Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject The Simpsons/Archive 5: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject The Simpsons Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:01, 17 November 2007 editMiszaBot II (talk | contribs)259,776 editsm Archiving 3 thread(s) from Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject The Simpsons.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:55, 28 January 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(41 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 26: Line 26:
:I removed it. It was just some random comment by an anonymous user. I didn't pay too much attention to that episode myself, so I can't honestly say whether that is an accurate description or not, but I'm guessing that it's bogus. ] 05:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC) :I removed it. It was just some random comment by an anonymous user. I didn't pay too much attention to that episode myself, so I can't honestly say whether that is an accurate description or not, but I'm guessing that it's bogus. ] 05:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
::No, I think that she rapes him as well, as I have seen the episode multiple times. She gets on top and pins down Homer and forces him into having sex against his will. I would say its rape. ] 10:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC) ::No, I think that she rapes him as well, as I have seen the episode multiple times. She gets on top and pins down Homer and forces him into having sex against his will. I would say its rape. ] 10:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Really? Well, if it was, it sure didn't cause much commotion in the mainstream press. ]<font color="#008080">]</font> 06:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC) :::Really? Well, if it was, it sure didn't cause much commotion in the mainstream press. ]] 06:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


== ] GAC == == ] GAC ==
Line 93: Line 93:
*What is the proper way to cite a DVD commentary on Misplaced Pages? We use <nowiki>{{cite video}}</nowiki> in the article, but the results don't look right, because we're forced to cram too much into the "title" field. There must be some alternative. *What is the proper way to cite a DVD commentary on Misplaced Pages? We use <nowiki>{{cite video}}</nowiki> in the article, but the results don't look right, because we're forced to cram too much into the "title" field. There must be some alternative.
*If the article does reach the front page, what would we use as our picture? A photo of Jon Lovitz? *If the article does reach the front page, what would we use as our picture? A photo of Jon Lovitz?
That's all for now. I'm also still trying to determine whether the Lorando article was the first to publish the lyrics. ]<font color="#008080">]</font> 06:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC) That's all for now. I'm also still trying to determine whether the Lorando article was the first to publish the lyrics. ]] 06:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


I don't know about the play, but the cite video template is the correct template to use, there is no other. And if it does reach the main page, the image of Jon Lovitz should be fine. ]<sup>]</sup> 06:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC) I don't know about the play, but the cite video template is the correct template to use, there is no other. And if it does reach the main page, the image of Jon Lovitz should be fine. ]<sup>]</sup> 06:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
:I almost bought the movie once, but it cost 35 bucks and that's too expensive for a movie that I'll only watch once. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 13:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC) :I almost bought the movie once, but it cost 35 bucks and that's too expensive for a movie that I'll only watch once. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 13:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
::I'm satisfied with the page. I'd love to see the production section a tad bigger, but we've added pretty much everything we could. Are we ready to go? -- ]<sup>]</sup> 16:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC) ::I'm satisfied with the page. I'd love to see the production section a tad bigger, but we've added pretty much everything we could. Are we ready to go? -- ]<sup>]</sup> 16:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
:::How long does it usually take to get a peer-review? (A real one, not an automated one). ]<font color="#008080">]</font> 19:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC) :::How long does it usually take to get a peer-review? (A real one, not an automated one). ]] 19:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
::::It depends, any time from two minutes to never, as I experienced with '']''. Which was on PR for at least two months, and received no comments AT ALL, really annoying. Put it depends, usually a few for somene to actually review an article. The peer review process is essentially useless as no one really "runs" the process and makes sure every article gets at least one comment. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC) ::::It depends, any time from two minutes to never, as I experienced with '']''. Which was on PR for at least two months, and received no comments AT ALL, really annoying. Put it depends, usually a few for somene to actually review an article. The peer review process is essentially useless as no one really "runs" the process and makes sure every article gets at least one comment. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
===Something I just noticed=== ===Something I just noticed===
Despite what Mike Reiss says, I can't find any evidence that the New Orleans Fox station pulled the Simpsons for a few weeks. Indeed, the ''Times-Picayune''<nowiki>'</nowiki>'s television previews continue to mention the Simpsons throughout the month of October. In light of this, I've done a little bit of re-writing in the "Controversy" section. Thoughts? ]'''<font color="#008080">]</font><font color="#FF0000">]</font><font color="#808000">]</font>''' 20:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Despite what Mike Reiss says, I can't find any evidence that the New Orleans Fox station pulled the Simpsons for a few weeks. Indeed, the ''Times-Picayune''<nowiki>'</nowiki>'s television previews continue to mention the Simpsons throughout the month of October. In light of this, I've done a little bit of re-writing in the "Controversy" section. Thoughts? ]''']]]''' 20:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
===Ratings info=== ===Ratings info===
In case someone asks at the FAC, I've dug up the ] info for the episode in the US. It ranked 32nd among prime-time shows for the week (tied with ]) and achieved a rating of 11.8, which means that approximately 11 million American viewers tuned in. (Source: Associated Press. "Nielsen Ratings/Sept. 28 &ndash;Oct. 4. ].) In case someone asks at the FAC, I've dug up the ] info for the episode in the US. It ranked 32nd among prime-time shows for the week (tied with ]) and achieved a rating of 11.8, which means that approximately 11 million American viewers tuned in. (Source: Associated Press. "Nielsen Ratings/Sept. 28 &ndash;Oct. 4. ].)


Of course, it would be good to include this in the article even if no one requests it, but before I do, I was wondering: is similar info is available for international broadcasts? And something else I've though about: does anyone even know when the episode first aired in the UK, Canada, Australia, etc? ]'''<font color="#008080">]</font><font color="#FF0000">]</font><font color="#808000">]</font>''' 07:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Of course, it would be good to include this in the article even if no one requests it, but before I do, I was wondering: is similar info is available for international broadcasts? And something else I've though about: does anyone even know when the episode first aired in the UK, Canada, Australia, etc? ]''']]]''' 07:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


:No idea, they may be a source for them, but I don't know. People only really note down the overall original airing, which was the American. ]<sup>]</sup> 11:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC) :No idea, they may be a source for them, but I don't know. People only really note down the overall original airing, which was the American. ]<sup>]</sup> 11:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
::I guess a more important question is, did the episode air anywhere ''besides'' the US on Oct 1 1992? ]'''<font color="#008080">]</font><font color="#FF0000">]</font><font color="#808000">]</font>''' 19:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC) ::I guess a more important question is, did the episode air anywhere ''besides'' the US on Oct 1 1992? ]''']]]''' 19:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
:::No idea about other countries, but it didn't air in the UK for several years after it. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC) :::No idea about other countries, but it didn't air in the UK for several years after it. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
::::It likely aired in Canada at the same time, but ratings mean less here, so you probably won't find any info. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 20:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC) ::::It likely aired in Canada at the same time, but ratings mean less here, so you probably won't find any info. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 20:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Line 150: Line 150:
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
Line 239: Line 239:
] ]
It looks like we may lose the current barnstar design because an administrator thinks I copied the doughnut from the Simpsons Movie poster. There was an older possible design that was basically the same, except that it had the word "d'oh" on it, instead of a doughnut. Maybe we should use that one. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 20:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC) It looks like we may lose the current barnstar design because an administrator thinks I copied the doughnut from the Simpsons Movie poster. There was an older possible design that was basically the same, except that it had the word "d'oh" on it, instead of a doughnut. Maybe we should use that one. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 20:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
:Never mind, really about I confused the donut with the poster. I've taken a second look, and they're completely different. And I think I've agreed with Jeff at IRC that the image is fine. Sorry for the mess. :( PS: this image also looks good. '''<font face="Arial">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></font>''' 20:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC) :Never mind, really about I confused the donut with the poster. I've taken a second look, and they're completely different. And I think I've agreed with Jeff at IRC that the image is fine. Sorry for the mess. :( PS: this image also looks good. '''<span style="font-family:Arial;">]<sub><small>]</small></sub></span>''' 20:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
::That's good. There was also an image that had a doughnut AND the word d'oh, but we decided that it was best to leave words off of it. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 20:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC) ::That's good. There was also an image that had a doughnut AND the word d'oh, but we decided that it was best to leave words off of it. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 20:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


== Seasons page formating == == Seasons page formating ==


We need to figure out how to format the Season pages - (The Simpsons (season #)). Most of them have the episode number, airdate, production code, and title. But some seasons (1,2,6,8,9,19) have director and written by, and season 18 has the rating. Please list your opinion on how you think it should be formated. ] 18:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC) We need to figure out how to format the Season pages - (The Simpsons (season #)). Most of them have the episode number, airdate, production code, and title. But some seasons (1,2,6,8,9,19) have director and written by, and season 18 has the rating. Please list your opinion on how you think it should be formated. ] 18:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
:Well they should be the same as 1, 2, 6, 8 & 19, hence why three of those are FLs and one other is an FLC. We're slowly getting there, but that is the preferred (and in my view a lot better) system. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC) :Well they should be the same as 1, 2, 6, 8 & 19, hence why three of those are FLs and one other is an FLC. We're slowly getting there, but that is the preferred (and in my view a lot better) system. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
== ] == == ] ==
Line 255: Line 255:
{{done}} {{done}}


I think ] and ] pages, should link the episode to the production number code, which is already listed. Does anyone wanna help link, or have a way to make it quicker and easier? ] 00:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC) I think ] and ] pages, should link the episode to the production number code, which is already listed. Does anyone wanna help link, or have a way to make it quicker and easier? ] 00:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
:This has been done, thanks to ]<sup>]</sup> and myself ] 04:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC) :This has been done, thanks to ]<sup>]</sup> and myself ] 04:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


== Citations and ISBNs == == Citations and ISBNs ==


The article ] and at least 60 other pages<ref><small>], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] (bad ISBN mentioned 3 times), ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] (twice), ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] (twice), ], ]</small></ref> refer to '']'' with a bad ISBN 0-00063-8898-1. That's one zero too many (which is why the lonely -1 trails behind the link). Less important, the hyphens are also in the wrong places. The correct one is ISBN 0-00-638898-1. Now, since there is an article about the book, a link to that page might do fine. Perhaps the (faulty) ISBN should just be dropped from all citations? Note that on ] this title is given a completely different ISBN. It is also possible that this project could organize a library of sources in a different way, by defining a template of standard bibliographic references. Is anybody here thinking along these lines? Who is your librarian? --] 01:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC) The article ] and at least 60 other pages<ref><small>], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] (bad ISBN mentioned 3 times), ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] (twice), ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] (twice), ], ]</small></ref> refer to '']'' with a bad {{ISBN|0-00063-8898}}-1. That's one zero too many (which is why the lonely -1 trails behind the link). Less important, the hyphens are also in the wrong places. The correct one is {{ISBN|0-00-638898-1}}. Now, since there is an article about the book, a link to that page might do fine. Perhaps the (faulty) ISBN should just be dropped from all citations? Note that on ] this title is given a completely different ISBN. It is also possible that this project could organize a library of sources in a different way, by defining a template of standard bibliographic references. Is anybody here thinking along these lines? Who is your librarian? --] 01:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
<references/> <references/>
:I think the ISBN is required for book references, so I guess we should just change it. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 01:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC) :I think the ISBN is required for book references, so I guess we should just change it. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 01:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Line 267: Line 267:
:::Basically, it's all manual, although you might be able to use ] to do it. All of the articles listed are GA or higher, so we should try and get it done quickly. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 02:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC) :::Basically, it's all manual, although you might be able to use ] to do it. All of the articles listed are GA or higher, so we should try and get it done quickly. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 02:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Okay, I decided to start fixing the refs, but I have to go. I started at the beginning of the list, and I fixed them on every page up to and including Homerpalooza. If anyone wants to pick up from there, it would be helpful. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 02:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC) ::::Okay, I decided to start fixing the refs, but I have to go. I started at the beginning of the list, and I fixed them on every page up to and including Homerpalooza. If anyone wants to pick up from there, it would be helpful. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 02:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::I think I fixed all of them. ]'''<font color="#008080">]</font><font color="#FF0000">]</font><font color="#808000">]</font>''' 04:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC) :::::I think I fixed all of them. ]''']]]''' 04:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


Great work! You're welcome to read my thoughts over on ]. --] 07:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Great work! You're welcome to read my thoughts over on ]. --] 07:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Line 283: Line 283:


I'm surprised actually, it took the anti-fiction brigade a lot longer to get there than I thought it would. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 02:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC) I'm surprised actually, it took the anti-fiction brigade a lot longer to get there than I thought it would. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 02:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
== ] ==

What constitutes listcruft for The Simpsons pages, and what doesn't? Both ]<sup>]</sup> and <small>]</small> ''']''' <small>'']''</small> ], so it was deleted. If that is considered listcruft, why do we have the following listcruft pages - ], ], ], ], among others. Who's to decide what we need to keep, and what needs to go..they are all just lists? Responses?? ] 19:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
:There is a fine line between listcruft and "significant study". most of the pages you have been listed have been targeted for deletion in the past, and were kept. The Chalkboard gags and couch gags are both considered significant hallmarks of the show, plus there are well over 200 of each of them and one could easily locate sources to prove their significance. As for the list of places and lists of religions, I am indifferent to them. The travveling page recently survived an AFD, so there is little we can do right now, but I will remove the list of religions. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 20:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
::After looking at the pages I see reasons to keep the Religion article. It is not a list, it is an article reflecting a common and contraversial theme from the Simpsons. As for travel, it IS listcruft. The gags pages are notable and sourceable, per Scorpion, and should remain. Does someone want to run a Travel AfD, or is it too soon since the last? (didn't look at the date - (annoyed grunt)!) -- <small><span style="color:#0000C8;">THE</span> ] ]</small> 04:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
::: TROMBONATOR, u may have looked at the religion page after Scorpion deleted the actually list of religions, someone had made. That is mostly what I was referring too. Trombonator, also, go to ], it was re-nominated for deletion, add your thoughts to delete it! ] 06:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Ooh, I see that now. Yeah, Scorpion, I'd have taken it out, too, but the rest of the article is valuable... as I said above... AND as I said on the AFD. Also, Ctjf83, beware of ]. (It's OK if you didn't know.) -- <small><span style="color:#0000C8;">THE</span> ] ]</small> 09:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

I've been working on the page, abd it's looking pretty good and I think it's about ready for an FLC. Could anyone take a look at the page and let me know what you think of the format? There are some awards that I have chosen not to include, you can find a list ] (as well as a complete, more update list ), and I was wondering if there was anything I left out that should have been included. Basically, my inclusion criteria was any award with a Misplaced Pages page, but I'm open to anything with a reliable source. I am a little concerned about an FLC, because I had to cheat for some of them and use IMDB, such as the EMA awards, and which individual episode was nominated for an Emmy. If it comes down to it, we can use the commentaries as a source for which episode was submitted for an Emmy, but we will have trouble finding sources for the EMAs. For now, I'm going to leave it and if anyone brings it up, I'll remove the early three noms and just use the source that says the show won 6. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 16:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

== List of episode pages we should work on ==

A while back, Gran2 and I compiled a list of episodes that should be our top priority and I figured I would post it here so that maybe some others who would like to work on some episodes might know where to start. Between the two of us, we've gotten over 40 pages to GA status, so if your favourite episode isn't listed here, it might be because it was already promoted.

*] (although Maitch was working on it...)
*] (Introduced a pivotal character, inspired a dozen future episodes)
*] (The first THOH episode)
*] (Inspired a bunch of future flashback episodes)
*] (Matt Groening's favourite, features possibly one of the greatest jokes of all time)
*] (Submitted for Emmy consideration)
*] (Huge episode that involved Michael Jackson and is quite famous)
*] (Fan favourite, Dustin Hoffman, the main episode James L. Brooks did)
*] (Popular)
*] (Submitted for Emmy consideration... Plus it's a fan favourite)
*] (Often cited as important)
*] (high up on a number of media Top ten lists)
*] (Lots of good production info and cultural refs)
*] (Top 5 episode from EW)
*] (Hugely popular)
*] (Matt Groening disliked the episode, and would make for a good page if we can find good sources)
* ] (Part One is a GA)
*] (won both an ] and a ])
*] (Highly controversial episode)
*] (Seen this on a few top episodes lists)
*] (Again, a highly controversial episode)
*] (Lots of good production info)
*] (One of Matt Groening's favourite episode)

Thoughts? -- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
== Season 9 Featured topic drive ==

It's back, and hopefully this one goes better than the one for season one. Anyone interested in helping out should visit ] page. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 02:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

== The Simpsons Template ==

{{Done}}

Does anyone think ] should be on the bottom of the episode pages to make navigation easier? ] 21:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
:I was thinking about this, as the bottom of the page looks sort of empty without the template. Though, it may just be unnecessary according to some, as the most relevant thing to the episode is the season, which is already linked on the page. I could add it with ] if it's decided to be added, though. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 00:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
**Someone should change it to ], which is more versatile and allows for more stuff to be included in more creative ways. ] 05:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC).
:::I don't really see any point myself, I mean, there are no episode pages linked on the main template, and there isn't any point in putting any there. So personally I think its fine as is. ]<sup>]</sup> 11:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
::::at the very least, there should be a link to all the seasons at the bottom of the episode pages, it isn't very navigation friendly. ] 01:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
== My next "random character project of the month" is... ==

I put a bunch of characters names in a hat and my next character project will be that quirky peppy nightmare neighborino himself... Ned Flanders. Anyone want to help? My next project after him will be... The man who carries Onions on his belt (because it was the style at the time), Abraham Simpson. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 04:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
:Yeah sure, I think I'm going to do Moe myself as well. ]<sup>]</sup> 07:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
::I think we should try to improve some of the more important character pages (Skinner, Comic Book Guy, Barney Gumble, Mr. Burns) not necessarily to GA or FA, but get them to look somewhat decent. I have tried to improve the written quality of Brockman, Mrs. Krabappel, Apu, and Quimby (yes I know there are no refrences, but I don't care much for doing those.) Anyway, give me a ring if you need something. ] 17:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
:::I think Flanders is pretty important. I could use help finding internet sources. Do you think you could help out there? -- ]<sup>]</sup> 03:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
::::I would think so, although I'm new to that sort of thing, and I don't know when I will be available, but tell me what you need and I'll see what I can do. ] 19:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::You could find Harry Shearer interviews that mention Flanders. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::I have not found any interviews yet, but I did find a site which might be useful. I think the second paragraph would help the most. ]] 15:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks a lot, that is the exact kind of thing I was hoping for. Do you have that Religion and The Simpsons book? I'd be willing to bet that it would have some good stuff in it. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Sorry, I don't. How about checking a library or bookstore? I would think they would have it. ] 18:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

== Project page ==

I finally got sick of having to edit two seperate pages every time I tried to fix something, so I merged the two halves of the project page into the main one and gave it a slightly different look. What do others think of it? -- ]<sup>]</sup> 03:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
:I kind of liked the old look better, and I was never bothered by having to edit two pages, but I don't have a problem with keeping it if others prefer it the current way. ] 19:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
::I prefer the old look too. --] 18:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Okay, I went back to it then. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

== Discusion about "Homerpedia" at ] ==

There is thread of discussion at the ] about the numerous Simpsons episodes of FA status and why and such. Just a head's up. ] 19:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
:Wow, that's something else. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
::That discussion = LOL. I mean, God, how is it a bad thing that we write good stuff? ]<sup>]</sup> 20:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
:::I see their point. After all, it is ''partly'' true that there are more important subjects out there than The Simpsons, but as long as we're improving the encyclopedia, I see no harm done. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 03:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
== I found a good source ==

I finally found a good source for the best musical moments from Rolling Stone magazine. Use where needed. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 04:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

== Parentage to Comedy WikiProject? ==

I was wondering if the ] is a parent to this WikiProject? Is it so and it should be noted on the WikiProject? ] 20:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
:Well, since 95% of our articles do fall under the comedy umbrella, then probably yes. Although it's kind of weird since the Simpsons WikiProject came first. I think the Comedy wikiproject could claim parentage to a lot of television show WPs. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 20:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
::OK, I'll add it our list. ] 20:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
== Dispute over ]'s cultural references section ==

I've started a discussion ] over an editors continual addition of an obscure reference without a source. He has reverted four editors a dozen times in 4 days, so I figured it was time to draw some kind of consensus, even though policy supports its removal. So could people please take a look at the discussion? Thanks, ]<sup>]</sup> 22:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

== Possible page name ] ==

The page is now a GAC, but I think it could use a name change, so I proposed one. You can find the disucssion ]. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 01:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
== Suggestion for easier navigation ==

{{done}}

To make navigation easier for between episodes of different seasons, I was thinking of suggesting this idea. In the episode's infobox, under where it says the season number and above the date where the season ran through, there would be a smaller selection of numbers which would represent each season. The season that it was on then would obviously be in black and unclickable, whereas the other seasons would be clickable. Sound any good? ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 00:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
: I think it sounds like a good idea. Much easier to navigate, as I had suggested in an ] ] 00:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
::I've tried to do that before but I wasn't able to figure out the correct code. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

== External links at ] ==

An IP has decided to add a link to , a small forum dedicated to Lisa. He's been misinterpreting policy and is focusing on the one statement that kinda but doesn't really support him and is ignoring the 3 statements that definitely oppose it's inclusion. The discussion is ]. Either way, I'm concerned that he will report this at the forum and then we'll get to deal with Meatpuppets, so could people please keep an eye on the discussion and the page and watch for any socks? Thanks, ]<sup>]</sup> 07:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
:I'll try to keep an eye on the page. Weird website though, seems like some of them have some ''deep'' obsessions with Lisa... example: "I love her very much. I can connect many songs with her. She helps me through a lot of tough situations, all I have to do is think of her. Every night as I fall asleep, I keep her in my thoughts in hopes of dreaming about her. As previously stated in the thread "Lisa Dreams" if I could have one wish, it would be to hold her in my arms forever." That quote isn't even scratching the surface on how weird some of the people there are. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 02:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
== Little Pwagmattasquarmsettport ==

Is ] located in Springfield's State? -- ] (]) 21:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
:there is no evidence that it is, or is not located in Springfield's State ] 21:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

A user continually adds information about the song "Hullaba Lula" which was included on the CD as an unaired bonus track and is sung by Sideshow Bob. He claims he got the information from the booklet, which says the song was recorded for "]". However, once you listen to the song, it becomes quite clear that it's from ] because it contains the lyrics "I can't wait to kill Krusty today, Bart takes the wrap while I get away" and he also mentions explosives. So it's now turned into one of those silly "verifiability vs. truth" debates. I don't know about anyone else, but I hate knowingly including inaccurate information and even if it DOES have a source, it's still questionable. I have suggested that the song be listed on the page without an episode, but apparantly that makes me a vandal. Either way, could some folks chip in opinions at the ]? Thanks, ]<sup>]</sup> 23:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
== I need ideas ==

I feel like working on something new, but I'm not sure what to work on, does anyone have any suggestions? I feel like something I could have done in 1-2 weeks.

My first thought is ] as it would be challenge, but still manageable. I used to think that listening to all of the commentaries for major characters would be too difficult, but I managed to do it for Flanders. Also, I might be able to pick up some useful stuff for ]. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 05:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

:I have always thought that there could be made some interesting out of the ]. It could be a FA if we used all the sources available. --] (]) 12:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

I was wondering what people thought about including the jokes about them potentially being gay in the Background section of that article. And a user seems to think that the two sentences in the article right now aren't enough. If memory serves, there have only been three one-liners, and it seems to me that having a detailed paragraph about them in such a small section seems like undue weight. After all, it is such a small miniscule part of their characters because they have been in dozens of episodes and mentioning all three jokes in detail gives readers unfamiliar with The Simpsons the impression that this is actually important to their character, when it isn't. Besides, in most character articles, we tend to avoid one-off jokes unless it illustrates an important part of a character. As well, a large part of the justification seems to be based on OR and POV, for example, one reason given to me was that it "speaks to issues of Christian parenting of gay children and the irony that certain accepted forms of protectionistic parenting actually manifests in gay appearing characteristics" What do others think?

