Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject The Simpsons/Archive 5 - 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 MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 07:01, 25 October 2007 (Archiving 3 thread(s) from Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject The Simpsons.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:01, 25 October 2007 by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) (Archiving 3 thread(s) from Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject The Simpsons.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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)