Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject The Simpsons/Archive 4 - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LeSaint (talk | contribs) at 06:18, 13 March 2007 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:18, 13 March 2007 by LeSaint (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Idea for "episodes character is featured in" lists

This wouldn't work for most of the secondary characters because they haven't been in enough episodes, But why not make categories to keep track of character-centric episodes. ie. "category:The Simpsons episodes featuring Homer Simpson" and then include a link to that category from the Homer page.

  • Pros
    • It would be an easy way to list Homer episodes without making a crufty list
    • It wouldn't count as category cruft if we only use it for major characters (family, Flanders, Burns, Moe, a few others)
  • Cons
    • It would hard to keep track of what episodes are added
    • Some may target the categories for cfd

Thoughts? Opinions? Complaints? -- Scorpion 17:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I was actually thinking yesterday, about suggesting a list similar in style to the guest star list, listed each episode, with the character(s) it was mainly centred around, even including the sub-plot. But this could be impractically, and cruftastic, but it would elimate the need from the "episodes about character" sections in any of the articles. The category idea, could work though. Gran2 18:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
A list would basically just be called cruft, but categories are more practical. If we do it, we should limit it to characters who have featured prominently in 10-15 episodes. -- Scorpion 18:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Keeping it the way it was in many articles is the best way to do it. It's easy for people to find if they are interested in the subject - consider, reading about Mr Burns and then learning the episodes he is in. It's better than making separate lists for each character, too. There are many characters who may have driven the plots of only a few episodes, like Apu, for instance. By keeping the "Episodes Featuring" section in the article, we can keep all the content but not have to make a list of a few episodes. --takethemud 19:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
As already established, such lists are considered cruft and they clutter the pages and they are frowned upon by Misplaced Pages. Using ctaegories, you can have a direct link right to the category from the character page and it eliminates page cruft, and there is no need to make a list cruft page. -- Scorpion 19:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea for any characters that have been featured in a lot of episodes - I'd even say 5 could be considered a lot for everyone other than the main family. And for those who've been featured in a few episodes, this information can be written in prose in the introduction to the character. Natalie 21:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I also think this is a good idea. --Maitch 21:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Thinking about it, it would be good for the episode capsules, as a majority of them do only have one category, so yeah, good idea. Gran2 21:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Very well, I'll start on categorizing tomorrow. I think takethemud has gotten started already. -- Scorpion 02:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a small nitpicky detail, should the categories be called:
"The Simpsons episodes featuring ______"
"Episodes of The Simpsons featuring ______" -- Scorpion 02:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't care either way, as long as it's consistent. Natalie 02:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Here are the characters I'm going to create categories for: Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa, Maggie, Grampa, Patty & Selma, Burns, Moe, Flanders, Apu, Skinner, Krabapel, Sideshow Bob, Milhouse, Nelson, Santa's Little Helper, Krusty others?
Debatable characters: Barney, Fat Tony, Smithers, Ralph, Itchy & Scratchy (there are 5 or 6), others? -- Scorpion 02:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
also, for those creating categories, please use full names: Homer Simpson, Ned Flanders, etc. Using plain Krusty should be fine. Basically go by what the official page names are. -- Scorpion 02:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The related Category:The Simpsons episodes featuring Mr. Burns has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.
  • The Mr. Burns category has been nominated for cfd. Assistance is keeping it is appreciated. -- Scorpion 14:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This information would be far more comprehensive if you used a list rather than a category. For instance, you could create a table listing all episodes (of a season, if it gets too long otherwise) and add columns for each character, and a checkmark if it appears in there (or total minutes of air time, if you really want). >Radiant< 15:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It's still list cruft no matter which way you look at it. What policies are these categories breaking? -- Scorpion 15:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Why would it be listcruft and not categorycruft? I don't care if somebody calls something "cruft", I care that the information is organized and accessible. A table such as the below lets me find episodes containing Bart but not Homer easily. It lets me see things by season. It lets me count which character occurs more often, or has more "focused" episodes. That's why it's more comprehensive than a category. >Radiant< 15:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Episode Homer Marge Mr. Burns Bumblebee Guy
E-I-E-I-Annoyed Grunt X X
Who Shot Mr. Burns X X X X
Kamp Krusty X X
I might just be repeating what other people are saying. I think that the "featured in" stuff should just refer to when a character has a very prominent role. For instance, Mr. Burns appears in "Diatribe of a Mad Housewife", in which he fires Homer in the first five minutes. A more appropriate episode to put in his list would be "Homer vs. Dignity", where he pays Homer to make a fool of himself. Just what I think the content should be.- JustPhil 15:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Good idea...but it may be confusing to some viewers. I would choose three important episodes that describe who the character is and what he/she does. --WTGDMan1986 (D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams) 14:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think a sort of reverse vehicle would be very useful - on the contrary, I think the secondary characters are the ones who should have an index of their appearances, because their sparseness makes them harder to locate and reference. The episodes in which Seymour Skinner is featured are endless... but when I was trying to identify which non-Treehouse of Horror episodes Kang and Kodos has been in, I didn't have a ready resource. Any thoughts? LeSaint 01:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Now What?

I am amazed at how many people came out of nowhere to vote delete in the categories cfd. More people voted delete in that one than have voted delete in the past 5 cfds on that page. I never really got why people get so head up over categories and insist the "useless" ones get immediately deleted. The irony is that most non-Wikipedian users never see them and thus categories in general are wasteful, and yet, when we come up with a practical way to use them, it's "Over categorization" even though there is only one existing Simpsons ep category. I also enjoyed the irony that Takethemud turned on the categories and voted delete when the idea for them sprung from his whining about me deleting cruft filled lists from character pages. So, what do we do about episode lists? I really don't think lists are needed that much, they are clutter and subject to tonnes of useless edits, so I think we should just leave character pages without episode lists and have links to the character eps lists at SNPP. -- Scorpion 21:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I say we leave them in the articles. I disagree they are "cruft", "clutter", or subject to useless edits. The list on the Mr Burns page, for example, is remarkably stable and in the recent past has undergone very few edits. They take up room, that is true, but it is not extraneous information, and I would argue is extremely relevant to articles about these characters. Further, I take exception to you characterizing my discussion with you as "whining", which I consider to be a personal attack upon me. I was under the impression we engaged in a civil discourse about how to best maintain the information in Misplaced Pages. Given your recent sweeping deletions of that information from every article, without placing it elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, I felt that creating categories was the only way to preserve the content while appeasing you and drawing your slash and burn campaign to a close. Otherwise, I felt your edits would remove important information from Misplaced Pages that may be able to be incorporated elsewhere in the project. Thus, I created the category, even though I personally felt the list was best left in the articles. When it came up for deletion, I expressed myself through a vote as I am entitled to do. In the meantime, I am in favor of restoring for each character the list of episodes in which they play a substantial role in driving the plot and leaving the content in the articles until a consensus is reached, through discussion, about what to do with the information. My vote is to leave it in the article, and if that is not met with agreement by other editors, to create a separate page, listing each character and the episodes in which they star. --takethemud 21:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


