Talk:Troy McClure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Troy McClure article.
Article policies
Featured article star Troy McClure is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 28, 2008.
TV
The Simpsons Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject The Simpsons, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to The Simpsons. 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. See also our guide to sources.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high-importance within The Simpsons.
Tasks you can do:
Troy McClure appeared on The Simpsons Portal as the selected article from August 24, 2007 to September 18, 2007
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this revision (diff) of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles being read aloud. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to contribute.

Contents

[edit] older entries

Don't you think he has a striking resemblance as a drawing to Jimmy Carter?-Anonymous

To be added to the article: Who is this character based on? Most likely candidates: Rock Hudson and Tab Hunter. But it would bear further discussion. 209.149.235.254 19:38, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I had heard via a Simpsons writer that the late Robert Urich was a big inspiration for Troy.


Who voices Troy and Lionel now that Hartman has snuffed it? I can't find out. Did they write the characters out? --202.180.83.6 10:35, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Had I bothered to read another paragraph I would've figured this out for myself. --202.180.83.6 10:37, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wolfcastle's films may be blockbusters, but they're unlikely to win Oscars -- Alanhwiki 02:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] He wasn't in "the world without zinc"

--Greasysteve13 11:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More films

What about the films mentioned in the deleted scenes on the DVDs?

The Leakiest Boat on the Ganges
The Bombay Boys meet the Invisible Man

84.66.145.12 17:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

"Hi, I'm Troy McClure. You may remember me from such other nature films as 'Earwigs, Ew.' and 'Man Vs Nature... The Road To Victory'."
"Hi, I'm Troy McClure. You may remember me from such self help tapes as "Smoke yourself thin" and "Get some confidence, Stupid!"
"Hi, I'm Troy McClure, you may remember me from such medical films as 'Alice Doesn't Live Anymore' and 'Mommy, what's wrong with that man's face'"
"Hi, I'm Troy McClure. You may remember me from such educational films as "Two Minus Three Equals Negative Fun" and "Firecrackers: The Silent Killer"
PrometheusX303 03:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


Wouldn't it be funny (not usefull) to make a list (trivia) with the movies troy mentioned to be in. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.62.197 (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


The Spanish version has the complete list of educational videos and quoted movies... I'd like them to be added in the english version... i can't bacause i don't have all the titles... --Gerard Armando (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Good for the Spanish version, but welcome to the English wiki and here we have policies against adding quotes sections. -- Scorpion0422 06:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Voice actor

I seem to remember that they during a commentary mentioned that one of the regular cast members did Troy's voice for minor parts when Phil wasn't available. I think it should be included, but I can't remember which commentary track it was. --Maitch 15:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If you can find it, then it could be included, but not without a source. Gran2 15:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I just mentioned it here in case someone else could remember it. --Maitch 16:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

--Rmky87 18:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Gran2 18:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tense problems in "Role in the Simpsons" section

Hello,

I've started editing this article, since it is really wordy and repetitive in places. I noticed that in second paragraph of Role in the Simpsons, the prose repeatedly shifts from past tense to present tense. I think we should stick with one tense (except when discussing things that are said to have happened before the start of the series). What should it be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awbizkomeydownstar (talk • contribs) 23:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy-edit, I requested one months ago but no one actually did anything. My prose skills are not that great, so your work would be greatly valued. As for the tense, I'm not sure bu I think it should be in the present. Seeing as this is fiction, these things never actually happened. WP:TENSE should provide a definite answer. Gran2 23:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been putting some more work into the article. I'd appreciate any feedback. Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Good job, it reads considerably better than it did before and is more organised. Gran2 19:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm a bit confused by this line: "Having McClure as the star of the episode pleased animator Mark Kirkland, as he found McClure's voice great to animate to, allowing him and other animators to "open him up visually as a character." What do you mean by "he found McClure's voice great to animate to"? Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
He loves Hartman's performance which means he enjoyed animating his scenes as his voice enabled him to direct and draw the character in a way which responds to Hartman's performance. At, least that's how I interperated it. Gran2 20:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. A couple of other questions:
1)Who described the fish fetish as "so perverted and strange, it was over the top"? Brooks, or one of the commentary participants?
2)The line about Hartman doing the McClure voice at NewsRadio is interesting, but doesn't have anything to do with the rest of that paragraph. What would be a better place to put it? Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
1) The actual quote was from Josh Weinstein and 2) Not sure, allow it's worth keeping, I don't think there is a best place for it. Gran2 21:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
It might work somewhere in the reception section. I'll see if I can move things around. Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
That whole reception section should be retooled, I think. I'll get working on it in a few hours. Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Something for you to ponder in the meantime: shouldn't we throw in an example of one of McClure's famous "introductions"? I like, "You might remember me from such self-help videos as 'Smoke Yourself Thin' and 'Get Confident, Stupid!'" Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I couldn't really find a place for the NewsRadio bit. What we need is a section on McClure's role in Phil Hartman's legacy. To make room for something like that, I decided to significantly trim the first paragraph of the reception section. Those quotes were just getting repetetive, anyway. Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Something I just remembered

