Talk:Treehouse of Horror XVII

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Treehouse of Horror XVII article.
TV This article is part of WikiProject The Simpsons, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to The Simpsons on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid-importance within The Simpsons.
Tasks you can do:


Contents

[edit] Airdate

I changed the airdate to "Fall 2006" from "November 2006". While in the past few years, all the Treehouse of Horror episodes have aired in November, it could possibly air in October. If there is any evidence to support this, please change it back. • Rlloyd3 03:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last Treehouse of Horror?

Is this the last Treehouse of Horror? I mean there's a lot of them but is this the last one?

[edit] Appearance in News

This morning on AOL news, there was a story about The Day the Earth Looked Stupid, and how it might affect the elections. I can't find it now, but it's worth mentioning. The episode apparently has Kang and Kodos talking about forced occupation, and how "Won't they get tired of it after a while?" and make some deadpan joke about Iraq. - A.J. 03:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The reference could be about the US occupation of any land from Iraq to Greneda or any general reference. Since the wikipedia is about being objective I removed the offensive statement which is politically targeted at President Bush -- This unsigned comment was left by 4.142.150.46 ( talk | contribs ) on 23 October 2006 at 16:17

No, it can't. There is a quote (which is stated in the reference I added) that says "This sure is a lot like Iraq will be." It is sourced, it is factual, and it IS encyclopedic. Wikipedia is meant to be objective, yes, but the Simpson's aren't. I suggest if you have a problem with the Simpson's comment, you take it up with them. The simple fact is that Wikipedia objectively covers a lot of things in mass media, and while it covers them neutrally, it doesn't omit notable things that might offend people. Your arguments were that it was an attack on the president, and could be any war. First, it is clear that it refers to Iraq. Second, that it is a satire (attack), on a notable prime-time show that has been covered in the news, only makes it more encyclopedic. Thus, I readded the section. AubreyEllenShomo 18:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this is exactly the type of information that should be in episode articles per WP:EPISODE, episode articles should contain an episode's impact on popular culture. This clearly qualifies as such an impact. See also Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. Cheers. L0b0t 18:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sypnosis?

Well, now that the episode has been leaked on filesharing nets, the question is: Do we write a sypnosis and a complete article or do we pretend like nothing is different? — Mütze 22:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Yes.

No, I think there's some kind of rule against posting episode synopsises before that episode has been aired to the general public. Not sure though so ask an Administrator. -- Scorpion0422 19:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I did add a bit about "The Day the Earth Looked Stupid" and the Iraq war to the Cultural References section, based on an ABC News article, rather than the leaked episode. I believe that's permissable, as it okay by WP:V and isn't WP:OR. Plus, it's clearly relevant and notable. AubreyEllenShomo 20:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] link

I took out the link to the episode that has not been aired yet because of copyright laws. I am sure it's in every file sharing program out there but it should not be on here. Fans should wait for the show or fish it out from another source. Tofubyrd 05:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC) HAPPY HALLOWEEN GUYS :)

Good idea. Of course, the link will forever be in the article history. AubreyEllenShomo 20:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Episode leak

Isn't it worth mentioning in the article that this episode was leaked a week before it aired? Roger 20:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random Comments

LOL im watching this at this exact moment! In Oklahoma City it is now excactly Nov. 05 2006 7:24pm and im the watching The Day The Earth Looked Stupid on the part where they are in the mud naked acting like animals.

[edit] Trivia, cult. ref. and cruft

I've begun cleaning up the Simpsons episodes per the following guidelines and policies: WP:EPISODE, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:WAF. Allow me to quote from the relevant pages.

WP:EPISODE, a guideline, instructs: "* Content about television episodes must conform to Wikipedia content policies, including but not limited to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.

Avoid excessive trivia and quotations.

  • Extensive quotation from episodes is a violation of copyright and unlikely to be fair use.
  • Here are some ideas for what information to include about a television episode, where possible:
    • The plot summary of the episode
    • The episode's relevance in ongoing story arcs, if any
    • How the episode was received by critics
    • The episode's impact on popular culture
    • Information on production and broadcasting of the episode
  • Elements which are best avoided in any episode article:
    • A scene-by-scene synopsis. An overall plot summary is much better; the article should not attempt to be a replacement for watching the show itself, it should be about the show
    • Particularly for comedies, no attempt should be made to recreate the humor of the show. This rarely works, and is contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia."