For those curious: is what the article was like yesterday, is the version where a random user decided to make almost the entire section about their sexuality, is the version that mentions all three jokes in detail (but less detail and OR than the previous version) , and is the most recent version. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 03:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
:I agree...it is ridiculous to mention it, unless there is a whole episode that focuses on it in the future. It is different then Smithers, who, while no episode has focused exclusive on it, has had several mentions of it ] 03:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
== Deletion ==

{{done}}

If someone gets a chance ] deleted the years from a lot of the air dates of episodes for some reason, so if someone can revert them...i'd do it, but i'm late for work already! ] 13:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
:I undid all of his edits. --] (]) 15:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

== New Template/Article Overhaul Proposal ==

There is a proposition for overhauling the rather poorly laid out and messy ] page with a new template to keep things nice and tidy. See the discussion ]. ] 17:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
:Just a heads up. ] is working on his own overhaul of that list (see ]). I kind of prefer the list to be ordered by appearence. I can't decide whether the list should use tables or not. --] (]) 14:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
::When I do get around to finishing that (probably over Christmas), I think I'll convert it to a basic table, but it needs sources, that;s the main thing. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
== Spoofs Section ==

Hello, I am fairly new to Misplaced Pages as a writer but have used Misplaced Pages almost daily since it was first around. I recently got into an edit war with a user over a section called spoofs which would include continuity problems in each episode, ie, hair is strait in one scene and the camera changes, and the hair is curly. A lot of people follow The Simpsons episodes spoofs and I think it would be a valuable addition to each episode guide. You may or may not agree with me but I think it is part of the Simpson culture that they have those spoofs in each episode making them worth mentioning. Thank you for your time. --] (]) 14:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
:You can always add content to the articles if it is sourced. It is, however, very difficult to find sources for this and that is why we don't have these kinds of sections. You cannot write about something you have figured out yourself, since that would be ]. --] (]) 14:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

::That's part of the problem I guess, the only source would be from the episode but then again so is the plot summary that is written by watching each episode as well. What makes it acceptable that we can have a plot section based off of watching the episode but we cannot have a spoof section written by watching the same episode? This comes back to the point that people will still edit the content saying that we don't need a section for spoofs. How is it decided what we put into an episode article and what we don't? I understand we don't want articles to get too cluttered but isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia to give the reader as much information as possible? We shouldn't exclude content when it's relevant! --] (]) 14:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Hang on a minute do you mean "goofs"? Because an animation error is not a "spoof", a spoof is an intentional, funny parody of something. And as for goofs, the only things we mention are truly notable, colossal plot points (the old Simpson farmhouse burning down, and then coming back fully built, for example). Most other goofs are just pointless ] and goofs section themselves violate ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
::::Sorry I meant goofs. The specific goof I am talking about is in the episode Funeral for a Fiend is that Bob's father is on the stand but when the camera pans to the court room audience, he is clearly visible on the end of one of the rows. I would think that a goof like that would be notable. Is there a certain criteria for notable goofs?--] (]) 21:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
To answer your second question, a plot summary is a pretty straightforward reporting of what happened, so no inference is required. For ''spoofs'', it usually requires original research to determine what exactly is being spoofed. Animation and continuity goofs are generally avoided because they are not particularly ], and can be ]. You may be able to find an ] that will accept this information. I think IMDb solicits content from viewers, for example. ] 22:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
:Also, for GA or FA articles it is customary to finish the plot summaries with a reference to the simpsons.com or the bbc website. View ] (one of my articles) for an example. Even though the sites referenced have little or no information on the plot, and most of the information was derived from watching the episode, it is still a necesary step to get and article to GA status. Hope that helps! --] ] 02:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

== This could be a problem ==

] has randomly decided to remove every nonfree image in the season 19 episode pages with the rationale "image not discussed in text". This could end up being a problem if he decides to continue it with other seasons because these anti-image folks always support each other and any argument we have will be over-ruled by them. The way I see it is that the lead images usually illustrate key plot points, and these key plot points are usually discussed in the text. Either way, everyone should keep an eye on the situation. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
:This might be a stupid question, but why can't we just talk about the images in the text? Because "image not discussed in text" seams to me like someone's saying that what the image is about is not described in the text, and all we would need to do would be to write something and put it in. But there are so many reasons why a image is "nonfree" that I could never understand them. But I will keep an eye out, because I think the images give an article a sense of completeness, for lack of a better word. ] (]) 00:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
::Do the images have FU rationales? Or is he ignoring them and deleting anyway? --] ] 02:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
== Robert Canning's reviews ==

There has recently been a lot of activity from new users and IPs over the inclusion of the reviews of Robert Canning. For those unfamiliar with him, he is an IGN reporter and has been reviewing episodes for them for about a year now. As such, many season 18 and 19 pages have his opinions on them. Several users have raised issues with the inclusion of them, such as at ] and ], and some IPs have gone as far as just removing his stuff from the pages. One reason given was "it's a little pretentious to put one guys review of an episode in the reception section" but in my opinion, one review is better than none, and if there were more reviews from other reliable sources, they would all be included but unfortunately there isn't a lot of choice out there. I think another part of the reason is that a lot of fans disagree with his opinions, because we have reviews from random people on some our GAs and FAs and nobody has ever tried to remove those. He is kind of an idiot, but like it or not he is a professional reviewer with a notable website known for its reviews, and they add notability to an article. Without them, the only sourced stuff on many of these pages would be the plot sections, and the ] guidelines say that articles where the only sourced information is the plot should go. Anyway, I am open to removing his reviews if others think they should go. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I personally think that since you(referring to whoever included the reviews) are just exploiting a loop-hole basically that the articles are, by Misplaced Pages standards, not notable enough to warrant not being deleted. However, I think deleting the articles would be a travesty as it is obvious that someone(or some people) has put a lot of work into the articles. I feel that every episode of the Simpsons is notable based solely on its place in the American culture and that the ] guidelines fall a little short in this respect. Anyway, while I think the reviews lower the overall quality of the article, if their inclusion is necessary to the existence of the article, I'm for leaving them in. Perhaps someone could work on improving the ''way'' in which they're included? -] (]) 02:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
:Those are good reasons Scorpion, so it can be kept. But if anyone can find any other person's review so it is not just one guy's opinion, that would add a lot more to the articles. ] (]) 02:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

== How? ==

Hey guys. I would like to join your project, but how do I? Sorry if I'm any trouble. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: go to ] ] ] 21:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
== Quotes ==

Does anyone know how to set up a random quote box, like the LGBT one on ]. i think it would be kinda fun to have a simpsons random quote on my page ] ] 02:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
:: actually could a section be added to ]?] ] 03:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
:::It's possible. I might try tackling that when I have some time this weekend. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 03:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
::::Where do the qoutes come from? Are they randomly inputted from wikiquote or are they taken from a specially designed page? --] ] 07:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
::::: umm...i was just thinking we could each import some quotes...and kinda vote or whatever on which should be put it...not sure how good of an idea that would be ] ] 20:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::Sounds great! I love Simpsons quotes, a year ago I started a repository on my laptop, where I take a screenshot of the scene and write the dialoge underneath using Paint. I've also memorised heaps of quotes oever the years since I bacame addicted to The Simpsons. Give us a call when you start the project, I'll be right there! --] ] 22:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
*Let's talk about this at the ]. I already set this up for another portal which should hopefully become a featured portal very soon, and I'd be happy to set it up for ] as well. ] (]) 07:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC).
**Eh, whatever, you all have a good thread going here, so I'll continue it here. It wouldn't take me too long to set this up at all. In the other portal, every single quote has its own subpage, with a citation to the source where the quote came from. So the question becomes: do we want the portal to have randomized quotes from notable people from ''The Simpsons'' production staff, and other commentators ''about'' episodes and the series (could be sourced to DVD commentaries, etc.) or do we just want to pull quotes from the many episodes themselves, from Wikiquote, and just source it to each episode as a primary source? '''My thoughts:''' -- As Wikiquote already has an extensive collection of ''The Simpsons'' quotes directly from the episodes, it would be more interesting and valuable for the portal to not have any quotes from the episodes themselves, but rather from people in the production staff and other commentators ''about'' the show and making various parts of the show. Some requirements I thought up for the quotes subpage at ]:
#Each quote must be from a different individual, no two quotes from the same person.
#Each quote must be from someone "notable", who also already has a Misplaced Pages article about them. (Plenty of articles on production staff of ''The Simpsons'', and we could use one from say ] about the film too.)
#Each quote must have a citation of where the quote was stated on that subpage below the quote.
I'll set up the template subpages for the randomized quotes, and we can then fill in the actual quotes later. At the moment at ], there are 20 quotes that are randomly selected, with (3) shown at any given time. I made sure there was a balance between the POV of the various quotes, but with a topic much less controversial like ''The Simpsons'' I don't think that will be an issue. ] (]) 07:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC).
:: well when i first thought this up, my intentions were to have random funny quotes from characters. make it a fun part of wiki. also it wasn't my thoughts to necessarily put it on the portal page, just have it linked from there, i guess. i just wanted funny or fun quotes to have pop up on my page ] ] 07:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
::: I just think that would be a duplication of what Wikiquote already does. The portal already has a link to Wikiquote, with lots and lots of quotes from individual episodes. But nowhere do we have a section with randomized quotes from people about the show. Tell you what, let me fill it in and create all the pages with quotes ''about'' the show, and then tell me what you think? ] (]) 07:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC).
:::: ok, that sounds good cirt....but for my page, is it possible for you to make a random quote generator, but with far less quotes then wikiquotes, and with ones i pick or if others want it too, a consensus that we come to for quotes to include? ] ] 07:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*Actually, if consensus is to use quotes from episodes and ''not'' quotes from production staff and commentators on the show, I should wait before filling in quotes and doing the sourcing work. So I'll wait for more people to weigh in on this. Another point is that I just hope that people don't edit war and argue about which quotes from which episodes to use from which character, if we are doing with quotes from episodes and not production staff. ] (]) 07:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC).
**I'm going to go ahead and ] and create it from production staff and commentators. We can always change it later or add an additional quotebox for quotes from episodes/characters as well. Or have one quotebox for the portal and a separate one display on the WikiProject page. Hrm, that might actually be the best solution for this. ] (]) 08:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC).
***{{done}} -- Added a new '''Selected quotes''' section to ]. If you like, I could do the same for the WikiProject - only with quotes from episodes. Better yet, I could just set up the formatting, and other editors could fill it in for the WikiProject version. ] (]) 10:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC).
:::: We need some kind of standards for quotes to select if we do characters too. I don't think it should be limited to just one per character though, because Homer has tons that would be great, anyone have standards ideas? ] ] 16:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::Well, when you work that stuff out, message my talk page and let me know, and I'll set up the random quote generation stuff for you. Check out ] '''Quotes''' section to see it in action. ] (]) 16:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC).
::::::I Agree with Ctjf83, Character quotes are ''way'' too good to pass up. --] ] 22:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
*I could start a '''Character quotes''' section in the empty open space in the lower right section of ], sound good? ] (]) 01:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
**Actually, I inquired recently and the random function doesn't seem to have a maximum, so we could even do (30) or so randomized quotes, and put it right in the portal somewhere, if people are up for that... ] (]) 01:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
***{{done}} - Please see ]. ] (]) 03:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC).

== A new repeat vandal ==

Well, we've got a new repeat vandal out there and this guy is one of those pesky ones that can easily switch IPs. And his IPs are completely different every time, not nice and similar like the Hidden Message Vandal, whose addresses always began with 86. The good news is this guy only seems to like to hit a half dozen pages and seems to be adding the same stuff every time, which makes him easier to track. However, he seems to be on all hours of the day and has been back 5 seperate times today alone (all with the same IP, the admins refuse to ban it for some reason). The IP he's currently using is ] although he's used several. His IPs are all registered to ] and he's located in Perth, Australia. His favourite targets are:
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] (semi-protected for now)
* ]
* ]
* ] (semi-protected for now)
So everyone put those pages on watch and check every single IP edit made to those pages. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 03:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
:What sort of vandalism is he doing? --] ] 03:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
::You can check the histories of any of those pages for more specific stuff, but basically he adds nonsense. He keeps changing every mention of the word Christmas in ] to crime and he's made similar edits to ] where he keeps changing the section about the christmas themed opening to a crime themed version. To the chalk board and couch gag pages he just adds nonsense and switches things around. To the seasons 7 and 18 pages he switches guest star names. His edits to ] are a tad more worrying. He keeps switching the titles of Treehouse of Horror V and Bart's Girlfriend, so it looks like BG aired first (it didn't). The reason it's worrying is because random IPs have been doing that since last January, so this guy has been out there potentially vandalizing pages for a year and we're just noticing him now. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 04:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
== New random character quote generator ==

*See ''']''' for instructions on placement. FYI, I tried to add this to the bottom of the right-panel of ], but it wasn't formatting right and was breaking up the rest of the section, so I reverted myself. ] (]) 11:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC).

== Portal peer review ==

] is on ]. Your feedback/comments would be appreciated, at ], before I eventually nominate the portal to be a ]. Thanks, ] (]) 04:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
== Everyone keep an eye on ] ==

It's going to be on the main page in a few hours, and there will likely be heavy vandalism. The page was for some reason unprotected a few hours ago and has since been vandalised several times. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
:Its one of the most targeted pages in history, its going to be on the main page... Unprotection = madness. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
::Traditionally, Admins try to leave ] unprotected, that way it's sort of like a welcoming for new users. ] (]) 20:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
:::I know that, but it's never made a lot of sense to me. On any normal day, ] is vandalised by multiple users, and has been protected for almost a year. And now on the day that it's the most high profile article on Misplaced Pages, it's just unblocked? I think that in some cases, articles should be left unprotected, but in this case it should be. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 20:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
::::You'd be surprised, after having an article I was the ] nom for up at ], I've seen firsthand the great job that Admins and other editors do by pitching in to revert vandalism and to do their best to keep the article stable. You could try to put in a request at ], but it probably wouldn't succeed. ] (]) 20:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC).

== Discussion about Simpsons episodes at ] ==

]. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 04:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
== Season 8 Featured Topic ==

It appears that the Featured Topic criteria was amended at some point, and now says that one third of the articles in a topic must be featured. In the case of Season 8, that means 4 of the Good articles should be raised to Featured Status, in order to prevent the removal of its status, as after the new year there is going to be a shakeout of Featured Topics no longer meeting the criteria. ] (]) 19:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
*It doesn't tell us how many we'd need for 26 articles, but I think they are mainly concerned with the smaller topics being all GAs. If we have 4 or 5 Featured pages, we should be okay. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 20:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
::No I think they are pretty clear that they want one third of them to be featured, it says so in the criteria. If you want clarification, I would ask them, but I was just giving you a heads up that someone may challenge the topics FT status. ] (]) 21:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:::It's been implemented since July, and nobody has come after the topic yet. And on the talk page, one of the regulars says 3/27 would be acceptable and season 8 is 4/26. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
::::Hmmm, that is odd....well, just keep an eye out, guess there isn't a reason to worry yet. ] (]) 22:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::Got it cleared up, your right the standards aren't that tight yet that the Simpsons topic or the one being built need to worry :) ] (]) 01:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::Where did you get it cleared up? ] (]) 03:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

== Simpsons WikiProject Triple Crown ==

], am pleased to award this special edition ] to ] and its hardworking volunteers. ]<sup>'']''</sup> 00:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)]]
Your Majesties, thank you for all your hard work. This award is for the project itself. When more people qualify to join please let me know. Best wishes, ]<sup>'']''</sup> 00:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
== ] ==

One of the anti-fiction brigade is questioning the pages notability. Is it worth trying to save, or should it be merged somewhere? There was a real version built and there is a DVD extra about it, so we could get some good info. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
:It's a toss up for me...there is a lot of extra stuff that doesn't need to be there, but what would you merge it with? ] or ] main page, or something else ] 22:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
::This one is pretty borderline, IMO. Perhaps the best solution for now would be to cut it down to a couple of paragraphs and merge into ]. I think one paragraph describing the house as it appears in the show and one paragraph with info on the real house, the DVD extra, and the inconsistency of numbering would be about right. If more stuff happens with the house later on, we can always un-merge. ] 22:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
:::It doesn't seem to me to be an article worth its own page. It has no references, nor will it ever due to its fictional nature. The bit about the real life version is good, but the stuff about damage and furniture looks like trivia to me. Sorry, but i'm going with a merge, and a reduction of some of the trivia lists. I agree with Natalie, if something notable happens to it later on it can be unmerged. --] ] 02:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
:I'm surprised Judgesurreal hasn't targeted other Simpsons articles (or has he?). This might barely pass the notability test; I'll see what I can find in books and newspapers. ]''']''' 02:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
::There's a good amount of info on the "real version" in Henderson, Nevada. I'm finding several newspaper articles about it, ranging from 1997 to 2004. I think that alone could pass ]. As far as other real-world context goes, we could mention that Groening grew up on Evergreen Terrace in Portland, and possibly throw in information from the DVD commentaries (eg, in at least one episode, Groening says that he wanted to have a consistent floor plan.) ]''']''' 03:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
:::As far as I can remember, he hasn't gone after any other Simpsons articles, but he does seem to be a hardcore anti-fiction mergist. He's gone after some pretty notable characters, like ]. As for the article, if we think it is worth keeping, I'll give the DVD extra a listen and see what I can add to the page. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 03:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
::::I remember them saying that they actually made a real map over the house somewhere on the season one commentaries, but I can't remember which one. They further explained that they abandoned the map to use a flexible reality instead. This bit could be included if we find the right episode. The article in its current state is pretty bad. --] 09:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::I know that in the ] commentary they make a big deal about the room with the ] which was never seen before. ]''']''' 09:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::There are quite a few asides about furniture appearing when necessary and then disappearing immediately (one that comes to mind is their fishtank in Rosebud, as well as the episode when Homer buys Pinchy). However, that information is really only one sentence, unless we want to compile all the different things that appear when needed, which is venturing into cruft territory. It seems like the house does pass ], but really just barely, which is why I'd be in favor of a merge for now. ] 12:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Ummm, I am not "anti-fiction", as most of my work has been with Final Fantasy and other fiction related stuff, I just want articles to follow our notability guidelines, just so you know. ] (]) 19:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
What is going on with this? it has been over 2 weeks since the last discussion and nothing has happened ] ] 07:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

== Watchlist ==

{{done}}
]
Is it possible to make a Simpsons watch list like ] or is it not feasible due to the large number of articles under the Simpsons ] ] 07:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
*Sure, it's possible, it would probably just take a while to set up and list all the articles there. But that is a great idea. ] (]) 07:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
**Here is a quick and dirty version: ]. ] (]) 07:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
*** it would help, at times like a few minutes ago, when the vandals Scorpion warned about higher up, was at it again...is it an easy thing to make, since your good at that stuff Cirt ] ] 08:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
*Here is a way to see practically all of the related articles:
#]
#]
] (]) 08:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
**ok, now can we combined it all into one, and make sure it includes all Simpsons related articles ] ] 08:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
***I can set up the basic structure for that, which is relatively easy to do, but it's just tedious to go and list ''all'' the articles there. So if you feel like doing that after I set it up, I'll start the initial page. ] (]) 08:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
****ok, i'm hoping i can do it with AWB to make life easy ] ] 08:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
***** perhaps ] can help us out alot ] ] 08:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
*Please see ''']''' -- You can add all the articles to there, in alphabetical order. Have fun :) ] (]) 08:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
**After that is complete, the Watchlist page itself along with instructions on how to add it to a userpage should be added to the main WikiProject page. ] (]) 08:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC).
*** lol, what do u mean alphabetical order?! ] ] 08:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
****Well, that way it will be easier to keep track of what is already on the list, and what is not, and avoid duplicates. ] (]) 08:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC).

{{User:Ctjf83/The Simpsons Watchlist}}
<nowiki>{{User:Ctjf83/The Simpsons Watchlist}</nowiki>} if you would like to use this userbox ] ] 09:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

== FOX vs. Fox ==

{{resolved}}
I think we need to stick with all capitals: FOX when referring to the network. Their own website has all capitals so that is how we should list it on here ] ] 08:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
:]: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official': ie. TIME should be ''Time''." So according to the MOS, Fox is correct way to do it. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
:: ya, but you didn't read "but, don't invent new formats: MCI is standard English, while "Mci" is essentially never used." NBC, ABC, and CBS are all listed in capitals on this site. ] ] 18:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

::I think the difference is that NBC/ABC/MCI/etc. are all abbreviations - you read "N" "B" "C". You do not read n'bus, or Abs. Fox is pronounced Fox - not "F" "O" "X". Mci is rarely used. Fox is commonly used; The company also calls itself 20th CENTURY FOX - but I don't think anyone disagrees that wikipedia should use non-caps. While NBC, ABC, CBS lend to the argument that Fox should be FOX, these other networks just happen to be abbreviations. Fox isn't one.

::I should point out that I have been a user of "FOX" in articles, but this observation of the MOS indicates that this is not what should be used. ] (]) 18:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
::: Well I think we need to follow the stations format...since you guys are trying to "invent new formats". everywhere you go it is FOX, except on wikipedia ] ] 18:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
::::Maybe that's just out interpratation of the policy then, so perhaps you should ask at the MOS talk page, to gerner some more opinions. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
::::: i'm not that worried, i'm just concerned with our project...do you guys even have FOX outside America? ] ] 18:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::: ] itself uses Fox. --] (]) 19:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
when it is listed as that whole group...notice when it is stand alone, it is FOX ] ] 19:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
:When I look at it again it is actually pretty inconsistant. Anyway, I would definately say it should be Fox, because it is named after ] and this is how I read it should be according to MoS. --] (]) 19:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
:: they clarified usage at ] ] ] 19:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
:::In response to your comment that "Fox" is making up usage, the question isn't whether usage OTHER THAN the company's should be made up, the question is whether usage other than in any public usage should be made up (IE: noone would write MCI - not a newspaper, not a magazine, not a person writing it in a letter...) whereas if you look up Fox online, you will find infinite uses of the term as "Fox". is a story, of all places, on "FOX News" (which even uses "Fox News Channel" once in their footer), which uses "Fox". Stories often use "NBC" "ABC" but "Fox". So this is not an invented usage. ] (]) 20:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
== Fair use image rationale on image pages ==

;Handy dandy tool for you to use in the future
<pre>
{{Non-free use rationale
| Description =
| Source =
| Article =
| Portion =
| Low_resolution =
| Purpose =
| Replaceability =
| other_information = (optional variable, can be left out)
}}
</pre>
It's from ], and there is an alternate one at ]. Personally I use this occasionally ''in addition'' to the traditional list of fair use rationale stuff, but I think you can also use it instead of that. Cheers, ] (]) 17:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC).

== Rape of Homer ==

G'day

I have added information on the talk page of ] about the Rape of Homer by Marge in this episode, however I do not have access to the original episode. Could somebody who does, validate the information that was provided on the talk page. Specifically how, and in what way Homer refuses Marge's advances (the exact word would be nice). Thanks. ] (]) 02:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
:Why exactly is that notable? It's a one-off joke, not a major plot point. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 20:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

== Update on The Simpsons portal ==

*'''Update:''' -- ] has recently become a ''']'''. ] (]) 05:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC).
== Trivia and CR ==

'Minimize trivia and cultural references. In many cases, they become cruft magnets and it is best to just get rid of them completely so that IP users don't continually add random stuff.'

] 'This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. - If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.'

I think your guidance above with removal of trivia and cultural refs is wrong. It's not 'best' to remove valid, sourced, interesting and relevant information either to the talk page or completely purely because it is presented as trivia or CR or under some other heading. This has happened in several cases. Removal of sourced information without any effort to add it to the main body of the article, or preserve it - even if it has to stay as trivia - is against the guidance and the spirit of Misplaced Pages.