Isn't there an early episode where McClure is played by someone else? It was a brief part, but his voice was notably different. It might be worth mentioning somewhere. Any help? Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Too many WikiProjects

I have removed the comedy and television WikiProject banners; this is overcategorization. The animation banner could also be added to that list, but luckily it wasn't there. The Simpsons itself can have these banners placed on it, but not more specific articles like this one. That it is part of the Simpsons WikiProject entails that it is part of these broader projects, and like normal categories we should avoid overcategorization. If there were a Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters, then its banner could be placed here. Richard001 (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

For that matter, the Simpsons Project itself was undercategorized; I have added it to both the comedy and animation project categories. Richard001 (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hair color

Can we remove "hair color" from the infobox? People can just look at the picture. It's certainly not a defining characteristic. Zagalejo^^^ 01:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This would apply to all such articles, assuming they are using hair colour in the infoboxes too. Richard001 (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think we should remove it from every article, as it's a judgment call. We'd have to change Template:Simpsons character to do all that. I tried to change it myself, but realized I didn't know what I was doing. Zagalejo^^^ 01:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It's certainly clear from all the pictures as far as I can see, so unless we want to keep it in case images are switched off or something, it should probably go. It seems too pedantic/fanboyish to me. Looks like it has already been brought up at Template talk:Simpsons character#Hair colour, and we all seem to agree. I'm useless with templates myself, but I have removed the field and reference to it in the documentation, so that seems to have done it. Richard001 (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, looks like that worked. Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 02:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article

A Simpsons character as a featured article? Who would of thought! Nice job. Pasta of Muppets (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  • It is great to see a Simpsons character featured, but it is a shame that there are so few references besides the "in universe" references. I doubt the article could pass FA with today's standards. JohnMGarrison (talk) 04:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Over half of the article is out-of-universe information -- unless you're labelling the DVD commentaries as "in-universe". Zagalejo^^^ 04:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
"I doubt the article could pass FA with today's standards" - I don't remember the FA standards changing much since July last year. Gran2 14:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Would've thought NOT would of thought. I thought the bad grammar in the article itself was bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.199.154.250 (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Well would you point out this "bad grammar" so we can fix it? Gran2 18:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I already fixed it. Almost every single quotation had punctuation marks outside of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.199.154.250 (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Read WP:PUNC. Gran2 10:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Just curious, why is "would of" thought improper? Oh, and because you think you're so clever, tell me what's wrong with this sentance: "Check that this booklet has pages 2-4 in the correct order and that none of these pages is blank" Pasta of Muppets (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
It's supposed to be "would have": [1].
Did you get that sentence from here? I suppose you're going for a "none is"/"none are" distinction. Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
It's actually correct, because "none" stands for "not one". "Not one of these pages is blank." Pasta of Muppets (talk) 04:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Past or Present tense?

