebody thinks they could get a merged episode to GA, then it can just be re-created. Gran2 14:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I know I don't take part in this Wikiproject, but Maitch, I think you're missing the point. What you're proposing be done is that we delete several smaller/weaker articles and build one big/strong article in their place. But the big article could never contain all the information in it that even the less notable smaller articles currently contain, as this would make it too large, and some of the information which would be considered notable in an individual episode article would get deleted in the process, as being too much detail/too obscure for a series article.
So overall this change would result in a net loss of information to Wikipedia. Information I, for one, find to be a useful reference, that I'd therefore like to see stay here. And therefore, I oppose this kind of move - rst20xx (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe I am missing the point. I've been thinking about this for a while and I have been an experienced Simpsons editor for several years. The only information that will be lost is all the unsourced cultural references and trivia, which we have to get rid of anyway per WP:OR and WP:RS. I just went over the entire 15th season and the best article from that is The Regina Monologues, which isn't all that impressive. I see no reason for why not this season would be better off merged into a single article. --Maitch (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, the only information which would be lost is stuff which we shouldn't be included anyway. Also, as said before, any episode which can prove its notability can stay. Of season 15, The Regina Monologues is the only episode which has any chance of doing that. Gran2 17:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not part of this WikiProject, but it was the work of this WikiProject that inspired me to write the odd GA episode or FL episode list for other shows in the first place. Slowly merging back the episodes of later Simpsons seasons (doesn't have to be in one sweep) where notability or real-world content is harder to prove/add at the moment cannot hurt per WP:WAF and would also improve the great-vs-poor ratio of Simpsons articles; merging doesn't prohibit de-merging at a later time in any way. It would also be a great message for the people "out there" that putting quality over quantity is not a sign of weekness but of strength and confidence. (Ramblings from someone who does indeed put quality over quantity...) – sgeureka t•c 18:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Eh, I'm not crazy about this idea. I agree with rst20xx. As I've said elsewhere, with some effort and diligence, one could dig up at least a paragraph worth of non-trivial, real-world information on any Simpsons episode. That may not be enough to satisfy the Bignoles of Wikipedia, but it's just too much content to smoothly integrate into a list article, which is why I prefer stand-alone articles for all episodes. (Frankly, I don't care if an article doesn't get FA status as long as it is well-written, accurate, and cleanly presented. But that's another argument.) Zagalejo^^^ 19:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, some articles won't get that good simply because there isn't enough stuff out there to make them that good, but that doesn't mean we should be ashamed of them and hide them away. All this talk of "ratios" is bollocks, you don't delete something because you can't make it FA, you make it as good as you can and then settle for that. Priority number 1 on Wikipedia shouldn't be appearances, it should be providing as much useful information as possible.
I think the plot summaries would have to be shortened too if the articles were merged, for example if we look at "Pray Anything" again, I would say the plot summary length looks fine to me (though I haven't read it), but it's longer than any of the plot summaries in the much cited Smallville (season 1) - and yet higher up this thread, that article was given as an example of one that would be merged. So there's something else that would be lost.
The change proposed boils down to making things look better in exchange for a net loss of information - rst20xx (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
First off, I am opposed, as always, to any episode merges. To make this short, your reasoning seems to suggest that any episode that is not or cannot become GA quality does not need to have an article. I would say that there are many articles that are not GA, but nobody is going to delete them. All episodes are worthy of a page not matter how "important" or "sourced" they are. To me, the main reason later episodes have not become GA yet is due to the lack of DVD releases. If there were no seasons released on DVD now we would be having this same conversation about some of the early episodes. If the episodes are merged, (but I hope they are not) I would suggest this wikiproject have a Featured Topic drive for the later seasons after the DVD's come out. The information in the DVD's will enable any later episode, even "Pray Anything" to become GA, just as the DVD's did to early episodes. Rhino131 (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
(reply to rst20xx) There has been no talk of deletion, only trimming of things that shouldn't have been there in the first place. When you've got 10kB of material that mostly doesn't fulfill wikipedia's inclusion criteria, and your are able to trim it down to 3 kB of superb quality, you may as well merge the 20 articles of 3kB into 1 article of 40 kB (with reduced redundance of 20*1kB). Trimming the 20 articles without a merge will just result in the same bad articles after a while because of the "ooh it's a stub it needs to get expanded with junk" mentality of driveby editors. At least that's been my experience. – sgeureka t•c 15:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
(reply to Rhino131 and Zagalejo) Any article can be unmerged again as long as there is some level of information. So if a new season of DVDs is released, then we would have to unmerge the entire season. If Zagalejo can find some information from a newspaper, then we would have to unmerge the episode. I don't think we should be as strict as Bignole is. I don't have any problem with a short article like Mountain of Madness as long as it is sourced. The problem is just that most of the articles from the later seasons consists only of a plot and an infobox (there may be an unsourced cultural references or trivia section, but that should be removed). I think we should do something about those articles now and not wait for the DVDs to come out in several years. --Maitch (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've always felt that if a page has the potential to be fixed up, we should just leave it as an independent article. Zagalejo^^^ 20:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

IRC times

Curse the time differences that plague our countries! As I write this it is 12.30 PM 24th April, yet it is 9.30 PM yesterday in Iowa, 10.30 PM yesterday in Canada, and 3.30 AM today in London! By the time I get home from school everyone else has only just arrived into the present day. I never truly appreciated these differences until I joined wikipedia. It also makes IRC chat during weekdays next to impossible. I keep forgetting on weekends, but when I remember, it is either too late or no-one is there. What times (in your respective states/countries) do you guys typically sign in? --Simpsons fan 66 02:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm typically on at points between 6 PM and midnight, although not all at once (ie. I may be gone for several hours during that period). -- Scorpion0422 05:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Using Cite Episode and Ref Tags

I have been going through Springfield (The Simpsons) and changing all instances of (Example) "As in Bye Bye Nerdie, Lisa is shown to have 18 toes."

That exact sentence wasn't in the article, it is just an example. I have been going around and adding Cite Episode and Ref Tags "Lisa has 18 toes. <ref>{{cite episode|title= [[Bye Bye Nerdie]]|series= [[The Simpsons]]}}</ref>

Is this the proper thing to do, or should they be left the previous way. I personally think it looks better with the Cite Episode tags, and just want to make sure.<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you are supposed to use the cite episode tags in character info sections, rather than saying "In this episode" and "in that episode" every other sentence (most of our good articles do this) but in real world info sections like creation and development, it is okay to give specific episode examples. I hope that answers your question.

And the use of the citation templates vary from article to article, but this is the full version that should be used: <ref>{{cite episode |title=Today I Am a Clown|episodelink=Today I Am a Clown |series=The Simpsons |serieslink=The Simpsons |credits=Cohen, Joel H.; Kruse, Nancy|network=Fox |airdate=2003-12-07 |season=15 |number=6}}</ref> -- Scorpion0422 05:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I will try and go through and add all the extra information soon. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added all of the info you posted to every single episode reference in Springfield (The Simpsons). I am pretty tired now. Turns out I was so tired that I forgot to sign <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The Regina Monologues‎

Hi. Nice work on that article. Have you considered taking it to GA? --Maitch (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to expand the reception section, but after that I was aiming for GA. Gran2 18:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Could someone help me?

Hi Im new with WikiProject The Simpsons and I was thinking that I would like to make or edit a page for this project so if anyone would like to help me just post a message on my talk

--Springfield MO Native JH (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Springfield MO Native JH

The Principal and the Pauper at WP:FAC

The Principal and the Pauper is up at WP:FAC, comments would be appreciated. FAC discussion page is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Principal and the Pauper. Cirt (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Springfield's state

At least they notified some of us this time, the last few Afds nobody bothered to tell us about (like the Capital City one, although I wouldn't have opposed its deletion). -- Scorpion0422 19:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference naming conventions

I'm just wondering, what is the general consensus for proper reference naming conventions. The two most common ones seem to be this[1] and this[2]. As you can see the only difference is whether the DVD is named as The Simpsons The Complete Fourth Season DVD or The Simpsons Season 4 DVD commentary. I believe the first name is the correct one, since that is the exact text printed on the boxsets. But that then raises another question, The Simpsons The Complete Fourth Season DVD is not really proper english, it should have a comma just after The Simpsons. What to do... What to do.... I realise that the adoption of a new standard would involve hours of work shanging existing GA/FA articles, so this probably isn't going to make me very popular! But I have to know, what is everyone else's opinion? --Simpsons fan 66 23:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Groening, Matt (2004). The Simpsons The Complete Fourth Season DVD commentary for the episode "Kamp Krusty" (DVD). 20th Century Fox.
  2. ^ Groening, Matt (2004). The Simpsons Season 4 DVD commentary for the episode "Homer the Heretic" (DVD). 20th Century Fox.
I think that #1 should be used and modified. There should be a colon after Simpsons and the first mention of DVD should be removed because it is mentioned later in the citation. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking exactly the same thing. --Simpsons fan 66 02:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I've never been a fan of either - it just looks wrong to put so much of that in italics. There doesn't seem to be any established convention for citing DVD commentaries, whether on Wikipedia or in external style guides, but I'd prefer something like the following:
Groening, Matt. (2004). Commentary for the episode "Kamp Krusty". The Simpsons: The Complete Fourth Season [DVD]. 20th Century Fox. Zagalejo^^^ 03:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer that one too. --Maitch (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
That's cool, but how about moving the (2004) nearer to the end? Such as
Groening, Matt. Audio Commentary for the episode "Kamp Krusty". The Simpsons: The Complete Fourth Season (2004) [DVD]. 20th Century Fox. --Simpsons fan 66 21:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should move the date to the very end. Zagalejo^^^ 00:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I forgot one thing, the code used for references automatically sorts the text into a prescribed order. So we can't move anything or change the italics unless we type everything manually and abandon the code. Maybe we should return to the original suggestion made by thedemonhog. --Simpsons fan 66 04:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not hearing much consensus, but as for myself, I'm going with demonhogs idea. Any further opinions before we let this topic die? --Simpsons fan 66 12:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Eh... It's not that much more work to format something manually. The current references just aren't professional looking. Let's try to come up with a good solution. Zagalejo^^^ 07:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Who Shot Mr. Burns? merge