WP:NOT, a policy says: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply: Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic."

WP:V, a policy, is clear: "The policy:

Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.

  1. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
  2. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."

WP:OR, a policy, states: "

This policy in a nutshell This policy in a nutshell:
Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position.

That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article."

WP:RS, a guideline, reads in part: "Popular culture and fiction


Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included."

WP:WAF, a guideline, tells us: "Wikipedia policy on verifiability requires that articles "rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." However, articles written from an in-universe perspective are overly reliant on the fiction itself as a primary source. Lacking as they are in any critical analysis of the subject, these articles may invite original research. In other words, lacking critical analysis from secondary sources, Wikipedia editors and fans of the subject often feel compelled to provide such analysis themselves. Consider this analogy: Would it be acceptable to write an article on flight based solely on watching birds flying? Furthermore, much of this analysis might seem on the surface to be quite sound. For example, assume that an editor creates an article on a starship recently introduced on a science fiction TV show. Using the episodes as reference, he or she writes, "Finn-class starfighters have purple shielding and can fly faster than Mach 3." But how do we really know that all Finn-class starships have purple shielding? What if there are green ones that just have not been introduced yet? And what if later episodes show that Finn-class starships come in slower or faster varieties, too? The editor has made an inference, based on limited fictional information. Framing things from the perspective of our own universe eliminates the problem altogether: "In Episode 37, Commander Kinkaid obtains a Finn-class starfighter with purple shielding. Vice Admiral Hancock calls the ship 'a real space ripper' and says that she can 'make it past Mach 3'."

Please understand that Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia and just not the place to repeat jokes from the episodes or say what product placement you have happened to notice. If you want to write a deconstruction of the episode's use of narrative and novel juxtaposition of cultural memes, that's fantastic. Find some reliable 3rd party sources and show us what you've got. Adding more items to a bulleted list of things you can see when you watch the episode is just not acceptable. Take a look at the Featured articles, that's some good writing, that is what we're shooting for here. Cheers. L0b0t 04:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure all of the deleted items violated Wikipedia policy. Proponents of those items may want to take this opportunity to defend them.Bjones 15:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bulleted Cultural Refrences

The use of bulleted cultual refrences is acceptable by Wikipedia standards, I refer you to the entries for any episode of Family Guy, such as North by North Quahog. --Wowaconia 02:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

See also any entry for an episode of American Dad, such as Bullocks to Stan.--Wowaconia 02:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

See also any entry for an episode of Futurama, such as A Fishful of Dollars.--Wowaconia 02:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