I don't particularly like the look of the lists, and I think they break up the flow of the article. But having looked at a few of the character pages, I think there are only a few characters with this problem (Burns, Flanders, Grandpa). Obviously, one could argue that every Simpsons episodes is about the main family, and most of the secondary characters have had less than a dozen episodes about them or heavily involving them. So, any kind of category or list is completely unnecessary for the main family (because they're in all the episodes) or most of the secondary characters (can be put in prose). Given that, I'm okay with keeping the lists in a few select articles - those characters outside the main family (Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa, and Maggie) that have starred in more than 10 episodes. But I liked the categories idea better. Perhaps we can put this up for deletion review at some point soon.Natalie 23:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the main family should not have the episode lists for the reasons you stated, Natalie. So, your proposal would be for certain characters (Burns, Moe, Flanders, etc.) have the list, and for others with only a few episodes under their belt, include the episodes in the introductory paragraph? If so, I agree, except that I'd propose we lower the bar to, say, 3 episodes or less goes in the intro paragraph, more than that in a list. Otherwise, the intro paragraph may get to be a bit too long... --takethemud 23:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
As far as I remember, the ideal length for introductory sections is 2-3 paragraphs, so even a prose list of more than three episodes wouldn't be too much trouble as far as length goes. But as far as I know, Simpsons characters seem to be either featured in one or two episodes, or 50+ episodes. It's a pretty big drop-off. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Natalie Erin (talk • contribs) 00:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
Wow - that bot is fast. Natalie 00:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Character lists are not needed. Most characters from most other shows don't have lists, I don't see why Simpsons characters should be any different. If you really insist that there be a list, then link to an eps list from The Simpsons Archive. -- Scorpion 02:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Scorpion, do you have any interest in getting deletion review on the categories? If the general consensus is that these categories are never going to fly, than I wonder if there's any interest in knowing this information at all. Natalie 04:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

There's really no point. It was worth a try, but its obvious that people are against the category idea. -- Scorpion 04:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
In that case, I'm reading that as little interest in even knowing what episodes a character was featured in. Perhaps in that case, there will also be little tolerance for lists. Natalie 04:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The thing about that is that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and not a fan site. We can link to a page, but I think that Misplaced Pages should be limited to character information and having a list really doesn't add much. -- Scorpion 04:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Natalie 05:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"Recurring jokes in The Simpsons‎" up for deletion

I just wanted to notify people that Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Recurring jokes in The Simpsons‎ is up for deletion. --Maitch 13:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

So far so good. Six keeps to one delete. --The Dark Side 03:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Episodes featuring _____ lists

I think we should come to a final decision on such lists, because after our failed experiment with categories, we've sorta just gone in opposite directions on the issue. I think we should put it to a vote, and although there are only 5 or 6 members of the project who frequently post here, I'll post messages on the talk pages of active members and get more opinions.

The question: Do character articles need "episodes featuring this character lists". Vote Support if you feel that articles should have episode lists, and oppose if you feel they do not. -- Scorpion 05:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Small characters can/will have important episodes in their body text (and probably shouldn't have articles if they are so small as to have only a handful of appearances), and for large characters it would be virutally impossible to police such a list and define what 'featured' means. What potential usefulness would such a list be anyway? Major storyline issues in a character's history should be referenced by episode in the character's article body already anyway. TheHYPO 05:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It will take up too much space. --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 06:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As said, it can be in the text if it was an important episode for the character, so the lists arn't that important. I mean Roger Meyers page listed Trash of the Titans as his "notable appearances", kindly telling us that it was (non-speaking), thus proving it wasn't that important. So I say no. Gran2 07:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I don't think that character articles should have list as a rule, but do think that such lists can be valuable in certain situations, e.g. in cases of minor characters who are only featured occasionally. Ideally, all important episodes would be mentioned in the course of the article, but in practice it often doesn't work out that way. si»abhorreo» 08:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - As I've written elsewhere (incl. on this page), I believe this is useful information and should be included on the character pages in a separate section, especially for those characters with 4-5 or more episodes under their belt. For characters with less than 4-5 episodes, I say keep the list in the body of the article. Alternatively, I'd say we should list the episodes in which they star in the "See also" section. Lastly, considering their unique role in the series, I'd say there should be an exception for Kang and Kodos. --takethemud 14:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Since this issue was brought up, the overall consensus has been that this information is unnecessary. Natalie 18:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per TheHYPO --The Dark Side 23:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Remark: if most people don't want such lists in the articles on the characters, other people are of course welcome to make such lists in a separate article, e.g. List of The Simpsons episode by main character or somesuch. That may be the best compromise. >Radiant< 11:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I think the episode listing should be there but only for smaller characters that play a main part. For example Nelson Muntz in Lisa's Date with Density is a main role so that should be on his page, but Homer plays some kind of major part in most, if not all, episodes so there should not be a list for him. Fr4zer 12:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Remark - I already opposed, but I would like to add that if a minor character has notable episodes that for some reason aren't notable enough to be noted in the body, "see also" is readily available for links to the article on specific episodes that might also be important. What I think is a better solution that people should strive for is to go in and start citing things in bodies of the character's article using Misplaced Pages's citation/reference system. For example as above: Nelson's article mentions dating Lisa, but the episode name is not given and the info point is not cited. If the information was cited, instead of occasional use of "in the episode ," in the body. I suggest changing all such references to footnote references, and write the articles encyclopedicaly as if the stuff actually occured. TheHYPO 14:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree, that would be a Very Good Thing. Facts are often pulled out of thin air in Simpsons articles, the sort of thing you wont get away with in "general" articles. It would be quite a task to track down episode-specific references for existing information, though. In any case, I don't really think that this would fully address the issue here. All the episodes that would be mentioned in an episode list wont necessarily have any information pulled from them in the articles body. si»abhorreo» 04:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think this would be a tricky thing to maintain - I'm sure at least half the episodes have at least one shot of Moe and Burns somewhere, so the page of episodes featuring either would be almost a list of all episodes. Then if you try to limit it to only episodes where they have a 'significant' role in the plot, you'll have a constant struggle (as we had with the Neologisms page) of people adding episodes that don't really belong. I quite like lists, but I'm a crufty kind of person and I guess I do appreciate the benefit of paragraphs of text as opposed to lists as being more encyclopedic. So for me, the best way to address this would be for the pages of minor/semimajor characters to list some prominent episodes where they've been involved in the plot (which I'm sure those pages already do)Sorry I missed the point there, the proposal is not for new pages, but I still think avoiding a formal list would be a good thing. BTW if you're considering real list pages, you could consider using ListGenBot to assist with page generation and auto-update --Mortice 19:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Video Game Appearances

Many Simpsons characters have a section in their article devoted to "Video Game Appearances". These sections usually have the name of the videogame and then a few sentences about what role the character plays in the video game.