I suggest a change to just 'Avoid use of additional fact or trivia sections sections unless absolutely necessary, discuss removal of said items and remove only at last resort' or something less drastic. (Unfortunately this being a wikipedia-wide issue, I cant see any easy way around it.)
--] (]) 23:54, 21 December 2007 (GMT)
:It depends what the information is. If it is a factual comment that someone has added that has a reference somewhere but they don't know how to add it, then that peice can be left in if the article is refurbished. If the trivia is evidently POV or similar, then it is removed. Most of the time it is up to the discretion of the person revamping the article. Often random IP's will add things that are from an episode's commentary in the trivia section, but do not have the expertise to add a reference for it. --] ] 10:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

== 2007 stats comparison ==

For those curious, this is what our article assessment chart looked like on December 31, 2006:
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"
|-
! colspan="2" rowspan="2" | The Simpsons<br>articles !! colspan="6" | Importance
|-
!{{Top-Class|category=Category:Top-importance The Simpsons articles|Top}} !! {{High-Class|category=Category:High-importance The Simpsons articles|High}} !! {{Mid-Class|category=Category:Mid-importance The Simpsons articles|Mid}} !! {{Low-Class|category=Category:Low-importance The Simpsons articles|Low}} !! {{No-Class|category=Category:Unknown-importance The Simpsons articles|No}} !! '''Total'''
|-
! rowspan="9" | Class
|-
! {{FA-Class|category=Category:FA-Class The Simpsons articles|FA}}
| 2 || || || || || '''2'''
|-
! {{A-Class|category=Category:A-Class The Simpsons articles|A}}
| || 1 || || || || '''1'''
|-
! {{GA-Class|category=Category:GA-Class The Simpsons articles|GA}}
| 1 || || || || || '''1'''
|-
! {{B-Class|category=Category:B-Class The Simpsons articles|B}}
| 6 || 26 || 15 || 8 || || '''55'''
|-
! {{Start-Class|category=Category:Start-Class The Simpsons articles|Start}}
| 2 || 28 || 415 || 64 || 27 || '''536'''
|-
! {{Stub-Class|category=Category:Stub-Class The Simpsons articles|Stub}}
| || 5 || 22 || 84 || 53 || '''164'''
|-
! {{Unassessed-Class|category=Category:Unassessed The Simpsons articles|Unassessed}}
| || || || || ||
|-
! '''Total'''
| '''11''' || '''60''' || '''452''' || '''156''' || '''80''' || '''759'''
|-
|}

And this is what it looks like now:

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"
|-
! colspan="2" rowspan="2" | The Simpsons<br>articles !! colspan="6" | Importance
|-
!{{Top-Class|category=Category:Top-importance The Simpsons articles|Top}} !! {{High-Class|category=Category:High-importance The Simpsons articles|High}} !! {{Mid-Class|category=Category:Mid-importance The Simpsons articles|Mid}} !! {{Low-Class|category=Category:Low-importance The Simpsons articles|Low}} !! {{No-Class|category=Category:Unknown-importance The Simpsons articles|No}} !! Total
|-
! rowspan="9" | Quality
|-
! {{FA-Class|category=Category:FA-Class The Simpsons articles|FA}}
| 2 || 9 || 7 || 1 || || '''19'''
|-
! {{A-Class|category=Category:A-Class The Simpsons articles|A}}
| 1 || 1 || 1 || || || '''3'''
|-
! {{GA-Class|category=Category:GA-Class The Simpsons articles|GA}}
| 2 || 6 || 59 || || || '''67'''
|-
! {{B-Class|category=Category:B-Class The Simpsons articles|B}}
| 4 || 17 || 9 || 4 || || '''34'''
|-
! {{Start-Class|category=Category:Start-Class The Simpsons articles|Start}}
| 1 || 32 || 385 || 69 || 3 || '''490'''
|-
! {{Stub-Class|category=Category:Stub-Class The Simpsons articles|Stub}}
| || 1 || 23 || 108 || 19 || '''151'''
|-
! {{Assessed-Class}}
| 10 || 66 || 484 || 182 || 22 || '''764'''
|-
! Total
| '''10''' || '''66''' || '''484''' || '''182''' || '''22''' || '''764'''
|-
|}

Pretty good. I'm actually surprised that we had an overall article gain, because we merged over 30 character pages and lost dozens of cruft lists, locations and other trivial things. However, we gained about 20 episode pages and dozens of random crew members, so I guess it works out. The reason our number of B class articles went down is because several were promoted to GA, but the main reason is that I was a pretty bad reviewer in those days and I considered anything with a large trivia section to be B class. And for those curious, the 2 Featured quality articles we had at the end of last year were ] and ], while the GA was ]. All other Simpsons GAs, FAs and FLs were promoted in 2007. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 21:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
*Very very cool. How did you get the data on the 2006 stats, had you saved it all this time, or is there a way to go back and look at old stats for WikiProjects? ] (]) 21:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC).
**Neither: We also now have achieved something of featured quality in every category possible. Due to the animated nature of the show, it's highly unlikely we'll ever get a Featured Picture or Sound. Oh well. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 21:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
***Simply looking at the FA/GA growth alone is impressive. Would be neat to see that graphed over time. ] (]) 21:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC).
****There is ], it contains the promotion dates of all articles. And again for those curious, is what that page looked like on December 31, 2006. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 21:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
*****Stunning, great job from all of us. Especially cool considering our main staple articles now are our episode pages, and when didn't have a single GA one of them then. It'd be interesting to compare stats from each Wikiproject, because we'd be right up there. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
******Good idea. Let's all strive to get this many GAs and FAs ]. Tee hee hee, just kiddin'. ] (]) 22:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC).
*******What!? You mean 19 isn't more than 409!? So that's why I'm failing Maths ;). Well we're certainly the leading specific Media program project. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
*If you compare it by percentages, ] has about 0.089% featured, whereas ] has about 2.5%. ] (]) 22:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC).
********I used to say that we were the project with the highest percentage of articles that were GAs and FAs, then I discovered ]. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
*********Also, ] has a large amount of FA and GA's. However, they do have a quite larger variety, with many editors interested in many other subjects, so I can see how they would have so many. However, for just one simple subject (just the Simpsons, and not like 5000000 bands and albums and lists), I think we're better. I dunno though, I may just go and make all of the seasons featured lists to make our featured content count go higher ;) ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 23:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. Maybe we should make a list of the most important targets for next year. Our nearest FA prospects, articles we really should try and improve etc. From my perspective '']'' is almost there and will almost certainly be an FA by the end of 2008. And after rewriting it earlier, with a bit more work we could get ] to FA, because it isn't that different from ] in length. As for targets? All of the season pages, more episodes and characters, if I get around to starting it ] and maybe ]. Any other ideas? ]<sup>]</sup> 23:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
:You're forgetting ], it's a vote away from FA so unless something dramatic happens, odds are that it will be our first FA of 2008 (although all of the work was done in 2007). Anyway, some goals for 2008 could be:
::Have all five family members pages at at least GA status (Maggie will be the most difficult)
::Get ] and/or ] and/or ] and/or ] to FA
::Get a few more character pages to GA (as of right now, ] and ] are closest)
::Get all of our character pages up to ] standards
::Work on getting Matt Groening to FA
::Get another behind the scenes person (Brooks? Silverman? Swartzwelder?) or maybe a voice actor (Castellaneta? Hartman? Shearer?) to GA
::Work on improving some of our theme pages like ] (which could be FA with a LOT of work).
:To be honest, I'm once again kind of burnt out on episode pages, these days I like to work on more challenging tasks, but I'm sure I'll add a few more episode GAs to the list. Episode pages are all good, but I think there are more important pages to work on. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
::It has been a good year and the project has grown a lot. I remember when it was just me and another guy. I definately think we should give more attention to articles besides the episodes. There are still quite a few interesting articles to be written and I think it is sad the we have not improved the articles about the main family characters up to FA status. I think that should be a goal for 2008. --] (]) 16:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Just to put my two cents in, I agree with all who say characters are important. I think its well known that many people like the show because of all the different characters that have distinctive and recognizable personalities, catch phrases, etc. As for the chart, its amazing all that happened in a year. ] (]) 19:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

== Vote rigging ==

I would like to say to the newcomers of this project. We have in the past been accused of vote rigging whenever our articles are up for FA status or something else. People are upset if the votes comes from people from the same WikiProject. Therefore I would like you to stop doing it in the future and I hope nobody notices it in ]. --] (]) 16:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
:Scorpion had asked me earlier to take a look at the article and fix anything. I looked at it, and I really liked it and decided to support. Sorry :/ ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 18:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
::In a case where an individual has heavily contributed to a particular article up at FAC, but they wish to provide comments, they could do so by putting down '''Comment.''', instead of '''Support.'''. With regards to this particular FAC, I have not contributed to that article, and in addition to the "Support" I also did later provide constructive commenting. ] (]) 23:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC).
== Is a Simpsons insider editing Misplaced Pages? ==

This is really weird and sounds far fetched, but it might be possible that a Simpsons insider has been editting ]'s page, or it could just be a coincidence.

On July 28, 2007, the IP ] edited Bob Anderson's article and added several episodes, including "]" and one called "]", neither of which had aired. At the same time, the user added the title to ] as well as the production code KABF06 which was reverted by me a few hours later. I finally noticed the edits to Bob Anderson on October 14 and removed both but the same IP returned and readded them . As it turns out, the IP was correct because Bob Anderson did direct I Don't Wanna Know Why the Caged Bird sings. This IP was located in and has made several edits to Misplaced Pages, to a variety of entertainment related pages (including ] ) both before and after July 28 with the most recent edit being December 15.

Today, a different IP (]) appeared and readded the same information . This one was located in , which is what has been making me suspicious. Unlike the first IP, it has never editted before. The episode title he has been adding is "Dial N for Nerder", which has not been announced, although a similar title called "N is for Nerder" was mentioned by Nancy Cartwright in an article. The first IP added the title "Dial "N" for Nerder" while the second added "Dial 'N' for Nerder", which indicates that the user didn't just revert to the previous version.

So what do you think? Is it just a huge coincidence and the editor is simply a vandal who made a lucky guess, or is it some kind of insider? -- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:Weird. Could be a coincidence, maybe we should ask the guy, although what's to say he couldn't just say he was anyway... but its worth a shot. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
::Also, aside from Lost Verizon, its the only future episode that wasn't confirmed via the copyright database. So it is plausible that Nancy just got the tite wrong in the interview or it was changed (assuming its real of course..) "Dial 'N' for Nerder" sounds more like the sort of title that would be used... in my view anyway. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I also found , although the article says that it was episode pages that were editted and doesn't mention any other specifics. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 19:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

::::I wouldn't be surprised if they did. Misplaced Pages has been mentioned twice now in the show, and once in the comic, I believe. Maybe it's their way of telling us information in advance without getting in any trouble? Who knows, but this is pretty interesting. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 21:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::Misplaced Pages has been mentioned Numerous times on the DVD Commentaries too - ]]<sup style="color:olive;">/</sup>] 22:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::Oooh, which ones? I'd like to hear them. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 23:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::In one of the season 9 ones featuring Al Jean & Mike Reiss (Simpson Tide I think), Jean says that Misplaced Pages claims his father looks like Homer. (I think that actually is actually based on one of the commentaries where Jean says Homer's behaviour in an episode is similar to that of his father) Anyway, that claim is incorrect, then Reiss says he was impressed with Misplaced Pages's coverage of The Simpsons (this would have been early 2006) and one of them says their mother is big into Misplaced Pages. That's the only extended mention I can think of. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 01:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Wow, they thought it was informative in 2006? Heh. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 01:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

== FU Rationales ==

I think I may have started a wikivirus. When I first learned about the Fair Use rationales, I copied the one from the ] image. Unfortunately, this rationale included "It illustrates the rake sequence discussed in the article and the lengths the producers would go to in order to fill time." I thoughtlessly added this text to a fair few images before I realised my error. Since then it seems to have spread to a dozen or so images throughout season 4 and other seasons. I apologise for my error. People might want to check the rationales on their favourite articles to see if they have been affected. --] ] 03:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
== A Question ==

Does ] seem like it needs a Themes section? I understand that Cirt made two fantastic ones for the episodes he contributed to, but really is a lack of a major theme in the episode, especially one that has no references for. I will be finishing up the Reception section today or tomorrow and then reference everything, and it should be ready. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 23:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
*For a ], nah, that's an added bonus. But for ], that'd be a different story. ] (]) 23:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC).
::Uhh... That's what I'm going for. Also, ] didn't have a Theme section. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 23:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
:::First GA, then PR, then we can address that stuff later. ] (]) 23:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC).
::::Ah, OK then. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 23:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I just remembered a question I was going to ask earlier. For the main image, should I keep the promotional art? It has it's fair use stuff, but it's not the usual promo art I see (Matt's name is usually on there). Should I replace it with an image from the episode? ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 03:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:I'm not sure that ''is'' the work of MG. If you look closely, it looks like that image was done by someone outside the ''Simpsons'' production team. Marge and Lisa look weird, and Maggie looks bizarre. I would definitely get one from the episode. --] ] 06:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:: I agree, that promo image really has nothing to do with the episode itself. Perhaps another pic of NYC buildings while the rest of the family tours the city ] ] 06:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
::: Alright, thanks guys :) ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 06:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

== The Simpsons characters template conversion ==

I would like you all to take the time to consider converting ] to the navbox format. Currently we need more opinions to decide. The discussion can be found ]. --] (]) 10:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

== Image rationales ==

Over the next three months there will be quite a lot of images tagged for lacking rationales, or lacking the name of the article the image is used in. See ] and ]. I spotted a few Simpsons images, so if you guys have a standard rationale for your episode images, could you deal with these ones?
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
In case anyone was wondering, ] got missed because the name of the article "]" is on the page (the link at the bottom of the page is automagically generated by the software, and doesn't count). Nevertheless, ] also needs a rationale. Hope that helps. ] (]) 10:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
:Oh, and ] got deleted. Possibly it has already been replaced. If not, let me know. Also, for more images uploaded without rationales, see . Search for "springfield". The ones with blue links probably lack rationales - could you please add them? The red links could be undeleted - but only if they haven't been replaced already. Again, let me know if you want someone to look through them. ] (]) 10:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

::{{done}} Thanks for the notice. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 03:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
== Time for a project collaboration? ==

Right now, we have a half a dozen active project members, a half a dozen contributing irregulars. Is it time for some kind of official coordinated collaboration effort? I mean, we always say "____ needs work", but then nobody really gets the ball rolling on improvement, so perhaps it's time for a collaboration everyone can vote it. Of course, collaborations often lose steam, they shoot out of the gate but then eventually users get tired of them and they kind of die off, especially the ones for the smaller projects. However, it might be worth a shot, and if we can get a couple of articles improved because of it, then it might all have been worth it. So, what does everyone think? -- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:Deal. I can never really get started on anything, so having a specific article to work on will be a good idea. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
::I'm game. I think it should be one of those non FA artciles from ]. --] (]) 19:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Apologies, but as for me, I'm not too interested in ]. I'd rather work on whatever topic is at ], which ''could'' be ''Simpsons'' characters by the way, or maybe at some point work on improving the quality status rating of something interesting like ]. ] (]) 20:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC).
::::I would love it if somebody would make something out of ]. It has the potential to become something great, but right now it is mostly crap. I don't, however, see it as subject for a collaboration. --] (]) 13:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
*Specifically, by making the chosen "topic" something other than a Season, like a set of something like "Simpsons characters" or "Simpsons families" or something like that, you could combine the efforts of a Collaboration drive ''and'' the ]. ] (]) 20:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC).
::::It depends on the topic of collaboration. I can do episodes with ease because of the references I have, the small amount. With articles with so much, like a main character... Well, I'm not sure if I could do that. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 00:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Working on characters isn't as hard as it seems. ] is a GA and it uses exactly one of the commentaries (although admittedly it isn't as good as our other GAs, and could easily be delisted). Working on the smaller characters isn't so bad (Gran had Troy McClure GA ready after a few days) and even the more major characters aren't as bad as you might think (it took me about a week for Flanders, and I had to listen to a dozen full commentaries). However, the collaboration wouldn't solely have to be for GAs, it could also be to get current GAs to FA status. I was thinking Matt Groening would be a good one, and Sideshow Bob, Flanders, Hank Azaria and Smithers could quite conceivably become FAs without a drastic amount of effort. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:An idea - make the next ] be "The Simpson Family"
#]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
Couldn't this be its own little ]? ] (]) 00:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC).
::It's an idea but there are a few bumps, such as the fact that it would be quite hard to get Simpson family promoted to GA, in fact, I once saw a discussion where they were seriously considering making it a requirement that all main topic articles be FAs or FLs. As well, some might require that the pages for the other Simpson family members - Grampa, SLH, Mona and Snowball also be included. It would be quite a challenge because the Homer page is in desperate need of an overhaul and Bart, Marge and Lisa are far off from GA. Maggie would also be difficult because there isn't a lot out there. It would be possible, but I was thinking more of a weekly collaboration where we could have an article substantially improved within seven days. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes yes, and that's all well and good - but why not have the weekly collaboration be something that also moves the project towards a specific ] ''at the same time'' ? ] (]) 01:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC).
::::I think that we all can agree Homer, Bart, Marge, Lisa, and Maggie are our most important articles to be improved right now. I would therefore suggest that we start working on those. If we get them all up to FA standards then we could take a look at what eventually should be done in order for it to become a featured topic. --] (]) 13:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, can't diagree with that: the family are the main priority right now. So which one of them would be the best place to start? In terms of cultural importance (not counting Homer, because although it needs alot of work, it is for now a GA) Bart's page would probably be the first improvement I'd aim for. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Well, I would start with Homer, since I don't consider that page GA worthy, but Bart is fine by me. --] (]) 17:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Yeah, no offense to whoever passed it, but these days I am stunned that it actually passed. Either way, it IS a GA, so right now our top priorities should be the others. I was thinking Marge because her page is in the worst shape. But, Bart would be fine with me. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

So how are we going to go about doing this then? I think we should make an official collaboration page to go alongside the FTD page, but make the first five collaborations members of the family. Then, we might be able to get a few non-regulars to get involved. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
*I think a simpler idea would be to wait until the current ] is finished, and then just make ] the next one, with each character being a collaboration for the project itself, one-at-a-time. ] (]) 05:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC).

== ]'s voice section ==

Most of you are aware of this, but people have been adding cruft about Maggie speaking in The Simpsons Movie to the voice section of her page. The section in question is meant for real world info about her voice and contains info about who voices her and the reception of those actors (although I admit that it's far from perfect). Since the release of the movie, several IPs have been adding a statement along the lines of "During the closing credits of ] Maggie says "Sequel", the first time she has spoken in front of other characters". However, I do not believe that it really warrants mention, because it's giving a small post-movie joke undue weight, and it doesn't provide any real world info. Even if you add who voices her, why does it warrant mention over the other times she's spoken in the series, and to list every time would be ]. It doesn't belong anywhere else in the article because it doesn't provide any overall info about the character. I have been pestered several times and called a totalitarian by an editor who seems to think it belongs based solely on the fact that a bunch of IPs who have no knowledge of Misplaced Pages policy have been adding it. There has been a prior discussion about it ]. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
== Question about show runner commentaries ==

This may just be a ] thing (hopefully), but do the other show runners have better commentaries? When I was doing ], I was amazed at how much good stuff ] was saying, om contrast to Scully's lack of detail on the production on the other episodes I did. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 03:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:Scully is the worst of the show runners on commentaries as he reveals little about the process behind the episode. Oakley & Weinstein are both excellent on commentaries, as is David Mirkin and both Reiss and Jean provide good info. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 04:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
::He's not a showrunner, but David X Cohen usually has interesting information about episodes he's written. ] (]) 01:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

== Need help from someone with the region 1 season 1 DVD ==

I finally continued my work on ], but I have come to realize that I can't finish it since I only own the region 2 DVD. On the region 1 DVD there is an additional commentary on the deleted material, which might give some good background information. I am therefore asking if someone who owns the region 1 DVD can write the ] section for me. --] (]) 11:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:Do you mean the commentary about the bad version of the episode? I don't think it has much... -- ]<sup>]</sup> 11:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::Yes. I don't know if has a lot of information, but if someone could check it out and say there is nothing usable then that would be a help too. I used to think that it would be an obvious FA, but now I don't really feel like there is enough information, so if the second commentary doesn't provide anything, then it can only become a GA. --] (]) 13:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I think it is mainly them complaining about the animation, but I'll give it a listen either tonight or tomorrow. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 13:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Ok, thanks. Matt Groening is joking about that on the original commentary track that it will be the only commentary that just consists of them screaming the entire time. --] (]) 14:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
== ] on Peer Review ==

] has recently been passed as a ], and is currently undergoing a ]. Any comments/feedback on how to further improve the article's quality would be most appreciated, at ]. ] (]) 09:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

== Centralized TV Episode Discussion ==

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here . --] (]) 01:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
== {{la|Bart the General}} ==

Can we get some improvement on this immediately? It's been used for advocacy just because it's one of the freak cases where notability is not established. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 00:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:Yeah I saw that, the guy who brought it up seems angry that episodes he's worked on were merged and is trying to create problems for the rest of us. I'll take a look at it when I have time. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:Yeesh. There have been using this episode. Of course it's notable. I'll put in some work on it, though it's not going to turn into an FA overnight. ]''']''' 02:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:: could be useful as well. ]''']''' 05:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I have rewritten the article. If anybody has anything to add to it, it will be appreciated. --] (]) 20:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Good job on de-crufting and making the article relevant. I said it over in the discussion, but figured that since I was the one who brought up the article as an example in the ArbCom case, I should at least say congratulations. More folks should do what you guys are doing. ] (]) 14:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

== ] desperately needs clean up ==

With the GA folks currently doing sweeps to root out the bad articles, I am fairly sure that ] would be delisted. He's such an important character and yet his page is short, not comprehensive and needs clean up. I did a copyedit today and added some stuff about culturak influence, but the page needs more, especially in the creation and development areas. The Role in ''The Simpsons'' section is also a big mess. If we all pitch in, and find some sources, we could have the page up to GA standards soon enough. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
== Time to merge the less notable Simpsons episode pages? ==

I'm going to be honest, I am sick and tired of seeing The Simpsons brought up in every single discussion about episodes. We have have 70 GAs and yet people still use Simpsons episodes as an example and say that the mergists should come after us. So perhaps it's time to shut the whiners up and merge the less notable episode pages with the main season pages? I was thinking that we could leave seasons 1-10 alone and focus on seasons 11-19 and merge the pages that likely won't have any chance of becoming GA. For example, an episode like ] is unlikely to ever get beyond just being a plot section with some unsourced trivia and CRs at least, not until the DVD comes out, which won't be for a while. So in those cases we could merge it, then recreate the page when more info comes out. We could leave some episodes: premieres, finales, award winners, controversial episodes, high profile episodes, and merge the rest from that era. If we do that, people might be less inclined to come after the classic era episodes (which are the notable ones). However, the problem with selective merging is the IPs and newer users. They'll come in and say "____ has a page, so why not ____" so it really is the "merge all or keep all" kind of situation. So what do others think? -- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:I think we should keep consistency with all of the episodes and let them have their own article. I can't see that merging them will do any good just because it seems as if they won't likely become GAs. ] (]) 01:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::Another part is that many of them will likely never meet the ] guidelines. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 01:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:I'm sick of it too. I think we should merge the majority of seasons 11-17 - IGN at least has reviews of all episodes in 18 and 19. (). ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 01:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

::::No, we mustn't merge them. The DVD's will come eventually, and just bringing back the episodes then will be stupid in my opinion. Just keep them, because they will all improve eventually. Really, if some of the episodes I have made GA'd in the Season 9 drive can be GA'd (] comes to mind), then any episode can. We just have to wait for more publications of Simpsons episodes. I also wanted to note that having half the episodes be an article and the rest not be, would seem sort of stupid, too. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 01:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::We'll restore them once the DVDs come out - nothing apart from oversight is permanent on a Wiki. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 01:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Why not just leave them be? What's the ''rush''? At least parts of the plot summary of a given episode would remain intact in the cleaned-up product. ]''']''' 01:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Unfortunately plot sections isn't enough. It wouldn't hurt to wait for the season 11 and maybe even season 12 DVDs, but its going to be at least 2 years before we see DVDs for seasons 14+, so it's unlikely we'd be able to get some of them to meet notability requirements any time soon. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 01:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:I am just a random editor who's trying to get the legacy articles from his own fandom in line with WP:EPISODE to escape the TTN fate (mostly by transwikiing, then redirecting), but I agree that the Simpsons articles are brought up way to often as bad examples when your project has achieved more than any other show episode-wise. Most people know that an article can only achieve GA/FA when you have sources and some experience, so leaving the episode articles up where you know they can't be fixed anytime soon, while disallowing other shows their crufty non-notability-establishing ep articles, is a little so-so. All eyes are on this project, so if you can agree that not all episodes should remain for the time being, that would certainly help to stop the trollish wikilayering. &ndash; ] <sup>]•c</sup> 01:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::You've actually got a really good point there. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 01:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:Meh. I'm going to oppose. Why not aim for completion? Despite popular perception, WP:NOTABILITY is not holy scripture; it's a ''guideline''. Just let the whiners whine. Misplaced Pages gains absolutely nothing by merging these articles. ]''']''' 01:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::Just because something is a guideline doesn't mean it shouldn't be followed most of the time. I agree that seasons 11-whenever are not yet especially notable, although there may be a few exceptions, and should be merged for the time being. We should not keep these articles simply because they may become notable at some point. They can be recreated quickly and easily if and when the individual episodes become notable, and no information will be lost. ] (]) 01:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::We don't need articles on ] episodes or ] episodes. But ''The Simpsons'' is one of the most important television shows of all time, so I think it's fair to provide comprehensive episode coverage - even if every article doesn't follow WP:EPISODE to a T. ]''']''' 02:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
*I agree with {{user|Zagalejo}} and {{user|Xihix}}. If anything, these should be taken on a case-by-case basis - obviously after reading above people will each have differing takes on notability of each indvidual episode. ] (]) 01:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC).
**You are right, every episode would have to be examined individually. For example, working only from memory, in season 13, ] (Emmy nominee), ], (Emmy nominee) ] (received headline coverage here in Canada), ] (controversial in Brazil) and ] (heavily promoted episode) are likely keeps. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 02:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I agree with Zagalejo and Cirt myself. The episodes have been here for a while. And, notability doesn't just come when we know it's already there. I mean, as I mentioned before, I just think it would be stupid if we deleted the articles now and restored them when the DVD's come out. Why? Apart from what I just mentioned, is anyone going to just start work on the articles as soon as the DVD comes out? No. In fact, I know for sure that the first 10 seasons will be addressed before any of the others. Because of this, we might as well just keep them there. I hope what I said made sense. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 02:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::::What about episodes from seasons 14-19, where DVDs are years away? -- ]<sup>]</sup> 02:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::DVDs aren't the only available sources for out-of-universe information. Let's try an experiment: pick a random episode from a post-classic season, and I'll see if I can dig up some newspaper reviews. ]''']''' 02:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Okay then, I'll give you one I had completely forgotten about and barely remember: ]. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 02:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Alright, I'll see if anything is available. ]''']''' 02:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::I mentioned a couple of reviews and threw in a Drew Barrymore quote. I'm not done researching, but I have some real world things to attend to at the moment. I shall return. :) ]''']''' 02:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Now I've thrown in John Updike's response to the episode. (He was a guest star.) I think the article has enough real world info to get over the hump now. ]''']''' 05:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Well, the DVD's are actually needed for the Production section. But, anyway, if you have noticed, the DVD's are coming out more consistantly now than they were with the previous seasons, and may be doing things faster now. For all we know, they're recording commentaries for Season 15 or something right now. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 02:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::An article can still pass the general notability criteria without a production section. The production is good to have for a GA or FA, but an article can survive AFD without it.]''']''' 05:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
To put my two cents in, I would oppose merging anything. I know my opinion does not count as much as others, but I might as well try. I agree it is pointless to merge them and bring them back later. All episodes are notable, and just because they don't have DVD's yet or are not part of the "good" seasons is not a valid reason for merging. To be honest, I am really annoyed with all the crappy wikpeida "rules" out there. A article has to meet certain "criteria" or else it is not good enough for Misplaced Pages. I am sure you all are thinking along the lines of no sources=no article, when I am thinking no sources=who cares? And if little known episodes from season 8 and 9 can become Ga's, why not episodes from season 15 or 16? What if this had taken place before 8 and 9 were released, I am sure we would want ] to be merged. Disagree if you want, but I vote no merge. ] (]) 02:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

For those curious, is what a user is saying at WT:TELEVISION and has brought up several episodes, including ]. He comes off as a user angry and out to make a ] because the episodes of his favourite series were merged. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 03:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:People are saying a lot of things at WT:EPISODE. There are many people who wants a less stricter guide than WP:EPISODE. I would therefore say that we should wait for the conclusion of the debate. There is no point in jumping through hoops now if the rules changes later. --] (]) 07:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::{{user|Maitch}} brings up a good point, perhaps we should wait it out to see what extended discussion brings from ]. Or better yet, perhaps we should venture over there and voice some of the rationale from the above ideas there. ] (]) 07:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC).
*'''Note:''' - Looks like there may yet be a ''second'' arbitration case involving this sort of stuff: ]. ] (]) 13:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC).
**I was just reading over ] and that guy seems to have something against The Simpsons. His basic argument is "It's a high profile and notable show and Simpsons editors have shown they can get nothing episodes to meet standards, but we should go after it anyway" and I don't understand that logic. Episodes of ] are unlikely to ever meet the standards, so they should be targetted before the ones that do. Either way, there is a new ArbCom case and if we do want to try to keep all of our episode pages, we'd better get to work. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 14:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
***Well, let's see what happens. I just don't us waisting any time merging all of those articles if the rules gets changed yet again. I'm not exactly sure that we can make a GA out of every episode - even if we do have a commentary track. Some of them doesn't provide that much information (] comes to mind) and a lot of sources we use today cannot be used for the later seasons, such as the BBC website, Planet Simpson, Leaving Springfield and basically the rest of the books. --] (]) 14:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
****It doesn't necessarily have to be a GA, it just has to show some real world info and prove its individual notability. For example, Insane Clown Poppy is now okay thanks to Zagalejo. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 14:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I really wouldn't mind merging the majority of seasons 11-19, I mean I know they wouldn't have to be GAs, but if it stops us being used as an example then great. And as said, they can also be un-merged at a later date... ]<sup>]</sup> 15:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
*****With an Arbcom case under consideration - all the more reason to wait out doing anything drastic like merging lots of articles - and await the outcome of the Arbcom decision, which may have an impact on things. ] (]) 15:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC).

