Talk:The Simpsons/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

Arabic

The transliterations offered do not match the Arabic given, at least by my limited understanding of Arabic script. Is there a source for this that can be checked against? --Kbh3rdtalk 14:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right; the Arabic as it now exists is incorrect (it appears to be a go at spelling "simpsons" rather than the actual name of the program as broadcast in Arabic-speaking markets, "Al-Shampshoon." If I knew how to correct it, I would, but I believe it should be spelled aleph-lam-sheen-meem-beh-sheen-wow-noon. I don't believe there was an "s" at the end, but haven't seen it in a couple of months (it was only broadcast during Ramadan on any channel I can get, alas)..... Robertissimo 14:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Change from original vision

I've removed this section because it was unverified speculation and not neutral. It also used a lot of weasel words. If anybody wants to add something about how much The Simpsons suck today, then find a credible source to document it with. See also the talk section about "Fan Controversy". --Maitch 12:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Awards?

It would be useful to add a list of awards won by The Simpsons, I think. I will begin a new article on that topic, unless somebody disagrees. ElTchanggo 02:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

List of fictional places on The Simpsons

I have created a new article, List of fictional places on The Simpsons, as a merge target for several articles that border on Simpsons-cruft, such as Bronson, Missouri and Humbleton, Pennsylvania. The list is far from complete at the moment. If another article about a minor location in the Simpsons universe arises, I would recommend merging it with the list as an alternative to putting it up on WP:AFD. Szyslak (Image:Szyslak sig.png [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 22:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

qrank calls

i personaly think it would be cool if we could get a list of all the prank calls Bart did to Moe's Tavern.----68.49.75.128 00:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but do you have any idea how much time that would take?--Dp462090 01:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Besides, there is one at Moe Szyslak#Prank calls. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

redirect problem

Why does "bumblebee man" a(a link from a list of John Belushi characters) redirect to here? JeffStickney 14:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Because in the simpsons there is a character named the bumble bee man Joler 22:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Debut in Arab/Muslim Countries

Why is it under "Simpsons Publications"? .----Ultrabasurero

Running gags

Would it be a good idea to split the running gags section into its own page (in the style of Running gags in Friends)? The list is getting long, but do we need more Simpsons lists? smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 19:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Spelling of "Xt'tapalatakettle"

I explained my opinion that the spelling for Xt.... is wrong on the Xt'Tapalatakettle page. After watching Blood Feud and rewinding the part in question a bunch of times, I know for a fact that this spelling is wrong. Burns' version of the name isn't even the same as the version here. It is supposed to be "tapalapa" not "tapalata" as shown. The DVD captioning also spells it as Xtapalapaquetl. I would think the DVD captioning would have more precedence over the non-canon comic books. Any body want to help clear this up on that page? Ultrabasurero 22:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This is discussed here: [1]--Greasysteve13 06:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Highest Rated Simpsons Episode

does anyone know what the highest rated simpsons episode is?

Who Shot Mr. Burns? Part Two had the most amount of viewers. --DChiuch 10:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I think I've heard "Bart Gets an F" cited as the most-watched episode, but that statistic might be out of date, or possibly only in comparison to The Cosby Show. --Nick RTalk 14:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have any episode ratings, ANY, i will take anything you have, this would get me out of a hole.

ps if you can please make a link to the site where you got it, if you got it from the internet

Live-action recreation of the Simpsons opening.

There was recently a live-action recreation of the Simpsons opening made to promote the show in Britain. You can read about it [2], and watch it [3]. Please talk about it in the article.

This hasn't actually been shown in Britain yet, just appeared on the internet. Not sure exactly how Sky One are going to use it...perhaps as an intro to a special episode. BillyH 13:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I was just about to come on here and add that info but someone beat me to it. :P I think it may be used as a couch gag but I'm not sure. I'll keep you updated.
What does everyone else think of the live-action opening? I think it is really fantastic. One of the coolest things I have seen ever. The attention to detail is amazing. I urge anyone who hasn't seen it yet (and loves The Simpsons or just the opening sequence) to download it. <3 --Rachel Cakes 02:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I did not like the opener I thought It was kind of "cheesey" if u will.