Question: Should character articles include a section devoted to discussing their appearances in Simpsons video games? If so, please write Support and briefly discuss your reasoning; If not, please write Oppose and briefly discuss your reasoning. Any ideas for what to do with these sections (e.g., delete wholly, moved name of game to see also section, etc) are welcome.... --takethemud 14:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Whole section on its own. Keep all of the info, just re-title to "appearances in other media" or "other appearances". This means it can include video games, comics, adverts, pther non simpsons shows/films, etc. A good addition to articles. Gran2 14:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I like Gran's idea. This will help with the in-universe perspective that dominates most of the character articles. Natalie 18:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Gran2. --The Dark Side 23:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per Gran2 -- Scorpion 02:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Guide to sources

I have written a guide to sources based on my experiences getting The Simpsons featured. Hopefully this will save a lot of time with adding the wrong kind of sources to the article and perhaps lead the way for another FA or FL. Feel free to add stuff. --Maitch 14:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Help with 'Round Springfield

Someone has finally given my some feedback for this articles GAC, with the problems mostly centering around what is highlighted in Maitch's source guide, the fact that I've used SNPP as a reference in the article, simply because there arn't any other avaliable internet sources. So any help with finding other sources and any other improvents to the article would be greatly appreciated. Gran2 15:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, mostly you use The Simpsons Archive for basic facts, which can also be found in the book The Simpsons: A Complete Guide to Our Favorite Family p. 173. --Maitch 15:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I took a second look on the article and I think you should get rid of any information that comes from The Simpsons Archive. You could delete the cultural references section. --Maitch 16:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather not delete the cultural references, but it is becomming increasingly likely, simply because od the SNPP refs. I spent about 20 minutes trying to find a non-snpp reference for the Kimba the White Lion thing, and there just wasn't anything else. I found a faniste for it, with masses of info on the show, but not a single word about The Simpsons. So, I suppose the cult refs are going to have to go, unless any one else has any good ideas? Gran2 18:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any ideas. Sometimes the book The Simpsons: A Complete Guide to Our Favorite Family has a few cultural references, but it doesn't have any for this episode. --Maitch 22:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The way I've come to understand it, SNPP is an acceptable source up until the FA level. For example, Homer Simpson passed with dozens of SNPP references and Homerpalooza was failed, but the reviewee (an admin) said nothing about the sources. It all depends on who the reviewer is. -- Scorpion 04:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the only reason why some people pass an article with SNPP references on GA level, is because people don't spend that much time reviewing these articles. I think it is a bad idea for us to exploit this and it only creates more work if a person decides to try and make a FA. --Maitch 12:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, really just how many episode pages can ever become FAs? They just don't have enough scope or importance to ever become FAs, so GAs are the only realistic level for most episode pages, maybe a few season 1 pages could. But we can try, and although I don't want to do it, we probably should remove the cultural references, if this reviewer won't allow SNPP refs. Gran2 12:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Even if we don't go for FA level I still think it is better to follow policy. There are actually two TV episode FA's ("Abyssinia, Henry" and "Pilot" (House)) so it is not impossible. --Maitch 13:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Well that ended my argument! The cult refs can go (the bleeding gums past and pics are fine), but we could use a recption section in its place. But this could be stupid as the only things we have to on a the viewer (if it can be found), the snpp reviews and the tv.com and imdb scores. Any other ideas for it? Or is it just stupid? Gran2 16:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Right here is a look at the version with a reception section, as opposed to cult refs. As long as we have the snpp link at the bottom they arn't that necessary. Now for getting rid of all of the other SNPP refs.

  1. The couch gag - Maitch, does the book make any reference at all to the couch gag? If not then SNPP will have to be used for this one.
  2. Phil Hartman as Lionel Hutz - As he is a de facto guest this doesn't really need to be mentioned, but if not then IMDB provides the same info.
  3. This raises a continuity error, as Milhouse already had his appendix out in "Homer Defined". - I put this in a while back,. but really isn't important and thus can go.
  4. The title is a play on both the jazz standard 'Round Midnight by Thelonious Monk and the similarly named film about an unappreciated jazz musician. - This BBC link provides the same info and is more official than SNPP

This you would probably only need the one. Gran2 19:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The BBC page you have found is a great ressource. If you look at the bottom it is taken from the book "I Can't Believe It's a Bigger and Better Updated Unofficial Simpsons Guide" which is a reliable source. Use that source. It features a complete guest star list, the couch gag and some other bits that are useful. --Maitch 22:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
So we're using the book? It's only I don't know the page number. Gran2 06:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
You could just use the link. It seems like the BBC has made a deal to reproduce the material on their web page.--Maitch 17:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I doubled it up and used both, not going to hurt. Gran2 18:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, I think the version with the reception mentioned is better. --Maitch 22:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, Round Springfield is my least favourite episode... You can add that... And, the House Pilot is really a great article. Perhaps we should try to do the same with Simpsons Roasting, although any usable reviews would be 18+ years old, so there may not be a lot on the internet. Last Exit would be a good one too because it's been named Best episode ever by EW. -- Scorpion 23:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
We should perhaps do Last Exit, because it has been named the best episode. I think those episodes that could go all the way to FA, are those with an interesting production back story. --Maitch 17:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I think Some Enchanted Evening is one to add as well, seeing as from a production point of view it was the first, especially with the infamous first screening. Gran2 18:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Once again, having non-IMDB, TV.com or SNPP reviews will be hard, but that would also be a good one. -- Scorpion 18:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Two AFD's

I have nominated List of stereotypes in The Simpsons and List of Homer Simpson's lifelong dreams. --Maitch 16:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Robbie F