Although McClure no longer has a speaking role within the show he and Lionel Hutz (another one of Phil Hartman's Simpson's characters) still appear in the comic books and flashbacks and as background characters (with nonspeaking roles of course). Lionel Hutz's article is written in present tense and neither character has been officially "killed off" so I think we write the article in present tense. Just a suggestion ^_^ **I don't know for sure whether my argument applies to both characters, the Hutz article indicates both are still members of the show** 72.152.135.75 (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Per this guideline, articles about fictional subjects are to be written in the present tense. faithless (speak) 09:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
IMO it should be put in the past tense if the character's retirement is official. The guideline linked above doesn't seem to apply in this case (IMO). It isn't a plot summary or a discussion about the character's role in the show. Mikemill (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Writing about fiction doesn't apply to an article about a fictional character? How do you figure that? Present tense is the only logical way to write such articles; since fictional characters never exist in the first place, you can't use past tense. You can't say, for instance, that "Troy McClure was a fictional character..." Just because he isn't used anymore, he's still a fictional character. There are no more Peanuts cartoons, but Charlie Brown is still, obviously, a fictional character. faithless (speak) 22:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] y is this simpson character featured 2day

is this featured 2day? is it bc 2day is the day Phil(troy's voice) was murdered by his wife Brynn?
2day must be a hard day 4 his 2 kids. 70.108.128.109 (talk) 05:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

... and a hard day for the English language too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.12.201 (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well said. --64.180.226.234 (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why it is a featured article at all, let alone on the main page, and am consider requesting a review. Matt (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Troy_McClure faithless (speak) 09:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

the saddest thing is wikipedia deems unnotable several actual people that have contributed to the society, but no, Troy McClure is more important. --Leladax (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you expect from an encyclopedia where the most educated editors are still working towards their undergraduate degree? --64.180.226.234 (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Lee Brown (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Well I want to thank the wiki guys for this article which links to interesting stuff about Troy Donahue amonst others...makes me realise how important wiki is ,if only for stessing the vital part of trivia in our lives. I once had a heated discussion with a friend who works for Encyclopadia Britannica in London and argued that EB was inferior to Wiki mainly because it arrogantly ignored so much of ordinary everyday life and media,almost as it was 'beneath it'. My friend answered that serious knowledge is not about trivia. I said I thought facts are facts,information is information from whatever source on whatever subject. Ignoring half the world because it does not seem to you 'serious' or 'relevent' is a very dangerous road to travel.

Viva Wiki!

user frglee,1126 28 May 2008


Wow, what a mess above. If anyone can fix the formatting...but anyway, it's been said time and time again, and I guess needs to be said again. An FA isn't about the best /subjects/, it's about the best /articles/. Once you understand the difference, you'll understand Wikipedia itself a lot better, I think. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
"...You might remember me from such Featuring Articles as today's!" Haha, amazing work! Lugnuts (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Heh, good one. It reminds me of the show when it was good. --Bobak (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
True, but I'm beginning to think some of the bitterness regarding Wikipedia's Featured Article choices stems from the fact that the articles are so good - namely, that people would be more willing to spend time crafting articles on fictional characters extinct for a decade rather than actual important people. But that's just who they know about more - you're supposed to write about what you know. Brutannica (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I expect that each person complaining here is already doing the research to bring an article on a more important subject up to featured-article quality. Good luck! You're right, we can use good articles on many different subjects. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with FisherQuuen, complaining about how unfair it is that Troy McClure is now a featured article despite a large number of actual people's articles given stub class ratings will do no good. I suggest you focus your energy towards bringing another page up to featured article status. Anyway, I'd say the Simpson's WikiProject has been pretty succesful so far, after all this isn't the only article the members have managed to bring to featured article status. Keep up the good work! 72.152.135.75 (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA Status

I do not in any way believe this article performs to a standard in which a featured article should.