===So where does everyone stand?===
So right now, it appears that:
*Zagalejo, Xihix, Rhino131, Reginmund and Cirt outright oppose merging any pages right now
*Myself and Gran2 are open to merging some episodes, but believe we should see how the ArbCom case ends
*Natalie Erin is open to selective merging of some episodes
*Maitch prefers to hold judgement until after the ArbCom case is resolved
*Sceptre (non project member) believes that most of seasons 11-17 could be merged
Is this a fair assessment? Either way, it doesn't appear that any kind of consensus will be reached. I would love to keep every episode page, but it isn't as simple as saying "the project wants to keep them". We would need to start adding real world info to episode pages and adding assertions of notability.

On a side note, it's nice to see a project discussion that involved more than 3 or 4 people (we haven't had one of those in a while). -- ]<sup>]</sup> 20:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

:I believe the ArbCom will end up coming with a result our favor (by which I mean, Zag, Rhino, Reg, and Cirt's). It seems that the people keep complaining about the guidelines, redirects, etc., and thats all they do. Instead, we, as the WikiProject, go and actually improve and make good episode articles and eventually get them to become GA'd or FA'd. I believe that is the real reason why we are seen as having the exceptions other shows don't. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 21:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
::I agree with {{user|Xihix}}, and Scorpion has the correct assessment of my take on this as of this point in time. If the efforts of ] and ] members has shown anything, it is that we can take difficult articles from "Stub" class to GA or even FA class in a relatively short amount of time. But I'm interested to hear the results of the Arbcomm, if/when that's over with... ] (]) 21:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC).

:::You know, I sort of find the ] talk hilarious. That guy who kept criticizing, to me, all it seemed that he did was complain about us. And then, a few hours later, the article looks GA worthy. Just goes off to prove what can happen if you stop complaining, and actually do something that will change peoples mind (i.e. improve the article). ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 03:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone read lovely little comment? We've had little to do with this entire episode debate, and yet people still seem to criticize us. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 14:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

:One thing I have realized is that we can't win no matter what we do. We used get critized for having loads of crap articles. We started improving them and then we get critized for having too many FA's. --] (]) 16:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
::The too many FA's thing was just sad, I mean how can you have too many FA's? And if it didn't violate ], I'd get all of season 1 to GA status, just to spite him. But doing it just for that, is probably not a good idea... ]<sup>]</sup> 16:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Where did they say we have too many FAs? -- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
::::It was the Misplaced Pages or Homerpedia discussion, or at least, I think that's what Maitch meant. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
::::: I've been on vacation, and have read through all this, and I '''strongly oppose''' merging any episode. Like a few people said, why merge, and then unmerge at a latter date? It is pointless. Why shouldn't worry about a few stupid people who are mad that we have lots of GAs and the shows they like don't have any. ]] 18:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Gran2, I'd just go ahead and make season 1 all GA'd. You may be making a point in a way, but WP:POINT simply says not to disrupt Misplaced Pages in a negative way. Making GA's, as far as I know, isn't negative. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 21:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
*The link to that complaint was ''']'''. ] (]) 21:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC).
**I would certainly '''Support''' making our next ] be Season One, if others like {{user|Gran2}} are interested... ] (]) 21:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC).
***Well I'd rather do the characters, episodes are great, but the characters are more important. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
***Okay. ] (]) 21:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC).
**** Aren't we doing these episode GAs so we can show they are notable? If so, what does doing character pages accomplish in that regard? ]] 21:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
***** Character pages are just something that certain project members have had their eye on, those who have been working on episode articles for a while and have been getting tired of them. But according to ]: ''Also, a (very) long term goal of the Simpsons WikiProject is to get every episode page to GA status and this is a helpful way to get started.''. ] (]) 21:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC).
******Well we don't all have to work on the characters. That's the benefits of you guys - the new members we've got over the last year. This time last year (if I remember correctly) it was just me, Scorp and Maitch (who were active), and we had only just started on the episode pages. As such we have got pretty bored with them. But that doesn't mean we'll never do another episode, or that anyone has to stop working on them. So, those who want to can work on the characters, and those who want to can work on season 1 or any other season. Or something like that. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
*******I'd just as soon collaborate with as many people as possible that we can get working on a common goal at ], as we can get. ] (]) 21:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC).
*Still scratching my head over the whole ''']''' thing though. So funny to bring up having ''too many'' featured articles of ''anything'' on this project... ] (]) 21:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC).
********It is certainly nice to that we are so many people now and this project can hold two collaborations. If people wants to continue to work on episodes, then I don't think they should stop. I just feel that it is more important right now to work on Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa and Maggie. --] (]) 10:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
*********Whatever y'all decide, of course people shouldn't feel the need to stop working on what they are interested in, but I say let's use this amount of contributors en masse to really get some quality stuff done faster. (In other words, whatever topic it is, I say one ] at a time would really work faster.) ] (]) 10:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC).
Regarding my comment on that discussion, I hope I didn't stir up any unnecessary trouble. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 00:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
:Whoa, huge disscusion. Anyway, I agree with merging in ''theory'', ("in theory communisim works!" - Homer) But if you start merging articles you are going to get a ''flood'' of people either screaming "where is the page for this episode?" or, taking matters into their own hands and creating the episode page themselves. What explanation are these people going to be given? Where will the episode redirect go? We can get all season 1-11 pages to GA, we just need more time! --] ] 22:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

== Something everyone should do ==

Keep an eye on ] discussion and every time ] complains about a specific episode, hurredly source it. It took me 20 minutes to get Lisa's First Word done, so it's not that hard. Google News is a good method of finding reliable sources, it also doesn't hurt to specifically search sites like EW or IGN which don't show up in Google News. Yes, it kind of is ], but it isn't disrupting Misplaced Pages and it's helping to clean up and source pages. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
:Will do, good idea Scorpion. It really proves that if you improve instead of complain, you get things done. And, it will be funny when people try to read his points that link to episodes that actually look GA. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 00:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
::I'd rather not keep an eye on the discussion, but perhaps you could keep a running list here, below? ] (]) 00:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
:::I listed every episode he's mentioned. After reading through that, he's literally mentioned ] dozens of times. At first, his example was ], then it was "Bart the general existed for 4 1/2 years without sources", now it's ]. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
:::: Did we decide we aren't going to delete any of the episode pages? ]] 00:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::I think the decision was to wait until the ArbCom case is resolved and see where we should go from there. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
We shouldn't let one little punk ruin our project and our episode pages ]] 00:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
:I agree, but don't call him a punk. It could be seen as being uncivil, and he'd probably use that against us. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 00:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

===Episode articles to quickly improve ===
Keep a quickie list here, below. ] (]) 00:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
== ] on Peer Review ==

] has recently been passed as a ], and is currently undergoing a ]. Any comments/feedback on how to further improve the article's quality would be most appreciated, at ]. ] (]) 06:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC).
*Peer review has been archived, thanks to those who gave feedback. ] (]) 03:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

== ] ==

I have nominated this list for deletion. --] (]) 13:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
:Why? I thought it was a good list. --] ] 06:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
== Weekly IRC Chats? ==

I was wondering, would anyone else be up to weekly IRC chats? Each time, we could discuss articles, future callaborations, work that is necessary, or in a time like right now, the whole "Notable Episodes" discussion. We could accomplish a good amount working together at a certain time, and where we can actively discuss at the same time. Since this is a small WikiProject, we'd need a schedule of when we would do this, of course. Also, we could use the ] sever that all of Wikimedia uses. See ] for information on how to get on the server and junk. There's also a free Java alternative if you don't have an IRC client of your own. What do you guys think? ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 01:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
*Sounds like a great idea. Where is the free Java alternative? And also, can we have a separate IRC channel just for our project's discussion? ] (]) 01:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
**It's on ], under the Alternatives section. And yes, we could have our own channel. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 01:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
***It's a good idea, but I've never been able to access that Java or IRC stuff. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 01:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
**** Fabulous idea! It would be much easier to discuss stuff than to keep posting on here ]] 01:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
*****Scorpion, what issues are you having? The Java is the easiest to access with, but if it doesn't work, try getting an IRC client. A pretty popular one is ]. There are also many guides out there on how to access them using it. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 01:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
******Can you download one for free anywhere or do you have to buy it? -- ]<sup>]</sup> 02:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
*******mIRC isn't free, though you can use it forever. For the first 30 days, it'll give you a small prompt on how many more days you can use it, but even after those 30 days, the prompt makes the seemingly unclickable "Continue" go away after a few seconds. There are also free use IRC clients, such as the ones that are on Category:Free IRC clients. Of those, I'd suggest ]. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 02:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
* I got that Xihix, now what are the "mechanics" of making it work for a wiki chat room for the project? ]] 02:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
**I'd have to make a channel for us, which I'll make if the other users of this WikiProject want to do this. To access the channel, you'd have to connect to the server (type "/server freenode" without the quotations), and then type "/join #channelname", without the quotations. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 03:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
*** sounds like a good idea, when should we do it, everyone? ]] 03:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
****I haven't gone and looked into the IRC client stuff yet, but it looks like 4 of us are online right now. Not sure what there is to discuss though. ] (]) 03:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
*****What would you guys like the channel to be named? #simpsons? Also, I'll make a comprehensive guide on the IRC stuff, on a new page and add it to the WikiProject's infobox. Right now, I'd like to ask when everyone would like the weekly meet up should be, and the time it should start. It would probably be best if it was a week end. Also, in the guide, I'd mention that if there is a specific time you want a meet up, you could come to this talk page and make a time when you want the meet up, or if you want to talk to a person or two specifically, you could contact them on their user talk page and see if they can come at a certain time. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 03:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
****** the name sounds great, as for a time, if on the weekend, i'd rather it be a sunday night then, incase i go out to the clubs saturday, a lot of us are on now, so perhaps 48 minutes ago, was i think 3 am, for the UTC time, so that would sound like a good time ]] 03:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
*******Alright then, Sunday sounds good. If others can give an input on what time, we could start then, and end whenever we feel that we need to end in the IRC rooms. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 03:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
* Not before 3:00 am UTC time, cause from 1-3 is Fox Sunday, and you know we can't miss the new Simpsons episodes, and I can't miss the other new episodes either! ]] 03:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
**Ah, I completely forgot the new episodes at that time. Hmm... Well, when do the others think the meet up should be? ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 04:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
***Darn, it seems that #simpsons is already registered to someone else. Well, I think I'm going to make it #wpsimpsons instead. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 04:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
****How bout wpdoh ? ] (]) 00:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
*****Well, I sort of made it #wpsimpsons to make it more clear that it's us to others, but oh well. If anyone cares to come in, I'm in there right now. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 00:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

== Which commentary is it that Oakley & Weinstein discuss Homer's age? ==

They discuss his age in several season 7 episodes, I just need one so I can use it as a source for ], which was GA reviewed. It will be delisted in 7 days if the review conditions aren't met. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
:I have Season 7, let me check. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 23:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
::I'm going to listen to Homerpalooza, as they may talk about his age, since Homer feels old I suppose in the episode when he discovers his likes in music aren't like what the new generation is, and the whole generation X talk, and that junk. I'll be listening through it. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 23:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
:::To be honest, I wouldn't read much into it; I think there's a band of reasonable ages for Homer that have been suggested through the series. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 23:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I finished act one, and so far, the only talk of Homer's age has been during the car scene around 1:40-2:00 or so when they say that everyone in the room is around Homer's age or older. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 23:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::There are several where they say that Homer was originally 36 but they aged him to 38 because they felt he was too young. I can't remember which it is, so I guess I'll listen to several (then I might get some other good info). -- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Yeah, nothing in Homerpalooza. I'll listen to some other episodes. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 23:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Mother Simpson will probably have mention of his age, for obvious reasons. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 23:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Sadly, it wasn't there either. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 00:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

== The ArbCom case update thread ==

I've been keeping a close eye on it, and I'll provide updates here on some of the more interesting things so that people don't have to sift through the entire discussion.

So far there hasn't been a lot of mention of The Simpsons and PixelFace has only mentioned it once. One of the more interesting proposals so far has been ] in which PixelFace suggests that every single episode page on Misplaced Pages be put up for afd. I also suggest reading some of the comments in ] as Masem brings up some good points. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 05:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
== Advertisment? ==

I just noticed that some wikiprojects have advertisments, like this one from wikiproject video games <br /> {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Video games/Advert}} <br /> Should we have one? --] ] 03:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
*Sounds like a great idea. ] (]) 05:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC).
**I second that (e)motion. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
***Looks pretty cool! I'll take a stab at it and try to make one, I want to try out the ImageReady I recently got... ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 23:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
****What would we put for the text? --] ] 23:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

]What do you guys think about this? I made it to show what it could possibly look like. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span>
: looks great...I love the text format too! ] ] 05:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
::Brilliant! ]<sup>]</sup> 07:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
:::Looks great. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 16:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
::::Well, I'm sure it can be improved somehow. Anything? ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 17:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

] I added a border around the image to give it a definite area, if you get what I mean. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span>
*Border could be a tad thinner. ] (]) 19:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC).

] Is the border good now? ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 20:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
*Excellent. ] (]) 20:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC).
**Looks great, are we going to run with this one then? ]<sup>]</sup> 23:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
***Looks great, good job. I don't want to sound like a pain, but how about some fancy effects, like the transition effect on the video games template, and the changing underlying text? --] ] 07:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
****I actually have no idea how to. I'll go back into ImageReady and play around to see if I can figure out how to, but I'm planning to write the Plot section of an episode right now. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 18:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

] I did this as what it would look like. I am aware of the TV fuzzing up, but I have to leave at the moment and do not have time to look too much into it. I will do so when I arrive back. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 22:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
:Looks great, apart from the TV thing. One last thing, should the last line of text read "Join Wikiproject ''The Simpsons''" with italics? It might make it easier to understand. --] ] 02:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
::Ehh... Not sure. I suppose I could do it. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 03:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

] Final version? ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 03:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
:Looks good to me, any other suggestions anyone? --] ] 03:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
::It seems to me that the TV image is still fading slightly with the text, although I'm not sure if this is on my connection only, can anyone else confirm? --] ] 09:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
:::Yeah, it is for me too... I didn't seem to notice it before, though. I guess I can try to fix it, but I don't know what to do (did everything I could last time, and I thought it was fine). I'll look at it when I get home, since I'm not currently there right now. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 17:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
:I added this image to ]. ] 20:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

== Early seasons cleanup ==

Just wanted to call some attention to the early seasons' articles. I just took a look at a couple of random season 2 articles and they're not in great shape. They could all use some basic cleanup like removing goof sections, removing whitespace, and removing blatant nonsense that survives and builds up because no one pays attention to these. These early seasons are all the more important now that the new episodes suck so much :) Anyway just thought I'd let you know. Cheery-o. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''13:03, 23 Jan 2008 (UTC)''</small>
*Thanks, we're next planning to work on characters, and season 4 episodes. ] (]) 13:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
** Well, the early seasons are actually not worse than the later seasons. The only thing we can do is to work on them one at the time. It takes time, but we are showing slow but steady progress. --] (]) 13:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
== Ages ==

I think we should delete any "ages" section in any article, or any mention of ages, as they always contradict each other. any thoughts? ]] 04:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
*Barring finding any good secondary ]/] sources for this info on a case-by-case basis, '''Support.''' ] (]) 05:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

== I got a response from ]!!! ==

Hello everyone, I got a response from Bill Oakley on ], when I asked him for a picture! He also said some other things. Please come into IRC AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, and I'll talk to you in there more about this. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 23:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:Does his response appear in a thread at NoHomers? I haven't gotten onboard the whole IRC thing... ]''']''' 03:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
::Yeah, I don't do IRC either. Would you be willing to summarize the conversation there once you're done? ] (]) 03:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I PM'd him on NoHomers.net, and he told me that he would give photos and release them to a license. He also asked to give some official link and stuff, and gave me his email to reply to him. I emailed him and said some stuff, and he said that he's busy this week, but will dig up photos from the season 3-8 era and do what it says to do in link that I sent him. He also said that he goes on Misplaced Pages a good bit and knows some stuff, and will help us if we need him. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 03:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Awesome! ]''']''' 03:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Quite so, yes. I don't want to bother him too much, which is why EVERY WikiProject member that wants to have a say in what I email him regarding him helping us in a way that he could needs to get into IRC at a certain time tomorrow, or if worse comes to worse, day after tomorrow. I come home at 4:00 PM (EST or -5 GMT time), so any time after that will have to do. Please, I need everyone to come. Including you guys, Gran2, Zag, and anyone else who I haven't seen in IRC yet. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 03:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Also, you guys can make a time here so we can all be in at one time. As I mentioned, it has to be anytime after 4:00 PM EST time. ]<span style="font-size:x-small;">(])</span> 03:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

One issue is that if he is willing to give us insider information, we wouldn't be able to use it because it wouldn't be verifiable. I was just talking with some users on IRC, and some suggestions were:
# Get him to start his own website or blog (Kind of an awkward thing to ask because he's already going out of his way to help)
# Get him to post it on NHC like he did with the Ask Bill & Josh thing (Not as bad as the above, but not as reliable)
# (This one is inventive) ask him to record stuff into a file and then upload it on Wikimedia commons. We would then be able to reference the recording. It sounds complicated, but it's a lot easier than getting him to start his own site.
# Contact ], a commons user who has interviewed several people for WikiNews. It's another longshot, but it might be worth at least contacting him.

So not a lot of options, and each one would be asking a lot from him. I think we should mention that anything he tells us would not be useable, (lets not give any suggestions yet because we don't want to scare him away) and see if he has any ideas. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 04:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:Wow, this is amazing! I'll be on IRC tonight (in about 7 hours time). I'll think up some questions during the day. ]<sup>]</sup> 07:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:55, 28 January 2023

This is an archive of past discussions on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject The Simpsons. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Person

Who is the person who, like Gil, bounces between various jobs, but seem to own noiseland arcade, as evidenced in one episode where he was showcasing Donkey Kong (but nobody turned up)...? Simply south 22:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I belive he's called "Wiseguy" in most sources, and is referred to as "Raphael" by Sideshow Bob in one episode. --OZOO (What?) 08:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

New guideline on fiction: Delete Simpsons-related articles?

I would like to call the attention of members of this project to the recently revised guideline at WP:FICT, which now states that all sub-articles on fictional subjects must independently meet a new (stricter) notability ruling than what was in place prior to the new guideline. If enforced, the new guideline would likely result in the deletion and/or merging of hundreds of articles on fictional subjects, such as fictional characters, television episodes, fictional locations, etc. There is active discussion / disagreement related to this issue at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (fiction), and in the interests of ensuring the topic is fully discussed by interested editors, I would invite members of this project to participate in that discussion (whether you agree with the new guideline or not). Fairsing 22:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well we merged all of the poor quality character and location pages, and as we have proved, we can get any episode that has been released on a season boxset DVD up to GA level in about an hour or so. And with articles like Homer Simpson and Troy McClure we have proved we can write our exisiting characer articles in an out of universe way. Gran 22:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
These new guidelines have me worried. Our 40+ GAs meet them and can't be touched (yet), but the other 360+ Simpsons episodes are fair game and I would not be surprised if many of them were targeted for deletion/merging soon enough. As for the characters, under the guidelines, Groundskeeper Willie is safe, but the page for Marge could conceivably be deleted because it has little real world context. All I know is that I don't like them and we should do what we can to get every page we can up to code. One of the few good things is that Simpsons articles will likely not be high on the target list due to out many GAs, but give it time and they will come. -- Scorpion 22:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Although I think that some may get merged, such as Kent Brockman, I am going to make sure that at least the articles about the Simpson family themselves don't get merged or deleted, since they are the main characters in the show. Karrmann 00:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, with the episodes, as long as we keep the first 9 seasons, I won't mind. The fact is all episodes after then, even if they are on DVD, will be pretty hard to get to GA, for the main reason that they suck. There wil be hardly any reception info, andthe BBC and Richmond sources won't cover them. But we'll see what happens. Gran 06:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dropping in

Hello, I am new to this project, and I just wanted to briefly introduce myself. Well, I have been editing for around two years, and have been a die hard Simpsons fan for a few years now. I first became a fan of the series after deciding to watch season 15 from Treehouse of Horror XIV to the final episode of the season, Fraudcast news. I became hooked, and found myself watching it religiously, as well as buying the DVD sets when I can. Anyways, although I have found myself editing The Simpsons related articles on the side recently, I mostly contribute to automotive related articles. You can see an example of my work on the article Ford Taurus, which I consider to be my magnum opus. Anyways, I joined this wikiproject as I plan on focusing more attention to Simpsons related articles than before. My main plan as of now is to redo the Marge Simpson article, to make it more like Homer Simpson (which I did a minor restructuring on) as well as Troy McClure. I will go through Bart Simpson, Lisa Simpson, and Maggie Simpson, to also make sure that they look at their respective characters through a real world perspective instead of just inside the series, mainly so that the people at WP:FICT will have no reason to pitch a bitch and merge them. Anyways, that is all for now, I just thought I would drop in and introduce myself. Karrmann 01:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think you have to worry that much about the five main family members. It's the borderline ones that are in jeopardy - Brockman, Dr. Nick, Lenny, Carl, Snake, Smithers, Martin Prince, Fat Tony, Sideshow Bob, etc. - because although there is lots of information about them in the DVDs, there is little real world stuff in their pages. However, it would be great to see all five family members hit GA status, so welcome aboard and good luck. If you need any help, feel free to ask. -- Scorpion 01:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we have to worry as long as we can prove that real world information is available. Zagalejo 20:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Some Enchanted Evening (The Simpsons)

I might as well admit that I don't really have the time for anything other than minor editing on Misplaced Pages anymore. So, with that said I won't be finishing "Some Enchanted Evening" as promised. I have the work I have already done at User:Maitch/draft3. I hope that someone can make some use of it and hopefully bring it to FA standards some day. --Maitch 16:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Rape in Strong arms of the ma

In Strong_Arms_of_the_Ma it says that marge "more or less rapes homer". But that is all. How can that possibly be? It doesn't say anything about what happened or its aftermath or how people have responded to it. I don't have access to the episode, so could someone else please add some details about this. Imagine if any other character had been raped. The page would be at least half full of commentary about and related to the rape, but in this episode it gets a one sentence long reference. Not even a discription of what happened, just a side reference. What is going on here? The bellman 05:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. It was just some random comment by an anonymous user. I didn't pay too much attention to that episode myself, so I can't honestly say whether that is an accurate description or not, but I'm guessing that it's bogus. Zagalejo 05:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I think that she rapes him as well, as I have seen the episode multiple times. She gets on top and pins down Homer and forces him into having sex against his will. I would say its rape. Karrmann 10:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Really? Well, if it was, it sure didn't cause much commotion in the mainstream press. Zagalejo^ 06:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Kamp Krusty GAC

Just a head's up, but Kamp Krusty has been nominated for GA. I tried to edit the project page, but have no idea how. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 23:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Each section has side has a little edit button near the top that you can click and edit. Thanks for letting us know. -- Scorpion 00:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
OK. Didn't see the edit hidden at the bottom. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 00:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Minimise References?