I just thought I'd warn people to watch out for this guy. He's been merging character pages with no discussion (such as Lionel Hutz) and has been adding unencyclopedic nonsense to articles, for example:

So keep an eye out for this guy, and revert any nonsense he adds. -- Scorpion 20:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah the Gerald Ford one really did make me laugh, he deleted a massive section in Sideshow Bob's article as well. Gran2 21:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Homerpalooza

I was wondering if some people wouldn't mind taking a look at Homerpalooza (which is on its 4th GAC nom) and giving me some helpful suggestions. I've gotten very lucky because I was able to find some good articles (ie. this one) that had stuff that wasn't elaborated on in the DVD commentary. -- Scorpion 19:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you should expand the summary. --Maitch 21:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The Production paragraph is a little choppy, since the paragraph really doesn't have a single subject. I would break after the writer visiting Lollapalooza at least, and maybe add a little more on the bad act break (quote from the episode commentary?Natalie 21:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)).
I'll work on that section a little more. But, for the production, I'm trying to limit the number of sections, which is why I grouped many under one heading. Perhaps I'll move the Rover Hendrix sentence to the reception section. As for the summary, I am opposed to long windy summaries that have every joke, and I prefer shorter ones that include mostly just the main points. The problem is that the second & third acts of the episode don't have a lot of main plot in them, so the summary is a tad short. -- Scorpion 02:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the summary is fine. You get a good sense of what happened without feeling like your reading a script. Natalie 02:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've made some revisions to the article. I think the reception section could use some cleanup, but I think the rest is pretty good. -- Scorpion 14:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Naming episodes

i have been reading a lot of the simpsons related pages and i've realised that while a lot of information is given on characters and references to previous episodes, the actual episode which the event happened is not linked to. Compared to other shows i find this strange, since a lot of work appears to already have been put in... --SleweD 12:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the character pages are pretty hit or miss - some of them have been worked on a lot recently, and others are huge piles of crap. As people spend more time cleaning up the pages, there will be more citations, which will include a link to the episode article. Natalie 14:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Kang and Kodos needs a lot of help. LeSaint 06:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Season DVD's

I recently saw that Futurama DVD commentaries have been nominated for AFD and that they also mention The Simpsons DVD commentaries in the discussion. So I think it is a good idea to discuss what to with this page before it also gets nominated for AFD.

I find it a bit stupid that not all the information related to one season DVD is available the same place. This leads me to think that The Simpsons DVD boxsets and The Simpsons DVD commentaries should be merged. This would create a fairly long list, so I was thinking that it would be better to include all the DVD information in the season articles. Thoughts? --Maitch 17:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course the commentary information could also be merged with the episode articles. --Maitch 19:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the boxsets and commentaries pages should be merged. The page really isn't THAT crowded, and we could do all the information chart style. -- Scorpion 21:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Natalie 21:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Planet Simpson

I have finally created an article for Planet Simpson and it needs a lot of work. There's not a lot there right now. Any suggestions would be more than welcome. -- Scorpion 21:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles we should get deleted

I have been looking over the categories, and here are the articles I believe should be deleted with little discussion.

General

Locations

Writers

Directors

Look at their articles and you'll know why. At the very least, they need expanding.

More comin' -- Scorpion 23:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion notes

I nominated the writers & directors for AFD. There are other Simpsons writers (ie. Jace Richdale) who have small articles, but have been credited for multiple shows, were a producer for multiple seasons or wrote several episodes. More afds will be coming for some of the other stated articles. -- Scorpion 03:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow. I'm amazed that the articles in the general section have survived this long. Good job ferreting those out. Natalie 03:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that random editors create these, but don't add categories so they aren't easy to track down. The only reason I was able to find most of them is because I checked the Simpsons Stubs category. -- Scorpion 03:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thankfully, the Fasterossa was SDed, but Bimonscificon is up for AFD. Amazingly, this article survived a year and a half. -- Scorpion 05:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Spruce Moose is now up for deletion. That one may be a little troublesome because the article also details several other unrelated NN Spruce Mooses. -- Scorpion 05:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Springfield Isotopes and Sprawl-Mart are now up for afd. I am now done for the night. -- Scorpion 05:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
We should remember to redirect the deleted pages, because it is very likely that they will pop up again if we don't do it. --Maitch 11:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it looks like the Isotopes page may make it through. -- Scorpion 16:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, you can just suggest this in the AFD's. The problem is that most of these doesn't fit into one place (e.g. being mentioned in several episodes). --Maitch 16:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the Springfield Isotopes could be redirected, but bimonscificon and the Spruce Moose are such minor details of their respective episodes that they really hould just be deleted. -- Scorpion 17:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that Spruce Moose or Springfield Isotopes gets deleted, so it really doesn't matter. --Maitch 08:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons (season 17)

A while back The Simpsons (season 2) was tried for FL, but was rejected. Having discovered that The Simpsons (season 17) was a pretty good page last weekend, I've been cleaning it up and now its pretty close to FL quality. I think it meets most of what was objected with season 2, the summaries are a reasonable length and the lead is good (these were the reasons why this page stood out to me when I saw it). The images all have fair use rationales, the episode's are in quotes and it is referenced. It still needs work, and probably a good copyedit but I think it is close. Gran2 18:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The list is very nice, but Simpsons Channel can't be used as a source, so we should either drop the ratings info or find other sources. --Maitch 20:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, I was thinking that these articles perhaps should be moved to "List of The Simpsons season x episodes". --Maitch 20:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I thought Simpsons Channel would be a problem so yes if possible (although it will be hard) we could get other refs, but personally I'm in favour of just deleting them. I don't see why they were listed before the title anyway, the ratings arn't more important than the title. As for the "List of The Simpsons season x episodes", well i think they were before but the The Simpsons (season x) was chosen instead, I personally prefer the The Simpsons (season x) but if it is best we could change it to "List of" format. Gran2 21:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know, you'll probably have to add a ref to each episode and link to its page on the official site. It shouldn't be that hard to do, but just a heads up. I had to add individual refs to 100 sepate columns on this page in order to get it promoted to FL. It's pretty good right now. As for the ratings, you may be able to find them on the official Nielson website, but I never managed to figure out how to work that site... -- Scorpion 03:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I tried the nielsen website... And then moved on and just removed the ratings. Now for the refs for the episodes, I'm putting them next to each epsiode title, as it seems the best place. Gran2 11:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking. Wouldn't it be better with a screenshot for "Marge and Homer Turn a Couple Play". The promo kind of breaks the format of the list. --Maitch 12:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that or crop it, the other official images were cropped to fit better, I don't know why that one wasn't. Refs for each episode are now done. I've changed the ref for Kelsey Grammer winning an Emmy to a CNN one. The second ref from the Futon Critic didn't actually say what it was apparently meant to so I've changed it. But.. I changed it to a news article, which is fine, but the original thing doesn't exist anymore (at least I can't find it) so its can from Findarticles.com, I've put the original website name in the ref along with "at find articles.com". This shouldn't really be a problem, but if it is, finding another ref would be helpful. Gran2 12:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Cape Feare