I've been considering merging the pages for the two parts (which I first split up about a year ago) into one really good, potential FA. Does anyone oppose this? -- Scorpion0422 21:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, good idea, I think it would service the episodes better and would make a great potential FA. Gran2 21:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I also try and have to figure out a way to fit both infoboxes on the page, so it may involve having to make a custom infobox. -- Scorpion0422 22:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
This same thing happened with two South Park episodes (Go God Go and (Imaginationland), and there was a massive edit war over it. This shouldn't we an issue if we all concur. They did manage to merge the infobox details, so you could always ask them for advice. --Simpsons fan 66 02:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
South Park is a bit of a different show, the crew is basically the same from episode to episode, plus those episodes all occured during the same season, whereas in this case it's two episodes over two seasons. I think we'll have to lose the templates that list all of the episodes, and I can't imagine that this will go over well. -- Scorpion0422 03:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Definitly do some research over the proper procedures first. --Simpsons fan 66 06:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've started work on it, you can see what I have done here. I made custom templates for the page, and I still have some fixing to do before its ready for the mainspace, but any improvements anyone can make are more than welcome. -- Scorpion0422 06:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the plot section is too long now. It is longer than what you are allowed to write for a film article. --Maitch (talk) 09:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I will cut it down soon, for now I'm just working on a smooth merge of the two pages and I'll worry about that later. -- Scorpion0422 13:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I, (Annoyed Grunt)-Bot

Is this the right title? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. --Maitch (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems to fail "article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" over at Wikipedia:Naming conventions. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
It's still the official title of the episode: [6] -- Scorpion0422 20:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I imagine this has been discussed and somone decided it was best to ignore our naming conventions in this case, which is fine if that's what happened. Otherwise it seems like readers would be more familiar with D'oh than (annoyed grunt), even is that's the title it was originally given. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you prove that "I, D'oh-Bot" is the more used title? A google search gets 2000 hits for D'oh but 3000 for Annoyed grunt, so it seems that that one is slightly more used on the internet. -- Scorpion0422 21:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) No, but D'oh is much more used than annoyed grunt. It seems obvious to me that most english speakers will know D'oh better, but I could be wrong. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  • The title is the title, the naming convention doesn't mean that we should make the title inaccurate if that is the official episode title (which it is) and the naming convention shouldn't be applied in a case where a title would be made inaccurate by implying it, something that should probably be clarified next time someone decides to propose updates to the naming conventions. Cat-five - talk 08:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Issues with Mona Simpson

I just went through a number of Simpsons articles to double check for trivia and quote cruft (I didn't see any) and noticed that there are serious issues with tense on the Mona Simpson article and it could use a bit of work because of the recent change in tense due to her "removal" from the series as an active character. A certain number of "is"'s should be changed to "was"'s however depending on their usage some should stay the same regardless of her status. Cat-five - talk 08:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The tense is correct, per WP:TENSE and WP:FICTION, just becuase a character has been killed off or has left the show, does not mean they enter the past tense. Fictional characters were never real in the first place therefore they never stop being fictional characters. Articles related to fiction must be written in an out of universe point of view, therefore, whether dead or not, a character will always be a fictional character. Gran2 14:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Some Enchanted Evening at FAC

Hi, I decided to give Some Enchanted Evening a try at FAC. It would be helpful if somebody could help me by doing a copyedit. This is requested at the FAC. Thanks in advance. --Maitch (talk) 09:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I Can't Believe It's a Bigger and Better Unofficial "Simpsons" Guide

Is this book worth buying? What exactly does it contain? I've seen it used as a reference in several articles, and I'd like to check it out for myself, but it seems like it's only available from two libraries in the United States. Zagalejo^^^ 02:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've considered getting it before, but I have no idea if it's just what the BBC use on their pages, or if there is anything more. It'd probably be better to switch of the BBC sources to the book directly. Any, Amazon have it for 1p here so I may as well buy it. Gran2 05:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Bill Oakley has sent me his images

Most of them are group shots and in most cases cropping out individual images would make them too small for use in individual bio articles. But, we can use the one for images of Bill, Josh and Jeff Martin. And we have some nice group shots for the main article. Please do not upload them yet. I still need to make sure Bill is willing to freely license them per this

  • Image 1 - 1994 (from L to R): Bill, Josh, Mike Reiss, Jeff Martin
  • Image 2 - 1992 - staff photo (R to L): David Stern, CJ Gibson (?), Jon Vitti (partial), John Swartzwelder, George Meyer, Ken Tsumura, Mike Reiss, Josh Weinstein, Bill Oakley, Conan O'Brien, Al Jean (partial), Jeff Goldstein, Colin ABV Lewis (partial), Mike Mendel. Front row: unknown, Lona Williams, Dee Capelli
  • Image 3 - 1993? (L to R, first row) Yeardley, Mike Reiss, Marge, Bart, Silverman (kneeling), Tompkins (standing behind him), Josh, Bill (behind Josh), Sakai (behind Bill), Mirkin, Greg Daniels, Jennifer Crittenden, Al Jean. Second row, on stairs: Unknown, rightmost two are David X. Cohen, Dan Greaney
  • Image 4 - 1992 - Conan hanging out in Bill & Josh's office
  • Image 5 - 1992 - The offices. Conan and Dan McGrath, center

-- Scorpion0422 05:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, those are excellent! I could probably crop most of the individuals from image 2 and definitly image 1. Good job. Gran2 05:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
And, there's an image of John Swartzwelder. That's a bonus. Does anyone think we should try asking if he can send us current images of himself and Josh? He does look quite a bit different now. -- Scorpion0422 14:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep, clear proof that Swartzwelder is real (as if there was any doubt). And, yeah, I agree we should ask if he can take a current image of himself, Josh and Rachel Pulido (who I recall is his wife). Gran2 14:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have sent Bill's permission e-mail to OTRS. Hopefully they'll be useable by Monday. I uploaded them onto commons: Image:The Simpsons office building.jpg‎, Image:Conan O'Brien - Simpsons.jpg‎, Image:Simpsons plane.jpg, Image:Simpsons writers2.jpg‎, Image:Simpsons writers1.jpg‎. You'll know when one of these templates is added: {{PermissionOTRS|ticket=URL}} or {{PermissionOTRS|id=ticket number}} -- Scorpion0422 18:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Neat stuff! I like that Conan picture. Before he made it big... Zagalejo^^^ 18:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That was quick... Image:Simpsons plane.jpg has been listed for deletion because of the plane and the inclusion of the characters. At first I was hoping that I'd be able to crop out some of the people, but 1. Most of them would be too small for infoboxes, 2. Cropping out the group would only allow us to use a few people and 3. We already have some good group images. So, it could be worse. -- Scorpion0422 23:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Prequel List/Category?

- I have season 4, 3, 1 and most of 2 at home. I was looking for a list of episodes like Lisa's first Word or And Maggie Makes Three, Homer marries Marge, etc. I'd like to create such a list and plug it into Simpsons Categories, but I'm wondering if it's appropriate. If there's a Halloween List, can there be a pre-series one? Jethro 82 (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need for a new page, list or category, but a template for the flashback episodes might be a possibilty. Gran2 10:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it is inappropriate with a list or category since the continuity is soo loose. Can we even call "That 90's Show" a flashback show? --Maitch (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a flashback which destroys all the other flashbacks. ;) Gran2 12:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a new one

We've had people who in the past claimed to be Al Jean, Wes Archer, and the guy Artie Ziff is based on (not to mention the people who keep adding writers and directors months prior to episode airdates). Now, somebody is claiming to be the real Armin Tamzarian that Ken Keeler named the character after. [7] He says the name should be spelled Armen, but all official sources spell it Armin, so I reverted it. -- Scorpion0422 05:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Armen" seems to be correct. [8]. I highly doubt this is someone pretending to be the guy. Zagalejo^^^ 05:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
You never know, but it just seems doubtful to me that he would randomly show up on wikipedia on those two pages. It may be how his real name is spelled, but both the Simpsons Forever book, and the official website spell it Armin. -- Scorpion0422 05:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
What other pages would he have gone to? They seem like logical places to me. Neither of those sources is bulletproof. I'd say we just let it go, since it's just one letter. Zagalejo^^^ 05:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
You are correct, they are not bulletproof sources, but neither is a guy claiming to be someone a character is based on. I think we should leave it as Armin for now (it is the slightly more common spelling of the name) and see if this user returns or not. -- Scorpion0422 05:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I did see that he changed "Principal Charming" to "Principal ChArmeng", which seems odd. However, all the evidence I see shows that the real guy does spell his name with an E, so I think we should at least refer to the claims adjustor himself as "Armen". Zagalejo^^^ 05:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It may be wise to take this into a broader forum. RFC? Zagalejo^^^ 05:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the ChArmeng thing could just be the result of some sort of "Find and replace" tool, so that may not really mean much. Zagalejo^^^ 05:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Nah, an RFC is not really necessary. We should try and be consistant with official sources, but it's probably fine for now. Although I'm sure somebody will eventually change it back because it's a longstanding edit war. -- Scorpion0422 06:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Seeing that Tamzarian is an Armenian surname, I can say that "Armen" is the correct spelling because it is one of the most popular names among Armenians; see Armen.--Crzycheetah 06:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip! Zagalejo^^^ 06:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh great...