See also any entry for an episode of South Park, such as Good Times with Weapons where they are bulleted under Pop Culture References.--Wowaconia 02:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, those are also articles in need of correction. I don't think the existance of other poorly written articles should excuse poor writting in this one. It's not that bulleted lists are not acceptable in some circumstances, they just should not comprise a section unto themselves. Articles are to be written as prose. This makes for better reading and flow and also removes the great cruftmagnet that lists like these inevitably becomes. Cheers. L0b0t 03:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica has no entry on the Simpsons at all, much less entries on individual episodes. There inclusion in Wikipedia shows that it is more in touch and relevant to people's lives and therefore expands the definition of "Encyclopedia" itself. Bulleted lists that explain cultural references should be viewed as a cross-reference section and not arbitrarily deleted if they give insight to knowledge. Expansion of knowledge is the purpose of any Encyclopedia. As none of the examples of structure I cited were marked by anyone as needing cleanup, it appears L0b0t that your opinion is the one at odds with the Wiki-community. I also disagree with your opinion that including all information in prose paragraphs makes good writing, it often breaks up the flow. For example if one writes "As Homer samples bus passengers like they were candy, Dr. Phil McGraw shows up with the Simpson family. He tells Homer to stop for their sakes. After swallowing Dr. Phil, Blob Homer announces Dr. Phil tastes just like Jeffrey Tambor. Dr. Phil has often discussed the fact that people mistake him for the actor and even discussed the issue with Jeffrey Tambor on his show.[1]. Homer than ends his rampaging in fear of losing Marge and vows to use his insatiable appetite for more constructive purposes. Later, Mayor Quimby dedicates a new homeless shelter. The homeless people enter the "shelter," only to find themselves in Homer's gut." In this example the reader is mentally removed from the Simpson's episode and wrenched into picturing the Dr. Phil show with Dr. Phil speaking to Jeffery Tambor and the live audience reacting to whether they look alike, then the reader is wrenched back into the Simpsons episode. Still if the information is deleted altogether one does not understand the reference that the Simpson writers where making and is left in ignorance. If instead the point is made in a bulleted list the information is conveyed and the flow is not broken. L0b0t upon looking at your user-talk page I notice you have run into problems with other wikipedians on this matter and have had to face mediation and arbitration. I believe the problem your having is trying to place Britannica standards on an article Britannica editors would NEVER allow in their books because they see "The Simpsons" as cruft. Therefore a new standard for articles on cultural satire shows has been created by the Wikipedians who disagree that such shows are cruft and this standard includes bulleted lists of cultural references. I agree that quoting ever joke is unacceptable, but explaining references that are obscure, discussing connections with other works, or revealing cultural impact is what lifts these wiki-entries into the field of educational tool. I will give you some time to respond before I repost the deleted information.--Wowaconia 01:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You should read a little closer as I have only been invited to comment on RfC about another editor's behavior and agreed to participate in a mediation on a dispute on the causality of the Iran-Iraq war. I have never had any procedure brought against me, nor warnings of any kind. My user page has been vandalized by users who would rather be childish than discuss any edits. You however, have done the correct thing and commented here. I would posit that Britannica standards are not germane to this discussion, rather, that Wikipedia standards are the issue. All of my edits adhere to the following policies and guidelines for episode articles: WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:WAF, WP:EPISODE, WP:TRIVIA, and WP:AVTRIV. Again, I must stress that the information itself is often not the problem but rather, the way in which it is presented. The policy on original research tells us-- "Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data,or theories that serves to advance a position...That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article"

There are many, many outlets for fan analysis and commentary but Wikipedia is not one of them. Anyone care to discuss? Cheers. L0b0t 03:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I would point out L0b0t that your approach is at odds with Wikipedia policy see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_trivia_sections_in_articles#Guidance “This guideline does not suggest deletion of trivia sections. Instead, consider it a list of ‘facts pending integration’ or ‘facts lacking sufficient context for integration’. Seek to minimize it, but meanwhile leave it in place as a raw store of facts for both readers and editors to work with. However, it is possible to move a trivia section to the talk page to allow other editors to participate with discussing and integrating the information worthy of inclusion in the article.” I looked at the article history where you wholesale deleted every bulleted item without any pretense of objectively examining them.

The Wikipedia standards that you did mention are not relevant to the point of discussion – none of these things you deleted are “arguments, ideas, data, or theories”. They are citations of the show with links that explain the information or a few sentences that do the same.
Also I wish you would respond concerning if you disagree with my contention that writing the bulleted items into the summary paragraphs is wrenching for the reader and does not make good writing. It is my belief that if Wikipedia can lead fans of cultural satire to scholarly articles about the subject the series writers are invoking they will be educationally enriched and that is not cruft but is the very purpose of Wikipedia.
I would also defend the practice of citing related works. For instance citing similar themes Matt Groening made in his “Futurama”. What is the difference in saying “In ‘The Day the Earth Looked Stupid’ Matt Groening explored a similar theme as in his ‘Futurama’ episode ‘The Day the Earth Stood Stupid’ with saying ‘Jack London explored similar themes in ‘The Iron Heel’ as he has had in ‘The Sea Wolf”. If “The Simpsons” are Wikipedia worthy than surely the artistic work of Matt Groening must be treated on par with other artists.--Wowaconia 05:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and in future don't be so quick to accuse editors of not examining things before deleting them. The guideline to which you refer WP:AVTRIV, does indeed caution against wholesale removal. However that is trumped by policy, WP:V--"Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.

1. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
2. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."

and policy,WP:OR--"...any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article."

also the guideline for writting about fiction offers some advice--"Wikipedia policy on verifiability requires that articles "rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." However, articles written from an in-universe perspective are overly reliant on the fiction itself as a primary source. Lacking as they are in any critical analysis of the subject, these articles may invite original research. In other words, lacking critical analysis from secondary sources, Wikipedia editors and fans of the subject often feel compelled to provide such analysis themselves."

This means that one can use the episode itself (primary source) only to describe what happened in that episode. One can not say scene X in work 1 is a parody of scene Y in work 2 unless that analysis has already been published by a reliable 3rd party source in relation to the episode. So if in the many, many, many resources deconstructing fiction and film you find that someone has published that scene X is a parody/homage to scene Y, then one may include that in the article and cite one's source. To just watch the show and and think, this scene references such and such, I'll add it to the encyclopedia is original research and will be deleted.

As for sections that consist entirely of bulleted lists, no, I disagree with you completely. In no way does integrating information as prose distract from the flow; quite the opposite, a bulleted list of things sits like a big, ugly lump in the middle of well written prose and provides no context as to why that information is important or noteworthy. Lists become cruftmagnets, inviting edits such as this gem that I excised from a South Park article the other day--"In this episode, Kenny has a computer." That is, however, an issue of editorial style and for that we need a consensus, so if any experienced editors would care to weigh in that would be great.
Pointing out references to pop culture in an episode (explaining the jokes to the slow-witted) is proscribed by WP:EPISODE--"# Elements which are best avoided in any episode article:
* A scene-by-scene synopsis. An overall plot summary is much better; the article should not attempt to be a replacement for watching the show itself, it should be about the show
  • Particularly for comedies, no attempt should be made to recreate the humor of the show. This rarely works, and is contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia."

Articles should contain information on how the episode has impacted pop culture not all the product placemenmt one can spot in an episode. Again, there are outlets, many, many outlets to list all the trivia and cruft (Simpsons wiki for example) but the general purpose encyclopedia is not the place to do so. Please take a look at the featured articles, that is the type of writting we should be aiming for. Cheers. L0b0t 15:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you'd avoid a lot of what you see as cruft if you placed a prominent link to wikisimpsons on the top of these articles - since one of the definitions of cruft is in-depth minutia you could put something like "For a more in-depth look at this episode see [Link to wiksimpsons]." I still don't understand why you think the list of Anarchisms isn't cruft but comments like the one explaining what the reference to the chabad telethon is, as its only aired on the West Coast and not nationally. How is this as you so undiplomatically put it "explaining the jokes to the slow-witted".--Wowaconia 00:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Also thanks for reminding me of the "good faith" guideline. I guess I just assumed you deleted it wholesale because you failed to follow wikipedia guidelines and "move a trivia section to the talk page to allow other editors to participate with discussing and integrating the information worthy of inclusion in the article." Nor did you take it upon yourself to integrate anything - the history page showed you just made it vanish. Stupid "slow-witted" me I call that wholesale deletion. But now us "slow-witted" people out here understand that its "bad faith" to question you when your violating wiki-standards. Thanks for the hypocrisy.--Wowaconia 01:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taking a Bullet for Cultural References or: One Man's Cruft is Another Man's Kingdom