I have now rewritten the article for this episode and nominated it for GA. I hope that it might be FA worthy, because I think it is about as good as Pilot (House). --Maitch 14:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Woah, that is very good. You inspired me to do yet another episode page. I agree this could be FA worthy. Gran2 09:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, I think it was considerably easier to do that episode compared to Round Springfield and Homerpalooza. I am working on Some Enchanted Evening now. There is a chapter dedicated to The Simpsons Spin-Off Showcase in the book Leaving Springfield. I don't know if you got it, but if do not have it I can take a look at it when you are done. --Maitch 15:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be, I've started work on Homer's Phobia as well, which is good because it won an Emmy, and I finally bought A Complete Guide to Our Favourite Family (took me long enough), and the other book would be helpful, thanks. Homerpalooza has passed its GA now, I really hope Round Springfield does soon, its on hold expired yesterday. Ah well. I'll carry on with these other two for now. Gran2 16:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Right Homer's Phobia is done, a large production section and a reception section that prvoed pretty easy to do especially as it won an Emmy. All it needs now is a few more images, I'll get these later, a bit of a check over and I'll nom it for GA. Gran2 20:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Didn't Homer's Phobia win some kind of gay awareness award? --Maitch 21:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I figured it out myself. This episode won several awards.
  1. Annie Award for Best Individual Achievement: Directing in a TV Production
  2. Emmy Award for Outstanding Animated Program (For Programming One Hour or Less)
  3. GLAAD Media Award (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, USA) for Outstanding TV - Individual Episode
  4. WAC Winner for Best Director for Primetime Series
The information is from SNPP, so we need to find some other reliable sources. --Maitch 21:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Done already
  3. Best I can find is IMDB which isn't that good is it?
  4. Just SNPP...

1/3 isn't that bad. Anyone else do better? Gran2 23:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As an update, I'm going to start on Last Exit to Springfield and eventually Marge vs. the Monorail Some random guy announced he wanted to work on The Joy of Sect, but I think he probably won't follow through on that. I'm glad Homerpalooza was finally promoted. I've been trying to get it to GA since December and finally it's been promoted. -- Scorpion 21:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations by the way. We now have the know how as to what we need to do in order to produce quality episode articles. I think we can fairly quick produce a bunch of GA's and perhaps a few FA's this way.--Maitch 21:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
So I'm guessing we can finally cross off part of "Define two manuals of style for the individual character and episode articles." then? Good work. Gran2 22:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, we have not actually written the manual yet and I don't think we have got the formula for characters either. If anyone is interested this old page (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject The Simpsons/Style guide) was started at the beginning of this project. Perhaps we should update it. --Maitch 22:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Last Exit is almost ready for a GA run, but I don't think it would have much of a chance at becoming FA, because there isn't a lot of production info. Homerpalooza might have a shot, but it would need some work. -- Scorpion 23:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated Homer's Phobia, I had to use IMDB for theother awards, but that's better than SNPP. I did find the GLAAD reveiw of the episode though, so I added that. Gran2 09:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I have also updated the style guide a bit. Gran2 09:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

My idea for DVD commentaries

Template:SimpsDVD At first I was stumped because I wanted to include who is in DVD commentaries on episode pages, but I couldn't figure out how without adding a sloppy triia-esque thing. Then I came up with this. It still needs work, but what do you guys think? -- Scorpion 01:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Natalie 01:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's how it works: {{SimpsDVD|participants|season (MUST BE IN NUMBERS)}}
so {{SimpsDVD|], ] and ]|5}} would become Template:SimpsDVD
Comments? -- Scorpion 02:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well is it okay to use the images? Regardless I like it, it certainly cures the dvd problem. Gran2 09:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

We are not allowed to use fair use images in templates. --Maitch 15:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh. Well, I thought the images were a nice little touch, but we can just as easily remove them. -- Scorpion 16:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
What section should these templates be put in? --Maitch 17:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Wherever it fits/looks good in. I put it in the Cultural Refs section on the Homerpalooza article simply because it was the only place where there was enough room. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scorpion0422 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
I've just put it in the external links section, above the wikiquote template. Gran2 17:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The Simpsons DVD commentaries has been nominated for deletion. Gran2 22:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I refer to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject The Simpsons#Season DVD's. --Maitch 22:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be nicer if the DVD commentary participants were included in the infobox instead of in a template at the bottom? --Maitch 22:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I gave it a try and you can see the results on the Homerpalooza page. -- Scorpion 14:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I prefer if there is a break between the names, but besides that I think this is the way to go. --Maitch 15:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis length

What is the ideal length of the synopsis for an episode article? I think we should define how long or short they should be in the style guide. I personally think that Homerpalooza is a bit short. Cape Feare could perhaps be slightly trimmed and 'Round Springfield is very long. I think that any Simpson related synopsis should be shorter than the lenth of Pilot (House), since that is an one-hour show. --Maitch 16:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the length of Homer's Phobia is about right, A Milhouse Divided does the same. Not overlylong, but summarising the plot and having a couple of bits of extra details. Gran2 16:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been evaluating the synopsis length of a few episodes. Pilot (House) is about 4000 characters. Those you mentioned are about 2500-2600 characters. Cape Feare is 2700 characters. Last Exit is 3700 characters. I think the ideal length is about 2600 characters. --Maitch 17:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the length depends on the episode. Homerpalooza doesn't have a lot in terms of main plot, so it has a short synopsis. Last Exit has amuch more involved plot and it has a longer synopsis. There really shouldn't be a set character count. -- Scorpion 17:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the number is only an ideal number and should only be something we should get as close to as possible. I'm not suggesting that anything else but 2600 characters is unacceptable. Last Exit to Springfield is really not that complex. It is all about not getting into too many details. --Maitch 22:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There have been very long discussions about this lately on WP:WAF. There are a few important things:

  1. An overly long or (even worse) scene by scene description is most likely a copyright violation of the original work. Make sure it stays a synopsis/summary.
  2. The amount of real world context in the article (ergo that which is not synopsis). That which has made a large impact on the real world, might require a more extensive explanation of the fictional world that created the influence.