Well we have another article on the main page and I can hardly contain my excitement. Troy McClure will be TFA for [[May 28] 2008. No, I'm sure it'll be great, and I love having our articles as TFA (minus the vandilism), I just generally think that three The Simpsons articles in one year is too many. Anyway, "wiki-politics" aside be on the watch for slightly higher levels of vandilism over the next week. Gran2 10:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. I was hoping to try The Simpsons Movie for July 27, but this'll be fine. -- Scorpion0422 23:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Gratz on Troy McClure making it to the front page guys... sorry I haven't been editing much lately, been extremely busy with a new company... just happened to check out wikipedia regarding the Phoenix landing, and immediately recognized a Simpsons name as the FA... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Importance ratings

I'm not a member of the project and don't wish to become one (just got drawn in by TFA), but I notice that there are more mid importance articles than there are low importance articles. It's my opinion that there should be significantly more articles in categories of lower importance than those of higher importance, i.e. more low than mid, mid than high, and high than top. This is the case for mid vs. high and high vs. top here, so should it not also be the case with mid vs. low? Richard001 (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

All episodes are of mid importance, so since there are 419 episode pages (over half of the project articles) there is naturally going to be more of them. All characters are also mid importance. -- Scorpion0422 02:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Bouvier family

Does anyone else think this could easily be merged into the Simpson family article? They are all part of the same family, and it doesn't make sense to include Homer's relatives in the Simpson family article, but not Marges. -- Scorpion0422 18:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a Bouvier family article? Wow. Yeah, that could easily be merged in Simpson family. Gran2 18:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Relatives for infoboxes

(copied from Talk:Abraham_Simpson#Relatives)

Hey, I'm semi-back! Anyway, since there is some issues with who we should list as relatives, I'll jump start the discussion. I think we only need to list main recurring characters in the relatives section, and close relatives, like we don't need to list Abe's daughter in laws, or Ling as the kids' cousin, his parents aren't recurring at all, I don't even remember seeing them, so I don't think they should be listed Ctjf83Talk 16:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, they appeared in one episode (Much Apu About Nothing) in a very brief flashback (which was likely one of Grampa's insane stories). Their names came from a non-canon source. Mentioning them in the article is fine, but the infoboxes are meant for characters that were more than a one-off joke. If we mention such minor characters, then the infoboxes would be chock full of such characters as Mother Shabooboo, Uncle Tyrone and the guy who plays a millionaire at parties. -- Scorpion0422 17:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL, ya, I don't have a problem listing some in the article, my above guidelines were for the info boxes. Ctjf83Talk 17:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I always assumed that at least main direct relatives, such as parents, spouse and offspring, were listed in these sections (well at least they are for other characters, even for characters for other things not related to The Simpsons). Abe's father has appeared in at least two episodes, "Bart Gets Hit By A Car" and "Much Apu About Nothing". But it seems that almost every edit I've made on these articles recently is supposedly "wrong" despite a lot of related articles contradicting the reasons given for the reverts. Bah, sort out your own mess then. --.:Alex:. 17:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I actually don't remember seeing his parents at all, it must be for a brief few seconds. I don't think a total of 10 seconds of someone appearing over the course of 420 episodes is enough to mention them in the infobox, even if they are parents of Abe. Also, just because one or two people think your edits are wrong, doesn't mean the are! Ctjf83Talk 17:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I know... it's just tiring and frustrating when it's relentless is all. Besides, I think we need a discussion on standardising the infoboxes anyway. Almost all of them have something different going on with them with many different aspects, we really should standardise them otherwise it becomes really, really confusing. With Abe's parents, well they are about on par with, say, Iggy Wiggum or Sheldon Skinner and yet they are listed hence why I thought I should add them there. --.:Alex:. 17:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Excellent point!!! Why do we even have those, from what I remember, one time characters just from "Raging Abe Simpson and His Grumbling Grandson in "The Curse of the Flying Hellfish"". You are absolutely right though, if we list them, we should list Abe's parents. But the question is should we list them. I don't think we should if they have only appeared in a few out of 420 episodes. We can discuss it here, or link this to a discussion off the main Simpsons page to reach a decision amongst the project. Ctjf83Talk 17:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer continuing the discussion at WT:DOH, as it seems a more suitible venue for discussion about the infobox in general. --.:Alex:. 18:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've edited and modified a lot of cultural references, and I was wondering if we could address the inconsistency of this. Some pages have waaay too many references, some have one or two, and most have none. I've contemplated how to address this, and the only options I've found are 1. Remove all of them - some I think are noteworthy, but there's no objective way to pick out which ones to keep, so they'd all have to go 2. Create a page called "The Simpsons cultural references" or "Cultural References in The Simpsons." I wanted to get feedback from others on what, if anything, should be done about this. I'm willing to execute the decision myself and do the work, I just wanted to make a communal decision. JW (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC) - note regarding option 2, the individual articles' cultural references sections would all be removed, and a "see [ [page] ]" comment could be inserted instead JW (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with what is already there. Some episode have a lot of cult refs, because they just do. Alot don't, either because there are no sources to support them, or there just aren't any references in the episode. If it can't be sourced it goes, I don't see anything wrong with this. Gran2 13:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
My main motivation for addressing this is that on a lot of the episode talk pages, there is debate over what to include, whether the section should exist, etc. As of now, the general rule seems to be that if it's sourced, or very obvious, it's included. This was mainly just a proposition for a more specific general rule, but it can just be to only include sourced info. JW (talk) 03:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I actually think there used to be a cultural references in The Simpsons page (I forget the title so I can't check any deletion logs) but if it did exist, it were deleted. -- Scorpion0422 13:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Gran2. Cultural references are an integral part of any good episode article. Yes, some are complete trivia, but that will be resolved over time as new DVDs come out and more episodes become GA. --Simpsons fan 66 02:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Will someone please explain how cultural references sections are any different from trivia sections? Anthony Rupert (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
They all really need to be remade into paragraphs, as that's acceptable. It's the lists that cause the issues. I've seen a few articles where the lists were converted into prose and everything was fine. I think they should stay, because from a reader viewpoint they are really interesting sections and are indeed almost integral. --.:Alex:. 11:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
If they're remade into paragraphs, then yes, they should stay, but right now it's just a bunch of trivia. Anthony Rupert (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
We do actually have a lot of those with over 80 episode GA's, but we haven't gotten around to fixing every single episode article. That is why some articles doesn't even have cultural references and some have trivia like cultural references sections. --Maitch (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree w/ Gran2 (talk · contribs), Simpsons fan 66 (talk · contribs), .:Alex:. (talk · contribs) and COMPFUNK2 (talk · contribs). In general with regard to Cultural references sections for The Simpsons episode articles on Wikipedia, paragraphs = good, lists = bad. Especially unsourced lists that blatantly violate WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

See, I've never understood why people are so opposed to lists. Paragraphs may look nicer, but, depending on the nature of the information, lists are often easier to read and interpret.
Let's look at The_Joy_Of_Sect#Cultural_references. Do we gain anything from putting that information into a paragraph? The paragraph isn't really a paragraph, outside of its formatting. It's just a string of five unconnected ideas. We don't elaborate on any themes, or anything. Zagalejo^^^ 17:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Well in that case in particular that is more of a style issue than a sourcing issue (though I personally still like the paragraph format better). But I think the above discussion perhaps centers on lists of cultural references in articles where virtually all of said info is unsourced and/or WP:OR violations. Cirt (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that we should avoid OR. In most cases, that shouldn't be an issue with Simpsons articles, since there are plenty of published sources identiying the references. Zagalejo^^^ 18:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think we are all agreed on that one, it's already been mentioned above that this whole thing may just be about articles no one has paid much attention to yet, as opposed to the GA/FAs. Cirt (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

New MOS for TV

The television community currently has an MOS guideline under proposal, and would appreciate all comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#MOS proposal in order to have the best possible guide for television related articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC on WP:FICT

A request for comment has been made to determine if the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) proposal has consensus. Since this project deals with many fictional topics, I am commenting here. Input on the proposal is welcome here. --Pixelface (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

List of The Simpsons media

I have been thinking about this list and I don't feel it is necessary. It is basically an excuse to make a list of Simpsons ads. This would have been fine if that list was sourced and complete, but that doesn't seem to be the case. We don't really need to have the season overviews as they are covered better elsewhere. So I would like to hear how you guys feel about the article before I send it to AFD. Maybe there is a way to save it. --Maitch (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well then instead of deleting the article, maybe someone should complete the list of ads, and source it...? That's not an offer to do it by the way, but honestly, do you think this article is going to be more, or less likely, to be fixed up if what's already there is deleted? - rst20xx (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, of course I could also say complete it and source it, but how do you do that? There are no sources available. No books, no websites. I am willing to do some work on this article if someone could tell me what to do. That is why I'm asking here instead of taking it straight to AFD. But if we can't find any sources, then we will have to be honest and say that it doesn't follow notability guidelines. --Maitch (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Well how was it written originally? rst20xx (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. I'm guessing that people just watched the ads on TV and added them to the list one by one. I can't even find any information on a place like SNPP. --Maitch (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Well that can't be right, because the ads go all the way through the 90s! It might be right for some of the more recent ads but certainly isn't for most of them - rst20xx (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I have requested sources on the talk page. I will give it some time and if nobody can find anything I will nominate it for AFD.--Maitch (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Nazis on Tap

I realize this is a little off topic, but I thought I'd post this before YouTube deletes it. Nazis on Tap is allegedly a lost Simpsons short that I used to think was just a rumour. I found this posted at NoHomers. It's apparantly the audio track for it and it sounds pretty legit. SNPP has had a piece about the short for a while, but this is the first proof that it was actually produced. I've previously tried to find some kind of reliable source about it so it could be mentioned here, but I've had no luck. -- Scorpion0422 05:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for the heads-up. Zagalejo^^^ 05:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
You know, I can swear that I read about this in a print source, long before I started using the internet on a regular basis. I can't remember where it was, though. Zagalejo^^^ 05:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
According to SNPP it was mistakenly reported in TV Guide that it would air after Bart the Daredevil. That's a long time ago though. We should have asked Bill about it, although he didn't start working at the show until season 3, but he might have been able to confirm some stuff for us. If anyone thinks it would be worth mentioning anywhere, we could still ask him. -- Scorpion0422 05:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow! (coincedentally my friend showed me that video two days ago, and because I was half asleep at the time I thought nothing of it). As for mentioning it anywhere; is there actually any where we could put it? Gran2 05:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Bart the Daredevil perhaps, since it was supposedly supposed to air after it. Or The Simpsons (season 2). That's all I can think of. -- Scorpion0422 05:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I know I didn't read about it in TV Guide. I think it might have been mentioned in Toons, which was a short-lived Wizard spinoff. The issue I owned had a really cool list of obscure cartoon facts. Unfortunately, I probably threw it out. Zagalejo^^^ 06:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The only source I can find on Newsbank is from The Sun (not a reliable source), but they do mention: "There is a lost, unseen Simpsons episode called Nazis On Tap . It is set in 1944 and features Bart capturing Hitler." This was in 2003, but that's all I can find. If we can find some more info, I think a sub-section on "Bart the Daredevil" wold be a good idea. Gran2 06:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh joy, a new assessment class

Although I forgot to comment in the official discussion, I really dislike this idea, but we now have a new assessment class: the C-class. It goes between B and start and raises B to now be near-GA, while C is more in the area of where the old start class was. I guess we should start re-evaluating some articles. -- Scorpion0422 19:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

So Start is now glorified stub? Seems pointless to me. Ah well, let's see where this goes. Gran2 20:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if I'd say it's that low but I do believe that start class has been lowered under the new definition. Anyway, I have gone through and done a quick reassessment of some articles. Most characters and voice actors, I didn't touch most of the episode pages. Basically my criteria was that if it was organized and had several sources, then I moved it to C class, I also downgraded a couple of B class articles. If anyone disagrees with any of my reassessments, feel free to change them. -- Scorpion0422 20:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessment Scale

I am new to this Wikiproject, but have been working on an article. I have raised Homer's Odyssey from 6000 to 8500 bytes. I am still working on it for GA, but can the article be reassessed. I asked my adoptor about this, and he said it would be better to get it to B class first.--LAAFan 21:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look at it for you. I'll also try and find some Nielsenm ratings info for the page. -- Scorpion0422 23:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup progress

I just found some statistics for how well we are doing cleaning up the articles. We have 33.8% of our articles tagged for cleanup. You can see how well we are doing here. It is not that bad, but it really not that good either. --Maitch (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol, 122 more pages then Microsoft Windows. Still, we are doing alot better then the Futurama, South Park and Family Guy projects. Don't be too downhearted Maitch, we still have a great majority of our articles that are of a high quality. --Simpsons fan 66 23:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is interested I have gotten a bot to provide a list over the articles that are tagged for cleanup. You can see it here. --Maitch (talk) 06:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is worse: Unreliable sources or unsourced facts?