I came to this page to see if it would tell me who Norm Crosby is and, for that matter, what was that telethon the Golem was talking about. You see, that is my favorite thing about Wikipedia, its ability to link you from a cultural reference made in a piece of media to the person or entity being referred to. Nowhere else on the internet does one casually go from reading about, say, a Simpsons episode, and be linked to, say, Genghis Khan, Valhalla, or Love Is..., to name but a few of the thousands of Simpsons cultural references that have outstanding Wiki pages themselves. This level of functionality and interconnectivity is unparalleled on the web and is, in my increasingly humble opinion, one of the things that makes Wikipedia so magnificent. It is also why I was so upset when I couldn't find a link to Mr. Crosby, or any information on the telethon on this page. Perhaps no one with knowledge of said telethon had seen this episode or had bothered to enter it on Wiki. If only that were the case. For it seems someone did enlighten us with the information and I was able to learn that he said "Chabad Telethon," and what that is. Here's the problem: I was looking in the page history at a deleted item. Apparently, some individual decided that this information was "cruft" and that it must be deleted. The quote was taken directly from a primary account of this episode and, therefore, was not in violation of Wikipedia standards. I understand that original research is involved when one says "scene X in work 1 is a parody of scene Y in work 2". Even though it seems silly to imply "research" was done to know that Married to the Blob refers to Married to the Mob, or that "The Blob" refers to The Blob, it is understandable that it can be considered original research in some contexts. But direct references made by characters in The Simpsons to other cultural entities requires no such research and and deletion of which is only done because one individual decided arbitrarily that is was unimportant and not Wiki "worthy". While I agree that bulleted lists are aesthetically untidy, content removal is far far worse. We all have our own opinion on what constitutes "cruft", please spare us your heavy-handed one. I must take great exception with the wholesale deletion of relevant cultural information in this or any article. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Sansbras 11:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read the policies and guidelines posted above. It is not a problem with the info but rather the way the info is presented. ALL edits must conform to an established editorial style with inline citations and a reference section. Even if the source is the original work, which should be used as a source ONLY if no secondary sources are extant, has to be cited and listed in the references section. As for your specific info, search for Chabad or Norm Crosby and there you go. Cheers. L0b0t 14:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Of course I am well aware that I can search for anything (assuming I spell it correctly) on Wikipedia. But one's ability to search for a reference made on The Simpsons does not discount the usefulness of having such a reference listed on the episode page for the following reasons: First, it is not always clear to all what entity is being referred to, especially when one is not already familiar with the entity in question (like the Chabad telethon). Second, linking from one page to another IS the beauty of Wikipedia, as no other source on the web contains such vast information on both the cultural (like The Simpsons) and the academic (like, say, Genghis Khan). To eliminate such links is to devalue Wikipedia. And finally, I am quite familiar with WP:POLICY and am aware that there is room for direct reference to the primary source (in this case, the episode in question) and that a cultural reference explicitly named in said source constituted acceptable use. As someone who finds such references enlightening, I am always disappointed to see these links deleted. I sincerely believe there is "room" in Wikipedia for such a useful and enjoyable tool, and I hope the desire to delete remains secondary to making Wikipedia as useful as possible. Thanks again, Sansbras 21:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

L0b0t you should note that your link to Chabad in the discussion above doesn't lead the reader to any article at all, just a choice between articles neither of which has anything to say about the Chabad Telethon.

I will concede that comparing episodes within a series would constitute original research (i.e. saying this episode explores similar themes as a Futurama episode). But I think you are allowing "summaries" of the segments to expand into retelling every joke while in the meantime you are eliminating useful information such as that on the Chabad Telethon without even bringing it to the discussion page. --Wowaconia 11:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Ink Spots

Who ever keeps removing the information that the Ink Spots "I Don't Want To Set the World on Fire" from the anachronisms segment, I refer you to this link to The University of Missouri-Kansas City's Miller Nichols Library which lists the copywrite as 1941. http://www.umkc.edu/lib/spec-col/ww2/1939/idontwant.htm Please stop erasing things without discussing them first.--Wowaconia 10:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

User 71.37.86.165 has pointed out in the editing notes that from the time of the invasion to the last segment where they discuss "Operation Enduring Occupation" three years have past "so it would be 1941, and therefore, not an anachronism." Good catch 71.37.86.165, I stand corrected.--Wowaconia 07:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where's the Quotes?

There's no quotes in the article! Even in the articles about Simpsons episodes that haven't aired yet there's a "Quotes" section! Riverdanceman

There should never be a quotes section in a wikipedia article. All quotes should go to our sister project Wikiquote. That's where you will find the Simpsons, South Park et al quotes. Cheers. L0b0t 15:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually there should! There's quotes in the article for G.I. (Annoyed Grunt), which was the most recent Simpsons episode aired.

No, please see the relevant policies and guidelines. Quotes from episodes are copyright violations and rarely fall under the protection of fair use. Using an article that violates rules to justify violating rules in another article does not hold water. L0b0t 16:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

What's the problem with adding:

Go Futurama! Sp3000 06:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Airdate Incorrect

Sorry, I though it was the Treehouse of Horror one listed in one of my TV Guide, its incorrect though…it isn’t that episode. RaptorRobot 06:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/r/e/Talk%7ETreehouse_of_Horror_XVII_d8a3.html"