I think around the 2000-3000 chars is a proper amount for a synopsis. Don't forget that the episode of House you pointed at is also the Pilot episode and as such "sets the seting". This is one of those things that can require a more extensive summary. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:The Simpsons cast members

User:Lugnuts has recently decided that guest starring in a single episode of the show constitutes as being part of the cast and has started adding a bunch of guest stars to the cast member category. We can not come to an agreement, so some opinions would be appreciated. Are guest stars regular cast members? -- Scorpion 19:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Dan Castellnetta, Harry Shearer, Hank Azira, Julie Kanver, Yeardley Smith, Nancy Cartwright, Tress McNielle, Pamela Hayden, Russi Taylor, Marcia MG, Karl Weidergott, Maggie Roswell, Phil Hartman, Doris Grau, Marcia Wallace, etc.

Are the main cast.

But: Kelsey Grammar, Jon Lovitz, Albert Brooks, Jan Hooks, etc. should all be included.

I've probably missed a few, but my main point is, no one shot guest stars. Gran2 20:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Scorpio is obviously wrong, as per the merging/moving of the cast members CfD result Now look at say, Sam McMurray's page and you'll see him in categories for each show he's guested in. Scorpio is just nitpicking on the terminology over cast member and guest cast member. I don't see how populating The Simpsons cast members category with all guest people is any worse than this , or this , or this , or this , or this . I think the whole point of the CfD was that people wanted to retain the categories of guest/cast members and not just have some list. Lugnuts 20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • So what? Just because it happens in those categories means we have to do it! They are NOT main cast members and they should not be listed as main cast members. Hence why they are not here. Make a new category called "guest stars who ahve appeared on The Simpsons" or something.-- Scorpion 20:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
      • So what are the odds of the first 5 categories I randomly picked being wrong?! The category for guest stars already existing for those shows and have been renamed/merged! Lugnuts 20:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
        • The category is THE SIMPSONS CAST MEMBERS, not PEOPLE WHO HAVE APPEARED IN THE SIMPSONS. It still doesn't matter what those categories have done. Appearing in one or two (or three) episodes does not a cast member make. -- Scorpion 20:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I quote from the closing statement of the CFD: Guest roles do not count, even if they appear more than once. --Maitch 20:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Is this better?

How long do you reckon before someone goes CfD on it, poindexter? Lugnuts 20:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I never said you should do a category like that. I just said they BELONG in a guest star category as opposed to a CAST MEMBER category. You really are acting like a baby here. -- Scorpion 20:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Make a new category called "guest stars who ahve appeared on The Simpsons" or something -- Scorpion 20:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reads like make a new category called "guest stars who have appeared on The Simpsons" to me... D'oh! Lugnuts 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"Hall of famer Whitey Ford has come out onto the field to try and plead for some sort of saniety." Calm down Lugnuts. This really isn't something to get so worked up about. I think Scorpion is right about the cast member catrgory. The separate guest star one is good (van johnson good) and is the best way to solve the problem. Gran2 22:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Another writer

I just discovered that another low key Simpsons writer has a page. Allen Glazier wrote 2 episodes and according to IMDB, has done nothing else. I that instead of going for an afd here, maybe we should merge the page with List of writers of The Simpsons, that way anyone searching for him will at least be led to the right area... -- Scorpion 04:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

Just for those curious, I have been some reassessment of articles, and I have changed my criteria. I almost created a special assessment page, but this is a relatively small project, not like WP:albums or books or television and all of the articles have been evaluated.

Many of the articles are listed as , mostly books and video games, but I have decided to make some changes. Here was my criteria before:

  • Top: Family, MG, show, blah blah blah
  • High: main characters, Sam Simon, James L. Brooks, Al Jean, David Silverman, seasons, important locations, important lists, credits stuff, 6 main cast members
  • Mid: Episodes, more important writers & directors, show runners, secondary characters, semi-important locales, a few lists, other cast members
  • Low: Directors, writers, other characters, animation studios, in-universe stuff, locations
  • None: Video games, one-time writers, guests voicing recurring characters, minor cruftish stuff

But, I have changed the last three to:

  • Mid: Episodes, show runners, Swartzwelder, Kirkland, Vitti, secondary and ALL other characters with pages, semi-important locales, a few lists, other cast members
  • Low: Everything directly from the shows universe that does not fit mid, high or top and everything that was made because of the show (books, video games, CDs, etc), ALL writers/directors and other crew who were not EPs or mentioned above who have been credited with multiple episodes OR have had a producer credit, also includes producers (Sakai, Sirkot, etc)
  • None: one or two time writers, guests voicing recurring characters, phrases not invented by the show.

Thoughts? Comments? -- Scorpion 05:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it hurts making an assessment sub page. --Maitch 15:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There's Something About Marrying

I just stumbled upon this episode. I haven't seen it, i'm not gonna to any time soon. However, if someone in the Lead writes: "one of the most controversial episodes", it might be a good idea to explain WHY. Add links to mediasources that discussed this episode etc etc etc. Instead, I get all kinds of information that I could have gotten from watching the episode, and that I truly don't care about (i would prefer to just watch the episode). And somebody please edit down that HUGE list of quotations. Remember we are writing an Encyclopedia here people, not an episode guide. I hope a Simpsons editor will make this article more useful to me then it is now. Thank you in advance, whoever you might be. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I just read on the Television rating system page it also won an Emmy, but I can't seem to digg up any sources that confirm this. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
That would be because it didn't. As for the state of the page, we are slowly working on it, a majority of the early season pages are good. Gran2 14:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It was nominated for a WGA award, but didn't win (the winner was another Simpsons episode). We have been very focused on improving the episode articles these last month. For examples take a look at Homerpalooza or Cape Feare. So far we have been dealing with the early episodes, since there is much more information available on those. The quotes should just be moved to Wikiquote. --Maitch 15:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Good to see that the project has such enthousiastic and GOOD contributors that can give articles such a good overhaul. I hope this article will also see that in the future. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

More CFDs

Now somebody has decided to nominate the Simpsons Directors and Simpsons Writers categories. I don't see why people waste their time with nominating categories. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be about articles, not categorizing articles. One line articles like the Chris Clements article or Allen Glazier can go months without being noticed, but even useful categories can be targeted for deletion. You can find the CFDs here. They're the 8th and 9th ones down. -- Scorpion 08:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, I think we need a list of The Simpsons directors. --Maitch 10:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Scorpion 00:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Martha Quimby