We have a lot of articles that are tagged for being unsourced. Most of the later seasons can only be sourced by using unreliable source. So I was wondering which is worse: An article cited by using unreliable sources or an article that is completely unsourced. --Maitch (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Tough question. Probably completely unsourced. I mean, I think that really, we can count stuff like SNPP and Simpons Channel as fairly reliable. So they're better than nothing. Gran2 09:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I also say unsourced, because unreliable sources really show, that the user added a fact because they think it's true, while usourced facts could be added by vandals. Martarius (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. No source can indicate that an editor has possibly just made it up. A least with an unreliable source, it shows that an editor has added it because they have seen information somewhere. --.:Alex:. 10:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed that a lot of the cultural references for the episodes in season 19 are supported by unreliable sources. I was wondering if this was the way to deal with all the unsourced newer episodes. --Maitch (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Channel 4 Censorship

I live in Britain and I watch The Simpsons in Channel 4. Is it alright for me to add sections of Channel 4 Censorship, which I saw episodes full on Sky One, then saw it censor some parts out in Channel 4? I've already been doing it for a while anyway, and found many censors of episodes, comparing it to the originalSCB '92 (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Censorship cuts are generally not notable unless they are really big and have been reported by a news source or can at least be reliably sourced by something else. The only C4 edit of any notability is when the aired "Trash of the Titans" without cutting the word wankers. Really, any minor censorship cuts (both British and America) are just trivia and should not be mentioned. Gran2 18:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Cultural impact on H.M.S. Pinafore

Hi! As everyone here probably knows, half a Simpsons episode is devoted to H.M.S. Pinafore, making it one of the most obvious and necessary inclusions in a cultural impact section ever. However, I don't know of good sources for The Simpsons. Can anyone lend us a hand by finding us a source? =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If you just need a source that says the episode ("Cape Feare") includes part of the score, you can use this or this. If you need more detailed analysis, let me know, and I'll see what I can dig up. Zagalejo^^^ 01:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much. I've added both =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the season 18 pages?

I was looking over them and some were in huge messes (ie. 2 identical cultural refs sections, stuff that was cut and pasted improperly from previous versions, refs to previous episodes sections) and most were protected even though they had little vandalism beforehand. What did I miss? -- Scorpion0422 02:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems most of the season 18 fell off my watchlist. I've been on everyday, but not all day, so I've probably missed some stuff. Gran2 08:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

A month to save our FTs

Well we have about a month to save our Featured Topics. All we need to do is get The Principal and the Pauper, The Simpsons Spin-Off Showcase and The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show to Featured status. Really it's just copy-editing (Pauper is very, very close) and a bit of minor expansion and we should be there. Gran2 15:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This should be high-priority. Cirt (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I think someone should listen to the commentary track again for Poochie to make sure that we got everything that is useful. The rest is just a matter of copy-editing. Perhaps we could get a user from the league of copyeditors to help us. --Maitch (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
That is a great idea. Cirt (talk) 03:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I listened to the commentary again and added to cultural references stated very clearly, that for some reason I missed when I first did it. There was some stuff that we might want to include that I didn't put in yet, so I suggest a couple of other listen to the track as well. Gran2 11:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Listing of Relatives

I don't think we should list ex spouses as relatives in the infobox, as they are no longer related. Any other thoughts? CTJF83Talk 22:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and while we have this topic going, who agrees that we shouldn't list unnamed or unseen characters, such as Homer's cousin Frank/Francine CTJF83Talk 22:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with both points. Zagalejo^^^ 16:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Green Guide

Recently, I came across an article about how The Simpsons has influcenced the world of comedy, and what various writers, actors and comedians thought of the show. It was published in The Age, an Australian newspaper, in the Green Guide section, which is a mini-newspaper published every thursday. I guess it is like "TV Week" magazine, in that is contains TV listings, reviews, tech news, etc. Anyway, the article features quotes from, among other (small-time) Australians, Rove McManus and Chas Licciardello. Would there be any possible use for these? --Simpsons fan 66 06:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Great. You can add it to The_simpsons#Influence_on_television, which is a bit short considering the impact The Simpsons has. --Maitch (talk) 10:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, sorry this took so long guys, but I've had a fair bit of work. I've reviewed the quotes, but the Chas one isn't really usefull. The Rove one however looks like it might be good. Here is the full quote.
"The Simpsons have influenced a lot of my comedy friends. There's an episode, a Cape Fear parody, where Sideshow Bob gets hit in the face with about 20 rakes and it takes a good minute and a half for him to go through them all, which, in television terms, is a very long time for a joke, and it's a perfect comedy moment. It's now a yardstick for comedians when we talk about how you can keep going with a joke in that same way. We call it The Sideshow Bob Rake Idea. And when, if a joke falls flat, rather then just stop and move on, you keep going and reference the fact that the joke didn't work and all you're doing is making it worse for yourself, we use the phrase, 'How will I get out of this hole? I'll dig my way out.' That's a Simpsons line."...
"When I was in Los Angeles, I had the chance to sit down at a Simpsons table read, and you really see where the sucess of the series comes from. They read it as live, they don't stop. They get a crowd of people in and as they get a laugh, they write a note. I don't know how many other shows would do that." - Rove McManus
As you can see, this might be useful in the The_simpsons#Influence_on_television, or even on the Cape Feare page itself. If anyone want to use the quotes, here is a reference with all the necesary information, I hope. Drop me a message if there are any issues.[1] --Simpsons fan 66 13:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The Call of the Simpsons needs to be reassessed

I have edited The Call of the Simpsons quite a lot and it needs to be reassessed. I'm new to the project (this is the first episode article I've worked on) so if someone experienced could reassess it that would be great. =) Thanks, TheLeftorium 14:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, so I've reassessed it as B class. It needs a bit of work before it's GA class, but it's a very nice start. Also, welcome to the project, I'll give you the welcome template deeley in a minute. And also, nice work the comics page, I saw that last night. :) Gran2 14:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I will try my best to improve it further! :) TheLeftorium 15:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
How do you guys find information about the Nielsen ratings? All I could find was this. TheLeftorium 15:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
You'll probably have to use a newspaper archive, like Newsbank. A handful of newspapers papers print the weekly ratings. Zagalejo^^^ 19:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Revision to Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria being discussed

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured topic criteria#Require more FAs? about the possibility of increasing the requirements for a featured topic, namely requiring more featured articles or lists. The current requirement is 20%, or one in five. I have proposed raising this to 25%, or one in four. There are other editors who would rather go straight to one in three. As large topics, Wikipedia:Featured topics/The Simpsons (season 8) and Wikipedia:Featured topics/The Simpsons (season 9) would be among the most affected by this change. They are both under the current 20% requirement and are being retained under a grace period set to expire this month. Your comments and thoughts on the subject are welcome at the above link. Thanks, Pagrashtak 18:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, the 1/3 would kick in a year from now, so September 1st, 2009, so you'd have a whole year to bring them up to standard, and perhaps could be given more time if needed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
...So you'd need 9 featured articles/lists per topic to retain your topics - rst20xx (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
No offence but if your going to keep upping the threshold of exceptability, why not just ban FTs with GA articles completely, then there wouldn't any more problems. It's incredibly unlikely that we'll save the season 8 topic by the end of the month, season 9 probably will be though. Chances of really improving them beyond 20% featured status isn't exactly very high, so this is very welcome news... I'll guess we'll have to see what we can do. Gran2 19:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
It'd a good thing I don't believe in conspiracies, or I'd think people were doing this solely to target us, since we'd be the only ones affected. I hate to say this folks, but this is the end of our FTs, because I refuse to play this game of catch-up every six months. They seem determined to get rid of our topics, so just let them. -- Scorpion0422 20:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Commented at the thread below Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs). These changes are quite frustrating and almost is motivation enough to not work on WP:FT drives anymore. (Not quite at that point yet for me, but it is certainly frustrating.) Cirt (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please revisit the discussion, below it I have outlined a proposal involving "good topics" which should hopefully mean that, while the criteria probably will still get tougher, it'll only be once more, so you'd get to ultimately keep your topics as "good topics" - rst20xx (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject The Simpsons participants...WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises' scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on multimedia franchises. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help the project get back on solid footing. Also, if you know of similar projects which have not received this, let Lady Aleena (talk · contribs) know. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. You can sign up here if you wish. Thank you. LA @ 21:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Franchise naming convention discussion at WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject The Simpsons participants...WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA (T) @ 22:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Changing the state to Oregon.