The Simpsons is an American animated sitcom created by Matt Groening.

This is one of the best (since shortest and most complete) definitions within an article on popular culture in the Wikipedia that I ever read. Whoever formulated and submitted this line, I just say: thank you. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )

It is animated in South East Asia though —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.36.75.20 (talk • contribs).pschemp | talk 14:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

True. But this fact does not lessen the beauty of the definition. The attribute "American" refers to "sitcom", not to the "animation". We could also say: The Simpsons is an American South East Asia-animated sitcom. But that would not make so much of a difference in terms of the origin of the Simpsons (which is certainly US American). Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (14042006)

A section on University Thesis

How about adding a section on the large occurences of Master's Thesis submitted based on the Simpsons, for such subjects as Philosophy and Theology? Jayteecork 14:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Otto Mang

I've changed Otto's name to include his last name, which appears to be Mang, as seen on his probationary driver's license. This can be seen in season 3, disc 4, episode 4 of the DVD version (The Otto Show), at about 21:26 minutes. koolman2 10:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidate

Just letting people know, I've nominated The Simpsons as a featured article. Vote for it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Simpsons. --DChiuch 08:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

about Homer's car...

"...and the family's two cars, both of which appear to have been manufactured in the early 1980s (Homer's being made from "recycled Soviet tanks", in a "country that no longer exists")." - Is this taken from "Mr. Plow"? I thought he didn't buy that car, he just took it for a test drive? He could hardly fit in it... am I right? Haha.. "Put it in H!" :) --Sammysam 00:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, he never had the car that is being described, it must be from Mr. Plow. The point it was trying to make about the timeset is fine, but it is incorrect as stated. I'm too lazy to do anything about it, but someone else should take that out or fix it up. 198.138.40.91 04:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC) no account, just me.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe thata similair comment was also made in the episode "The Great Louse Detective" 69.217.195.50 10:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Section names and "Recurring jokes"

I find the two first header names long and overtly complicated, "Production and history of The Simpsons" might as well be named "History", "Setting, characters, and plot of The Simpsons" might be "Storyline" for a shorter description without including the names of the subsections or referring to the article name.

Also, the recurring jokes are a little too specific for the main article - perhaps it would be better with a seperate article and a {{seealso}} under the "Themes" header, as that also talks about the jokes and quirks in the series. Poulsen 13:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

How would you end the simpsons? what do you think the ratings for the series finale will be?

I think i would end the simpsons on such a weird note and try to suprise everyone in the world and make it the most memorable episode in the history of the show. I also think it ill be in the 70-80 million viewership.


Dave


All I know is, that it probably won't be ending till ATLEAST 2008, when the suposed "movie" is supposed to come out. Or, the final episode IS the movie...

Plots section

Some of the 'Plots' section does well to highlight recurring themes, but the bullet-point list at the end of the section is pretty disposable for a feature article. It's true of parts of the entire article, actually; there's a fine line between attention to detail and fanaticism, and occasionally this crosses it.

For instance, in the aforementioned bullet-point list of "several types of scenes that recur often and have become conventions of the show's storytelling style":

  • Scenes that cut from the main action to show what a secondary character, like Krusty or Mr. Burns, is doing at the time.

Listmania, anyone? Yes, of course it's a convention of the show's storytelling style; it's a convention of the medium's storytelling style. It's a convention of storytelling itself. I don't think Matt Groening will be issuing a patent on it anytime soon.

The broader point here is that lists of this kind are worthwhile if they point out recurring plot devices - for instance, the first point, about the oft-used and relatively disposable "trip" of the first five minutes that sets the plot in motion. But if you're writing a list like this and you can't think of enough material, you should stop before it gets to this point:

  • A scene in which one or more Simpsons are watching a TV program, which the viewer watches along with them, or watches them watch it, often to be interrupted.