References are what makes the Simpsons great. It's not just solely about the storyline; it's about their art of taking a world's culture and fusing it into a wonderful plethora of intertextuality. As a result, I'd like to contest the dot point to "minimise references". If anything, Misplaced Pages should be noting all possible references. I come here just for that. – 60.241.121.150 07:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Um I don't understand what your talking about. What do you mean by minimise references? Gran 06:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
From the project page, under 'Tasks':

Minimize trivia and cultural references. In many cases, they become cruft magnets and it is best to just get rid of them completely so that IP users don't continually add random stuff.

– 60.241.121.150 02:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
If we are voting, I cast my vote for not minimizing references. While valid argument can be made that 1) trivia isn't really encyclopedic material; 2) it is cruft-magnet, it is also true: 1) I don't see how summaries of Simpsons or any TV episodes can be encyclopedic, traditionally speaking, so why draw the line at trivia & cultural references, 2) in this case at least, "cruft" is just ... a genuine material that just needs to be cleaned up and put in good order. I can speak for myself that the primary reason I come to Misplaced Pages for info on the Simpsons is to see and check the references I think I recognize in the Simpsons episodes. BTW, could we at least have a link to some sort of discussion where it was decided that "cultural references & trivia" on the Simpsons episodes don't belong on the Misplaced Pages, or was it an arbitrary decision by a single person? novakyu 04:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A short to-do list for A Streetcar Named Marge

Here are a few suggestions for our article on A Streetcar Named Marge. If anyone has additional comments, feel free to add them.

  • Do we need a ref to prove that Phil Hartman and Maggie Roswell appeared in the article? If so, what would count as a reliable source?
  • Do we have a source that shows The Simpsons has won seven times since 1994?
  • This sentence is bothering me somewhat: The issue did pass quickly, although the producers did receive some threats from New Orleans residents. (from Controversy). We shouldn't leave the sentence at that; we should elaborate on what kinds of threats they received. Is this a reference to the guy who called Reiss about Bart in the Mardi Gras parade, or does it refer to something else? I'll probably have to listen to the commentary again.
    • I thought some kind of ending was needed so I just added a note about the phone call, without elaborating. If you like, you can add a full note about the phone call. -- Scorpion 21:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • As I noted on Scorpion's talk page, the first paragraph of "Reception" is a tad long and not very pleasant to read. I was thinking we could trim it down. Any suggestions? Zagalejo 20:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • We could just take out stuff from the less notable sources I guess. -- Scorpion 21:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
      • For starter's we could probably get rid of the Quindecium reference, since it's just a random college paper. And what exactly is Associated Content? Is that considered a major website? It barely survived deletion last year. Zagalejo 20:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Anyone? I'd like to have some consensus before I start trimming that section. Zagalejo 03:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Both references are used in the other episode FAs. I don't mind losing the Quindecium ref, but I think the other one should stay because it applies directly to the songs, which were controversial, same with the ones from EW. I world also prefer if the Canoe ref stay because it's a Canadian source and I think it's better to have opinions from nations other than the States. -- Scorpion 04:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm fine with Canoe, but I think we have enough about the music without the Associated Content ref. (We also have a ref to Turner regarding the final song). I'm also going to try to find the actual New York Times review, because it would be better to directly cite that than the DVD commentary. Zagalejo 04:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Something else I think we should do is reference the original newspaper article that caused the uproar in New Orleans. I think this is it (although if I'm wrong, let me know):
Mark Lorando, "'Simpsons' takes a shot at Crescent City." The Times-Picayune. 1 October 1992.
Interestingly, the writer does say that "bad Broadway musicals were the intended target of the musical parody, not the city." The article also quotes Al Jean, who notes, "Originally, we had these two Cajuns in the audience walking out in disgust. But we didn't have anybody on staff who could do a good Cajun accent, so we cut it out." Zagalejo 20:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the original article was published a week before the episode aired, so if that date is the date it originally appeared, then I don't think that's it. -- Scorpion 20:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Whether it is or not, the Jean quote is great info. Gran 20:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
For some reason, I had also thought the article appeared a week earlier, but the Lorando article is the earliest piece I've found on Newsbank, Factiva, or Lexis. Plus, an Oct. 2 AP article says, "The station was besieged with calls after the lyrics from Thursday night's show appeared earlier in the day in The Times-Picayune newspaper." The article I mentioned above does contain the full lyrics, so I'm fairly confident that it's the one that started it all. Do you know where you heard/read that the article appeared a week before the episode? Zagalejo 21:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
In the DVD commentary, they said that the article was published before the episode aired and that one was published the day it aired. -- Scorpion 21:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I finally dug out the DVD myself. If you look at the "Cajun Controversy" featurette, you'll see that the Lorando article appears onscreen at the very beginning. No one in the commentary gives a precise timeframe, anyway; the morning before the episode aired is still before the episode aired.
If necessary, I can ask around at nohomers.net, because I'd really like to get to the bottom of this. It may seem very minor, but I can totally see someone at the FAC requesting a ref to the actual newspaper article. Zagalejo 02:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Well if we can use it as a source for more information, then we should. Where did you read the bit about the deleted scene? -- Scorpion 03:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The one with the two Cajun guys, you mean? That's from the Lorando article. It's available from Factiva, Lexis-Nexis, and Newsbank, if you have access to any of those resources. Zagalejo 03:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't. Add anything you think will help the page, and I'll take a look later. -- Scorpion 03:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I just did a quick copy edit on the reception section, and this page really is very good. Finding the exact article would probably be good, and maybe the actual NYT review? But asside from that, this is our next FA. Gran 07:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we should mention that the songs are available on the "Songs in the key of Springfield" CD. Otherwise, this is great stuff. --Maitch 16:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I was considering a "merchandise" section, or something like that. We could also mention that there is a Llewellyn Sinclair action figure. Plus, the episode is one of the few released in VHS form before they started putting out DVDs. Zagalejo 18:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

New York Times review

After some searching, I don't think there actually was a review of the episode in the New York Times. The closest thing I've found so far is a September 24, 1992 article by John O'Connor about the Simpsons in general. It briefly describes the plots of "Streetcar" and "Kamp Krusty," and it's generally positive in tone, but I don't think it counts as an episode review. Of course, it's possible that the NYT wrote about the episode years later, so I'll keep looking. Zagalejo 18:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: I did find a NYT review of the 4th season DVD that describes "Streetcar" as "a brilliant, fully-scored parody of Broadway musicals that should be required viewing for every Tony voter." Obviously, that can't be what Reiss was talking about on the commentary, but it might be a good thing to quote in our article. Zagalejo 19:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Some last questions

OK, I'm almost satisfied with the article. However, there are a few other concerns that have come to mind. I'll list 'em here.

  • I have to admit that I've never actually read or seen the original Tennesse Williams play. Everything I know about it comes from the Simpsons episode. So, if anyone is familiar with the actual play, could you please check the article to make sure everything we say about it is accurate?
  • What is the proper way to cite a DVD commentary on Misplaced Pages? We use {{cite video}} in the article, but the results don't look right, because we're forced to cram too much into the "title" field. There must be some alternative.
  • If the article does reach the front page, what would we use as our picture? A photo of Jon Lovitz?

That's all for now. I'm also still trying to determine whether the Lorando article was the first to publish the lyrics. Zagalejo^ 06:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the play, but the cite video template is the correct template to use, there is no other. And if it does reach the main page, the image of Jon Lovitz should be fine. Gran 06:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I almost bought the movie once, but it cost 35 bucks and that's too expensive for a movie that I'll only watch once. -- Scorpion 13:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm satisfied with the page. I'd love to see the production section a tad bigger, but we've added pretty much everything we could. Are we ready to go? -- Scorpion 16:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
How long does it usually take to get a peer-review? (A real one, not an automated one). Zagalejo^ 19:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It depends, any time from two minutes to never, as I experienced with Notting Hill. Which was on PR for at least two months, and received no comments AT ALL, really annoying. Put it depends, usually a few for somene to actually review an article. The peer review process is essentially useless as no one really "runs" the process and makes sure every article gets at least one comment. Gran 20:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Something I just noticed

Despite what Mike Reiss says, I can't find any evidence that the New Orleans Fox station pulled the Simpsons for a few weeks. Indeed, the Times-Picayune''s television previews continue to mention the Simpsons throughout the month of October. In light of this, I've done a little bit of re-writing in the "Controversy" section. Thoughts? Zagalejo^^^ 20:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ratings info

In case someone asks at the FAC, I've dug up the Nielsen info for the episode in the US. It ranked 32nd among prime-time shows for the week (tied with The Golden Palace) and achieved a rating of 11.8, which means that approximately 11 million American viewers tuned in. (Source: Associated Press. "Nielsen Ratings/Sept. 28 –Oct. 4. 1992-10-07.)

Of course, it would be good to include this in the article even if no one requests it, but before I do, I was wondering: is similar info is available for international broadcasts? And something else I've though about: does anyone even know when the episode first aired in the UK, Canada, Australia, etc? Zagalejo^^^ 07:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No idea, they may be a source for them, but I don't know. People only really note down the overall original airing, which was the American. Gran 11:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess a more important question is, did the episode air anywhere besides the US on Oct 1 1992? Zagalejo^^^ 19:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
No idea about other countries, but it didn't air in the UK for several years after it. Gran 19:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
It likely aired in Canada at the same time, but ratings mean less here, so you probably won't find any info. -- Scorpion 20:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The PTA Disbands v. The PTA Disbands!

Gran2 appears to have moved this back with the exclamation point because the DVD box set uses an exclamation point. However, I don't think that this should be a valid enough factor in determining the title. The official website (which can be updated at any time) omits the exclamation point and so does the official episode catalogue. I don't think that the DVD cover can be considered a reliable enough source for determining the name. I've seen them make loads of mistakes before. For example here Erich von Stroheim is erroneously credited as "Eric von Stroheim" on the DVD cover of La Grande Illusion. I doubt that the season 6 DVD is any different, especially when compared to the official website and official Simpsons catalogue. Reginmund 14:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It's written in the copyright database as "The PTA Disbands!" which means the two sources that have direct involvement of the writers - the DVDs and the copyrights - use the !. The official website is known for having mistakes. And by the way, what's the point of having a redirect "Bart Has Two Mummies"? That's not what the episode is called, should have redirects for every other possible spelling of a word? -- Scorpion 15:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It says that "my session has timed out". The redirect from "mummies" is per the British spelling which some britons may get confused with. Reginmund 22:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I realize that, but it's not the title of the episode. I guess we should also create a "Da PTA Disbands" redirect for those who don't know how to spell and a "Old Moolah" for those who call Money Moolah. -- Scorpion 23:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I have requested a move at WP:RM so if anyone has some thoughts on this issue, they may vote. Reginmund 23:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

List of one-time characters from The Simpsons

I am happy to say that I have cut the length of the page in half, but also added 10x as many characters to the page. Having huge sections for minor characters was ridiculous and in its present form, I think it is safe from deletion. I've noticed that several one-timers pages for other series (ie. Futurama, which ironically I based the page on) have been targeted for deletion as of late, so I think I've added enough real world info to get the page past the WP:FICT guidelines. I can guarantee that I forgot several characters, so anyone can expand the page, but please don't add characters that appeared in an episode for less than a minute, so no Guy Incognito, Lester & Eliza, Handsome Pete, Sideshow Raheem, etc, etc. -- Scorpion 18:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Itchy & Scratchy Show

It begins... -- Scorpion 02:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Character pages - What should stay and what should go

Well, the anti-fiction brigade has already started by going after a relatively notable character page, so we should decide which pages we should try to keep, and which ones we shouldn't even bother trying to save. Character pages mostly need to things to save them: real world info (ie. creation, voice, etc) and 2 independant sources that prove their individual notability. I have also included articles from the "location" category as well.

Please note that they are not necessarily arranged by who is most important to the show. They are arranged by which ones meet the guidelines better. Dr. Nick and Lovejoy aren't much more important than Moleman or Dr. Hibbert, but sources for Nick & Lovejoy would be more plentiful and easier to find.

Shouldn't bother trying to save

With these characters, we probably would be able to find real world info, but I doubt we'd be able to find 2 reliable independant sources. These pages are easy merges.

Borderline

For these pages, there likely ARE independant sources out there, we just need to find them first, but they could easily be merged into the recurring characters page.

Easy keep, but need sources

These pages we should have no problem saving from any potential merging/deletions. Sources for these characters definitely exist, we just need to find them.

The rest

The pages that we really have no worries about, because they meet all criteria, or are notable enough that people won't even bother trying to get rid of them.

Discussion

If anyone disagrees with one of my classifications, feel free to move it. So we should try and find sources for every character except the ones in "The Rest". An easy to find source would be the IGN "Top 25 Peripheral characters" article. -- Scorpion 16:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

A great source talking about some characters origins and voices: Gran 16:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Of the borderline cases, I'd keep Cletus, Rainier Wolfcastle, Hibbert, Otto, Wiggum, Snake and Kang and Kodos. I think Martin can be merged to the students article, and Moleman is purely a recurring character. The family pets can also be merged. Alientraveller 17:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
In addition, could you not merge Lenny and Carl? Alientraveller 17:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I had no plans for doing it. It was something that was suggested by TTN a while back, but I disagree with that idea. -- Scorpion 19:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Why? You seem eager to merge the families, why not the dynamic duo? There's a lot of overlap, what with the whole "is Lenny gay?" thing. Alientraveller 19:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you WANT to merge them. I was a tad confused by your wording. I guess we could merge them if you want. -- Scorpion 19:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it would be good because instead of two articles, we could have one potentially excellent one.
On a related note, why not merge minor characters with major ones. Milhouse's parents can go with him, and Agnes Skinner and Superintendent Chalmers can be with Skinner. Alientraveller 19:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I've never liked the idea of having two characters in one page, unless the page is called ____ & _____. So, we could renamed the page "Seymour & Agnes Skinner", which I am opposed to because I think Seymour is an independantly notable character to qualify for his own page. -- Scorpion 19:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I'd agree with that, I mean it is always "Lenny and Carl", whereas something like Skinner and his mother are usually considered separately. Gran 20:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I think Lenny and Carl are fine where they are. It is just that they aren't exactly referred to in the "duo" sense, despite them always being spotted together at the Tavern and the Power Plant. It would be like merging Dolph, Kearney, and Jimo together since they are like the dynamic "trio". Reginmund 20:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
To add my thoughts to this discussion, I'd say a big no to Skinner and Agnes. I'm also against more family pages, and putting characters on other character pages. Lenny and Carl maybe, but as of now no. And the pets can keep their articles. I'm a big fan of adding things to the recurring characters page. I know it is pretty long, but it serves as a great place for characters who don't have articles and are not affiliated with the school. As for other characters, I hate to see chalmers and Rod and Todd go, but I guess I'm okay with the others if there is no other option but merger, although I would like to see Moe's kept somehow. Cletus and Rainier Wolfcastle could go, but thats it, as I would REALLY want as many characters to have a page as possible, so if any of those could be saved, then do it. I would also want to see Dr. Hibbert and wiggum kept, as they are important characters. By the way, I just joined this wiki project, so hello to all. Rhino131 21:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons, season 9

Hello. I am currently getting The Simpsons, Season 9 with commentaries and everything, and I will have it in about four days or so. I'm planning to get every episode on Season 9 to GA status, and get Season 9 a Featured Topic. If anyone wishes to help later, feel free to. I'll start once I have the Season 9 DVD!  :) Xihix 21:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

We currently have a drive to get season 1 to FT status (although it's kinda dead), but if you wish to work on season 9, then good luck. I'll help out if I can find the time. -- Scorpion 23:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, sorry. I would help with season one, but when my favorite season (season eight) was taken as a FT, I thought I'd do season nine. Xihix 00:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons Theme

I've been engaged in a bit of an edit war over The Simpsons Theme because a user thinks that the end credits version of the theme counts as a cover version of the main theme and keeps moving it into the cover section. While he is sort of correct, I think it is better off that we keep all information about the end credits theme in its own section because it avoids confusion and the main and end themes are different. Am I crazy for thinking this? Anyway, opinions on the matter are welcome. You can find a discussion about this here. -- Scorpion 23:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

External links in episode infobox

I'd like to add the following external links to {{Infobox Simpsons episode}}: SNPP capsule, IMDB profile, and Simpsons.com episode guide. I'm aware of the broken link problem, but I aim to get around that by making each a separate parameter, rather than having them work automatically off of the production code. I have everything coded already, and you can see an example of the result at User:Equazcion/Sandbox2. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:26, 09/25/2007
do we really need a link to all of them? They pretty much give the same info Ctjf83 03:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I personally don't see the point. I mean we already have them as external links, and they don't offer that much anyway. Gran 06:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I would also prefer external links to be in a external links section rather than in the infobox. --Maitch 06:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The only one that I think might deserve to exist is the thesimpsons.com link. As full of joy as imdb or snpp are, neither is official, and shouldn't be included in an infobox that ought to only contain "official" information. IMDB is frequently edited by the public with incorrect info. the SNPP capsules are often full of critisism and review by "the public" as well, with uncited fact and whatnot... either way, it's not official and I'd almost say it shouldn't even be citatble by wikipedia, as noone is required to do research to be included on imdb or snpp capsules, but that's another discussion. TheHYPO 06:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like we may lose our Barnstar image

Resolved

It looks like we may lose the current barnstar design because an administrator thinks I copied the doughnut from the Simpsons Movie poster. There was an older possible design that was basically the same, except that it had the word "d'oh" on it, instead of a doughnut. Maybe we should use that one. -- Scorpion 20:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, really about I confused the donut with the poster. I've taken a second look, and they're completely different. And I think I've agreed with Jeff at IRC that the image is fine. Sorry for the mess. :( PS: this image also looks good. Maxim(talk) 20:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
That's good. There was also an image that had a doughnut AND the word d'oh, but we decided that it was best to leave words off of it. -- Scorpion 20:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Seasons page formating

We need to figure out how to format the Season pages - (The Simpsons (season #)). Most of them have the episode number, airdate, production code, and title. But some seasons (1,2,6,8,9,19) have director and written by, and season 18 has the rating. Please list your opinion on how you think it should be formated. Ctjf83 18:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well they should be the same as 1, 2, 6, 8 & 19, hence why three of those are FLs and one other is an FLC. We're slowly getting there, but that is the preferred (and in my view a lot better) system. Gran 18:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Culturally significant words and phrases from The Simpsons

I'm beginning to wonder if the page is really necessary - the big one is d'oh, and it has its own page. Most of the words there really don't have true proof of cultural significance, they just have "in ____ it was used" with no sources. And for some reason, people seem to think that being mentioned in another Simpsons episode, in a book about The Simpsons or being the title of a little known book or song automatically makes a phrase significant. Recently many "lists of significant words" have been deleted, including a list of Family Guy words and a list of words from the Colbert Report. Could we at least merge the page with The Simpsons? Because it also has a small list of words, and they are sourced. -- Scorpion 18:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been up for AfD before, as I recall, and was kept on the assumption that it would be cleaned up and renamed, and only those words that could be shown to have had a cultural impact would be included. It seems to me that there's a pretty big drop off between words that there is enough for an encyclopedia article about (d'oh) and those that may be culturally significant but really only need one or two sentences to explain. I wouldn't be adverse to merging this page into the language section of The Simpsons and providing links to the few words that actually have their own pages. I would also suggest preserving this title as a directed redirect, since otherwise the page will likely be recreated quickly. Natalie 18:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I have proposed a merge for the page, you can find the discussion here. Anyone who would like to comment should go there. I will add any words that are properly referenced to the section as well. -- Scorpion 20:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Episode Links

 Done

I think the chalkboard gags and the couch gags pages, should link the episode to the production number code, which is already listed. Does anyone wanna help link, or have a way to make it quicker and easier? Ctjf83 00:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This has been done, thanks to Gran and myself Ctjf83 04:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Citations and ISBNs

The article Homer Badman and at least 60 other pages refer to The Simpsons: A Complete Guide to Our Favorite Family with a bad ISBN 0-00063-8898 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum-1. That's one zero too many (which is why the lonely -1 trails behind the link). Less important, the hyphens are also in the wrong places. The correct one is ISBN 0-00-638898-1. Now, since there is an article about the book, a link to that page might do fine. Perhaps the (faulty) ISBN should just be dropped from all citations? Note that on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject The Simpsons/Sources this title is given a completely different ISBN. It is also possible that this project could organize a library of sources in a different way, by defining a template of standard bibliographic references. Is anybody here thinking along these lines? Who is your librarian? --LA2 01:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ Psycho (1960 film), Homer Simpson, Maggie Simpson, Bart Simpson, Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire, Bart the Genius, Burns, Baby Burns, Bart of Darkness, Lisa's Wedding, Homer's Enemy, Homer's Phobia, Last Exit to Springfield, Marge vs. the Monorail, The Simpsons shorts, The Simpsons shorts (bad ISBN mentioned 3 times), You Only Move Twice, Cape Feare, Life on the Fast Lane, Treehouse of Horror V, Treehouse of Horror VII, Itchy & Scratchy & Marge, King-Size Homer, Homerpalooza, Itchy & Scratchy: The Movie, Simpsoncalifragilisticexpiala(Annoyed Grunt)cious, A Milhouse Divided, Homer at the Bat, The Homer They Fall (twice), The Simpsons Spin-Off Showcase, The Secret War of Lisa Simpson, El Viaje Misterioso de Nuestro Jomer (The Mysterious Voyage of Homer), The Old Man and the Lisa, Homer vs. The Eighteenth Amendment, Radioactive Man (The Simpsons episode), Lemon of Troy, Lisa's Date with Density, Hurricane Neddy, Grade School Confidential, The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show, The Canine Mutiny, My Sister, My Sitter, In Marge We Trust, A Streetcar Named Marge, The Twisted World of Marge Simpson, Itchy & Scratchy Land, The Springfield Files, Mountain of Madness, Mother Simpson, Brother from Another Series, Bart After Dark, Bart Gets Famous, The Day the Violence Died, 'Round Springfield, A Fish Called Selma, The Simpsons (season 1), The Simpsons (season 8), The Simpsons (season 2), Homer Badman (twice), Misplaced Pages:WikiProject The Simpsons/Example generated lists/S01, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject The Simpsons/Example generated lists/S01
I think the ISBN is required for book references, so I guess we should just change it. -- Scorpion 01:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Since I'm going through all ISBNs and citations in many languages of Misplaced Pages, I'm interested to hear how different WikiProjects and users think about this. How do you go about with this change? Are you a bot operator, or do you have one to consult? Or will you just manually click through and edit these 60 pages? --LA2 02:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Basically, it's all manual, although you might be able to use AWB to do it. All of the articles listed are GA or higher, so we should try and get it done quickly. -- Scorpion 02:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I decided to start fixing the refs, but I have to go. I started at the beginning of the list, and I fixed them on every page up to and including Homerpalooza. If anyone wants to pick up from there, it would be helpful. -- Scorpion 02:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I think I fixed all of them. Zagalejo^^^ 04:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Great work! You're welcome to read my thoughts over on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check. --LA2 07:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We need to clean up Recurring jokes in The Simpsons‎

It's an absolute mess. The page has survived 2 AFDs, so we can't get rid of it, so we'll need to clean it up. I just did a slash and burn clean up and I removed some pretty ridiculous stuff. It's an important page and if properly sourced, it COULD be a really well done, informative page. Any ideas? -- Scorpion 03:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I also did a quick run through, and I realized how incomplete and poorly written the page was. I took out some sentances that were not important or did not make sense, and I removed the "silent crowd" gag, as it is not just for the Simpsons, its been used in almost every other comedy show I've seen. I'm sure we could all think of more recurring jokes to include, so I'm not sure if the page can ever really be complete. But it is an important page and if someone cleans it up, it could be a nicely written. Rhino131 00:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
All of the stuff currently on the page is discussed in the DVD commentary, so sourcing is possible. I guess some other stuff we could add would be Homer's Brain conversations, Grampa's ramblings (which are noted as being a favourite of several critics, including the author of Planet Simpson), and perhaps we could add a list of stuff the writers had INTENDED to be running jokes, like the ways Herman lost his arm, and Bart answering the phone with fake silly businesses. I'm currently working on three other pages (Sideshow Bob, Deep Space Homer and List of awards won by The Simpsons) but when I'm done with them, I think I'll start work on the recurring page. -- Scorpion 12:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone put Snake Jailbird on watch

The most recent episode saw Snake mention that people were vandalising his Misplaced Pages page, which could lead to people actually trying to vandalise it. It's already been semi-protected, but those with accounts older than a week can still edit. -- Scorpion 00:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters from The Simpsons (fourth nomination)

I'm surprised actually, it took the anti-fiction brigade a lot longer to get there than I thought it would. -- Scorpion 02:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Listcruft

What constitutes listcruft for The Simpsons pages, and what doesn't? Both Scorpion and THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR agreed that a list of Bart's Prank Calls was listcruft, so it was deleted. If that is considered listcruft, why do we have the following listcruft pages - List of The Simpsons couch gags, List of The Simpsons chalkboard gags, a list of places the Simpsons have traveled to, a list of character's religions, among others. Who's to decide what we need to keep, and what needs to go..they are all just lists? Responses?? Ctjf83 19:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a fine line between listcruft and "significant study". most of the pages you have been listed have been targeted for deletion in the past, and were kept. The Chalkboard gags and couch gags are both considered significant hallmarks of the show, plus there are well over 200 of each of them and one could easily locate sources to prove their significance. As for the list of places and lists of religions, I am indifferent to them. The travveling page recently survived an AFD, so there is little we can do right now, but I will remove the list of religions. -- Scorpion 20:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
After looking at the pages I see reasons to keep the Religion article. It is not a list, it is an article reflecting a common and contraversial theme from the Simpsons. As for travel, it IS listcruft. The gags pages are notable and sourceable, per Scorpion, and should remain. Does someone want to run a Travel AfD, or is it too soon since the last? (didn't look at the date - (annoyed grunt)!) -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 04:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
TROMBONATOR, u may have looked at the religion page after Scorpion deleted the actually list of religions, someone had made. That is mostly what I was referring too. Trombonator, also, go to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Traveling in The Simpsons (second nomination), it was re-nominated for deletion, add your thoughts to delete it! Ctjf83 06:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Ooh, I see that now. Yeah, Scorpion, I'd have taken it out, too, but the rest of the article is valuable... as I said above... AND as I said on the AFD. Also, Ctjf83, beware of Misplaced Pages:Canvassing#Votestacking. (It's OK if you didn't know.) -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 09:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

List of awards won by The Simpsons

I've been working on the page, abd it's looking pretty good and I think it's about ready for an FLC. Could anyone take a look at the page and let me know what you think of the format? There are some awards that I have chosen not to include, you can find a list here (as well as a complete, more update list here), and I was wondering if there was anything I left out that should have been included. Basically, my inclusion criteria was any award with a Misplaced Pages page, but I'm open to anything with a reliable source. I am a little concerned about an FLC, because I had to cheat for some of them and use IMDB, such as the EMA awards, and which individual episode was nominated for an Emmy. If it comes down to it, we can use the commentaries as a source for which episode was submitted for an Emmy, but we will have trouble finding sources for the EMAs. For now, I'm going to leave it and if anyone brings it up, I'll remove the early three noms and just use the source that says the show won 6. -- Scorpion 16:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

List of episode pages we should work on

A while back, Gran2 and I compiled a list of episodes that should be our top priority and I figured I would post it here so that maybe some others who would like to work on some episodes might know where to start. Between the two of us, we've gotten over 40 pages to GA status, so if your favourite episode isn't listed here, it might be because it was already promoted.