Also, it should be Lane, County, Oregon. The evidence is in an article when Matt Groening HIMSELF sends a plaque to Springfield, Lane County, Oregon saying they are the "REAL Sprinfield". The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, USA--Alkalinetrio78 (talk) 03:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this change. I'm sure he did it as a nice gesture to his home area. I don't think we should change it, until they actually say so in the show. It is in no state...when was the last time Oregon had a hurricane? CTJF83Talk 03:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes and SPringfield, Vermont is the real Springfield because it had the movie premiere... There is no real Springfield, it is really impossible for it to be in any state, so now, we shouldn't be changing this. Gran2 07:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Little late on this, but I agree that we shouldn't change it.--LAAFan 03:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Season 9 - Featured topic extension

Hello, I posted a request to WT:WIAFT on behalf of WP:DOH, I hope that is okay with everyone. See here. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons WikiProject has reached 100 GAs

The Crepes of Wrath was just passed, so the project now presently has 100 Good articles (congrats to TheLeftorium for snagging #100). If you want to get technical, it's the 113th good article, but 13 of those pages are now FAs. So let's keep up the good work and here's to the next 100. -- Scorpion0422 02:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Awesome!! Great Job Everyone!! Keep up the good work!!! :) CTJF83Talk 02:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Excellent work everyone, duff beer on the house. Cirt (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Now we just need to get 100 FAs... -- Scorpion0422 02:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
LMFAO, 100 FAs....very good luck to you (us)!! CTJF83Talk 02:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Great work everyone, wonder how long it'll take to get to 200? ;) Gran2 07:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Yay, what do I win? ;P TheLeftorium 13:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Another beer! Cirt (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's get Homer Simpson to FA by 2009 October

The article has been a good article for 22 months and has been A class for about 6. The article is pretty good, but presently it lacks the little things that would make it truly comprehensive and a without a doubt featured page. I've decided it's time to drive towards FA status and some help would be great. I've gotten MOST of the information I can from the commentaries (I'd still like to add some stuff about his temper and strangling, which is discussed) and I wanted more influence (shouldn't be too difficult) and merchandising information. That, combined with an overhaul of the Role section and a complete copyedit should be enough. So, who wants to help? -- Scorpion0422 15:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good! Let me know what I need to do! CTJF83Talk 21:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not as big as I was hoping, but I think the page is as big as it's going to get for the time being (well, the analysis section could likely be expanded and I'm getting a book in the mail today that should help with this). I've had several copyeditors look over the page and asked as many people as possible (including Bill Oakley) to peer review it. So, I am going to nominate it on Saturday. Could everyone please take a look at the article and let me know what you think? Thanks, Scorpion0422 14:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks excellent, well done! Good luck with the nomination. --TheLeftorium 14:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It looks terrific. Outstanding use of a variety of images. Great job! --Simpsons fan 66 22:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

DVD Commentary

Why does every episode list the people that appear on the DVD commentary? Perhaps I'm missing something, but list like that appear to be nothing but a collection of indescriminate information. --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 07:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is a very useful piece of information, both for sourcing the articles from a research perspective, and is of interest to the readers as well to see who was involved in the production of the episode and then later reflected and commented on that production. Cirt (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I know its not the same thing, but by the same logic it would be valid to include a list of the developers who provided interviews in articles about video games. --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Something like that could be useful, as well. Zagalejo^^^ 04:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Your topics are now the first two good topics

Just to say it here :) rst20xx (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool, season one will be nominated soon! TheLeftorium 12:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Page renamings

The pages with characters from the episode have different names, so I'm proposing uniform names, changing words to "on":

Thoughts? CTJF83Talk 00:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think on is the right word. In or from would be a better choice. -- Scorpion0422 01:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Nah, "on" is too colloquial. Zagalejo^^^ 17:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
How is it colloquial? I like from better than in though. CTJF83Talk 21:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
On second thought, I guess it's accepted usage. Still, I don't see how "on" is any better than "from" or "in". Zagalejo^^^ 22:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What is done with similar lists of other television programs? Cirt (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I dunno, you can look as easily as us! :) CTJF83Talk 21:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
There is from family guy, of brady bunch, of spongebob characters...a few random ones i picked...so i guess it varies. CTJF83Talk 22:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for The Simpsons

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite a few articles for one television show. I'm not sure I agree with including only 7 of the 20 season pages. It should be either all or just the master list (which I would prefer). Homer will hopefully be FA by then, Maggie a GA, and I've slowly been working on improving Bart, Lisa and Marge. Abraham Simpson and the List of characters in The Simpsons probably need the most work of any article listed. I think the most important article that wasn't included is Apu Nahasapeemapetilon, and it probably should be, as I would rank Apu as being more important than Kang & Kodos, Chief Wiggum, Barney or Troy McClure. Also, it might not hurt to include Yeardley Smith, Julie Kavner and Harry Shearer (since Cartwright, Castellaneta and Azaria are already included). Other than that, I don't have any problems with the list. -- Scorpion0422 23:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Nice to see a large selection from our project! Although, Hans Zimmer shouldn't be included. And I agree on the strange choice of seasons; if you have to include them, then why pick only one which is featured and part of the classic age of the show? Also, perhaps we should include some of the more famous episodes like Last Exit to Springfield, Cape Feare or Deep Space Homer? Gran2 16:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
You can nominate pages here, I already added Apu. We might have better luck with those ones as they are considerably better articles. -- Scorpion0422 19:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Based on Scorpion's suggestions, we may stick to List of The Simpsons episodes for the release instead of including a rather random subset of individual episodes. If you think we should do something different, can you leave comments here - thanks! Walkerma (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons (season 1) Good Topic Nomination

Main page Articles
The Simpsons season 1 Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire · Bart the Genius · Homer's Odyssey · There's No Disgrace Like Home · Bart the General · Moaning Lisa· The Call of the Simpsons · The Telltale Head · Life on the Fast Lane · Homer's Night Out · The Crepes of Wrath · Krusty Gets Busted· Some Enchanted Evening

Now that all episodes are GA and The Simpsons (season 1) is FA, I think we should nominate it for Good Topic. Is everyone OK with this? TheLeftorium 16:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. (I get to lay a small amount of claim on this future GT as I did Life on the Fast Lane... yay!) Gran2 16:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead – it looks great. Excellent job to everyone involved! Gary King (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I definitely think so because the season article is featured and the episode articles are good. Martarius (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Nice work. Good luck with the nom. Cirt (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks all, I have now nominated it at WP:FAC. TheLeftorium 20:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
You mean WP:FTC... ? Cirt (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Oops. Yes, I meant FTC. TheLeftorium 12:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It passed yesterday (see WP:GT) so congrats to everyone involved! ;) TheLeftorium 09:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo on Simpsons articles

In case anyone is interested... Zagalejo^^^ 20:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

[9] a follow-up query on that. Cirt (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
FYI - Jimbo's response. Cirt (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I get the sense that he didn't actually look at the listed articles. He might vote to delete The Simpsons and The Simpsons Movie?... Really? -- Scorpion0422 11:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
His response was pretty ambiguous, anyways. Gary King (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
What an encouraging response from him indeed... A certain Jim Brooks quote about Groening in relation to "A Star is Burns" comes to mind... Gran2 16:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Marge in Chains

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Simpsons/Featured_topic_Drive#Marge_in_Chains. Any help would be most appreciated. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Added a note there about help w/ screenshot would be nice. Cirt (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe this website offers images for all the episodes. Nergaal (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Bart vs. Australia

Hey guys. Sorry I haven't done much for the project lately, I've sort of lost enthusiasm. I was looking for something special for my 6th GA, and I thought it would be great to do Bart vs. Australia. Is this OK? --Simpsons fan 66 01:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. But if you want to help collaborate on the next topic drive, it is at WP:DOH/TOPIC. The Articles being worked on that are not GACs could still use lots more help. Cirt (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I was under the impression that those articles have already been claimed. I thought it would be rude to just jump in and start editing an article someone else claimed. This happened to me recently with Kung Fu Panda (terrific film, way better then The Simpsons Movie [gasp!]). Anyway, I want my sixth GA to be something special, and failing KFP I'm going with Bart vs. Australia. Once it has reached GA I'll return to season 4. Cheers. --Simpsons fan 66 06:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
That's odd - because the list at WP:DOH/TOPIC shows you yourself claimed So It's Come to This: A Simpsons Clip Show to work on? Also, unfortunately Xihix (talk · contribs) has not been active lately so you could probably also work on I Love Lisa. But getting any episode of The Simpsons to GA is always a good thing -- :P Cirt (talk) 06:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Or you could work on a character article... Getting bart Simpson to GA would be pretty special. -- Scorpion0422 19:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
It is true that I claimed the clip show article, as I was looking for a new project and it was the only one available at the time. After listening to the commentary, I think I will leave that one for the time being. Thank you all for your interest, but I will stick with BvA, then return to the topic drive in due course. --Simpsons fan 66 22:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I rescind my claim to this article. --Simpsons fan 66 10:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't know you claimed that article. =/ TheLeftorium 10:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
That's cool, thanks for apologizing. --Simpsons fan 66 23:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

We got a mention on the season 11 DVD commentary for Guess Who's Coming to Criticize Dinner... Sort of

Near the very end of the end credits, there is this little exchange:

Matt Selman: "If you wanna increase the number of times your name comes up when you google yourself, do a lot of DVD commentaries"

Al Jean: "If you wanna see some off-hand remark you make end up on wikipedia for all-time"

Someone else: "Oh yeah" [everyone else laughs]

Mike Scully: "Such a reliable source of information" [more laughter]

Al Jean: "Well, everybody uses it"

Nancy Kruse: "Yeah, someone wrote I was married to David Silverman on wikipedia. I'm not." [Commentary ends].

All I can say is: go to hell Mike Scully. -- Scorpion0422 13:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that that decreased my respect for Mike Scully, but then I remembered that I never had any. It's funny, because some of our articles are actually better in quality than the episodes he produced. Gran2 17:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
In the commentrary for The Mansion Family, Scully says "don't get me started on wikipedia", so I guess we know who those wikipedia jokes in season 19 came from. -- Scorpion0422 18:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

GT drive 4: So It's Come to This: A Simpsons Clip Show

I have been working on the article and I got stuck at the production section. There is very little on the web about it and I do not have access to either the books or the DVDs. At the PR I have been told to look for some help here. Anybody having some time to take a look? Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd help with the production on almost any The Simpsons episode...but I don't like this episode. But I'll tell you what, if no one else helps you in 3-4 days or so, let me know, and I'll drag myself to do it! :) CTJF83Talk 20:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Template edits

Julia Louis-Dreyfus should be added to the Simpsons cast template under recurring guest stars and the "Families" link of the characters navigation template is no longer needed.Tj terrorible1 (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No she shouldn't. The criteria for being a recurring guest star is at least five appearances. Gran2 18:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Springfield Elementary School students is up for deletion

Vote as you please but remember to vote. Rhino131 (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I was considering doing this the other day. I guess we should move all of the recurring characters to the recurring list and just let the page go. -- Scorpion0422 21:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

repeated covers on season articles

I've removed covers from a number of season articles ([10][11], etc.). There's already an image of the DVD set at the top of each of these articles. We do not need what is essentially a repeat, and this violates cover usage in X-graphies (videographies, discographies, etc). Please see WP:NFC for the guideline on this. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Homerpedia!