Yes, on the Simpsons and many other shows. The point here should be the frequency with which "The Simpsons" uses that device to parody advertisements, news reports and general television programming. I know that as a fan it's hard to resist the temptation to quote examples ("Look at all those feminists!") - but it's not a fan list, it's an encyclopedia entry.

  • A scene in which Bart makes a prank call to Moe's Tavern.
  • A scene in which Homer is at Moe's Tavern escaping the hassles of work and family to be with his friends.

Entries like these have nothing to do with the show's storytelling style, beyond being scenes that recur. They're not plot devices so much as actual content.

I don't want to make any changes - I'm a stranger here myself, don't want to tread on anyone's toes - but somebody really needs to go through this page with a steel-tooth comb, 'cos there's a lot of that kind of fluff to be pulled out. Just my opinion, of course :)

203.51.189.23 02:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Failed Good Article nomination

Sorry but the article is much too unstructured (lengthy rambling, too many asides and departing on a tangent) and still doesnt have enough referencing, especially given the level of POV fanboy claims (e.g. the Simpsons had "a huge influence on post-Cold War pop culture" - does "huge" here mean the Simpsons is comparable to the Internet as 90s cultural phenomenon? if so, where's the supporting reference) and oddball original research (e.g. the sophomorically bizarre (and again unreferenced/unsupported) connection between Flanders and Weber's Protestant Ethic). I'm blackballing the good article nomination. Bwithh 23:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

also, theres hardly any criticism... its no secret that the new chapters are of lesser quality than some of the past seassons 7 years ago, yet theres not even a slight comment about it. This whole article is one extended praise to the show.

Feature Film section / The merging of this thread and the The Simpsons Movie thread

The "Feature Film" section appears twice. One of them should be taken out but I don't know which one to remove. Gohst 09:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that the movie has been officially confirmed, does it deserve its own page?. 'The Simpsons movie' currently redirects here, re a request for deletion . One comment in that discussion notes 'This gets its own article as soon as Fox officially announces that the movie's for real. Now it's at the stage where it'll probably happen sooner or later, but nobody knows when', with others agreeing to this proposal. If there's no comments against then I think someone should recreate the movie aritcle; i'll do it within 24 hours if there aren't any objections. Robdurbar 17:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
If you do, take note of this USA TODAY article: [4]. It has the first statements by the creators since the trailer's release. 71.96.218.203 19:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The rationale for merging the two threads was that there is no concrete evidence that any plans for a movie exists. Now that the teaser trailers have been shown during Ice Age: The Meltdown and during the latest Simpsons episode, I think that there is enough "proof" to move it back. Sapientia abhorreo imprudentia
Yeah; it's been done! Robdurbar 09:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Neighbors

In the 'Characters' section, it states that George Bush and Gerald Ford lived beside the Simpsons. However, they lived across the street. 23:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


Ugly duckling

The article doesn't explain how the show turned from the dull Tracey Ullman stuff (how did it get on air?) into something so brilliant. Was it new producers/writers/illustrators? Who made the difference? That writer who sat in the diner smoking ciggies? And why did the standard dip over the last couple of years (2004-05), only to make a partial recovery? eg. the piss-take Cosmic Wars is brilliant, but the 2nd half of that show left me cold. Is it all about the writers?--shtove 01:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Huge influence on post–Cold War popular culture?

The following is written in the lead:

"It [The Simpsons] has had a huge influence on post–Cold War popular culture."