Thoughts? -- Scorpion 23:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Season 9 Featured topic drive

It's back, and hopefully this one goes better than the one for season one. Anyone interested in helping out should visit this page. -- Scorpion 02:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons Template

 Done

Does anyone think The Simpsons Template should be on the bottom of the episode pages to make navigation easier? Ctjf83 21:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about this, as the bottom of the page looks sort of empty without the template. Though, it may just be unnecessary according to some, as the most relevant thing to the episode is the season, which is already linked on the page. I could add it with AWB if it's decided to be added, though. ✗iℎi✗(talk) 00:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't really see any point myself, I mean, there are no episode pages linked on the main template, and there isn't any point in putting any there. So personally I think its fine as is. Gran 11:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
at the very least, there should be a link to all the seasons at the bottom of the episode pages, it isn't very navigation friendly. Ctjf83 01:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My next "random character project of the month" is...

I put a bunch of characters names in a hat and my next character project will be that quirky peppy nightmare neighborino himself... Ned Flanders. Anyone want to help? My next project after him will be... The man who carries Onions on his belt (because it was the style at the time), Abraham Simpson. -- Scorpion 04:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah sure, I think I'm going to do Moe myself as well. Gran 07:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we should try to improve some of the more important character pages (Skinner, Comic Book Guy, Barney Gumble, Mr. Burns) not necessarily to GA or FA, but get them to look somewhat decent. I have tried to improve the written quality of Brockman, Mrs. Krabappel, Apu, and Quimby (yes I know there are no refrences, but I don't care much for doing those.) Anyway, give me a ring if you need something. Rhino131 17:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I think Flanders is pretty important. I could use help finding internet sources. Do you think you could help out there? -- Scorpion 03:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I would think so, although I'm new to that sort of thing, and I don't know when I will be available, but tell me what you need and I'll see what I can do. Rhino131 19:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
You could find Harry Shearer interviews that mention Flanders. -- Scorpion 19:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I have not found any interviews yet, but I did find a site which might be useful. I think the second paragraph would help the most. ]Rhino131 15:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, that is the exact kind of thing I was hoping for. Do you have that Religion and The Simpsons book? I'd be willing to bet that it would have some good stuff in it. -- Scorpion 22:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't. How about checking a library or bookstore? I would think they would have it. Rhino131 18:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Project page

I finally got sick of having to edit two seperate pages every time I tried to fix something, so I merged the two halves of the project page into the main one and gave it a slightly different look. What do others think of it? -- Scorpion 03:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I kind of liked the old look better, and I was never bothered by having to edit two pages, but I don't have a problem with keeping it if others prefer it the current way. Rhino131 19:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I prefer the old look too. --Maitch 18:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I went back to it then. -- Scorpion 19:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Discusion about "Homerpedia" at the FAC talk page

There is thread of discussion at the Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates about the numerous Simpsons episodes of FA status and why and such. Just a head's up. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 19:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's something else. -- Scorpion 19:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
That discussion = LOL. I mean, God, how is it a bad thing that we write good stuff? Gran 20:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I see their point. After all, it is partly true that there are more important subjects out there than The Simpsons, but as long as we're improving the encyclopedia, I see no harm done. ✗iℎi✗(talk) 03:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I found a good source

I finally found a good source for the best musical moments from Rolling Stone magazine. Use where needed. -- Scorpion 04:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Parentage to Comedy WikiProject?

I was wondering if the Comedy WikiProject is a parent to this WikiProject? Is it so and it should be noted on the WikiProject? ISD 20:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, since 95% of our articles do fall under the comedy umbrella, then probably yes. Although it's kind of weird since the Simpsons WikiProject came first. I think the Comedy wikiproject could claim parentage to a lot of television show WPs. -- Scorpion 20:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll add it our list. ISD 20:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Dispute over Treehouse of Horror XVIII's cultural references section

I've started a discussion here over an editors continual addition of an obscure reference without a source. He has reverted four editors a dozen times in 4 days, so I figured it was time to draw some kind of consensus, even though policy supports its removal. So could people please take a look at the discussion? Thanks, Scorpion 22:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible page name Treehouse of Horror (series)

The page is now a GAC, but I think it could use a name change, so I proposed one. You can find the disucssion here. -- Scorpion 01:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for easier navigation

 Done

To make navigation easier for between episodes of different seasons, I was thinking of suggesting this idea. In the episode's infobox, under where it says the season number and above the date where the season ran through, there would be a smaller selection of numbers which would represent each season. The season that it was on then would obviously be in black and unclickable, whereas the other seasons would be clickable. Sound any good? xihix(talk) 00:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it sounds like a good idea. Much easier to navigate, as I had suggested in an earlier post Ctjf83 00:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to do that before but I wasn't able to figure out the correct code. -- Scorpion 00:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

External links at Lisa Simpson

An IP has decided to add a link to LTS, a small forum dedicated to Lisa. He's been misinterpreting policy and is focusing on the one statement that kinda but doesn't really support him and is ignoring the 3 statements that definitely oppose it's inclusion. The discussion is here. Either way, I'm concerned that he will report this at the forum and then we'll get to deal with Meatpuppets, so could people please keep an eye on the discussion and the page and watch for any socks? Thanks, Scorpion 07:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to keep an eye on the page. Weird website though, seems like some of them have some deep obsessions with Lisa... example: "I love her very much. I can connect many songs with her. She helps me through a lot of tough situations, all I have to do is think of her. Every night as I fall asleep, I keep her in my thoughts in hopes of dreaming about her. As previously stated in the thread "Lisa Dreams" if I could have one wish, it would be to hold her in my arms forever." That quote isn't even scratching the surface on how weird some of the people there are. xihix(talk) 02:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Little Pwagmattasquarmsettport

Is Little Pwagmattasquarmsettport located in Springfield's State? -- Simply south (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

there is no evidence that it is, or is not located in Springfield's State Ctjf83 21:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons: Testify

A user continually adds information about the song "Hullaba Lula" which was included on the CD as an unaired bonus track and is sung by Sideshow Bob. He claims he got the information from the booklet, which says the song was recorded for "Simpsons Tall Tales". However, once you listen to the song, it becomes quite clear that it's from Day of the Jackanapes because it contains the lyrics "I can't wait to kill Krusty today, Bart takes the wrap while I get away" and he also mentions explosives. So it's now turned into one of those silly "verifiability vs. truth" debates. I don't know about anyone else, but I hate knowingly including inaccurate information and even if it DOES have a source, it's still questionable. I have suggested that the song be listed on the page without an episode, but apparantly that makes me a vandal. Either way, could some folks chip in opinions at the talk page? Thanks, Scorpion 23:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I need ideas

I feel like working on something new, but I'm not sure what to work on, does anyone have any suggestions? I feel like something I could have done in 1-2 weeks.

My first thought is Montgomery Burns as it would be challenge, but still manageable. I used to think that listening to all of the commentaries for major characters would be too difficult, but I managed to do it for Flanders. Also, I might be able to pick up some useful stuff for Waylon Smithers. -- Scorpion 05:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have always thought that there could be made some interesting out of the religion page. It could be a FA if we used all the sources available. --Maitch (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Rod and Todd Flanders

I was wondering what people thought about including the jokes about them potentially being gay in the Background section of that article. And a user seems to think that the two sentences in the article right now aren't enough. If memory serves, there have only been three one-liners, and it seems to me that having a detailed paragraph about them in such a small section seems like undue weight. After all, it is such a small miniscule part of their characters because they have been in dozens of episodes and mentioning all three jokes in detail gives readers unfamiliar with The Simpsons the impression that this is actually important to their character, when it isn't. Besides, in most character articles, we tend to avoid one-off jokes unless it illustrates an important part of a character. As well, a large part of the justification seems to be based on OR and POV, for example, one reason given to me was that it "speaks to issues of Christian parenting of gay children and the irony that certain accepted forms of protectionistic parenting actually manifests in gay appearing characteristics" What do others think?

For those curious: this is what the article was like yesterday, this is the version where a random user decided to make almost the entire section about their sexuality, this is the version that mentions all three jokes in detail (but less detail and OR than the previous version) , and this is the most recent version. -- Scorpion 03:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree...it is ridiculous to mention it, unless there is a whole episode that focuses on it in the future. It is different then Smithers, who, while no episode has focused exclusive on it, has had several mentions of it Ctjf83 03:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

 Done

If someone gets a chance this user deleted the years from a lot of the air dates of episodes for some reason, so if someone can revert them...i'd do it, but i'm late for work already! Ctjf83 13:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I undid all of his edits. --Maitch (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

New Template/Article Overhaul Proposal

There is a proposition for overhauling the rather poorly laid out and messy List of characters in The Simpsons page with a new template to keep things nice and tidy. See the discussion here. .:Alex:. 17:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up. User:Gran2 is working on his own overhaul of that list (see User:Gran2/Sandbox3). I kind of prefer the list to be ordered by appearence. I can't decide whether the list should use tables or not. --Maitch (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
When I do get around to finishing that (probably over Christmas), I think I'll convert it to a basic table, but it needs sources, that;s the main thing. Gran 15:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Spoofs Section

Hello, I am fairly new to Misplaced Pages as a writer but have used Misplaced Pages almost daily since it was first around. I recently got into an edit war with a user over a section called spoofs which would include continuity problems in each episode, ie, hair is strait in one scene and the camera changes, and the hair is curly. A lot of people follow The Simpsons episodes spoofs and I think it would be a valuable addition to each episode guide. You may or may not agree with me but I think it is part of the Simpson culture that they have those spoofs in each episode making them worth mentioning. Thank you for your time. --Madscientist013 (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You can always add content to the articles if it is sourced. It is, however, very difficult to find sources for this and that is why we don't have these kinds of sections. You cannot write about something you have figured out yourself, since that would be original research. --Maitch (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
That's part of the problem I guess, the only source would be from the episode but then again so is the plot summary that is written by watching each episode as well. What makes it acceptable that we can have a plot section based off of watching the episode but we cannot have a spoof section written by watching the same episode? This comes back to the point that people will still edit the content saying that we don't need a section for spoofs. How is it decided what we put into an episode article and what we don't? I understand we don't want articles to get too cluttered but isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia to give the reader as much information as possible? We shouldn't exclude content when it's relevant! --Madscientist013 (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hang on a minute do you mean "goofs"? Because an animation error is not a "spoof", a spoof is an intentional, funny parody of something. And as for goofs, the only things we mention are truly notable, colossal plot points (the old Simpson farmhouse burning down, and then coming back fully built, for example). Most other goofs are just pointless trivia and goofs section themselves violate WP:EPISODE. Gran 15:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I meant goofs. The specific goof I am talking about is in the episode Funeral for a Fiend is that Bob's father is on the stand but when the camera pans to the court room audience, he is clearly visible on the end of one of the rows. I would think that a goof like that would be notable. Is there a certain criteria for notable goofs?--Madscientist013 (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

To answer your second question, a plot summary is a pretty straightforward reporting of what happened, so no inference is required. For spoofs, it usually requires original research to determine what exactly is being spoofed. Animation and continuity goofs are generally avoided because they are not particularly notable, and can be cruft. You may be able to find an alternative outlet that will accept this information. I think IMDb solicits content from viewers, for example. Natalie 22:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, for GA or FA articles it is customary to finish the plot summaries with a reference to the simpsons.com or the bbc website. View Kamp Krusty (one of my articles) for an example. Even though the sites referenced have little or no information on the plot, and most of the information was derived from watching the episode, it is still a necesary step to get and article to GA status. Hope that helps! --Simpsons fan 66 02:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This could be a problem

user:Ed g2s has randomly decided to remove every nonfree image in the season 19 episode pages with the rationale "image not discussed in text". This could end up being a problem if he decides to continue it with other seasons because these anti-image folks always support each other and any argument we have will be over-ruled by them. The way I see it is that the lead images usually illustrate key plot points, and these key plot points are usually discussed in the text. Either way, everyone should keep an eye on the situation. -- Scorpion 00:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This might be a stupid question, but why can't we just talk about the images in the text? Because "image not discussed in text" seams to me like someone's saying that what the image is about is not described in the text, and all we would need to do would be to write something and put it in. But there are so many reasons why a image is "nonfree" that I could never understand them. But I will keep an eye out, because I think the images give an article a sense of completeness, for lack of a better word. Rhino131 (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Do the images have FU rationales? Or is he ignoring them and deleting anyway? --Simpsons fan 66 02:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Robert Canning's reviews

There has recently been a lot of activity from new users and IPs over the inclusion of the reviews of Robert Canning. For those unfamiliar with him, he is an IGN reporter and has been reviewing episodes for them for about a year now. As such, many season 18 and 19 pages have his opinions on them. Several users have raised issues with the inclusion of them, such as at here and here, and some IPs have gone as far as just removing his stuff from the pages. One reason given was "it's a little pretentious to put one guys review of an episode in the reception section" but in my opinion, one review is better than none, and if there were more reviews from other reliable sources, they would all be included but unfortunately there isn't a lot of choice out there. I think another part of the reason is that a lot of fans disagree with his opinions, because we have reviews from random people on some our GAs and FAs and nobody has ever tried to remove those. He is kind of an idiot, but like it or not he is a professional reviewer with a notable website known for its reviews, and they add notability to an article. Without them, the only sourced stuff on many of these pages would be the plot sections, and the WP:EPISODE guidelines say that articles where the only sourced information is the plot should go. Anyway, I am open to removing his reviews if others think they should go. -- Scorpion 00:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I personally think that since you(referring to whoever included the reviews) are just exploiting a loop-hole basically that the articles are, by Misplaced Pages standards, not notable enough to warrant not being deleted. However, I think deleting the articles would be a travesty as it is obvious that someone(or some people) has put a lot of work into the articles. I feel that every episode of the Simpsons is notable based solely on its place in the American culture and that the WP:EPISODE guidelines fall a little short in this respect. Anyway, while I think the reviews lower the overall quality of the article, if their inclusion is necessary to the existence of the article, I'm for leaving them in. Perhaps someone could work on improving the way in which they're included? -Gulp Dratsum (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Those are good reasons Scorpion, so it can be kept. But if anyone can find any other person's review so it is not just one guy's opinion, that would add a lot more to the articles. Rhino131 (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

How?

Hey guys. I would like to join your project, but how do I? Sorry if I'm any trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermario65 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

go to this link Ctjf83 21:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

Does anyone know how to set up a random quote box, like the LGBT one on my page. i think it would be kinda fun to have a simpsons random quote on my page Ctjf83 02:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

actually could a section be added to our portal?Ctjf83 03:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It's possible. I might try tackling that when I have some time this weekend. -- Scorpion 03:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Where do the qoutes come from? Are they randomly inputted from wikiquote or are they taken from a specially designed page? --Simpsons fan 66 07:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
umm...i was just thinking we could each import some quotes...and kinda vote or whatever on which should be put it...not sure how good of an idea that would be Ctjf83 20:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds great! I love Simpsons quotes, a year ago I started a repository on my laptop, where I take a screenshot of the scene and write the dialoge underneath using Paint. I've also memorised heaps of quotes oever the years since I bacame addicted to The Simpsons. Give us a call when you start the project, I'll be right there! --Simpsons fan 66 22:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Let's talk about this at the talk page for the portal itself. I already set this up for another portal which should hopefully become a featured portal very soon, and I'd be happy to set it up for Portal:The Simpsons as well. Cirt (talk) 07:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC).
    • Eh, whatever, you all have a good thread going here, so I'll continue it here. It wouldn't take me too long to set this up at all. In the other portal, every single quote has its own subpage, with a citation to the source where the quote came from. So the question becomes: do we want the portal to have randomized quotes from notable people from The Simpsons production staff, and other commentators about episodes and the series (could be sourced to DVD commentaries, etc.) or do we just want to pull quotes from the many episodes themselves, from Wikiquote, and just source it to each episode as a primary source? My thoughts: -- As Wikiquote already has an extensive collection of The Simpsons quotes directly from the episodes, it would be more interesting and valuable for the portal to not have any quotes from the episodes themselves, but rather from people in the production staff and other commentators about the show and making various parts of the show. Some requirements I thought up for the quotes subpage at Portal:Scientology:
  1. Each quote must be from a different individual, no two quotes from the same person.
  2. Each quote must be from someone "notable", who also already has a Misplaced Pages article about them. (Plenty of articles on production staff of The Simpsons, and we could use one from say Roger Ebert about the film too.)
  3. Each quote must have a citation of where the quote was stated on that subpage below the quote.

I'll set up the template subpages for the randomized quotes, and we can then fill in the actual quotes later. At the moment at Portal:Scientology, there are 20 quotes that are randomly selected, with (3) shown at any given time. I made sure there was a balance between the POV of the various quotes, but with a topic much less controversial like The Simpsons I don't think that will be an issue. Cirt (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC).

well when i first thought this up, my intentions were to have random funny quotes from characters. make it a fun part of wiki. also it wasn't my thoughts to necessarily put it on the portal page, just have it linked from there, i guess. i just wanted funny or fun quotes to have pop up on my page Ctjf83 07:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I just think that would be a duplication of what Wikiquote already does. The portal already has a link to Wikiquote, with lots and lots of quotes from individual episodes. But nowhere do we have a section with randomized quotes from people about the show. Tell you what, let me fill it in and create all the pages with quotes about the show, and then tell me what you think? Cirt (talk) 07:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC).
ok, that sounds good cirt....but for my page, is it possible for you to make a random quote generator, but with far less quotes then wikiquotes, and with ones i pick or if others want it too, a consensus that we come to for quotes to include? Ctjf83 07:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, if consensus is to use quotes from episodes and not quotes from production staff and commentators on the show, I should wait before filling in quotes and doing the sourcing work. So I'll wait for more people to weigh in on this. Another point is that I just hope that people don't edit war and argue about which quotes from which episodes to use from which character, if we are doing with quotes from episodes and not production staff. Cirt (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC).
    • I'm going to go ahead and Be Bold and create it from production staff and commentators. We can always change it later or add an additional quotebox for quotes from episodes/characters as well. Or have one quotebox for the portal and a separate one display on the WikiProject page. Hrm, that might actually be the best solution for this. Cirt (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC).
      •  Done -- Added a new Selected quotes section to Portal:The Simpsons. If you like, I could do the same for the WikiProject - only with quotes from episodes. Better yet, I could just set up the formatting, and other editors could fill it in for the WikiProject version. Cirt (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC).
We need some kind of standards for quotes to select if we do characters too. I don't think it should be limited to just one per character though, because Homer has tons that would be great, anyone have standards ideas? Ctjf83 16:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, when you work that stuff out, message my talk page and let me know, and I'll set up the random quote generation stuff for you. Check out Portal:The Simpsons Quotes section to see it in action. Cirt (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC).
I Agree with Ctjf83, Character quotes are way too good to pass up. --Simpsons fan 66 22:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A new repeat vandal

Well, we've got a new repeat vandal out there and this guy is one of those pesky ones that can easily switch IPs. And his IPs are completely different every time, not nice and similar like the Hidden Message Vandal, whose addresses always began with 86. The good news is this guy only seems to like to hit a half dozen pages and seems to be adding the same stuff every time, which makes him easier to track. However, he seems to be on all hours of the day and has been back 5 seperate times today alone (all with the same IP, the admins refuse to ban it for some reason). The IP he's currently using is 124.178.173.231 although he's used several. His IPs are all registered to Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre and he's located in Perth, Australia. His favourite targets are:

So everyone put those pages on watch and check every single IP edit made to those pages. -- Scorpion 03:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What sort of vandalism is he doing? --Simpsons fan 66 03:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
You can check the histories of any of those pages for more specific stuff, but basically he adds nonsense. He keeps changing every mention of the word Christmas in Kill Gil: Vols. 1 & 2‎ to crime and he's made similar edits to The Simpsons opening sequence‎ where he keeps changing the section about the christmas themed opening to a crime themed version. To the chalk board and couch gag pages he just adds nonsense and switches things around. To the seasons 7 and 18 pages he switches guest star names. His edits to List of The Simpsons episodes‎ are a tad more worrying. He keeps switching the titles of Treehouse of Horror V and Bart's Girlfriend, so it looks like BG aired first (it didn't). The reason it's worrying is because random IPs have been doing that since last January, so this guy has been out there potentially vandalizing pages for a year and we're just noticing him now. -- Scorpion 04:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

New random character quote generator

Portal peer review

Portal:The Simpsons is on Portal Peer Review. Your feedback/comments would be appreciated, at Misplaced Pages:Portal peer review/The Simpsons, before I eventually nominate the portal to be a Featured Portal Candidate. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

Everyone keep an eye on The Simpsons

It's going to be on the main page in a few hours, and there will likely be heavy vandalism. The page was for some reason unprotected a few hours ago and has since been vandalised several times. -- Scorpion 19:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Its one of the most targeted pages in history, its going to be on the main page... Unprotection = madness. Gran 19:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Traditionally, Admins try to leave WP:TFA unprotected, that way it's sort of like a welcoming for new users. Cirt (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC).
I know that, but it's never made a lot of sense to me. On any normal day, The Simpsons is vandalised by multiple users, and has been protected for almost a year. And now on the day that it's the most high profile article on Misplaced Pages, it's just unblocked? I think that in some cases, articles should be left unprotected, but in this case it should be. -- Scorpion 20:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
You'd be surprised, after having an article I was the WP:FAC nom for up at WP:TFA, I've seen firsthand the great job that Admins and other editors do by pitching in to revert vandalism and to do their best to keep the article stable. You could try to put in a request at WP:RFPP, but it probably wouldn't succeed. Cirt (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC).

Discussion about Simpsons episodes at WP:EPISODE

Misplaced Pages talk:Television episodes#List of The Simpsons episodes. -- Scorpion 04:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Season 8 Featured Topic

It appears that the Featured Topic criteria was amended at some point, and now says that one third of the articles in a topic must be featured. In the case of Season 8, that means 4 of the Good articles should be raised to Featured Status, in order to prevent the removal of its status, as after the new year there is going to be a shakeout of Featured Topics no longer meeting the criteria. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

  • It doesn't tell us how many we'd need for 26 articles, but I think they are mainly concerned with the smaller topics being all GAs. If we have 4 or 5 Featured pages, we should be okay. -- Scorpion 20:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
No I think they are pretty clear that they want one third of them to be featured, it says so in the criteria. If you want clarification, I would ask them, but I was just giving you a heads up that someone may challenge the topics FT status. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
It's been implemented since July, and nobody has come after the topic yet. And on the talk page, one of the regulars says 3/27 would be acceptable and season 8 is 4/26. -- Scorpion 22:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, that is odd....well, just keep an eye out, guess there isn't a reason to worry yet. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Got it cleared up, your right the standards aren't that tight yet that the Simpsons topic or the one being built need to worry :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Where did you get it cleared up? Cirt (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC).