A user has just created this article - probably a fan, given the name. I'm of the opinion that there is nothing to say about Martha Quimby that can't be included in the Mayor Quimby article, but I would like some consensus before redirecting this to Mayor Quimby. Natalie 19:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, nothing that merits its own article, just redirect. The user who started it seems to have an infatuation with the Quimbys, his username for one thing, and that he has already created a Freddie Quimby page today, which has now been deleted. Gran2 19:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that. He has also double listed Krusty on the List of characters page, which is a constant problem (yet another reason to make it alphabetical). I sent him a talk page message about the double listing - maybe I can direct him toward this project so he doesn't waste his time creating pages that are just going to be deleted. Natalie 19:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll nominate it for speedy. It doesn't even seem worthy of having a redirect. -- Scorpion 20:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything in the deletion log for Freddie Quimby (there was a Freddy Quimby a few days ago that was speedied), are you sure there was a page? And, check out this page which that user also created. -- Scorpion 20:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
From his talk page "Thank you for experimenting with Misplaced Pages by creating the page Freddy Quimby. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted." So I assume he did. He also removed your speedy tag (I put it back), and said that Lionel Hutz was dead. Gran2 20:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Why does Martha Quimby redirect to List of recurring characters from the Simpsons, where she's not even mentioned? Ok to redirect to Mayor Quimby? LeSaint 06:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Criteria

Well, I've had to deal with undiscussed merges several times over the past 2 days, so I think we should come up with a criteria for inclusion, so that in merge discussions, one can say "fits guidelines as decided by the Simpsons WikiProject".

Here's what I think: In order to qualify for a page, a character must meet one of these guidelines:

  1. Must be central to at least 2 episodes. Under this criteria, Manjula would qualify for a page.
  2. Must have made speaking appearances in at least ___ (50?) episodes. Under this criteria, Bumblebee Man and Wiseguy would qualify.
  3. For one-timers, must have been extremely central to plot and made an appearance that is referenced in several later episodes or in comic books. Frank Grimes and Hank Scorpio meet this one

Thoughts? -- Scorpion 22:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

CfD Notice

The related Category:TV crew by series has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

Note: Although the above category doesn't in fact exist, it is the header under which the discussion is located, so the discussion link will work. --BlueSquadronRaven 05:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquote

All of the episode pages contain links to Wikiquote, and yet none of them work because it's stored by seasons. So we need to make redirect pages. Unless someone says we shouln't for some reason.--Andy mci 16:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Portal

Well, the Portal was hideously outdated and I have updated it. Perhaps we as a WikiProject should get into a routine of updating it every now and then.. ie. A new Did you know every week, a new featured episode once a week, etc etc. -- Scorpion 18:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I've noticed that for a while, but not got around to doing anything about it, good job. I'd be up for updating it, as we have pretty much ignored it. Gran2 19:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Need opinions on a REALLY annoying IP user at The Wife Aquatic

Some IP user has been adding some stuff about a goof involving a blanket. Feeling it was insignificant, I removed it with a bunch of other crufty trivia items. Unfortunately, the IP user has figured out how to undo edits and has undone every edit made to the article and accused me of removing it because I'm jealous that he discovered it first. Unfortunately, he has the upperhand because I have to worry about 3RR violations whereas he does not (he even threatened to report me, which makes me think it's entrapment... Perhaps I'm a little too paranoid). So, I guess the question is: Is the goof worth noting? -- Scorpion 19:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I have come to the conclusion that almost no goofs are worth noting, unless they're major plot holes or similar. I definitely think that any and all "sight goofs" (something changing color, moving position, etc) are not worthwhile because they are super cruft. I don't think, however, that just telling the IP what the WikiProject thinks is going to help, so maybe they should be invited to this discussion. Natalie 19:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
You can read the whole of what they say on the talk page. Perhaps we should entrap them... One of you guys revert his edits and when he undos them, nail him with 3RR and we won't have to worry for 12 hours... -- Scorpion 20:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll undo his recent thing. Invitations to join the discussions usually work, as in my experiances it makes them mysteriously vanish. But as for goofs, they are not needed. The only truly major plot goof I have ever known is the whole farmhouse burning down and magically re-appearing again thing... Gran2 20:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
In Moe'N'a Lisa, there's a goof about an animation error, and there's a link to a gif to prove it, I've never been sure about that one, so I let it go. -- Scorpion 20:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

UPN Vandal strikes here

The UPN vandal just joined the project, he joined under an IP address, with the name Lil' Demeo (talk · contribs), his user page is completely copied, names and all, from AAA! (talk · contribs)'s page. I reverted it, but this is just a reminder of how irritating this guy is. Gran2 20:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Cape Feare GA nomination

I was thinking, is there something fundamentally wrong with Cape Feare? It has been on GAC for ages and two Simpsons episodes that were nominated after it have been promoted. --Maitch 20:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's just the way things work. People see "Homerpalooza" or "Homer's Phobia" or "Marge vs. the Monorail" and say "Oh boy! The Simpsons". When they see "Cape Feare" they think of the movie. Just wait, some of the articles on that page have been nominated since January. -- Scorpion 20:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least it is first in line now. --Maitch 20:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Since it appears that the Simpsons directors category will be deleted...

Should we rename the "Category:The Simpsons crew members" to something else? -- Scorpion 16:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That category might be deleted as well. See Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion#Category:TV crew by series. --Maitch 17:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Alright, then what category should we put crew in if that category is deleted? -- Scorpion 17:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point. These people don't want any categories for TV crews. --Maitch 17:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I get it, but the Simpsons crew should be under some sort of Simpsons related category, considering that 95% of the writers and directors with pages have them almost solely because of their involvement with the show. -- Scorpion 17:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Not according to the people who wants it deleted. They prefer lists. --Maitch 20:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

copyediting

i noticed on the "things you can do" section, the main simpsons article needs copyediting. i'd be more than happy to do it, but before i get started, i want to know what exactly needs to be changed and why it's up for copyediting, despite having FA status. please respond. in the meanwhile, i'll print it out and start correcting on paper. --ThrowingStick/Talk 19:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I think this is only on the to do list, because it hasn't been removed. I think the prose is okay, although I won't rule out any mistakes. --Maitch 20:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Spellling and grammar? I'll get that. --ThrowingStick/Talk 00:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Episode articles