A statement like that needs a citation. I believe that it is more correct to say that it has had an influence on post-Cold War television. --Maitch 17:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Setting

A few months ago, I worked on improving the section on the Simpons setting, since much of the discussion was repeated at Springfield (The Simpsons) (which I also worked on improving). My changes were reverted a few days later, as if it was a "blanking." Well, it was, but with a good purpose, IMO. There in probably hundreds of examples of location evidence, and I thought it was better to keep them in the Springfield page rather than cluttering up this page. So, I've re-edited this section as I did here, and moved more information to Springfield (The Simpsons). --Spiffy sperry 22:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You did a good job in my opion. --Maitch 22:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

On one episode of the Simpsons (I can't remember which one) it is made clear that Springfield is in Ohio.

Critisicm

Shouldn't there be a section devoted to certain critics claiming that the show has "jumped the shark", so to speak. I'm not really that informed about it, but a few people I know say that the argument has become pretty significant. --212.2.170.158 12:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem so far has been that people couldn't write something that uses references and doesn't contain weasel words. Yesterday somebody wrote a well referenced text about the negative critical reactions in the lead. We need more of that and less of "The Simpsons totally suck now" or "many consider The Simpsons awful now". The lead is a bit long now so I propose that we make a "Critical reactions" section in which both positive and negative reactions are mentioned. --Maitch 14:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have previously agreed in the talk page that this article lacks any mention of the criticism the show most certainly has these days. Now I've decided to put my money where my mouth is: I have made a beachhead in the article with a small sub-section under Cultural impact. It is sourced with 3 solid articles, two from reputable media outlets and one direct interview with Harry Shearer. It this gets deleted we know there's something odd afoot. Bobak 18:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Cull the ugly, disgusting herd of episodes.

An article for each episode. Gross and pointless. --162.84.163.5 21:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The same's done with other series like Family Guy and South Park. I personally also think its a bit too much, but obviously lots of people seem to think its worth it. -- jeffthejiff 09:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
300-odd articles dedicated to one cartoon show? That's obscene. Their is even a list for "prank call's" done in the Simpsons? Seriously now.--141.155.136.145 21:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
If it ain't broke don't fix it!--M Johnson (talk • contribs) 00:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


Keep everything; this is the internet, which means UNLIMITED space. ("Hmmm... I see they have the internet on computers now!" - Homer) Blastfromthepast 01:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. After all, WP:NOT paper (that's how we refer to the Internet having unlimited space in Wikipedia-specific terms). --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree also. There are some Simpsons articles that are unnecessary, but episode articles are not one of them. — mæstro t/c, 04:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This is getting beyond a joke

I add an opinion to the above. (Sorry for a big lecture but I'd like others' opinions too.) The plethora of articles on "The Simpsons" is now looking larger than the total amount of knowledge we have in Wikipedia on "Mathematics". That's embaressing if we are ever to gain respect as an encyclopedia. Don't get me wrong, I'm as big a Simpsons fan as anyone here, but it comes down to whether this is the place for it. Yes, The Simpsons itself started a new era of nerds on internet boards talking about trivial things from the show, but when Wikipedia was started as a compendium of human knowledge, who decided to transfer that stuff over here??

Wikipedia doesn't have to contain every single fact in history in it; doing for maths what you people have done for The Simpsons would result in articles like "Flavours of coffee enjoyed by algebraists". Clearly there are some things that aren't interesting enough to the general population to warrant a separate page. I guess the problem is that The Simpsons has a style of humour so well received by the types of people that are into technology/computing and the internet that it is a bigger candidate for such discussion than any other franchise. But that doesn't mean Wikipedia should be dragged into it. This project was obviously started with a different goal in mind. Few other things have so much detail in their categories. We should be keeping Wikipedia consistent. More Wikipedians should be making these articles, and less Simpsons board-posters. Perhaps a separate WikiSimpsons should be set up for those people.

In short, overall problem is, category page has way way way too many articles, this page is a total bore and should be restarted, articles like "prank call's done in the Simpsons" (above) are pointless, and most of the articles basically just speculate over "facts" about the characters and setting as if it's a real life place, forgetting that it's just make-believe. PLEASE somebody agree with me, show me this corner of Wikipedia hasn't been completely overrun by people with too much time on their hands... Tilgrieog 12:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Good to know someone agrees! Let's take a look at the lists, shall we?