Wouldn't you rather see this than Matt Groening's ugly face?

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 31, 2008. This will be our fourth since July 27, 2007... Maybe we should wait about a year before requesting another. Anyway, everyone please take a look at the article and make any necessary changes and put it on watch. We've gotten off surprisingly easy so far with the TFA talk page complaints (only Troy McClure had calls for delisting) and a few days ago I had an excellent copyeditor give the page a once-over, so hopefully we won't have any harsh criticism. Either way, should be a fun day. -- Scorpion0422 21:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No free use image for the blurb? Cirt (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Awesome! An image of Matt Groening (or any other staff member) would be cool. --TheLeftorium 21:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so, none of the staff members really stand out in relation to THOH eps. I guess Matt Groening would make the most sense. When it was a main page request, someone added a really cool pumpkin image, I would love to see it used on the main page, although I'm sure some would complain about it. -- Scorpion0422 21:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I was dreading TMcC's TFA, but luckily my internet screwed up so I missed the whole thing! It's funny how people criticise an FA when it's on the main page, yet usually do nothing about it the next day. Expect calls "Simpsons articles shouldn't be FAs" etc. Ah well, should be fun, but I agree we shouldn't nominate any more TFAs for at least a year. I'm saving TSM for 2012. And yeah, let's suggest that pumpkin image. Gran2 21:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
No Wikipedia and no Simpsons TFAs makes TheLeftorium something something. --TheLeftorium 21:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
"Stop! We've reached the limits of what Simpsons articles can teach us!" Also, I've added a few suggestions for the TFA blurb here, feel free to add any or disagree. -- Scorpion0422 21:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Ya, uh, can we find a better picture than a carved pumpkin, that really has nothing to do with The Simpsons? CTJF83Talk 21:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I like it, it has a house on it and so kinda goes with the THOH theme... "Dad! You killed the zombie Raul!" Gran2 21:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I like the pic, but don't think it should go on this, perhaps Image:Treehouse of Horror.png? It is the only TreehouseOH set in an actual treehouse. CTJF83Talk 23:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Has to be free-use image. Cirt (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ohh....I "knew that", lol CTJF83Talk 23:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Could everyone please keep a close eye on the Simpson watchlist? There is a lot of vandalism on Simpsons pages today, especially on THOH articles (for obvious reasons). -- Zombie Scorpion0422 18:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The ratings are in!

And the page received 103,900 views, a lot more than I was expecting. In comparison, Mary Shelley, the TFA the day before, had 56,600 and Tang Dynasty (the day before that) had 32,100. However, this is well under the views received by Troy McClure when it was TFA on May 28 (133,200) and The Simpsons on December 17 (130,600). -- Scorpion0422 20:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Cirt (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons (season 10) to WP:FL drive

It would be helpful if someone(s) could slowly but surely work on getting this successfully to WP:FL, which would eventually help further along the process at Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Featured topic Drive/season 10. Cirt (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Season 4 is complete

Season 4 is now ready for WP:GTC. Who would like to nominate it? Gran2 12:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Great work everyone! I guess Scorpion should probably nominate it as he has done the FA and the FL and most of the GAs. --TheLeftorium 13:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Anyone can nominate it that was a participant in that project. We can cite WP:DOH/TOPIC to show that everyone who participated was already previously informed and fully aware that it would be nominated for WP:GTC. Cirt (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Okely dokely, The Simpsons (season 4) has been nominated. --TheLeftorium 14:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Voilà, season four just passed. --TheLeftorium 15:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations everyone! Cirt (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Next GT drive

From TheLeftorium's talkpage:

BTW, it looks like we could have this season done by the end of the year. What season do we do next? Season 10 has the most GAs, but I dislike a lot of those episodes, and Scully REALLY sucks on commentary. There are 3 season 7 GAs (4 including WSMB), 2 from season 5 (plus 1 FA, and Rosebud is practically ready to go, I'm just too lazy to finish it) and 2 a piece from seasons 2 and 3. My vote is for season 7, it's one of my favourite seasons and it is more recent than others. I would be okay with any of the others though. -- Scorpion0422 19:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I just nominated Bart's Girlfriend. Season seven sounds good too me, although there's not that much Flanders in it. ;) Also, nice work on Mona Simpson! --TheLeftorium 19:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, Flanders did kind of fall off the map during the Oakley/Weinstein era, one of the few bad things about it. We could do season 5 - lots of Flanders in that one, plus it has a FA. -- Scorpion0422 19:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Either one is fine with me. I will bring this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons. --TheLeftorium 19:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I definitely think we shouldn't do season 10. I can't bare to listen to Mike "the fans are all wrong and this episode is great, my God I'm the best showrunner ever, look how many characters I named after my daughters" Scully, ever again. I don't mind whether we do season 5 or 7 as I love them both, and Mirkin and Bill/Josh are great. If I had to pick, I'd go for seven. Gran2 19:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
You should be happy with season 11 then Gran, he doesn't even mention his daughters and he actually acknowledges that Kill the Alligator and Run and Saddlesore Gallactica are a tad crazy and aren't beloved by fans (he doesn't go as far as admitting that they suck though). -- Scorpion0422 19:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Since there's no episodes left (for me) in season 6, and everyone seem to think it's a good idea, I have started the season 7 page here. I haven't had time to fill it in completely though. --TheLeftorium 15:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow Left, you're making the rest of us look bad! If you need something to do, Cirt does not own the DVDs (I think), so you could do the production sections for the articles he's working on. -- Scorpion0422 16:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't mean to stress you guys. :P I'll ask Cirt later (if he hasn't replied here then). --TheLeftorium 16:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I have rather decreasing amounts of time for work here, so I probably won't get around to doing Homie the Clown any time soon, so feel free to do that. Gran2 16:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Nah, take your time. There's no rush. :) TheLeftorium 16:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I like to do the initial article-formatting first, I will let you know after that when it would be helpful to do the production info. Cirt (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking The Day the Violence Died. Anyone want to help me beef up the Production section? I can do Plot and Reception, but I don't have access to any DVD material. Gary King (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Check that, sorry, what I meant to say is of course feel free to add sourced production info to the Production subsection on any article. Cirt (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If I may, as an external observer, I think you should work on the "Seasons of the Simpsons" topic. I know that it's harder to make FLs for seasons which aren't yet on DVD, but getting this topic to FT would mean that all the Simpsons topics would be nicely linked up - rst20xx (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

List of one-time characters in The Simpsons AFD

User:COMPFUNK2 nominated List of one-time characters in The Simpsons for deletion. The nomination can be found here. CTJF83Talk 17:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The possible return of the Hidden Message Vandal

The Hidden Message Vandal is an twelve year old (or so he claims) named "Cool-dude" Tim who lives in the UK. In mid-2007 he became a very annoying vandal and claimed he did it because "it was for fun to edit." He got his name because most of his early edits included a hidden message telling us why his edit should not be reverted. Generally, he was just a kid who thought it was funny to mess around with pages, and he added a bunch of nonsense and junk under 40+ IPs. He occasionally made some legitimate but mostly it was nonsense and the majority of it was Simpsons-related. For example, one of my favorite pieces of idiocy is his addition of a "fictional couches" section to the couch article. [12]

Anyway, I believe the user is back (he did promise that he would return), the IP 86.173.33.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) recently added a non-existant age field to a character infobox, which is one the HMV's old traits. [13] The IP is registered to British Telecom (like all of his previous IPs) and starts with 86 (like most of his previous IPs). It could be a coincidence, but I find that unlikely. Earlier today, another IP registered to BT showed up and added some nonsense to The Simpsons shorts [14]. If this is him, he has been doing mostly good faith edits with the odd bit of vandalism thrown in. However, it would be best to keep an eye out. Please check all edits to Simpsons articles from IPs that start with 86 or 81 and if they are registered to British Telecom (like this) then please add that address to my HMV page. -- Scorpion0422 23:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Need help on Production section for "The Day the Violence Died"

I need help from anyone who owns books that have information for the Production section of "The Day the Violence Died". Some books that could be useful are:

  • Leaving Springfield
  • The Simpsons and Philosophy
  • The Psychology of The Simpsons: D'oh!
  • Planet Simpson
  • The Gospel According to the Simpsons: Bigger and Possibly Even Better!
  • The Gospel According to The Simpsons: The Spiritual Life of the World's Most Animated Family

Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Those books are really more analysis and don't really have much production information. Looking at the article, I think you've got more than enough Production info. Gran2 20:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I think Gary King is looking for analysis too. And so am I, so please check for Lisa the Vegetarian while you're at it! ;) --TheLeftorium 20:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Gran I'm looking for anything I can get. Someone suggested that I look for more analysis on the episode so that's what I'm doing. Gary King (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I see, that's cool. I'd gladly help, but I only own Planet Simpson, and its an iregeular UK version print run with page numbers that don't match any other country, so it's probably best to ask Scorpion for that. And Maitch owns Leaving Springfield, so should be able to help. Gran2 20:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I have checked and Leaving Springfield doesn't provide anything useful. --Maitch (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The Simpsons and Philosophy only mentions some cultural references, which are already mentioned. --Maitch (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
If you're looking for a FA, you'd probably have better luck with an episode like Who Shot Mr. Burns?, getting it to FA would help both GT drives. Anyway:
Planet Simpson: Zilch (according to the index, it's not even mentioned)
The Gospel According to the Simpsons: Bigger and Possibly Even Better!: Zip (again, it's not even mentioned).
You could also try Google Scholar, I've recently had some luck with that. -- Scorpion0422 22:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay thanks everyone. Gary King (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I found The Simpsons and Philosophy online here. Not sure if there's anything in it that's worth mentioning. --TheLeftorium 21:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Simpson family FTC - coming soon

edit | discuss
Simpson family
6 articles
Homer Simpson
Marge Simpson
Bart Simpson
Lisa Simpson
Maggie Simpson

With Marge now under review and Bart's FAC currently going well, I could be ready to submit this to FTC as early as Saturday. My definition is going to be the five main members. I'm not going to bother including Grampa, Mona, Patty & Selma, SLH or Snowball, although I do expect a little hassling over that. This is the chance for any comments anyone might have about the topic or any articles in it. -- Scorpion0422 15:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably worth bringing up at WT:FTQ. Topics with no official definition will be the hardest to get promoted. Gary King (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
You could always call it "Immediate Simpson family" or something. Gran2 18:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Bart just got upgarded to FA... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Character article review

I decided to do an audit of our 46 individual character articles.