Reasoning:

  • Although appearing well sourced, approximately half of the article has no citations. (And even less relevant citations)
    • Any specifics? I just looked it over and everything that needs a source has a source (please note that you do NOT need a citation for every sentence, some are covered by the citation after the next sentence. You also do NOT need citations in the lead)
  • Length. The article has three sections with any information in them. These are relativly short, and would indicate the article is more "start class" than its FA status. The article is about 16kb, about 1/5th of the size of the average FA.
    • An article does not have to be extremely long to be comprehensive. There is no minimum requirements for FAs.
  • Lack of images. The article has two images, which could be justified by the articles extremely short length, however this still does not justify the low quality of both images (and the possible relevence the second one has).
    • It only has two images because of the WP:NONFREE policies.
  • Lack of quotes. The article lacks memorable quotes from the character.
    • Most definitely not. Wikipedia is not a depository of quotations per WP:QUOTE. What you want is WikiQuote.

This article should belong in the more B-class to Good article, but not FA. While it does show quite a lot of information on the character, it lacks the depth and possibly importance to of ever been promoted to this rank. There are many more issues i wish to raise, but i shall save those for later. Matt (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's hear your other issues. -- Scorpion0422 01:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
What you perceive as the topic's lack of importance is completely irrelevant - FAs are judged by the quality of the article and is in no way a reflection on the "importance" of the subject. faithless (speak) 04:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine then. This article is low quality and was moved up to FA with biased input. If this article can't be improved, then it should never of become a FA in the first place, and never will again. To me, its a disgrace to the bronze star. Matt (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty loaded accusation to be throwing around, not least of all because it's coming from someone who has no experience at WP:FA. You don't care for the article - fine. But after having all of your points rebutted one by one, to accuse those who participate in the FA process of acting inappropriately is an exercise in bad faith, to say the least. Would you care to share your concerns with this article's FA nomination? faithless (speak) 06:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see some evidence of "biased input". I looked over the FAC, none of the supporters were project members. In fact, one user who supported is famously tough on articles about fictional characters (and even tried to have this one merged). -- Scorpion0422 14:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I was amazed this article had passed when I nominated it, but pass it did. Looking at your argument for it not being of FA standard I cannot see any points which carry any weight. Gran2 13:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I too am amazed that this article passed FAC. Maybe because there is a bit of debate with particular articles with are definitely a higher quality than this one (not saying that this article is a bad quality, because it's clearly not, but I've certainly seen much better) but are facing much more scrutiny and failing FAC as a result. I really am surprised this passed. --.:Alex:. 15:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Look, if anybody feels that this article isn't up to FA, then I would suggest someone should bring it up in WP:FAR instead of complaining about it here. Spongefan (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Yea, I doubt this article is worthy of featured article status. If you ask me it should be expanded and even then there are improvements that would have to be made for it to get anywhere near FA status. 72.152.135.75 (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Well as your evidently are an expert in the subject of the FA criteria, perhaps you could come up with some actual suggestions to improve the article, rather than just saying "I doubt this article is worthy of featured article status." Gran2 10:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed to be, and i dont believe this article can/should ever be able to be a featured article, due to general lack of information avaliable. It is a good article at best, and should never have been promoted in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metagraph (talk • contribs) 11:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the subject I merely gave my opinion on the matter, no rule against that is there? As for suggestions I just suggested it should be expanded. If you took the time to read my entire comment instead of focusing on attempting to come up with some "witty" come back you'd know that.72.152.135.75 (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I did read your comment, and found "expand the article" rather vague. What parts need expanding? And perhaps you could lend some suggestion as to what with. Do you know of any other information that would make the article more complete? The FA criteria mention nothing of length, only completeness. And Bill Oakley himself said this article was complete, or rather "perfect". By suggestions, I was enquiring as to whether you had any individual suggestions to improve the article, as opposed to more general comments (which are fine, but I'm pretty slow and need some more help). Also, as other people above have noted, if you don't think it's FA worthy anymore (that's fine, I myself have had my qualms with the article before) then please bring it up at WP:FAR. All I want is to make sure the article is at its very best and hell, if that means losing its FA status and only being GA or something, then fine. But let's see what happens. Gran2 17:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Err

I don't know how relevant this question is to the article, but can you seriously say a character is "recurring" and not "reappearing"? I thought recurring only applied to events. --Kaizer13 (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Recurring character? --.:Alex:. 09:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)