Simpsons WikiProject Triple Crown

I, Durova, am pleased to award this special edition triple crown to WikiProject The Simpsons and its hardworking volunteers. Durova 00:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Your Majesties, thank you for all your hard work. This award is for the project itself. When more people qualify to join please let me know. Best wishes, Durova 00:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

742 Evergreen Terrace

One of the anti-fiction brigade is questioning the pages notability. Is it worth trying to save, or should it be merged somewhere? There was a real version built and there is a DVD extra about it, so we could get some good info. -- Scorpion 00:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a toss up for me...there is a lot of extra stuff that doesn't need to be there, but what would you merge it with? Simpson family or The Simpsons main page, or something else Ctjf83 22:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
This one is pretty borderline, IMO. Perhaps the best solution for now would be to cut it down to a couple of paragraphs and merge into Simpson family. I think one paragraph describing the house as it appears in the show and one paragraph with info on the real house, the DVD extra, and the inconsistency of numbering would be about right. If more stuff happens with the house later on, we can always un-merge. Natalie 22:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to me to be an article worth its own page. It has no references, nor will it ever due to its fictional nature. The bit about the real life version is good, but the stuff about damage and furniture looks like trivia to me. Sorry, but i'm going with a merge, and a reduction of some of the trivia lists. I agree with Natalie, if something notable happens to it later on it can be unmerged. --Simpsons fan 66 02:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised Judgesurreal hasn't targeted other Simpsons articles (or has he?). This might barely pass the notability test; I'll see what I can find in books and newspapers. Zagalejo^^^ 02:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
There's a good amount of info on the "real version" in Henderson, Nevada. I'm finding several newspaper articles about it, ranging from 1997 to 2004. I think that alone could pass WP:N. As far as other real-world context goes, we could mention that Groening grew up on Evergreen Terrace in Portland, and possibly throw in information from the DVD commentaries (eg, in at least one episode, Groening says that he wanted to have a consistent floor plan.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can remember, he hasn't gone after any other Simpsons articles, but he does seem to be a hardcore anti-fiction mergist. He's gone after some pretty notable characters, like Fox McCloud. As for the article, if we think it is worth keeping, I'll give the DVD extra a listen and see what I can add to the page. -- Scorpion 03:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I remember them saying that they actually made a real map over the house somewhere on the season one commentaries, but I can't remember which one. They further explained that they abandoned the map to use a flexible reality instead. This bit could be included if we find the right episode. The article in its current state is pretty bad. --Maitch 09:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I know that in the Three Men and a Comic Book commentary they make a big deal about the room with the bean bag chair which was never seen before. Zagalejo^^^ 09:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
There are quite a few asides about furniture appearing when necessary and then disappearing immediately (one that comes to mind is their fishtank in Rosebud, as well as the episode when Homer buys Pinchy). However, that information is really only one sentence, unless we want to compile all the different things that appear when needed, which is venturing into cruft territory. It seems like the house does pass WP:N, but really just barely, which is why I'd be in favor of a merge for now. Natalie 12:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Ummm, I am not "anti-fiction", as most of my work has been with Final Fantasy and other fiction related stuff, I just want articles to follow our notability guidelines, just so you know. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What is going on with this? it has been over 2 weeks since the last discussion and nothing has happened Ctjf83 07:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist

 Done Misplaced Pages:WikiProject The Simpsons/Watchlist

Is it possible to make a Simpsons watch list like the LGBT watchlist or is it not feasible due to the large number of articles under the Simpsons Ctjf83 07:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  1. Special:Recentchangeslinked/Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/The Simpsons articles by quality/1
  2. Special:Recentchangeslinked/Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/The Simpsons articles by quality/2

Cirt (talk) 08:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC).

This user keeps track of The Simpsons watchlist

{{User:Ctjf83/The Simpsons Watchlist}} if you would like to use this userbox Ctjf83 09:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

FOX vs. Fox

Resolved

I think we need to stick with all capitals: FOX when referring to the network. Their own website has all capitals so that is how we should list it on here Ctjf83 08:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (trademarks): "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official': ie. TIME should be Time." So according to the MOS, Fox is correct way to do it. Gran 08:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
ya, but you didn't read "but, don't invent new formats: MCI is standard English, while "Mci" is essentially never used." NBC, ABC, and CBS are all listed in capitals on this site. Ctjf83 18:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the difference is that NBC/ABC/MCI/etc. are all abbreviations - you read "N" "B" "C". You do not read n'bus, or Abs. Fox is pronounced Fox - not "F" "O" "X". Mci is rarely used. Fox is commonly used; The company also calls itself 20th CENTURY FOX - but I don't think anyone disagrees that wikipedia should use non-caps. While NBC, ABC, CBS lend to the argument that Fox should be FOX, these other networks just happen to be abbreviations. Fox isn't one.
I should point out that I have been a user of "FOX" in articles, but this observation of the MOS indicates that this is not what should be used. TheHYPO (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Well I think we need to follow the stations format...since you guys are trying to "invent new formats". everywhere you go it is FOX, except on wikipedia Ctjf83 18:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe that's just out interpratation of the policy then, so perhaps you should ask at the MOS talk page, to gerner some more opinions. Gran 18:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
i'm not that worried, i'm just concerned with our project...do you guys even have FOX outside America? Ctjf83 18:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Fox Broadcasting Company itself uses Fox. --Maitch (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

when it is listed as that whole group...notice when it is stand alone, it is FOX Ctjf83 19:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

When I look at it again it is actually pretty inconsistant. Anyway, I would definately say it should be Fox, because it is named after William Fox (producer) and this is how I read it should be according to MoS. --Maitch (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
they clarified usage at MOS Ctjf83 19:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
In response to your comment that "Fox" is making up usage, the question isn't whether usage OTHER THAN the company's should be made up, the question is whether usage other than in any public usage should be made up (IE: noone would write MCI - not a newspaper, not a magazine, not a person writing it in a letter...) whereas if you look up Fox online, you will find infinite uses of the term as "Fox". here is a story, of all places, on "FOX News" (which even uses "Fox News Channel" once in their footer), which uses "Fox". Stories often use "NBC" "ABC" but "Fox". So this is not an invented usage. TheHYPO (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image rationale on image pages

Handy dandy tool for you to use in the future
{{Non-free use rationale
| Description       = 
| Source            = 
| Article           = 
| Portion           = 
| Low_resolution    = 
| Purpose           = 
| Replaceability    = 
| other_information = (optional variable, can be left out) 
}}

It's from Template:Non-free use rationale, and there is an alternate one at Template:Fair use media rationale. Personally I use this occasionally in addition to the traditional list of fair use rationale stuff, but I think you can also use it instead of that. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC).

Rape of Homer

G'day

I have added information on the talk page of Strong Arms of the Ma about the Rape of Homer by Marge in this episode, however I do not have access to the original episode. Could somebody who does, validate the information that was provided on the talk page. Specifically how, and in what way Homer refuses Marge's advances (the exact word would be nice). Thanks. The bellman (talk) 02:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Why exactly is that notable? It's a one-off joke, not a major plot point. -- Scorpion 20:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Update on The Simpsons portal

Trivia and CR

'Minimize trivia and cultural references. In many cases, they become cruft magnets and it is best to just get rid of them completely so that IP users don't continually add random stuff.'

WP:TRIV 'This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. - If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.'

I think your guidance above with removal of trivia and cultural refs is wrong. It's not 'best' to remove valid, sourced, interesting and relevant information either to the talk page or completely purely because it is presented as trivia or CR or under some other heading. This has happened in several cases. Removal of sourced information without any effort to add it to the main body of the article, or preserve it - even if it has to stay as trivia - is against the guidance and the spirit of Misplaced Pages.

I suggest a change to just 'Avoid use of additional fact or trivia sections sections unless absolutely necessary, discuss removal of said items and remove only at last resort' or something less drastic. (Unfortunately this being a wikipedia-wide issue, I cant see any easy way around it.) --Jw2034 (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2007 (GMT)

It depends what the information is. If it is a factual comment that someone has added that has a reference somewhere but they don't know how to add it, then that peice can be left in if the article is refurbished. If the trivia is evidently POV or similar, then it is removed. Most of the time it is up to the discretion of the person revamping the article. Often random IP's will add things that are from an episode's commentary in the trivia section, but do not have the expertise to add a reference for it. --Simpsons fan 66 10:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

2007 stats comparison

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

The Simpsons
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Class
FA 2 2
A 1 1
GA 1 1
B 6 26 15 8 55
Start 2 28 415 64 27 536
Stub 5 22 84 53 164
Unassessed
Total 11 60 452 156 80 759

And this is what it looks like now:

The Simpsons
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
FA 2 9 7 1 19
A 1 1 1 3
GA 2 6 59 67
B 4 17 9 4 34
Start 1 32 385 69 3 490
Stub 1 23 108 19 151
Assessed 10 66 484 182 22 764
Total 10 66 484 182 22 764

Pretty good. I'm actually surprised that we had an overall article gain, because we merged over 30 character pages and lost dozens of cruft lists, locations and other trivial things. However, we gained about 20 episode pages and dozens of random crew members, so I guess it works out. The reason our number of B class articles went down is because several were promoted to GA, but the main reason is that I was a pretty bad reviewer in those days and I considered anything with a large trivia section to be B class. And for those curious, the 2 Featured quality articles we had at the end of last year were The Simpsons and List of The Simpsons episodes, while the GA was Homer Simpson. All other Simpsons GAs, FAs and FLs were promoted in 2007. -- Scorpion 21:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. Maybe we should make a list of the most important targets for next year. Our nearest FA prospects, articles we really should try and improve etc. From my perspective The Simpsons Movie is almost there and will almost certainly be an FA by the end of 2008. And after rewriting it earlier, with a bit more work we could get Hank Azaria to FA, because it isn't that different from Cillian Murphy in length. As for targets? All of the season pages, more episodes and characters, if I get around to starting it Phil Hartman and maybe James L. Brooks. Any other ideas? Gran 23:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You're forgetting Treehouse of Horror (series), it's a vote away from FA so unless something dramatic happens, odds are that it will be our first FA of 2008 (although all of the work was done in 2007). Anyway, some goals for 2008 could be:
Have all five family members pages at at least GA status (Maggie will be the most difficult)
Get Sideshow Bob and/or Ned Flanders and/or Waylon Smithers and/or Homer Simpson to FA
Get a few more character pages to GA (as of right now, Kang and Kodos and Mona Simpson (The Simpsons) are closest)
Get all of our character pages up to WP:FICT standards
Work on getting Matt Groening to FA
Get another behind the scenes person (Brooks? Silverman? Swartzwelder?) or maybe a voice actor (Castellaneta? Hartman? Shearer?) to GA
Work on improving some of our theme pages like Religion in The Simpsons (which could be FA with a LOT of work).
To be honest, I'm once again kind of burnt out on episode pages, these days I like to work on more challenging tasks, but I'm sure I'll add a few more episode GAs to the list. Episode pages are all good, but I think there are more important pages to work on. -- Scorpion 23:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It has been a good year and the project has grown a lot. I remember when it was just me and another guy. I definately think we should give more attention to articles besides the episodes. There are still quite a few interesting articles to be written and I think it is sad the we have not improved the articles about the main family characters up to FA status. I think that should be a goal for 2008. --Maitch (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to put my two cents in, I agree with all who say characters are important. I think its well known that many people like the show because of all the different characters that have distinctive and recognizable personalities, catch phrases, etc. As for the chart, its amazing all that happened in a year. Rhino131 (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Vote rigging

I would like to say to the newcomers of this project. We have in the past been accused of vote rigging whenever our articles are up for FA status or something else. People are upset if the votes comes from people from the same WikiProject. Therefore I would like you to stop doing it in the future and I hope nobody notices it in Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Treehouse of Horror (series). --Maitch (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Scorpion had asked me earlier to take a look at the article and fix anything. I looked at it, and I really liked it and decided to support. Sorry :/ xihix(talk) 18:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
In a case where an individual has heavily contributed to a particular article up at FAC, but they wish to provide comments, they could do so by putting down Comment., instead of Support.. With regards to this particular FAC, I have not contributed to that article, and in addition to the "Support" I also did later provide constructive commenting. Cirt (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC).

Is a Simpsons insider editing Misplaced Pages?

This is really weird and sounds far fetched, but it might be possible that a Simpsons insider has been editting Bob Anderson's page, or it could just be a coincidence.

On July 28, 2007, the IP 66.151.166.5 edited Bob Anderson's article and added several episodes, including "I Don't Wanna Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" and one called "Dial "N" for Nerder", neither of which had aired. At the same time, the user added the title to The Simpsons (season 19) as well as the production code KABF06 which was reverted by me a few hours later. I finally noticed the edits to Bob Anderson on October 14 and removed both but the same IP returned and readded them . As it turns out, the IP was correct because Bob Anderson did direct I Don't Wanna Know Why the Caged Bird sings. This IP was located in Littleton, Colorado and has made several edits to Misplaced Pages, to a variety of entertainment related pages (including Wes Archer ) both before and after July 28 with the most recent edit being December 15.

Today, a different IP (12.72.9.108) appeared and readded the same information . This one was located in Los Angeles, which is what has been making me suspicious. Unlike the first IP, it has never editted before. The episode title he has been adding is "Dial N for Nerder", which has not been announced, although a similar title called "N is for Nerder" was mentioned by Nancy Cartwright in an article. The first IP added the title "Dial "N" for Nerder" while the second added "Dial 'N' for Nerder", which indicates that the user didn't just revert to the previous version.

So what do you think? Is it just a huge coincidence and the editor is simply a vandal who made a lucky guess, or is it some kind of insider? -- Scorpion 19:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Weird. Could be a coincidence, maybe we should ask the guy, although what's to say he couldn't just say he was anyway... but its worth a shot. Gran 19:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, aside from Lost Verizon, its the only future episode that wasn't confirmed via the copyright database. So it is plausible that Nancy just got the tite wrong in the interview or it was changed (assuming its real of course..) "Dial 'N' for Nerder" sounds more like the sort of title that would be used... in my view anyway. Gran 19:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I also found this, although the article says that it was episode pages that were editted and doesn't mention any other specifics. -- Scorpion 19:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if they did. Misplaced Pages has been mentioned twice now in the show, and once in the comic, I believe. Maybe it's their way of telling us information in advance without getting in any trouble? Who knows, but this is pretty interesting. xihix(talk) 21:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages has been mentioned Numerous times on the DVD Commentaries too - Linczone 22:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Oooh, which ones? I'd like to hear them. xihix(talk) 23:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
In one of the season 9 ones featuring Al Jean & Mike Reiss (Simpson Tide I think), Jean says that Misplaced Pages claims his father looks like Homer. (I think that actually is actually based on one of the commentaries where Jean says Homer's behaviour in an episode is similar to that of his father) Anyway, that claim is incorrect, then Reiss says he was impressed with Misplaced Pages's coverage of The Simpsons (this would have been early 2006) and one of them says their mother is big into Misplaced Pages. That's the only extended mention I can think of. -- Scorpion 01:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, they thought it was informative in 2006? Heh. xihix(talk) 01:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

FU Rationales

I think I may have started a wikivirus. When I first learned about the Fair Use rationales, I copied the one from the Cape Feare image. Unfortunately, this rationale included "It illustrates the rake sequence discussed in the article and the lengths the producers would go to in order to fill time." I thoughtlessly added this text to a fair few images before I realised my error. Since then it seems to have spread to a dozen or so images throughout season 4 and other seasons. I apologise for my error. People might want to check the rationales on their favourite articles to see if they have been affected. --Simpsons fan 66 03:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A Question

Does The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson seem like it needs a Themes section? I understand that Cirt made two fantastic ones for the episodes he contributed to, but really is a lack of a major theme in the episode, especially one that has no references for. I will be finishing up the Reception section today or tomorrow and then reference everything, and it should be ready. xihix(talk) 23:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Uhh... That's what I'm going for. Also, You Only Move Twice didn't have a Theme section. xihix(talk) 23:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
First GA, then PR, then we can address that stuff later. Cirt (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC).
Ah, OK then. xihix(talk) 23:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I just remembered a question I was going to ask earlier. For the main image, should I keep the promotional art? It has it's fair use stuff, but it's not the usual promo art I see (Matt's name is usually on there). Should I replace it with an image from the episode? xihix(talk) 03:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is the work of MG. If you look closely, it looks like that image was done by someone outside the Simpsons production team. Marge and Lisa look weird, and Maggie looks bizarre. I would definitely get one from the episode. --Simpsons fan 66 06:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, that promo image really has nothing to do with the episode itself. Perhaps another pic of NYC buildings while the rest of the family tours the city Ctjf83 06:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright, thanks guys :) xihix(talk) 06:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons characters template conversion

I would like you all to take the time to consider converting Template:The Simpsons characters to the navbox format. Currently we need more opinions to decide. The discussion can be found here. --Maitch (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Image rationales

Over the next three months there will be quite a lot of images tagged for lacking rationales, or lacking the name of the article the image is used in. See WP:TODAY and User:MiszaBot/Trackers/CAT:DFUI. I spotted a few Simpsons images, so if you guys have a standard rationale for your episode images, could you deal with these ones?

In case anyone was wondering, Image:Aabf13.jpg got missed because the name of the article "Maximum Homerdrive" is on the page (the link at the bottom of the page is automagically generated by the software, and doesn't count). Nevertheless, Image:Aabf13.jpg also needs a rationale. Hope that helps. Carcharoth (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Image:Aabf11.jpg got deleted. Possibly it has already been replaced. If not, let me know. Also, for more images uploaded without rationales, see here. Search for "springfield". The ones with blue links probably lack rationales - could you please add them? The red links could be undeleted - but only if they haven't been replaced already. Again, let me know if you want someone to look through them. Carcharoth (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 Done Thanks for the notice. xihix(talk) 03:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Time for a project collaboration?

Right now, we have a half a dozen active project members, a half a dozen contributing irregulars. Is it time for some kind of official coordinated collaboration effort? I mean, we always say "____ needs work", but then nobody really gets the ball rolling on improvement, so perhaps it's time for a collaboration everyone can vote it. Of course, collaborations often lose steam, they shoot out of the gate but then eventually users get tired of them and they kind of die off, especially the ones for the smaller projects. However, it might be worth a shot, and if we can get a couple of articles improved because of it, then it might all have been worth it. So, what does everyone think? -- Scorpion 18:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Deal. I can never really get started on anything, so having a specific article to work on will be a good idea. Gran 18:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm game. I think it should be one of those non FA artciles from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject The Simpsons/Core articles improvement drive. --Maitch (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Apologies, but as for me, I'm not too interested in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject The Simpsons/Core articles improvement drive. I'd rather work on whatever topic is at WP:DOH/TOPIC, which could be Simpsons characters by the way, or maybe at some point work on improving the quality status rating of something interesting like Religion in The Simpsons. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC).
I would love it if somebody would make something out of Religion in The Simpsons. It has the potential to become something great, but right now it is mostly crap. I don't, however, see it as subject for a collaboration. --Maitch (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Specifically, by making the chosen "topic" something other than a Season, like a set of something like "Simpsons characters" or "Simpsons families" or something like that, you could combine the efforts of a Collaboration drive and the Topic Drive. Cirt (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC).
It depends on the topic of collaboration. I can do episodes with ease because of the references I have, the small amount. With articles with so much, like a main character... Well, I'm not sure if I could do that. xihix(talk) 00:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Working on characters isn't as hard as it seems. Homer Simpson is a GA and it uses exactly one of the commentaries (although admittedly it isn't as good as our other GAs, and could easily be delisted). Working on the smaller characters isn't so bad (Gran had Troy McClure GA ready after a few days) and even the more major characters aren't as bad as you might think (it took me about a week for Flanders, and I had to listen to a dozen full commentaries). However, the collaboration wouldn't solely have to be for GAs, it could also be to get current GAs to FA status. I was thinking Matt Groening would be a good one, and Sideshow Bob, Flanders, Hank Azaria and Smithers could quite conceivably become FAs without a drastic amount of effort. -- Scorpion 00:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
An idea - make the next WP:DOH/TOPIC be "The Simpson Family"
  1. Simpson family
  2. Homer Simpson
  3. Bart Simpson
  4. Marge Simpson
  5. Lisa Simpson
  6. Maggie Simpson

Couldn't this be its own little Featured Topic? Cirt (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC).

It's an idea but there are a few bumps, such as the fact that it would be quite hard to get Simpson family promoted to GA, in fact, I once saw a discussion where they were seriously considering making it a requirement that all main topic articles be FAs or FLs. As well, some might require that the pages for the other Simpson family members - Grampa, SLH, Mona and Snowball also be included. It would be quite a challenge because the Homer page is in desperate need of an overhaul and Bart, Marge and Lisa are far off from GA. Maggie would also be difficult because there isn't a lot out there. It would be possible, but I was thinking more of a weekly collaboration where we could have an article substantially improved within seven days. -- Scorpion 00:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes yes, and that's all well and good - but why not have the weekly collaboration be something that also moves the project towards a specific Featured Topic at the same time ? Cirt (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC).
I think that we all can agree Homer, Bart, Marge, Lisa, and Maggie are our most important articles to be improved right now. I would therefore suggest that we start working on those. If we get them all up to FA standards then we could take a look at what eventually should be done in order for it to become a featured topic. --Maitch (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, can't diagree with that: the family are the main priority right now. So which one of them would be the best place to start? In terms of cultural importance (not counting Homer, because although it needs alot of work, it is for now a GA) Bart's page would probably be the first improvement I'd aim for. Gran 16:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I would start with Homer, since I don't consider that page GA worthy, but Bart is fine by me. --Maitch (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, no offense to whoever passed it, but these days I am stunned that it actually passed. Either way, it IS a GA, so right now our top priorities should be the others. I was thinking Marge because her page is in the worst shape. But, Bart would be fine with me. -- Scorpion 17:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

So how are we going to go about doing this then? I think we should make an official collaboration page to go alongside the FTD page, but make the first five collaborations members of the family. Then, we might be able to get a few non-regulars to get involved. -- Scorpion 22:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Maggie Simpson's voice section

Most of you are aware of this, but people have been adding cruft about Maggie speaking in The Simpsons Movie to the voice section of her page. The section in question is meant for real world info about her voice and contains info about who voices her and the reception of those actors (although I admit that it's far from perfect). Since the release of the movie, several IPs have been adding a statement along the lines of "During the closing credits of The Simpsons Movie Maggie says "Sequel", the first time she has spoken in front of other characters". However, I do not believe that it really warrants mention, because it's giving a small post-movie joke undue weight, and it doesn't provide any real world info. Even if you add who voices her, why does it warrant mention over the other times she's spoken in the series, and to list every time would be listcruft. It doesn't belong anywhere else in the article because it doesn't provide any overall info about the character. I have been pestered several times and called a totalitarian by an editor who seems to think it belongs based solely on the fact that a bunch of IPs who have no knowledge of Misplaced Pages policy have been adding it. There has been a prior discussion about it here. -- Scorpion 00:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about show runner commentaries

This may just be a Mike Scully thing (hopefully), but do the other show runners have better commentaries? When I was doing The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson, I was amazed at how much good stuff Bill Oakley was saying, om contrast to Scully's lack of detail on the production on the other episodes I did. xihix(talk) 03:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Scully is the worst of the show runners on commentaries as he reveals little about the process behind the episode. Oakley & Weinstein are both excellent on commentaries, as is David Mirkin and both Reiss and Jean provide good info. -- Scorpion 04:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
He's not a showrunner, but David X Cohen usually has interesting information about episodes he's written. Natalie (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Need help from someone with the region 1 season 1 DVD

I finally continued my work on Some Enchanted Evening (The Simpsons), but I have come to realize that I can't finish it since I only own the region 2 DVD. On the region 1 DVD there is an additional commentary on the deleted material, which might give some good background information. I am therefore asking if someone who owns the region 1 DVD can write the Some Enchanted Evening (The Simpsons)#Deleted scenes section for me. --Maitch (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the commentary about the bad version of the episode? I don't think it has much... -- Scorpion 11:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I don't know if has a lot of information, but if someone could check it out and say there is nothing usable then that would be a help too. I used to think that it would be an obvious FA, but now I don't really feel like there is enough information, so if the second commentary doesn't provide anything, then it can only become a GA. --Maitch (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it is mainly them complaining about the animation, but I'll give it a listen either tonight or tomorrow. -- Scorpion 13:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Matt Groening is joking about that on the original commentary track that it will be the only commentary that just consists of them screaming the entire time. --Maitch (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The Last Temptation of Krust on Peer Review

The Last Temptation of Krust has recently been passed as a Good Article, and is currently undergoing a Peer Review. Any comments/feedback on how to further improve the article's quality would be most appreciated, at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/The Last Temptation of Krust. Cirt (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here . --Maniwar (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Bart the General (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can we get some improvement on this immediately? It's been used for advocacy just because it's one of the freak cases where notability is not established. Will 00:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that, the guy who brought it up seems angry that episodes he's worked on were merged and is trying to create problems for the rest of us. I'll take a look at it when I have time. -- Scorpion 00:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeesh. There have been scientific studies using this episode. Of course it's notable. I'll put in some work on it, though it's not going to turn into an FA overnight. Zagalejo^^^ 02:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This could be useful as well. Zagalejo^^^ 05:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I have rewritten the article. If anybody has anything to add to it, it will be appreciated. --Maitch (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Good job on de-crufting and making the article relevant. I said it over in the discussion, but figured that since I was the one who brought up the article as an example in the ArbCom case, I should at least say congratulations. More folks should do what you guys are doing. SirFozzie (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Homer Simpson desperately needs clean up

With the GA folks currently doing sweeps to root out the bad articles, I am fairly sure that Homer Simpson would be delisted. He's such an important character and yet his page is short, not comprehensive and needs clean up. I did a copyedit today and added some stuff about culturak influence, but the page needs more, especially in the creation and development areas. The Role in The Simpsons section is also a big mess. If we all pitch in, and find some sources, we could have the page up to GA standards soon enough. -- Scorpion 17:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Time to merge the less notable Simpsons episode pages?

