Talk:The Force Awakens from Its Nap

Star Wars Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Wars, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Star WarsWikipedia:WikiProject Star WarsTemplate:WikiProject Star WarsStar Wars articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Star Wars To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Tag the talk pages of Star Wars-related articles with the {{WikiProject Star Wars}} banner. Update the classification of articles in Category:Unassessed Star Wars articles and Category:Unknown-importance Star Wars articles.
Citing sources : Jedi, Sith
Cleanup : Remove any In-universe information at Category:Star Wars articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction.
Copyedit : Under Early Life. Fix grammar of "towns (plural) predominantly Protestant technical college" to "town's (possessive)..."
Stubs : Category:Star Wars stubs
Other : * See the things to do page
- Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability

Film: American / Animated

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Animated films task force.

The Simpsons Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject The Simpsons, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to The Simpsons on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.The SimpsonsWikipedia:WikiProject The SimpsonsTemplate:WikiProject The SimpsonsThe Simpsons articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

edit

Collaboration: Featured topic Drive
Copyedit:
Merge:
Cleanup: Ralph Wiggum, Milhouse Van Houten
Shorten plot synopsis:
Free-use images: Jon Vitti, Pamela Hayden, Greg Daniels, Ian Maxtone-Graham, Jim Reardon, Alf Clausen
Reference: Bongo Comics Group, The Heartbroke Kid, World of Springfield
Expand: The Simpsons Theme, Bongo Comics, Mark Kirkland, Jim Reardon, The Simpsons: Tapped Out
Stubs: Neil Affleck, Bob Anderson (director), Wes Archer, J. Stewart Burns More...

Merger discussion

The merge tags have all been removed and the discussion has petered out. I supported merger, but there is no consensus. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I suggest that the articles for the four Disney+ Simpsons shorts:

be merged into one article. The shorts are not individually notable, and given their short length and promotional nature, collecting them all to one page seems sensible. I'm thinking of something like Roger Rabbit short films.

I have created a draft at Draft:The Simpsons Disney+ shorts; feel free to contribute and cleanup. Trivialist (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Articles trying to cover several films at the same time are almost always terrible.★Trekker (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this could be a reasonable idea, but you'd need to keep everything from each article - which may mean this makes it feel bloated? Squid45 (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support A combined article seems more fitting, in the style of Marvel One-Shots perhaps. A lot of this could be condensed. Mitchy Power (talk) 11:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When Billie Met Lisa currently does not meet notability guidelines for stand-alone articles on films as all of the coverage is from primary sources or reproductions of press releases, thus not independent coverage. BOVINEBOY2008 16:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support for all but Plusaversary. Plusaversary seems to have significant criticism against it. The other shorts could easily be merged together into something akin to Marvel One-Shots. "The Simpsons Disney+ shorts" could eaily be an article, with a decent amount of group criticism for them all. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@(Oinkers42) “Significant criticism” like in Plusaversary has been added to other articles. In addition, Marvel One-Shots are obviously about related themes, whereas the themes of these short films are quite different (as @AdmiralAckbar1977 noticed). Patrik L. (talk) 08:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, they seem to have related themes and similar criticism. They are all Disney + exclusive Simpsons shorts that are meant to be both comedic as well as advertisements for Disney products (When Billie Met Lisa might be the exception to that last part, but it could be considered a tie-in to Happier Than Ever: A Love Letter to Los Angeles). They have all been criticized as products primarily made to advertise rather than entertain, and as such, often get grouped together. All of them are stub or start class, so it is reasonable to trade them for a Start or C class article. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, these shorts are indeed generally promotional and getting to be so numerous they don't seem particularly notable anymore. There's no reason some more important shorts (The Force Awakens from Its Nap, nominated for an Emmy) can't be broken out again if the new article does become bloated. In response to above, do merge Plusaversary. There's nothing significant about this handful of criticisms just because they were scathing. It was an awful short, of course the reviews were scathing, but the other shorts were also reviewed. Ribbet32 (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, much more in favor of merging the Simpsons Disney+ promotional shorts into one big article rather than having non-notable shorts with their own article. Plusaversary's only sources contain its announcement, release, and reception. I think The Good, the Bart, and the Loki should stay considering there's notable production info. (But granted, it only has 5 sources.) – SirDot (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I think a central article is a good idea, but not all of these need to be merged back to such a central article. I would keep The Good, the Bart, and the Loki, neutral Plusaversary, but the other 2 could definitely be merged given their current state. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. If the draft article is how the final article is going to look then it feels very messy. If these entries are not notable for a stand-alone article, then the entries should be summary style and not entire articles. If they are notable, then they should have stand-alone articles. Gonnym (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It seems that The Good, the Bart, and the Loki is the only notable one to me so it definitely wouldn’t need to be merged. The others looks pretty bad, especially When Billie Met Lisa. This is a good idea, but if the the films aren’t notable how will the draft be notable. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 14:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It looks that majority (maybe all) of the articles are notable. Look at Ukrainian Wikipedia and the sources citing in here. I think that if someone will improve these articles per ukwiki, we should keep all articles stand-alone. Some of the articles look bad, I agree. But how does merging them into one article help? --Patrik L. (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems the most reasonable choice. That way there is room for a common "Development" section, and even the less notable shorts can be briefly debated. For the longer ones, there is also a chance that they will be cleaned from the lesser details. Reaching a more concise and straightforward form is essential to the project, in my opinion. --PersiaF |Talk|Contr| 22:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it should be called "List of The Simpsons Disney+ shorts" or "List of The Simpsons shorts on Disney+". —ÐW-🇺🇦^(T·C) 02:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Clearer if these articles remain separate. UlyssorZebra (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These articles are each distinctly separate from each other in story (Star Wars, Marvel, Disney+ Day, Billie Eilish), despite all containing rather similar, promotional, themes. AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, honestly they're all too short for it to really make sense to have separate articles for all of them. They aren't notable enough to each have their own pages, and it'd make more sense for them to be collected on one page. AureliaDefines (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per UlyssorZebra and AdmiralAckbar1977. 2001:BB6:5255:E200:78CA:4FAC:767E:CDE1 (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a bad idea and also this has not moved anywhere. its in limbo. and also i feel that Something is missing60.242.41.209 (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trivialist: I've reverted your redirects and merges given there was either no consensus or consensus not to merge these from this discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.