The Simpsons catch phrases Delete

List of animals in The Simpsons Delete

List of The Simpsons episodes

List of vehicles in The Simpsons Delete

List of Homer Simpson's jobs Delete

List of characters from The Simpsons

List of fictional characters within The Simpsons

List of musical groups named after references from The Simpsons Delete

List of songs featured in The Simpsons Delete

List of neologisms on The Simpsons Delete

List of TV channels that air The Simpsons Delete

List of celebrities on The Simpsons

List of celebrities who have been parodied on The Simpsons

List of Simpsons Stores & Signs Delete

List of Simpsons Prank Calls Delete


Now that isn't that hard. You can debate a few of these but arguably they are worthless. --141.155.136.145 23:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is a little over the top, and that systemic bias is a problem throughout WP - I mean, Star Wars has its own WikiProject, for goodness sake... However, I would urge restraint, and ask that you peruse the goals and beliefs of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians (and their WikiProject before making any rash decisions. Whilst the amount of articles on this topic is an example of imbalance on WP, I can't see them doing any specific harm, either, and I'd emphasise the benefit in favouring merging over outright deletion. Nuge | talk 00:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Nuge. Furthermore, the best way to counter systematic bias is to create articles in obscure topic areas, not to delete current content. Remember, WP:NOT paper; if a subject is notable, it can have as much information on it as people can contribute. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 00:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm actually independent on this issue. I don't think we should get rid of all of these pages (in the case of the list of episodes, this is a concept that is done for many other notable TV shows), since what's the harm? (And, as EWS23 pointed out, this isn't a paper encyclopedia.) However, some, such as List of Simpsons Stores & Signs do go a bit too far, as (in the example I gave) The Simpsons has had so many stores and signs in some form or another in its run, it may well be a good candidate for deletion. In simple terms, we shouldn't delete every list about the show, but we could likely live without lists that could be unmaintainable (and aren't unmaintainable lists good candidates for AfD?). --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not rabid about documenting every single item of minutae related to The Simpsons, but if for no other reason than that whatever we delete is likely to keep being re-created by enthusiasts, I would be in favour of merging rather than deleting. One topic listed above, though, 'neologisms', I would be in definite favour of keeping; it's evidence of the measurable effect The Simpsons is having on the culture at large, and I think it is notable.--Anchoress 02:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I don't believe in saying that topic A is more important than topic B and therefore we should start deleting pages until topic B has fewer pages than topic A. The best way to counter this problem would be to start working on topic A or to merge several stubs from topic B into one article. I for one wouldn't mind if there were an article for every episode of every TV series if there were a decent amount of real information. "Real" information includes a summary, cast and crew for this specific episode, awards and maybe some stories from the production of the episode. You could make a good article about a single episode, but mostly these articles are not that good. One thing I would like to mention is that Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes, which instead belongs to Wikiquote. We have to move all the quotes over to Wikiquote. When we do that the single episode articles would become very short and it would be possible to merge them into season articles instead. I've seen this done for other TV series. If there is a list that you feel is pretty pointless I would suggest that you nominate it for AfD. --Maitch 15:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Well two articles - List of musical groups named after references from The Simpsons and List of Simpsons Stores & Signs - have been listed. Hopefully this will give an indication of the attitude towards these Simpsons articles and we might get an idea on the validity of them all. Robdurbar 16:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I've also nominated Shøp for deletion. --Maitch 18:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that one. I think if we let the current three run their course, see the outcomes, then maybe do a group nomination for a few of the others... Robdurbar 21:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