Character Class Imp. Comments
Patty and Selma Bouvier Start High Far too much in-universe info, not enough character info.
The infoboxes should probably be merged.
Kent Brockman Start Mid Too much weight is given to his Religion and language. Short profile section is good, but not enough real world info
Montgomery Burns C High I'vre been meaning to whip this one into shape, but haven't gotten around to it.
Way too much in-universe info.
Carl Carlson Start Mid Considering how much weight his relationship with Lenny is given, I would almost say that their pages should be merged.
Not much too this page, supporting my belief that they could be merged.
Comic Book Guy C Mid Not bad, actually. The role section needs sources and it could use more character and reception info, but it's in above average shape.
Fat Tony Start Mid Suprisingly short, and not enough character info.
The "Influences" seems unnecessary.
Ned Flanders GA High Probably my least favourite of the GAs I've worked on, it needs to be brought up to current standards.
The "The Adventures of Ned Flanders" section is given undue weight.
Interesting note, this is what passes for FA in the Russian wikipedia. Now, I don't understand a word of it, but it appears to be largely in-universe and it includes an "episodes featuring..." list.
Professor Frink Start Mid Like many of the above articles, it's pretty short with little real-world info.
The "Prototype" section is oddly titled.
The image should be changed to either an official one or a screenshot. I'm not a big fan of using fan-made images as iot can lead to accusations of theft.
Groundskeeper Willie B High I started to knock this one into shape a while ago, but have never gotten around to finishing it.
It has a good start, but every section should be bigger and the Role section needs sources.
Barney Gumble GA High
Julius Hibbert C Mid
Lionel Hutz Start Mid Like Frink, it could use an official image or screenshot (although ironically, I think I uploaded that one)
The Itchy & Scratchy Show B Mid GAC.
Kang and Kodos GA Mid
Edna Krabappel Start Mid Short on real world info.
Krusty the Clown GA High The role section is a little longer than I'd like and could be shortened.
Lenny Leonard Start Mid Many of the same problems as Carl's article, except with a longer section about their relationship.
I really would not mind seeing Lenny and Carl merged.
Reverend Timothy Lovejoy Start Mid Tired of repeating the same things over and over, see the section for Fat Tony.
Otto Mann Start Mid See the section for Lovejoy.
Troy McClure FA High
Hans Moleman Start Mid Ah, Moleman, I always forget about him. See the section for Otto.
Nelson Muntz Start High This one needs work, Nancy Cartwright's book is a good source, she mentions that someone (I forget who, it wasn't a regular) was originally cast as Nelson.
Apu Nahasapeemapetilon B High Another one that I've been meaning to work on. Unfortunately and suprisingly there really isn't a lot out there, but I have found a couple of good commentaries with Apu info.
Martin Prince Start Mid Mergable. Might propose one later this week.
Joe Quimby Start Mid They do discuss Quimby (ie. his Kennedy connection, his sash) several times on the commentaries, so it is expandable. Enough for a GA? Not sure.
Radioactive Man (The Simpsons character) Start Mid Still not sure what to do with this one.
Dr. Nick Riviera C Mid
Santa's Little Helper Start High Wouldn't complain if this one was merged, but it does have a small bit of real-world info.
Sideshow Bob GA High My next target for FA.
Abraham Simpson Start High Biography is too long, character section isn't long enough.
Bart Simpson FA Top "Practically perfect in every way"
Homer Simpson FA Top "So am I."
Lisa Simpson GA Top
Maggie Simpson GA Top
Marge Simpson GA Top
Mona Simpson (The Simpsons) GA Mid
Seymour Skinner C High Definitely falls under the "could be a GA some day" class, there is still stuff from The Principal and the Pauper that could be added.
Waylon Smithers GA High
Snowball (The Simpsons) Start High Again, I wouldn't mind if it was merged. I doubt there is a lot of real-world info out there (in fact, the only bit I can remember from the commentaries is Groening calling Snowball "the ugliest cat on television").
Cletus Spuckler Start Mid If I could, I would delete the character from the show itself. But unfortunately that is not possible...
A lot of in-universe info in this one with an entire section devoted to his last name.
I think he's been discussed a bit in the commentaries, so that should be added.
Moe Szyslak C High In not-bad shape, definitely has a good start.
However, my "anti-tube bar" bias prevents me from working on it.
Milhouse Van Houten Start High See the section for Otto.
Clancy Wiggum Start Mid Was listed as a B-class article, I disagreed and downgraded it to start.
Ralph Wiggum Start Mid I still can't believe this one was once a FAC. A lot of OR in this one that needs to be cleaned up.
Rainier Wolfcastle Start Mid Needs a better lead image.

So, in short, 28% of our character articles are GA or higher, and another 10 are currently within reach (in some cases, it's a distant reach, but it's still attainable) and the rest are in poor to okay quality. -- Scorpion0422 18:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

My rambling thoughts... I still laugh at the fact Troy McClure got to FA, I have no idea how I managed that. Oh well, I say Lenny and Carl probably should be merged together. Other merges: Martin, Dr. Nick, and possibly the pets, Cletus, Moleman and Wolfcastle. I'd say Burns should be the main target of these. Gran2 19:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
It was a very good idea to put this list together, Scorpion. Its nice that a lot of character articles have good quality. As far as merges, I would really rather not have any, but if it has to be done I would say some combination of Cletus, Moleman and Wolfcastle, but hopefully not all three. And considering how Lenny and Carl pretty much always appear together, they could possibly be merged. I think the other characters are important enough and have enough useful information to justify having an article. Rhino131 (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that some pages could be merged. Lenny and Carl seems like a good idea. Personally, I would very much like Springfield Mafia to be merged with the recurring page. While we are on that subject - what are we going to do about the recurring character page. It is getting too big. We may have to split it into alphabetical groups (i.e. Recurring characers A-K and L-Z). --Maitch (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed about Springfield Mafia. I'll add a merge tag. -- Scorpion0422 19:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

grand topic?

How should the topic look like?

Main page Articles
The Simpsons · Episodes · Awards won · Cast members · Movie · Treehouse of Horror · The shorts · The family · History · Springfield · Characters

Am I missing anything? Should any of these in the list get scrapped? Nergaal (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Add: the writers list, the directors list
Remove: THOH, Simpson family, Springfield
I don't know about this one, I think it might be considered too subjective. -- Scorpion0422 17:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I like the human touch... I mean, no I think this topic is too much like cherry-picking. I don't think we can have a The Simpsons topic, as it is not specific enough. Gran2 17:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I think it is too subjective. I don't expect the character list to get to FL status either, so it really doesn't matter. --Maitch (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Why not the family? Nergaal (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
There is already the character article. If this topic were to work, it would have to stick to just the basic articles: series, episodes, cast, writers, directors, characters, and maybe a few others. -- Scorpion0422 07:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

All of our top importance articles are GA or higher

That was one of the project's very early goals, and it has now been achieved. I don't think a lot of projects have managed to get all of their top importance articles to GA or higher, so... Yay! -- Scorpion0422 01:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Awesome... gratz guys... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Great! Congrats on getting Bart to FA status, Scorpion. :) TheLeftorium 14:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Sweeeeeeeeeeeet. Cirt (talk) 07:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Blasphemy! Haha, well done everyone involved. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 07:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Beginning of the End

I think that the article about season 10 needs to mention how that was the first season in which almost all the episodes sucked. The Season 9 article needs to mention how that was the last real season. Thanks. Faethon Ghost (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Read this and you will learn why that is not a good idea. -- Scorpion0422 04:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking for Production information for "Bart the Mother" (season 10, episode 3)

I'm looking for Production information for "Bart the Mother", season 10 episode 3. Ideally I'd like to double the article's prose size. If anyone's got any more information, ideally DVD commentary, then please feel free to add it to the article. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It's missing a cultural references section. Nergaal (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll do it sometime this week. :) TheLeftorium 10:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Size of Infobox tvseason images

Hello, there. At this current FLC, an editor commented that they felt the image in the infobox section was a little big. The image in question is 200px wide, which is within the norm for episodes list as far as I understand. The editor added, "This in a way goes against WIAFL Cr 6, Visual appeal. because the image is very distracting. I would consult with the respective project(s) to discuss reducing the default size for the images in the infobox." It seems to me that the consensus about infobox image width in episodes lists goes against the FLC criteria. Your input is welcomed. Rosenknospe (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Responded Gary King (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the quick answer, I really appreciate this. Have a nice Christmas holiday everyone, Rosenknospe (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

2008 year-end stats comparison

For those curious, this is what our article assessment chart looked like on December 31, 2006:

And for those curious, the 2 Featured quality articles we had at the end of 2006 were The Simpsons and List of The Simpsons episodes, while the GA was Homer Simpson.

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

This is what it looked like on December 31, 2007:

For those curious, these are the GAs & featured content we had at the end of 2007.

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

And this is what it looks like right now:

The Simpsons
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
FA 4 1 10 15
FL 1 11 1 1 14
A 2 3 5
GA 4 8 121 3 136
B 15 8 5 28
C 7 10 2 19
Start 19 319 59 2 399
Stub 1 25 119 22 167
List 1 1 2 4
Assessed 9 65 498 191 24 787
Total 9 65 498 191 24 787

Pretty good. In 2008, we doubled our GAs, added 6 FAs, 4 FLs, 1 FT and 3 GTs and reduced our number of start class pages by 91. Unfortunately, there was growth in the stub category (that should be a project goal in 2009: reducing the stubs).