I'm going to be honest, I am sick and tired of seeing The Simpsons brought up in every single discussion about episodes. We have have 70 GAs and yet people still use Simpsons episodes as an example and say that the mergists should come after us. So perhaps it's time to shut the whiners up and merge the less notable episode pages with the main season pages? I was thinking that we could leave seasons 1-10 alone and focus on seasons 11-19 and merge the pages that likely won't have any chance of becoming GA. For example, an episode like Brawl in the Family is unlikely to ever get beyond just being a plot section with some unsourced trivia and CRs at least, not until the DVD comes out, which won't be for a while. So in those cases we could merge it, then recreate the page when more info comes out. We could leave some episodes: premieres, finales, award winners, controversial episodes, high profile episodes, and merge the rest from that era. If we do that, people might be less inclined to come after the classic era episodes (which are the notable ones). However, the problem with selective merging is the IPs and newer users. They'll come in and say "____ has a page, so why not ____" so it really is the "merge all or keep all" kind of situation. So what do others think? -- Scorpion 00:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should keep consistency with all of the episodes and let them have their own article. I can't see that merging them will do any good just because it seems as if they won't likely become GAs. Reginmund (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Another part is that many of them will likely never meet the WP:EPISODE guidelines. -- Scorpion 01:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sick of it too. I think we should merge the majority of seasons 11-17 - IGN at least has reviews of all episodes in 18 and 19. (). Will 01:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
No, we mustn't merge them. The DVD's will come eventually, and just bringing back the episodes then will be stupid in my opinion. Just keep them, because they will all improve eventually. Really, if some of the episodes I have made GA'd in the Season 9 drive can be GA'd (King of the Hill comes to mind), then any episode can. We just have to wait for more publications of Simpsons episodes. I also wanted to note that having half the episodes be an article and the rest not be, would seem sort of stupid, too. xihix(talk) 01:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
We'll restore them once the DVDs come out - nothing apart from oversight is permanent on a Wiki. Will 01:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Why not just leave them be? What's the rush? At least parts of the plot summary of a given episode would remain intact in the cleaned-up product. Zagalejo^^^ 01:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately plot sections isn't enough. It wouldn't hurt to wait for the season 11 and maybe even season 12 DVDs, but its going to be at least 2 years before we see DVDs for seasons 14+, so it's unlikely we'd be able to get some of them to meet notability requirements any time soon. -- Scorpion 01:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I am just a random editor who's trying to get the legacy articles from his own fandom in line with WP:EPISODE to escape the TTN fate (mostly by transwikiing, then redirecting), but I agree that the Simpsons articles are brought up way to often as bad examples when your project has achieved more than any other show episode-wise. Most people know that an article can only achieve GA/FA when you have sources and some experience, so leaving the episode articles up where you know they can't be fixed anytime soon, while disallowing other shows their crufty non-notability-establishing ep articles, is a little so-so. All eyes are on this project, so if you can agree that not all episodes should remain for the time being, that would certainly help to stop the trollish wikilayering. – sgeureka 01:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You've actually got a really good point there. -- Scorpion 01:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Meh. I'm going to oppose. Why not aim for completion? Despite popular perception, WP:NOTABILITY is not holy scripture; it's a guideline. Just let the whiners whine. Misplaced Pages gains absolutely nothing by merging these articles. Zagalejo^^^ 01:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Just because something is a guideline doesn't mean it shouldn't be followed most of the time. I agree that seasons 11-whenever are not yet especially notable, although there may be a few exceptions, and should be merged for the time being. We should not keep these articles simply because they may become notable at some point. They can be recreated quickly and easily if and when the individual episodes become notable, and no information will be lost. Natalie (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
We don't need articles on Yes, Dear episodes or Baby Bob episodes. But The Simpsons is one of the most important television shows of all time, so I think it's fair to provide comprehensive episode coverage - even if every article doesn't follow WP:EPISODE to a T. Zagalejo^^^ 02:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Zagalejo and Cirt myself. The episodes have been here for a while. And, notability doesn't just come when we know it's already there. I mean, as I mentioned before, I just think it would be stupid if we deleted the articles now and restored them when the DVD's come out. Why? Apart from what I just mentioned, is anyone going to just start work on the articles as soon as the DVD comes out? No. In fact, I know for sure that the first 10 seasons will be addressed before any of the others. Because of this, we might as well just keep them there. I hope what I said made sense. xihix(talk) 02:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
What about episodes from seasons 14-19, where DVDs are years away? -- Scorpion 02:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
DVDs aren't the only available sources for out-of-universe information. Let's try an experiment: pick a random episode from a post-classic season, and I'll see if I can dig up some newspaper reviews. Zagalejo^^^ 02:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay then, I'll give you one I had completely forgotten about and barely remember: Insane Clown Poppy. -- Scorpion 02:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I'll see if anything is available. Zagalejo^^^ 02:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned a couple of reviews and threw in a Drew Barrymore quote. I'm not done researching, but I have some real world things to attend to at the moment. I shall return. :) Zagalejo^^^ 02:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Now I've thrown in John Updike's response to the episode. (He was a guest star.) I think the article has enough real world info to get over the hump now. Zagalejo^^^ 05:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, the DVD's are actually needed for the Production section. But, anyway, if you have noticed, the DVD's are coming out more consistantly now than they were with the previous seasons, and may be doing things faster now. For all we know, they're recording commentaries for Season 15 or something right now. xihix(talk) 02:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
An article can still pass the general notability criteria without a production section. The production is good to have for a GA or FA, but an article can survive AFD without it.Zagalejo^^^ 05:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

To put my two cents in, I would oppose merging anything. I know my opinion does not count as much as others, but I might as well try. I agree it is pointless to merge them and bring them back later. All episodes are notable, and just because they don't have DVD's yet or are not part of the "good" seasons is not a valid reason for merging. To be honest, I am really annoyed with all the crappy wikpeida "rules" out there. A article has to meet certain "criteria" or else it is not good enough for Misplaced Pages. I am sure you all are thinking along the lines of no sources=no article, when I am thinking no sources=who cares? And if little known episodes from season 8 and 9 can become Ga's, why not episodes from season 15 or 16? What if this had taken place before 8 and 9 were released, I am sure we would want King of the Hill to be merged. Disagree if you want, but I vote no merge. Rhino131 (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

For those curious, this is what a user is saying at WT:TELEVISION and has brought up several episodes, including Bart the General. He comes off as a user angry and out to make a point because the episodes of his favourite series were merged. -- Scorpion 03:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

People are saying a lot of things at WT:EPISODE. There are many people who wants a less stricter guide than WP:EPISODE. I would therefore say that we should wait for the conclusion of the debate. There is no point in jumping through hoops now if the rules changes later. --Maitch (talk) 07:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Maitch (talk · contribs) brings up a good point, perhaps we should wait it out to see what extended discussion brings from WP:EPISODE. Or better yet, perhaps we should venture over there and voice some of the rationale from the above ideas there. Cirt (talk) 07:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Note: - Looks like there may yet be a second arbitration case involving this sort of stuff: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#The_Television_Episodes_Edit_Wars. Cirt (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC).
    • I was just reading over this and that guy seems to have something against The Simpsons. His basic argument is "It's a high profile and notable show and Simpsons editors have shown they can get nothing episodes to meet standards, but we should go after it anyway" and I don't understand that logic. Episodes of Golden Girls are unlikely to ever meet the standards, so they should be targetted before the ones that do. Either way, there is a new ArbCom case and if we do want to try to keep all of our episode pages, we'd better get to work. -- Scorpion 14:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, let's see what happens. I just don't us waisting any time merging all of those articles if the rules gets changed yet again. I'm not exactly sure that we can make a GA out of every episode - even if we do have a commentary track. Some of them doesn't provide that much information (Mountain of Madness comes to mind) and a lot of sources we use today cannot be used for the later seasons, such as the BBC website, Planet Simpson, Leaving Springfield and basically the rest of the books. --Maitch (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
        • It doesn't necessarily have to be a GA, it just has to show some real world info and prove its individual notability. For example, Insane Clown Poppy is now okay thanks to Zagalejo. -- Scorpion 14:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I really wouldn't mind merging the majority of seasons 11-19, I mean I know they wouldn't have to be GAs, but if it stops us being used as an example then great. And as said, they can also be un-merged at a later date... Gran 15:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

          • With an Arbcom case under consideration - all the more reason to wait out doing anything drastic like merging lots of articles - and await the outcome of the Arbcom decision, which may have an impact on things. Cirt (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC).

So where does everyone stand?

So right now, it appears that:

  • Zagalejo, Xihix, Rhino131, Reginmund and Cirt outright oppose merging any pages right now
  • Myself and Gran2 are open to merging some episodes, but believe we should see how the ArbCom case ends
  • Natalie Erin is open to selective merging of some episodes
  • Maitch prefers to hold judgement until after the ArbCom case is resolved
  • Sceptre (non project member) believes that most of seasons 11-17 could be merged

Is this a fair assessment? Either way, it doesn't appear that any kind of consensus will be reached. I would love to keep every episode page, but it isn't as simple as saying "the project wants to keep them". We would need to start adding real world info to episode pages and adding assertions of notability.

On a side note, it's nice to see a project discussion that involved more than 3 or 4 people (we haven't had one of those in a while). -- Scorpion 20:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the ArbCom will end up coming with a result our favor (by which I mean, Zag, Rhino, Reg, and Cirt's). It seems that the people keep complaining about the guidelines, redirects, etc., and thats all they do. Instead, we, as the WikiProject, go and actually improve and make good episode articles and eventually get them to become GA'd or FA'd. I believe that is the real reason why we are seen as having the exceptions other shows don't. xihix(talk) 21:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Xihix (talk · contribs), and Scorpion has the correct assessment of my take on this as of this point in time. If the efforts of WP:DOH and WP:DOH/TOPIC members has shown anything, it is that we can take difficult articles from "Stub" class to GA or even FA class in a relatively short amount of time. But I'm interested to hear the results of the Arbcomm, if/when that's over with... Cirt (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC).
You know, I sort of find the Bart the General talk hilarious. That guy who kept criticizing, to me, all it seemed that he did was complain about us. And then, a few hours later, the article looks GA worthy. Just goes off to prove what can happen if you stop complaining, and actually do something that will change peoples mind (i.e. improve the article). xihix(talk) 03:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone read this lovely little comment? We've had little to do with this entire episode debate, and yet people still seem to criticize us. -- Scorpion 14:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing I have realized is that we can't win no matter what we do. We used get critized for having loads of crap articles. We started improving them and then we get critized for having too many FA's. --Maitch (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The too many FA's thing was just sad, I mean how can you have too many FA's? And if it didn't violate this, I'd get all of season 1 to GA status, just to spite him. But doing it just for that, is probably not a good idea... Gran 16:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Where did they say we have too many FAs? -- Scorpion 17:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
It was the Misplaced Pages or Homerpedia discussion, or at least, I think that's what Maitch meant. Gran 17:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been on vacation, and have read through all this, and I strongly oppose merging any episode. Like a few people said, why merge, and then unmerge at a latter date? It is pointless. Why shouldn't worry about a few stupid people who are mad that we have lots of GAs and the shows they like don't have any. Ctjf83 18:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Gran2, I'd just go ahead and make season 1 all GA'd. You may be making a point in a way, but WP:POINT simply says not to disrupt Misplaced Pages in a negative way. Making GA's, as far as I know, isn't negative. xihix(talk) 21:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The link to that complaint was Misplaced Pages or Homerpedia?. Cirt (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC).
    • I would certainly Support making our next WP:DOH/TOPIC be Season One, if others like Gran2 (talk · contribs) are interested... Cirt (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC).
      • Well I'd rather do the characters, episodes are great, but the characters are more important. Gran 21:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay. Cirt (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC).
        • Aren't we doing these episode GAs so we can show they are notable? If so, what does doing character pages accomplish in that regard? Ctjf83 21:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Character pages are just something that certain project members have had their eye on, those who have been working on episode articles for a while and have been getting tired of them. But according to WP:DOH/TOPIC: Also, a (very) long term goal of the Simpsons WikiProject is to get every episode page to GA status and this is a helpful way to get started.. Cirt (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC).
            • Well we don't all have to work on the characters. That's the benefits of you guys - the new members we've got over the last year. This time last year (if I remember correctly) it was just me, Scorp and Maitch (who were active), and we had only just started on the episode pages. As such we have got pretty bored with them. But that doesn't mean we'll never do another episode, or that anyone has to stop working on them. So, those who want to can work on the characters, and those who want to can work on season 1 or any other season. Or something like that. Gran 21:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Still scratching my head over the whole Misplaced Pages or Homerpedia? thing though. So funny to bring up having too many featured articles of anything on this project... Cirt (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC).
                • It is certainly nice to that we are so many people now and this project can hold two collaborations. If people wants to continue to work on episodes, then I don't think they should stop. I just feel that it is more important right now to work on Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa and Maggie. --Maitch (talk) 10:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
                  • Whatever y'all decide, of course people shouldn't feel the need to stop working on what they are interested in, but I say let's use this amount of contributors en masse to really get some quality stuff done faster. (In other words, whatever topic it is, I say one WP:DOH/TOPIC at a time would really work faster.) Cirt (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC).

Regarding my comment on that discussion, I hope I didn't stir up any unnecessary trouble. xihix(talk) 00:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, huge disscusion. Anyway, I agree with merging in theory, ("in theory communisim works!" - Homer) But if you start merging articles you are going to get a flood of people either screaming "where is the page for this episode?" or, taking matters into their own hands and creating the episode page themselves. What explanation are these people going to be given? Where will the episode redirect go? We can get all season 1-11 pages to GA, we just need more time! --Simpsons fan 66 22:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Something everyone should do

Keep an eye on this discussion and every time Pixelface complains about a specific episode, hurredly source it. It took me 20 minutes to get Lisa's First Word done, so it's not that hard. Google News is a good method of finding reliable sources, it also doesn't hurt to specifically search sites like EW or IGN which don't show up in Google News. Yes, it kind of is making a point, but it isn't disrupting Misplaced Pages and it's helping to clean up and source pages. -- Scorpion 23:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Will do, good idea Scorpion. It really proves that if you improve instead of complain, you get things done. And, it will be funny when people try to read his points that link to episodes that actually look GA. xihix(talk) 00:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd rather not keep an eye on the discussion, but perhaps you could keep a running list here, below? Cirt (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
I listed every episode he's mentioned. After reading through that, he's literally mentioned List of The Simpsons episodes dozens of times. At first, his example was Bart the General, then it was "Bart the general existed for 4 1/2 years without sources", now it's Homer's Odyssey. -- Scorpion 00:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Did we decide we aren't going to delete any of the episode pages? Ctjf83 00:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the decision was to wait until the ArbCom case is resolved and see where we should go from there. -- Scorpion 00:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't let one little punk ruin our project and our episode pages Ctjf83 00:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but don't call him a punk. It could be seen as being uncivil, and he'd probably use that against us. xihix(talk) 00:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Episode articles to quickly improve

Keep a quickie list here, below. Cirt (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

  1. Homer's Odyssey
  2. Treehouse of Horror IV
  3. Duffless
  4. The Way We Was
  5. Lisa's First Word

The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson on Peer Review

The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson has recently been passed as a Good Article, and is currently undergoing a Peer Review. Any comments/feedback on how to further improve the article's quality would be most appreciated, at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson/archive1. Cirt (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC).

List of products in The Simpsons

I have nominated this list for deletion. --Maitch (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? I thought it was a good list. --Simpsons fan 66 06:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Weekly IRC Chats?

I was wondering, would anyone else be up to weekly IRC chats? Each time, we could discuss articles, future callaborations, work that is necessary, or in a time like right now, the whole "Notable Episodes" discussion. We could accomplish a good amount working together at a certain time, and where we can actively discuss at the same time. Since this is a small WikiProject, we'd need a schedule of when we would do this, of course. Also, we could use the freenode sever that all of Wikimedia uses. See WP:IRC for information on how to get on the server and junk. There's also a free Java alternative if you don't have an IRC client of your own. What do you guys think? xihix(talk) 01:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Sounds like a great idea. Where is the free Java alternative? And also, can we have a separate IRC channel just for our project's discussion? Cirt (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
  • I got that Xihix, now what are the "mechanics" of making it work for a wiki chat room for the project? Ctjf83 02:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd have to make a channel for us, which I'll make if the other users of this WikiProject want to do this. To access the channel, you'd have to connect to the server (type "/server freenode" without the quotations), and then type "/join #channelname", without the quotations. xihix(talk) 03:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
      • sounds like a good idea, when should we do it, everyone? Ctjf83 03:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I haven't gone and looked into the IRC client stuff yet, but it looks like 4 of us are online right now. Not sure what there is to discuss though. Cirt (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
          • What would you guys like the channel to be named? #simpsons? Also, I'll make a comprehensive guide on the IRC stuff, on a new page and add it to the WikiProject's infobox. Right now, I'd like to ask when everyone would like the weekly meet up should be, and the time it should start. It would probably be best if it was a week end. Also, in the guide, I'd mention that if there is a specific time you want a meet up, you could come to this talk page and make a time when you want the meet up, or if you want to talk to a person or two specifically, you could contact them on their user talk page and see if they can come at a certain time. xihix(talk) 03:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
            • the name sounds great, as for a time, if on the weekend, i'd rather it be a sunday night then, incase i go out to the clubs saturday, a lot of us are on now, so perhaps 48 minutes ago, was i think 3 am, for the UTC time, so that would sound like a good time Ctjf83 03:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
              • Alright then, Sunday sounds good. If others can give an input on what time, we could start then, and end whenever we feel that we need to end in the IRC rooms. xihix(talk) 03:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Not before 3:00 am UTC time, cause from 1-3 is Fox Sunday, and you know we can't miss the new Simpsons episodes, and I can't miss the other new episodes either! Ctjf83 03:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Which commentary is it that Oakley & Weinstein discuss Homer's age?

They discuss his age in several season 7 episodes, I just need one so I can use it as a source for Homer Simpson, which was GA reviewed. It will be delisted in 7 days if the review conditions aren't met. -- Scorpion 22:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have Season 7, let me check. xihix(talk) 23:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to listen to Homerpalooza, as they may talk about his age, since Homer feels old I suppose in the episode when he discovers his likes in music aren't like what the new generation is, and the whole generation X talk, and that junk. I'll be listening through it. xihix(talk) 23:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I wouldn't read much into it; I think there's a band of reasonable ages for Homer that have been suggested through the series. Will 23:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I finished act one, and so far, the only talk of Homer's age has been during the car scene around 1:40-2:00 or so when they say that everyone in the room is around Homer's age or older. xihix(talk) 23:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
There are several where they say that Homer was originally 36 but they aged him to 38 because they felt he was too young. I can't remember which it is, so I guess I'll listen to several (then I might get some other good info). -- Scorpion 23:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, nothing in Homerpalooza. I'll listen to some other episodes. xihix(talk) 23:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Mother Simpson will probably have mention of his age, for obvious reasons. xihix(talk) 23:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Sadly, it wasn't there either. xihix(talk) 00:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom case update thread

I've been keeping a close eye on it, and I'll provide updates here on some of the more interesting things so that people don't have to sift through the entire discussion.

So far there hasn't been a lot of mention of The Simpsons and PixelFace has only mentioned it once. One of the more interesting proposals so far has been this one in which PixelFace suggests that every single episode page on Misplaced Pages be put up for afd. I also suggest reading some of the comments in this section as Masem brings up some good points. -- Scorpion 05:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Advertisment?

I just noticed that some wikiprojects have advertisments, like this one from wikiproject video games

WikiProject Video games
WikiProject Video games

 Should we have one? --Simpsons fan 66 03:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you guys think about this? I made it to show what it could possibly look like. xihix(talk)

looks great...I love the text format too! Ctjf83 05:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Brilliant! Gran 07:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks great. -- Scorpion 16:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure it can be improved somehow. Anything? xihix(talk) 17:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I added a border around the image to give it a definite area, if you get what I mean. xihix(talk)

Is the border good now? xihix(talk) 20:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I did this as what it would look like. I am aware of the TV fuzzing up, but I have to leave at the moment and do not have time to look too much into it. I will do so when I arrive back. xihix(talk) 22:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks great, apart from the TV thing. One last thing, should the last line of text read "Join Wikiproject The Simpsons" with italics? It might make it easier to understand. --Simpsons fan 66 02:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Ehh... Not sure. I suppose I could do it. xihix(talk) 03:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Final version? xihix(talk) 03:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me, any other suggestions anyone? --Simpsons fan 66 03:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the TV image is still fading slightly with the text, although I'm not sure if this is on my connection only, can anyone else confirm? --Simpsons fan 66 09:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it is for me too... I didn't seem to notice it before, though. I guess I can try to fix it, but I don't know what to do (did everything I could last time, and I thought it was fine). I'll look at it when I get home, since I'm not currently there right now. xihix(talk) 17:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I added this image to BANNER. miranda 20:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Early seasons cleanup

Just wanted to call some attention to the early seasons' articles. I just took a look at a couple of random season 2 articles and they're not in great shape. They could all use some basic cleanup like removing goof sections, removing whitespace, and removing blatant nonsense that survives and builds up because no one pays attention to these. These early seasons are all the more important now that the new episodes suck so much :) Anyway just thought I'd let you know. Cheery-o. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:03, 23 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Ages

I think we should delete any "ages" section in any article, or any mention of ages, as they always contradict each other. any thoughts? Ctjf83 04:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I got a response from Bill Oakley!!!

Hello everyone, I got a response from Bill Oakley on NoHomers.net, when I asked him for a picture! He also said some other things. Please come into IRC AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, and I'll talk to you in there more about this. xihix(talk) 23:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Does his response appear in a thread at NoHomers? I haven't gotten onboard the whole IRC thing... Zagalejo^^^ 03:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't do IRC either. Would you be willing to summarize the conversation there once you're done? Natalie (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I PM'd him on NoHomers.net, and he told me that he would give photos and release them to a license. He also asked to give some official link and stuff, and gave me his email to reply to him. I emailed him and said some stuff, and he said that he's busy this week, but will dig up photos from the season 3-8 era and do what it says to do in this link that I sent him. He also said that he goes on Misplaced Pages a good bit and knows some stuff, and will help us if we need him. xihix(talk) 03:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Awesome! Zagalejo^^^ 03:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Quite so, yes. I don't want to bother him too much, which is why EVERY WikiProject member that wants to have a say in what I email him regarding him helping us in a way that he could needs to get into IRC at a certain time tomorrow, or if worse comes to worse, day after tomorrow. I come home at 4:00 PM (EST or -5 GMT time), so any time after that will have to do. Please, I need everyone to come. Including you guys, Gran2, Zag, and anyone else who I haven't seen in IRC yet. xihix(talk) 03:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, you guys can make a time here so we can all be in at one time. As I mentioned, it has to be anytime after 4:00 PM EST time. xihix(talk) 03:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

One issue is that if he is willing to give us insider information, we wouldn't be able to use it because it wouldn't be verifiable. I was just talking with some users on IRC, and some suggestions were:

  1. Get him to start his own website or blog (Kind of an awkward thing to ask because he's already going out of his way to help)
  2. Get him to post it on NHC like he did with the Ask Bill & Josh thing (Not as bad as the above, but not as reliable)
  3. (This one is inventive) ask him to record stuff into a file and then upload it on Wikimedia commons. We would then be able to reference the recording. It sounds complicated, but it's a lot easier than getting him to start his own site.
  4. Contact David Skankbone, a commons user who has interviewed several people for WikiNews. It's another longshot, but it might be worth at least contacting him.

So not a lot of options, and each one would be asking a lot from him. I think we should mention that anything he tells us would not be useable, (lets not give any suggestions yet because we don't want to scare him away) and see if he has any ideas. -- Scorpion 04:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this is amazing! I'll be on IRC tonight (in about 7 hours time). I'll think up some questions during the day. Gran 07:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)