After looking closer at those that were nominated for deletion, I really don't mind them being removed, as they had little or no context or relevence. However, as Anchoress said above, the one I'd say we should definitely keep is List of neologisms on The Simpsons. The Simpsons has had a notable influence on the English language, and it should be documented. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 21:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify. I do not intend to nominate every list for deletion. Some of them does have value. --Maitch 21:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the neologisms could stay; the fictional characters and characters could be merged, as could the celebrities and spoofed celebrities. The list of episodes should stay but the others above could all go. Robdurbar 21:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Both List of Homer Simpson's jobs and List of animals in The Simpsons seem to be well developed. They could potentially be merged into Homer Simpson and List of characters from The Simpsons respectively, but that would probably make those pages too large and someone would probably suggest reforking them. I think there's big differences between undeveloped pages like List of Simpsons Stores & Signs and developed ones like List of animals in The Simpsons. Any thoughts? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 21:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Responding to Maitch's post above: Is it appropriate to move quotes by fictional characters to WikiQuotes?--Anchoress 05:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
It is appropiate. On the Wikiquote main page they mention television shows as one their top categories. Wikiquote already has a page for The Simsons (see Wikiquote:en:The Simpsons) and as you can see there has been transwikied before. --Maitch 10:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the removal of the Simpsonslistcruft. We can't host endless reams of specific trivial information only interesting to die-hard enthusiasts. We could have List of Homer Simpson's jobs ordered chronologically, List of times Marge Simpson let her hair down, List of Simpsons streetlamps... These sorts of things are for a Simpsons wiki, not a general encyclopedia wiki. I know WP is not paper, but its also not an indiscriminate collection of information. We have got to have some sort of cut-off point between what we should and shouldnt keep to maintain some level of organisation and respectability. -- jeffthejiff 16:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

New Opening

They surely aren't going to do a live action opening for the rest of the series?! Of ALL the things to do.......--M Johnson (talk • contribs) 06:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Websites?

I see from the archives this has been brought up before, though in a different context. I was wondering, though, whether the list of sites is a definitive list. Now I have to admit a teeny, tiny bit of personal bias here because I happen to run a simpsons fan site, though with a more speciality orientation than the others listed - essentially it's a fanfiction and fanart archive. You can see it here (though it's still being updated and so is missing a lot of content). I had considered simply editing in a link to it, but that would be selfish, so I decided to ask if you lot would be willing to consider it. So... yeah. Archonix 13:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Production cost

Just heard this on TV on my local channel before the show airs: each Simpsons episode takes 24000 frames, 6-8 months and $1 million to produce. Maybe we can add this type of information if a citation can be found. Shawnc 03:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if you can find verifiable sources for it. Another thing is that as far as I know is length of an epiosode of The Simpsons not always exactly the same length, so I question the 24000 frames. I've also heard that it should take two years to produce an episode. --Maitch 11:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Simpsons in syndication

There should be a mention about how several portions of an episode are removed to fill in more advertisement time when it is on syndication Buzda 05:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


Possible Correction

Was the gun store "Bloodbath and Beyond" (not "Blood, Bath, and Beyond")?

No. The joke is that it is a play on the title of the home appliances chain of stores; Bed, Bath and Beyond.

Overseas animation studios

The overseas animation studios infobox on the right in the section "Animation" has numbers for how many episodes a specific studio is responsible for. Does anybody have a source for these numbers? --Maitch 10:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link: http://www.freewebs.com/speedyboris/simpsons.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.88.26.100 (talk • contribs).

Thanks a lot. It makes fact checking way more easy. --Maitch 10:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Otto Mang (again)

I added a picture of Otto's driver's license to his article. Otto Mann It seems to me that his last name should be changed to Mang on Wikipedia, but I want to make sure that everyone would tend to agree before I go and move everything around. koolman2 11:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The official website says "Otto Mann". I wouldn't pay that much attention to a minor detail that can only be seen in a frozen frame. I could be a drawing error. --Maitch 14:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
D'oh! koolman2
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Simpsons_Archive3_1c68.html"