Talk:The Principal and the Pauper/Archive 1

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

Fair use rationale for Image:PrincipalandthePauper.JPG

Image:PrincipalandthePauper.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Y Done, fair use rationale in use for this article has been given on the image page, by Ryan Holloway (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC).

Rough Commentary stuff

Josh Weinstein defends it as "trying something different" (Weinstein)

The most controversial one of the Oakley/Weinstein era (Oakley) because of how they changed Skinner's character (Moore)

He is "very very proud of the job I did on this episode. This is the best episode of television I feel I ever wrote" (Keeler)

It is one of Steven Dean Moore's favourite episodes that he directed. Okaley says it's "a good episode. It's solid" (Oakley)

It is not based at all on Martin Guerre. It is based on the Tichborne case, even though many fans had mistakenly assumed it was based on Guerre. (Keeler)

One of the possible titles of the episode was "Skinnersby" (Moore)

Keeler: "This episode is about a community of people who like things just the way they are. Skinner's not really close to these people - he's a minor character - but they get upset when someone comes in and says 'this is not really the way things are' and they run the messenger out of town on the rail. And when the episode aired, lo and behold, a community of people who like things just the way they are got mad. It never seems to have occured to anyone that this episode is about the people who hate it."

In the original draft there were two sentences that Keeler felt illustrated this point even better and they were cut for time, but he feels that they would have made all the difference. (Keeler)

Keeler would often be given the hardest episodes to write and they thought the episode was just another of his good ideas. At the time of production, there was little opposition, although Harry Shearer was a little peeved (Oakley)

The point of the ending was that everyone was supposed to mentally reset that this was Skinner again, but nobody did and that weas part of the problem (Oakley)

Skinner was a popular character, and a favourite of Oakley & Weinstein which is why they did the episode. (Weinstein)

Martin Sheen was brought in because Oakley & Weinstein love Apocalypse Now and feel that one of the best parts is the narration. They felt his voice is amazing and thought he would be a good fit for a Vietnam vet. (Weinstein)

The new Skinner was made to be a nice guy, but just not quite Skinner. (Keeler)

Oakley & Weinstein liked to do episodes that pushed the boundaries and this episode was in the same vein, although it didn't present itself as being an envelope pusher. (Oakley)

The name Armin Tamzarian came from Keeler. He got in a car accident and the name of the adjuster was named Armin Tamzarian. (Keeler) Later, he became a lawyer in the firm that represented the series. (Oakley) Normally when a show is done, to use a name, a database is searched and there either have to be more than 5 or none. (Oakley) After the episode aired, Keeler received a "curtly phrased" letter from Tamzarian. (Keeler) The producers believe that he allowed the producers to use his name because he was a lawyer. (Weinstein)

-- Scorpion0422 23:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Garbled sentence (sentences?)

This line confuses me: Richards disagrees with Turner's assessment that the show plateaued after "The Principal and the Pauper"; recommending the twelfth season episode "Homer vs. Dignity" and declaring that The Simpsons never jumped the shark. Does Richards assert that the show plateaued after "Homer vs. Dignity" or the opposite, that "HvD" shows that the show never jumped the shark? If the show DID plateau after "HvD", isn't that something at least akin to jumping the shark? Croctotheface (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I see where you're going with this, and I actually wrote very little of the article, so you can stop. The statement is actually unnecessary since this is about a specific episode and not about whether or not the show has jumped the shark. -- Scorpion0422 04:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea where I'm "going with this", but I'm glad that at least one of us knows, I guess. I'm fine with your solution of removing the line and agree with your assessment that it's irrelevant to the article. Croctotheface (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

GA review

My only real issues are with the lead. It doesn't fully summarise the article, and the last sentence of the plot description is too long. The mention of where the episode got its title should be put in the production section, as it discusses other potential titles. Alientraveller (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Response to GA review
  1. The only section that was not adequately summarized in the WP:LEAD was the Reception section, so I added a summary of that section. Cirt (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Broke up the last sentence of the Plot section into 2 smaller more succinct sentences. Cirt (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Added the mention of where the episode got its title to the Production section. Cirt (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Passed. Alientraveller (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Cirt (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Promotion

I think this article is just about ready for FAC. What does everyone else think? Teh Rote (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest to check first with Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs), has put some significant work into the article. Cirt (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll nominate it now. -- Scorpion0422 15:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)