I also set some (unofficial) goals:

Have all five family members pages at at least GA status (Maggie will be the most difficult)  Done
Get Sideshow Bob and/or Ned Flanders and/or Waylon Smithers and/or Homer Simpson to FA  Done
Get a few more character pages to GA (as of right now, Kang and Kodos and Mona Simpson (The Simpsons) are closest)  Done
Get all of our character pages up to WP:FICT standards  Not done
Work on getting Matt Groening to FA  Not done
Get another behind the scenes person (Brooks? Silverman? Swartzwelder?) or maybe a voice actor (Castellaneta? Hartman? Shearer?) to GA  Done (by Gran2)
Work on improving some of our theme pages like Religion in The Simpsons (which could be FA with a LOT of work).  Not done

I think we as a project should set some goals for 2009, and see what we can do about reaching them. -- Scorpion0422 20:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

2009 project goals

I believe we should try to set some project goals for 2009. Here are some of my ideas:

  1. Reduce the number of stubs by [insert number, maybe... 10%?]
  2. Bring all character articles up to the WP:FICT guidelines (should it not be deleted)
  3. Try and get the remaining classic seasons (2, 3, 5, 6 and 7) to GT
  4. Try to get more season pages to FL status (1-9 done)
  5. Get [insert number... 10?] articles/lists to featured status
  6. Successfully complete one non-season GT/FT
  7. Work on improving the articles for writers/directors/cast and try and get some GAs and maybe an FA

Any more ideas?

This topic:
Main page Articles
The Simpsons series History · The shorts · Episodes · Movie · Awards won · Writers · Directors · Cast · Characters & Guest stars , Non-English versions, Media, Politics, Religion

Nergaal (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like some good goals. I'm gonna try to get a cast member to GA status later this year. —TheLeftorium 10:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like some great goals. Perhaps a character featured topic could be an idea? I'll try to help out with characters and cast members.--Music26/11 19:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think one overall goal should be to get every single episode released on DVD to GA. 2009 might be pushing it, so I propose that we make a goal for the end of 2010. Like Theleftorium I think it is important to have focus on the sub articles to The Simpsons. That page gets the most traffic and it is therefore important that the sub articles are up to the same standards since they get their traffic from the main page. Do we by the way have a list of the Simpsons articles ordered by traffic? It could be quite interesting and could show us where we should put our efforts. --Maitch (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This project is great.

The Original Barnstar
Hi, I know it's a bit weird to give a barnstar to a WikiProject, but you people just deserve one. This project is really fantastic, example: I occasionally check the GAn list, and almost always there is at least one article nominated. When I look at this project I see what Wikipedia is all about, talking and editing together. To everybody here at the The Simpsons WikiProject: Keep up the good work. --Music26/11 10:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Aww, thanks! :) TheLeftorium 10:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Pilot episodes

If we take a look at the two FA's Pilot (House) and Pilot (Smallville) then we can see that a lot more is allowed to be mentioned than we do on Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire. There is a section on conception, filming and casting. Most of this information also works for the main article of the show. The question is: Could we do the same thing with Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire? --Maitch (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it should be re-done. Simpsons Roasting was one of our earliest GAs, so it's not really up to current standards. -- Scorpion0422 17:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, remember that a lot of the casting was already done during the Tracy Ullman era. And several full-length episodes were actually produced before this one. Zagalejo^^^ 19:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Succession boxes

So, an IP, 206.253.5.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), has decided to start adding succession boxes to episode pages and so far has done just about every episode in seasons 1, 2, 3 and 13. I've asked the IP to explain his reasoning, but he has ignored me so far. I don't think they are necessary since there is already a template that links every episode in a season. The only advantage is that it does allow the finale of one season to link to the premiere of the next, but that's a minor benefit (especially since the seasons are also linked in the infobox). So far, I haven't bothered to remove them, but I probably will eventually. However, does anyone think that the boxes are necessary? -- Scorpion0422 16:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree that they should be removed. Cirt (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. I'll help you remove them later. —TheLeftorium 17:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, that's why we have the menu infobox, these are not needed. Gran2 17:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Simpson's GAs in Spanish

Have you guys seen these? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Melisa River uses your sources. Pretty cool.[15] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow, a lot of those articles are [translated] copies of the ones here, down to the references and external links. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but it is slightly annoying. -- Scorpion0422 01:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was cool. Who knows, in ten years there may be 500 Simpson GAs in every language, and this project started it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, this is great, thanks for showing it to us! Cirt (talk) 06:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I think this is the only other language wikiproject like this now, but at some point I think this kind of thing would be a good thing for wikiprojects to keep track of. Creating an FA is something to be proud of, but so is inspiring foreign wikiprojects to create a bunch of high level content. It makes me want to create a nice Simpsons article so I could brag about the Spanish GA version. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
No, there are four others: no:Wikipedia:Underprosjekter/Simpsons, ru:Википедия:Проект:Симпсоны, cs:Wikipedie:WikiProjekt Simpsonovi and sv:Wikipedia:Projekt The Simpsons. And at one point, several Simple English wiki Simpsons pages were pretty much word for word copies of ones here (they weren't even simplified). -- Scorpion0422 18:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Portal:The Simpsons/Upcoming episodes and Portal:The Simpsons/The Simpsons news

Both of these subpages contain outdated material that has been stale for a while now, and both have been commented-out of the main portal page at Portal:The Simpsons. Cirt (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Which Simpson family image is better?

Keyser Söze has uploaded a new image of the Simpson family (thanks a lot by the way) and I just wanted to get opinions on whether we should use it as the new lead image on The Simpsons.

File:C-SimpFamily.png - Original. Just a standard portrait shot, I guess you could call it more encyclopedic. File:Simpsons FamilyPicture.png - New one. It's more interesting, and the house is included in the shot.

Personally, I like the new one. Maybe use it on the main page and the old one at Simpson family (or vice versa). Thoughts? -- Scorpion0422 02:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I also like the new one better. I think it should be used in both articles. —TheLeftorium 09:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I think we should go with the new one. It seems more "official" than the other one. Gran2 12:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Theleftorium (talk · contribs) and Gran2 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Edna Krabappel - Ms. or Mrs.?

Hi, I'm currently conducting the GA review of The PTA Disbands and would like to know definitively (with evidence if available on the web) if Edna Krabappel is a "Ms." or a "Mrs.", given that even divorced women can still be known as "Mrs." A Wikipedia search was inconclusive (if you have a definitive answer then you may want to organise a tidy up), while the nominator has said that her bio at thesimpsons.com (which refers to her as "Mrs. Krabappel" is incorrect). Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Note - I have now passed the article as a GA (after the "Ms." was removed entirely) but I'd still be interested in the answer. --Jameboy (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure they say "Mrs. Krabappel" on the show, and she mentions a "Mr. Krabappel" in "Lisa's Substitute".—TheLeftorium 13:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
She's referred to as Mrs. Krabappel in this clip. Zagalejo^^^ 19:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

New images

I found a package of official images here and took the chance to upload some of them. Some of them need to be fair use reduced as well.

Also, there are new versions of images for:

  • Barney
  • Dr. Hibbert
  • Itchy & Scratchy
  • Krusty
  • Milhouse
  • Moe
  • Sideshow Bob

But I felt the current versions work fine. If anyone would like to see them, let me know. -- Scorpion0422 23:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I fixed some of them (will get the rest later). —TheLeftorium 18:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The images are PNG but they don't have transparent backgrounds? Bah! Gary King (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Nancy Cartwright

So, Nancy Cartwright is now using Bart's voice to promote scientology. And, very quickly, a section of this appearead at Bart Simpson. It was also very quickly removed, but I highly doubt that this will be the last IP to add this. I don't think this should be mentioned at Bart's article (unless there are huge public repercussions from this), it belongs more at Nancy Cartwright's page (BTW, everyone keep an eye on it). Thoughts? -- Scorpion0422 20:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Al Jean weighs in. Cirt (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting note, Nancy Cartwright had 13 times more views than normal on the day the story broke (In January it averaged 800-900 views per day, on the 28th it had 13800).[16] It still has abnormally high traffic. The Joy of Sect has also had more than double the traffic [17] and Bart Simpson had a small jump, but nothing huge. -- Scorpion0422 05:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured article criteria

I have started a discussion related to the Simpsons episode articles at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_criteria#Comprehensive.3F_Special.3F if anyone is interested. --Maitch (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

Announcements
  • All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page.
  • Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project.
  • No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work.
Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 22:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Already signed us up for this. :P -- Cirt (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

New potential FT

edit | discuss
The Simpsons main cast members
7 articles
Dan Castellaneta
Julie Kavner
Nancy Cartwright
Yeardley Smith
Hank Azaria
Harry Shearer

This is one I've recently started thinking about, the definition would strictly be the six main voice actors. Gran2 took Hank Azaria's article to GA a while back I recently overhauled Cartwright's page and I hope to take it to FAC by the end of the month. The other four would likely be able to reach at least GA. I did a quick expansion of Julie Kavner's page and I think it will be the hardest because she hasn't done a full interview since 1994, so a lot of the details of her life - ie. her relationship - are that old. Anyway, anyone who would like to help pitch in on this one are more than welcome to help, as are any thoughts about the topic. -- Scorpion0422 21:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice work on Julie Kavner! :) I will try to improve Harry Shearer's page when I get some time over. —TheLeftorium 14:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Kavner's page is nearly done. All I need to do is add a few more cites (and some more personal life info would be nice too). I think I'm going to do Dan Castellaneta next. -- Scorpion0422 18:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Good work, I'll do Yeardley and Harry's filmographies, then those are all done. Gran2 19:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Better images for Missionary: Impossible ?

Any way someone could get better images for Missionary: Impossible ? The images currently in the article seem out of focus. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

New Article Alertbot...

Hey, in case no one else read the new Signpost, there's a new alertbot out for the WikiProjects... add the {{ArticleAlertbotSubscription}} template to the projects main page, and the bot will automatically let us know about any changes in any articles that have the project banner on their talk page... more info here and here... I was going to add it, but I didn't know where to put it with our main projet page formatted the way it is... if someone else wants to add it, feel free... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Split Animated GAs off to their own section

I messed up on Lost our Lisa. It's now fixed but you may want to check if any other Simpsons are misplaced. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

"Summer of 4 Ft. 2" was also misplaced, but I think that was the last one. --Maitch (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Life in Hell cartoon

I'm trying to clean up alt.tv.simpsons and one line is really bugging me. It is:

"In a 1994 Life in Hell cartoon Matt Groening implied that he read the newsgroup."

The reference for it is:

Groening, Matt (w, a). Life in Hell. October 28, 1994, Acme Features Syndicate.

The line was there before I started to work on the article and I want to know what exactly Matt Groening was implying in that cartoon. It needs to be more specific. Does anyone have that cartoon and is able to help me? --Maitch (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This may help. Look for alt.tv.simpsons.~ - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ McManus, Rove (2008-06-12). "The Age". Green Guide - Lessons from Springfield: 12. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Simpsons/Archive_6&oldid=1144288646"