There are a few episodes that violate the naming conventions at WP:NC-TV that say the articles should be the episode title by the showname when they conflict with something else, e.g. Rosebud (The Simpsons). However, these articles all have (The Simpsons episode) at the end, e.g. Rosebud (The Simpsons episode), while they should not have the word episode according to the guideline. I tried moving these pages to the proper name, but that is already being used as a redirect. There are eight pages like this, and I would like an admin to move them to the proper title. You can contact me if you want to know which ones they are. Thanks. bmitchelf•T•F 03:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It was decided here that the pages should be moved to (The Simpsons episode). -- Scorpion 03:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
May I ask why? bmitchelf•T•F 04:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
May I ask why as well ? A disambiguator is NOT intended to be descriptive. The policy is to add the showname and only add additionally "episode" if the name of the episode is the name of a character or other "show"-element as well. I would very much advice you to read WP:TV-NC again and not go against formal guidelines because you think "it looks better". --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Read Wikipedia_talk:WIkiproject_The_Simpsons/Archive2#Disambiguation_used_in_episode_articles for previous discussion. --Maitch 17:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to add that WP:TV-NC was made after this was decided. I personally don't care what the format is. --Maitch 18:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
On 11th November we moved all of those episodes to (The Simpsons episode). It's in a talk archive i think--Andy mci 19:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Project evaluation

I have organized our project page a bit and still think it could a lot less cluttered. While doing this I have thought about what we have managed to do and what remains to be done. All the articles are tagged now and assessments of the quality and importance have been done. Our most important article The Simpsons has been promoted to FA and the article Homer Simpson, which is of top importance, has been promoted to GA. We got five episode GA's, which is probably the best for any show on Misplaced Pages. So what needs to be done?

  1. Move the quotes to WikiQuote as well as damage control for out-of-control episode articles.
  2. Get every single of our core articles at least up to GA.
  3. Organize character lists.

I think these are our main goals right now. Thoughts? --Maitch 14:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You should see the Pokemon WikiProject, they have 3 FAs and 20 GAs. I almost wish we could just start over with most of the pages, because so many random users just keep adding random non-notable facts that most of the character and episode pages are just big messes. The goals seem pretty good, If I was smart, I would have removed every quotes section while I was adding the DVD commentary info to 200 episode pages a while back. I'll use AWB and remove as many as I can because I have VERY slow internet and AWB speeds things up considerably. -- Scorpion 19:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The graph says 2 FAs and 19 GAs, but anyway I get the point. I think we could get some ideas for turning our own character pages into FAs from the Pokemon project. Besides deleting the quotes we also need to setup a link to WikiQuote and a corresponding section to the episode. This is a lot of work. --Maitch 20:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


Pokémon articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA Other ??? Total
FA 1 2 1 4
FL 2 1 3
GA 17 7 22 15 61
B 6 8 14 9 1 1 39
C 3 15 13 24 55
Start 12 24 65 1 102
Stub 11 11
List 9 4 17 25 55
Category 68 68
Disambig 12 12
File 177 177
Project 8 8
Redirect 3 9 2,817 1 2,830
Template 22 22
NA 3 3
Other 6 6
Assessed 37 47 95 160 3,114 2 1 3,456
Total 37 47 95 160 3,114 2 1 3,456
They must have lost an FA... Anyway, I have removed eery quotes section I could find. Although, it is possible that I missed some. As for the PCP, most of their GAs are Pokemon articles, so I think they just picked a format and every article that gets changed to that format is nomed for GA, it's what we've been doing with the episode articles. -- Scorpion 20:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, if we wanted to, we could turn every episode released on DVDs into GAs - well, at least you and Gran could, I would still be stuck with my Cape Feare GAC :-) --Maitch 21:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of which, Homer's Enemy is now a GAC. Input on the article is welcome. And I've been trying to get Cape Feare reviewed. I've been reviewing several GACs myself, and I've always been leaving a message asking if people could return the favour and review the article, but so far there have been no takers. -- Scorpion 23:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, Cape Feare has finally been promoted. Homer's Enemy needs an end spoiler tag and I'm a bit disappointed that there is not more material. The books Planet Simpson and Leaving Springfield had a chapter each on this episode. I think it could be one of those episodes that could be turned into a FA, but anyway I'm sure that it will pass GAC in its current state. --Maitch 14:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The article was originally quite longer, but it ended up sounding more like an analysis than anything. If anyone has anything to add, feel free to do so. -- Scorpion 16:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Category

I think we need a new category for the Simpsons in which we would put all real life products in. Then we could put the albums, publications, and video games subcategories in it as well as the DVD articles. I am unsure of what to call it. "The Simpsons media" or "The Simpsons products" are the frontrunners. -- Scorpion 19:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons merchandise? maybe. If not then I think products is best. Gran2 21:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Week?

I think we need a collaboration of the week, likle other projects. The Pokemon project does that and they have dozens of GAs. Naturally, I think our first collaboration should be Bart Simpson. The article really needs some sources and some more back info on the character.

I personally will also be trying to get Deep Space Homer and Simpsons Roasting up to GA status. On a side note, perhaps we should a "what users are working on section" so that people will know and can help out if they wish. -- Scorpion 20:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, definitly a good idea, this should help us get a few more GAs at least. Gran2 21:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I think a collaboration would be great as I don't want to take on a big project like that alone. Bart Simpson is the obvious choice. I think the time limit should be greater than a week. --Maitch 20:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I changed my mind. I think the main family character pages needs a lot of work fast and the best way to do would be with a short collaboration. So I propose that we make next week Bart's week and then do Lisa the following week, followed by Marge and then Maggie. If the articles are not good enough we can go through the cycle once more until they all are GA. --Maitch 17:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

What is wrong with having favourite quotes in articles? Simply south 21:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Because its against policy, they belong on wikiquote. Gran2 22:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

voting

It has been open for 4 months and 15 users have voted, so I figured now is as good a time as any to close it and tally the results. But, there really wasn't a clear consensus, only a handful of episodes received more than 1 vote. As a result I think we should do a second round where every episode that received a vote in the previous round is represented and we pick five episodes as opposed to three. Then, the results won't end up being the same. The new voting thread can be found here. Hopefully, enough people will vote so that this round doesn't also take four months. -- Scorpion 07:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Article Creation and Improvement Drive

I have nominated Bart Simpson to be the ACID collaboration because I figured that it certainly wouldn't hurt to get some outside help. It may take a while before it goes through though. -- Scorpion 19:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Category: