Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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.
← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 →

Contents

Questions for Bill Oakley

The one and only Bill Oakley has agreed to do an IRC chat with us so that we can ask questions about things that we can use in articles. The transcript of this chat will hopefully be posted at NHC, which I think will be a good enough sorce. Failing that, we'll try The Simpsons Archive. Because not everyone will be able to make the chat (which hasn't been scheduled yet) Xihix and I have made a page where any member can post questions that can be asked. Remember, no fan questions, and due to a lack of time, try to limit it to ones that will help improve an article. That page is here. -- Scorpion0422 02:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"Cultural references" sections

I have an issue with many articles about specific Simpsons episodes. Is this the right place to talk about it? My issue is that many articles contain unreferenced "Cultural references" sections. There are so many articles that it would take forever to tag them with {citation needed} or even delete the unreferenced information. What's the best way to go about fixing this? • Supāsaru 16:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a good question, cause we have to deal with that all the time, IPs and new users adding random unsourced cultural references to articles. Lately after the new episode airs on Sunday, it has been semi-protected for a week, to try and cut back on that. If it is an older episode, specifically one from season 18 or earlier, that hasn't aired on a Sunday in a while, you can either delete the unsourced or use the {{fact}} or {{unreferencedsection}} if a lot or all are unsourced. I wouldn't recommend you delete all of them, if they are all unsourced, just use the second tag from above New episodes that aren't protected are probably going to have a lot of IPs readding stuff you delete, cause they think it needs to go there. Also, there seems to be less random ones when they are in paragraph form, as opposed to list form. Aside from all that, there unfortunately isn't much we can do. Ctjf83talk 20:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines

WP:FICT has been revised

WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live [1] Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. Ned Scott 22:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (serial works)

There is a proposal to split WP:EPISODE into a more general notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (serial works), and make the rest of WP:EPISODE just a MOS guideline. Please join in at WT:EPISODE#Proposed split of EPISODE and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (serial works). -- Ned Scott 22:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  • How would we be effected? xihix(talk) 22:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Probably no differently than now. I just figured people here might want to check out the discussions. -- Ned Scott 22:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nelson's Fist Returns For Bart

Some guy just created this. I need to go, so could someone speedy delete it or something? Thanks. Rhino131 (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Y Done, I tagged it as patent nonsense. Cirt (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Out of curiousity, was it created by TheFreshPrinceOfBel-Air0 (talk · contribs)? He created a fake Simpsons video game earlier today. -- Scorpion0422 04:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes. Cirt (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Another one to watch out for is Agent007ravi (talk · contribs), who has been adding fake plots to future episode pages. Hmm, British, 10 years old, vandalizes Simpsons pages, makes the occasional legitimate edit, seems kind of familiar, although I think the HMV's name was Tim and he never touched James Bond pages. -- Scorpion0422 04:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I reported TheFreshPrinceOfBel-Air0 (talk · contribs) to WP:AIV. Cirt (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You should add TheFreshPrinceOfBel-Air01 (talk · contribs) to that while you're at it. -- Scorpion0422 04:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Self-removed TheFreshPrinceOfBel-Air0 (talk · contribs) from WP:AIV, per comment from an Admin that he hadn't edited in 5 hours, I'll take a look at this latest incarnation. Cirt (talk) 04:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Was wondering, what was said on the now deleted page? The Nelson's Fist one. xihix(talk) 04:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for deleting it (And incredibly fast too!). As for Xihix's comment, It pretty much said it was the title of an episode of the 20th season and Nelson tries to kill Bart (I can't remember it all). In the end, Bart went to jail for 10 years. The guy who created it also put a sentence on Nelson's page talking about it. Rhino131 (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Update

I put both of those 2 FreshPrince accounts back up on WP:AIV, obvious vandalism only sockpuppets. Cirt (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

TheFreshPrinceOfBel-Air01 (talk · contribs) blocked indef, TheFreshPrinceOfBel-Air0 (talk · contribs) blocked three days. Cirt (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-English versions of The Simpsons

The page is an absolute mess and desperately needs references. For example, it says the show has only been dubbed in 14 languages and has no source for that at all. Anyone interested in cleaning the page up? -- Scorpion0422 19:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not for me Ctjf83talk 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
"Whoo, Sorry! Me no speaky Chini!" - Mr. Burns, A Hunka Hunka Burns in Love. --Simpsons fan 66 01:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A couple comments...

I've been working through a list of TV episodes that have made it to WP:GA, many which are Simpsons episodes, and yet to have any serious problems with these. However, I will offer a few comments to consider:

  • A lot of the images on the Simpsons episode pages use screenshots at 640x480 or larger. It should be noted that by WP:NFCC, low resolution images are preferred whenever possible. I've not failed any article for this, but I have tagged these with {{non-free reduce}}. You may want to check these on newer articles.
  • Something to ponder: is there any way to use collapsible fields for the infobox on the season episodes lists? Those infoboxes do get a bit long in the tooth, and if you could collapse that section, it would be nice (but knowing tables, you have to collapse it all or not.. but maybe you could break the box into a few separate tables? Maybe?)

But keep up the good work in this area. --MASEM 05:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tried before by making some of the sections collapsible, but I'm not good enough at it. Perhaps we could get an expert to come in and work on it. -- Scorpion0422 05:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Primary sourced plot summaries

Primary sourced plot summaries are accepted by consensus among experienced editors at WP:FILMS, among others, and have been accepted with multiple FAs. But a relevant thread has yet again been discussing this, at A Minor Quandary: Or, How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Primary Source. Cirt (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to mention the reason I posted this here was that they mention this with respect to articles about episodes of The Simpsons, specifically... Cirt (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Nancy Cartwright

Apparantly some publicists have complained about the page and have claimed there are many inaccuracies. Some of the stuff they removed can be seen here (this includes all mentions of her ex-husband and scientology, which is the only portion of the article that is well sourced). In fact, some of the stuff that was removed comes from her biography at Fox's promotional website. Anyway, I promised to clean the page up and source it, so if anyone would like to help, it would be much appreciated. -- Scorpion0422 03:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I can probably work on sourcing tomorrow, or perhaps Saturday. Just out of curiosity, how did you hear about the complaints? Natalie (talk) 04:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Mark mentioned on the talk page that there had been an OTRS complaint. I talked to Mark on IRC and he doesn't know much, except that this publicist had been asked to clean up her bio and the publicist had been annoyed when their edits were reverted. Mark's contacted them about it and he hopes to have more detail about the complaints soon. -- Scorpion0422 04:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Gotcha. Natalie (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The Principal and the Pauper on Peer Review

Please see Wikipedia:Peer review/The Principal and the Pauper/archive1. Cirt (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Canadian ratings

BBM has an archive of the top 20–30 highest rated programs of the week in Canada going back to January 2003 (season 14, episode 7) and The Simpsons often makes that list up here. This is good information for reception sections. –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Featured Topic in Danger!

The Featured topic criteria has recently been changed and requires that a topic have twenty percent of its articles featured. Both Simpsons topics The Simpsons (season 8) and The Simpsons (season 9) will need to get two more (four more overall) for a 6 total FAs and will have six mounts to do this. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 21:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

Did you just unilaterally change this yourself, or was there a significant period of discussion that came to a consensus for this major change? Cirt (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the relevant discussion is here: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_topic_criteria#Number_of_featured-class_articles, but I'm still not sure there was a consensus to do this just yet, or if this was just something being bandied about. Cirt (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Zginder (talk · contribs), apologies if I came off a bit brash above, it appears there has been some discussion on this for a while, and actually 6 months is not an unattainable goal for 2 FAs for season 8 and 2 more for season 9. Cirt (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Remedies / featured article potentials

In any event, Season 9 won't be too hard to address, I'm not sure about Season 8 as I did not participate in that featured topic drive. Zginder (talk · contribs) said above that we need 2 more FAs for each season. For Season 9, The Last Temptation of Krust is currently on WP:FAC, and I have just started a peer review for The Principal and the Pauper. Cirt (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 20% of 26 (rounded down) is 5, so we only need one more article for each topic. -- Scorpion0422 23:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, regardless, hopefully within 6 months Season 9 will have 2 more FAs, but I don't know about Season 8. Cirt (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Season 9 seems to be pretty close, but I have no idea what article we would do for season 8... Perhaps The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show. -- Scorpion0422 23:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) is a very good editor when it comes to FAs, and I asked for help with Hurricane Neddy, and I'm awaiting a response. Cirt (talk) 00:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Hurricanehink is an excellent editor when it comes to WikiProject Tropical cyclones articles. I doubt that he owns Simpsons DVDs and books and am unsure if he has ever contributed to anything Simpsons-related, with the exception of Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I just thought because that particular episode is Hurricane-related, he might take an interest. We shall see. Cirt (talk) 10:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Brother From Another Series looks pretty good, and The I&S&P Show wouldn't be to hard to expand. Gran2 10:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons DVD boxsets

I've recently noticed that several shows have been getting rid of their "DVD releases" pages by merging relevant info into season pages. If there are no objections, I would like to try to do the same. The vast majority of the page is a list of episodes, and all extras and other things can easily be added to a table in the article. I tried this out here and I think it looks pretty good. -- Scorpion0422 19:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me Ctjf83Talk 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Treehouse of Horror V PR

This looks to be close to FA status so I've started a PR for it. Just letting you know. Buc (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it has a ways to go. It isn't structured very well and it could use more production info. -- Scorpion0422 01:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to agree with Scorpion. Whole the Production part is meaty in information, I don't really see a basis in the prose. It's hard to explain, but taking a look at the other FA episodes will show you what I mean. xihix(talk) 01:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that was one of the earlier GAs I did and it's not the best one in the world. I think Homer at the Bat is the nearest FA episode that we have. Gran2 15:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Why not nominate it then? Buc (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Still looking for comments. Buc (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Article views

For those curious about how much traffic Simpsons articles get, this is a list of the Top 10000 most viewed articles in February, and these are the rankings of the Simpsons articles that made it: (that I noticed)

I'm a little surprised that Lisa's article isn't there and Matt Groening's is - Bart's article gets a LOT more vandalism. I also didn't realize that new episode pages got that many views. There probably would have been a lot more articles on the list back in July or August. If it were a Top 20000 list, there would likely be a lot more characters on there because many articles had more than 20000 views in February. If anyone wants to see the number of views per day of any article from the last four months, you can visit this link [2] -- Scorpion0422 18:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Receptions

Does anyone wanna go through TVSquad.com and ign.com and put in receptions from the episodes with me? Ctjf83Talk 19:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

FAC notice

CR guidelines

Following up on a discussion that took place at Talk:Dial 'N' for Nerder, we agree that we'd like to see some Simpson-specific guidelines on the notability of cultural references. I'd like to make a rough draft proposal:

  1. No songs should be listed unless they are extensively parodied and mentioned more than twice in the episode.
  2. Something that was merely a one-time visual gag and wasn't referenced in the show should not be included.
  3. In-jokes of the Simpson staff should not be included unless they're notable enough to have actually received press coverage.
  4. Couch gag and chalkboard should be referenced in the infobox only and not have a separate entry in the CR section.

Any thoughts? The Dominator (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think official guidelines are needed or are necessary. My rule of thumb has been that if it lasts longer than a few seconds and has a reliable source, then it should be included. -- Scorpion0422 03:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds all good to me! I usually list Simpson staff appearing in episodes in the Production section...where I think they belong, as apposed to the CR section. Ctjf83Talk 03:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Scorpion, the guidelines aren't really for established members and Simpson contributors cause we sort of know what's OK to put in and where the line is, this is more for new users who aren't being disruptive and evidently want to help, but don't really understand everything. We can always point them to the guidelines and say: this is how we do it. I think it's better than just pointing them to WP:OR and WP:V which 99% of them don't read anyway. The Dominator (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, you know all the IPs and new users add random stuff that is pointless to add Ctjf83Talk 03:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I highly doubt that newer editors would be concerned about the guidelines in any way, they usually ignore WP:NOR, which is an official Wikipedia guideline so why would they suddenly listen to a guideline approved by a few project members? And a lot of it is subjective, a 10 second clip of a song or some kind of ref sung by a character may have an impact on the plot. Personally I think all songs that are played should be mentioned because they are usually a lot easier to pick out. -- Scorpion0422 03:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
but if we set project guidelines, we can delete ones that don't meet the standards easier than just deleting them because we want to Ctjf83Talk 03:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I kind of have a feeling that they would read these guidelines if they were made, probably because they'd be simple and specific. WP:NOR is an official policy hence very generic and I've had IPs that I've pointed to it come back and quote the policy completely out of context. I don't think it really matters whether it's an official policy or not, IPs won't really care. And another thing, I think that 99% of the time songs are completely unnotable and track listings for episodes are discouraged under episode guidelines. Some instances are notable, for example in N for Nerder, the Rocky theme playing at his funeral, but the only thing that makes that notable is that it is a very well known song, it has no significance to the plot, however, therefore should not be mentioned. The Dominator (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement?

People may recall that Xihix made an advertisement for our wikiproject. Here is the latest version.
Image:Qxz-ad115.gif

I think it looks awesome. We had a slight problem with the blurring television/background, but I asked Gurch to fix this. I'm not sure if the blurring has completly dissapeared (can anyone else see it?), but it is only a minor defect. The advertisment has been added to WP:BANNER, so we should get some publicity now! I just want everyones opinion on two things, should we consult more people to try and get rid of the error, and is the advertisement ready for distribution to all members (ie: any more suggestions before it goes public)? --Simpsons fan 66 06:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks fine. Cirt (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't notice an error, and it looks great! I love the goofy letters!! Ctjf83Talk 06:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Great! Scorpion? Gran2? Xihix? Any thoughts? --Simpsons fan 66 09:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The only thing I'd change is that I'd add a period after "Join WikiProject The Simpsons", because that is a complete sentence. Zagalejo^^^ 00:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I already thought we'd decided on this. It looks fine to me, good job. Gran2 07:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I think it looks good, but a period like Zagalejo suggested would be great. -- Scorpion0422 13:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
A period as in a full stop? --Simpsons fan 66 22:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Zagalejo^^^ 23:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok then. Xihix, do you think you could add a period at the end of Join Wikiproject The Simpsons? --Simpsons fan 66 03:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

FAC

Treehouse of Horror V has been nominated. Buc (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Treehouse of Horror V Equazcion •✗/C • 18:25, 17 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Could really use some help guys! Buc (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A Streetcar Named Marge

Hi. I just wanted to get a discussion going in response to some recent additions to the Streetcar Named Marge article.

If I may be blunt, I think we can do without the third paragraph of "Writing" and most of the second paragraph of "Animation". I just think the information in those sections is too trivial. The regular "Plot" section of the article never reaches the same level of detail, so I don't see why we need to spend so much time describing the deleted/modified scenes. Plus, the changes described really aren't that dramatic, and probably wouldn't be all that interesting to someone who's never seen the episode.

But that's just my opinion. I'd love it if others could chime in and try to prove me wrong. Zagalejo^^^ 18:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have trimmed both paragraphs down to include less detail. -- Scorpion0422 18:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It's looking better. Still might need a copyedit, but I'll have to re-watch the animatic to make sure I know what I'm talking about. Just curious, is the DVD extra the entire animatic, or just clips from it? Zagalejo^^^ 18:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It's about 17 minutes long and contains most of the major story points. -- Scorpion0422 21:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Bill Oakley update

Xihix is away for a few days, but he got a response from Bill. In our most recent e-mail, we sent five FAs to him to look over (Homer's Enemy, Homer's Phobia, The Simpsons, Treehouse of Horror (series) and Troy McClure) and he responded.

According to Xihix: "He also asked about the questions and what to do. I responded that I will be back on Saturday to tell him what you guys want to do, so until then, decide upon yourselves what. Look at the screenshots here."

Anyway, as you can see from the e-mails, he said an IRC chat would be fine, but sending him questions via e-mail would be better for him. Again, we run into the RS issues though. He also didn't mention any images. I was hoping he would give us a quote we could stick on our page as a pit of bragging/promotion, but the closest he came is "this article is perfect". -- Scorpion0422 02:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If we're getting all this input from him, WP:DOH really should work on the article Bill Oakley, at the very least fix up the sourcing problems (completely unsourced at the moment) and other glaring stuff. Cirt (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Part of the problem is reliable sourcing, unfortunately there isn't a lot about him out there, but I'll look for some sources. -- Scorpion0422 02:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Rod & Todd Flanders

I really think that Rod and Todd Flanders should have their own page. I think I'm gonna start one soon, anyone wanna join me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior4321 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

We used to have a page like that: [3]. But it was merged to Flanders family. Zagalejo^^^ 20:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
They used to have a page, but it was merged into Flanders family because of the WP:FICT guidelines. If you can find any proof of real world notability for them, then by all means go ahead, but otherwise the page should stay merged. -- Scorpion0422 20:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Another Oakley update

I contacted Bill Oakley myself and he responded. He didn't say anything about images, but I think he would rather answer questions via e-mail rather than during an IRC chat. I told him that would be okay and that we would hopefully send him our question list within a week, so if you have any to add, please do so soon. -- Scorpion0422 01:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So what are we going to do about it being an unreliable source. --Maitch (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Get it posted at WikiNews, I was told it would probably be useable once the page is fully protected. -- Scorpion0422 16:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Krusty the Clown‎

I decided to work on Krusty's article, and cleaned up and sourced the Role in The Simpsons section. It is still rather rough, so if anyone could look at it, it would be much appreciated. I think everything important is mentioned in that section, but the rest of the article still needs expanding. -- Scorpion0422 16:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

s04e11 GAN on hold

Qst's good article nomination of "Homer's Triple Bypass" has been put on hold. I basically deleted the reception section because it was irrelevant so one needs to be written. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"New Kid on the Block" is also on hold for similar reasons. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Zwieback

The more devoted fans might appreciate this: Zwieback. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:02, 9 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Ah, "Homer the Smithers" a very underrated episode. Gran2 14:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal:The Simpsons/Upcoming episodes

This subsection of Portal:The Simpsons needs to be updated. If it seems that this section is consistently being neglected and not updated frequently enough, perhaps an easier fix would just be to remove it. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not that it's being neglected, it's just that there isn't a lot of frequent news. -- Scorpion0422 03:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It currently refers to an "Upcoming episode" - for March 30, 2008, and we are in April now. Cirt (talk) 05:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo, Kearny and Dolph

I noticed that these articles were merged into the List of Students article, but the only discussion I found was on Talk:Kearney Zzyzwicz, which was only about merging Kearny, Jimbo and Dolph into one and with a slight consensus against any merging/redirecting. Furthermore, the redirecting of the articles was done by TTN, who has since been forbidden to redirect any articles for overzealousness. I've done very little work on the project so I didn't make any changes, but I wanted to bring this to everyone's attention. McJEFF 03:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Actually, I was the one that merged Dolph, the mergings of Jimbo and Kearney were done long before the ArbCom case, and he did have project support, there were several discussions about page mergings here. -- Scorpion0422 03:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
That's fair. Would you mind linking me to the debate? Not because I want to overturn it or contest it or anything like that, only for the sake of curiosity. McJEFF 04:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons/Archive 4#Characters and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons/Archive 5#Character pages - What should stay and what should go are the two largest merge discussions that ocurred here. -- Scorpion0422 04:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Study on collaborative writing

I am doing a study on collaborative writing on Wikipedia - I hope to present the results at Wikimania this year. If you would like to be interviewed over email, please leave a note on my talk page or email me. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Lost Our Lisa on Peer Review

Lost Our Lisa on Peer Review. Your comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Lost Our Lisa/archive1. Cirt (talk) 09:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) gave some helpful comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Lost Our Lisa/archive1, would appreciate help from anyone active in this project in addressing some of them, if you have a chance. If not, no worries, I'll take a look as well and see what I can do. Cirt (talk) 05:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone claiming to be Al Jean edits Wikipedia

[4] and his Ip is actually owned by 20th Century Fox in Los Angeles, so it could be him. Whoever it was was removing vandalism from an IP who has a history of adding fake crap to pages, like saying Homer and Agnes Skinner are based on Al Jean's parents, Frank Grimes is based on Matt Selman and Smithers is based on Mike Reiss. Jean has complained about vandalism on his page on the commentaries, so we should keep an eye on his page in the future.

As well, someone added Reid Harrison as the writer of Papa Don't Leech a week before the episode aired, so watch out for that too. -- Scorpion0422 01:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Al Jean? Could we ask him? Get confirmation somehow? --Simpsons fan 66 11:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Xihix? Where are you?

Does anyone know where Xihix is? In his last edit, [[5]], (Wednesday 19th March) he said he was going to Washington DC until Saturday, 22nd March. Has anyone heard from him outside of wikipedia, or know whats going on? --Simpsons fan 66 11:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I talked to him on IRC a week ago, he says he checks things every other day but hasn't had time to edit. -- Scorpion0422 12:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, awesome. --Simpsons fan 66 07:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars cultural references

Here's a RS with a list of references to Star Wars in the Simpsons. It might allow you to add a ref to a bunch of episodes if you like. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, cool! I used to own the issue of the magazine with the original article, but I lost it! Zagalejo^^^ 17:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks! Gran2 17:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Merging episodes revisited

When we last discussion merging episode articles for the later seasons, we decided to wait for the ArbCom case to finish. The recent ArbCom case is now closed and it didn't give us anything useful to go with. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes didn't give us any answers as well. So I think we should make a decision on our own now.

I've been thinking about this for a while and I have come to the conclusion that I want The Simpsons WikiProject to be a shining example of what Wikipedia is all about. We certainly can't do that for the later seasons as we don't have any sources. There are no DVD's or books that give us any information. All in all we are going to have hundreds of crappy articles, which people then can point at as an example of how bad Wikipedia is. I think the way to go is to turn the into a season article like Smallville (season 1), which is a FA (that's right not FL). If we have some bits of information that is too small to warrant an article, we can then write it under the season summary. If one episode is very special and holds enough information, we can just keep that as an episode article, like they did with Pilot (Smallville).

The conclusion is that I'm all for merging some of the later seasons. We can later discuss which. What do you guys think? --Maitch (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, most of the latter seasons could easily be merged. Some episodes are notable (as said, we can list which episodes we keep if/when we have consensus) but a majority of them ("Pray Anything" for example) are not and can really be merged. After all, if at any point somebody thinks they could get a merged episode to GA, then it can just be re-created. Gran2 14:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I know I don't take part in this Wikiproject, but Maitch, I think you're missing the point. What you're proposing be done is that we delete several smaller/weaker articles and build one big/strong article in their place. But the big article could never contain all the information in it that even the less notable smaller articles currently contain, as this would make it too large, and some of the information which would be considered notable in an individual episode article would get deleted in the process, as being too much detail/too obscure for a series article.
So overall this change would result in a net loss of information to Wikipedia. Information I, for one, find to be a useful reference, that I'd therefore like to see stay here. And therefore, I oppose this kind of move - rst20xx (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe I am missing the point. I've been thinking about this for a while and I have been an experienced Simpsons editor for several years. The only information that will be lost is all the unsourced cultural references and trivia, which we have to get rid of anyway per WP:OR and WP:RS. I just went over the entire 15th season and the best article from that is The Regina Monologues, which isn't all that impressive. I see no reason for why not this season would be better off merged into a single article. --Maitch (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, the only information which would be lost is stuff which we shouldn't be included anyway. Also, as said before, any episode which can prove its notability can stay. Of season 15, The Regina Monologues is the only episode which has any chance of doing that. Gran2 17:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not part of this WikiProject, but it was the work of this WikiProject that inspired me to write the odd GA episode or FL episode list for other shows in the first place. Slowly merging back the episodes of later Simpsons seasons (doesn't have to be in one sweep) where notability or real-world content is harder to prove/add at the moment cannot hurt per WP:WAF and would also improve the great-vs-poor ratio of Simpsons articles; merging doesn't prohibit de-merging at a later time in any way. It would also be a great message for the people "out there" that putting quality over quantity is not a sign of weekness but of strength and confidence. (Ramblings from someone who does indeed put quality over quantity...) – sgeureka t•c 18:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Eh, I'm not crazy about this idea. I agree with rst20xx. As I've said elsewhere, with some effort and diligence, one could dig up at least a paragraph worth of non-trivial, real-world information on any Simpsons episode. That may not be enough to satisfy the Bignoles of Wikipedia, but it's just too much content to smoothly integrate into a list article, which is why I prefer stand-alone articles for all episodes. (Frankly, I don't care if an article doesn't get FA status as long as it is well-written, accurate, and cleanly presented. But that's another argument.) Zagalejo^^^ 19:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, some articles won't get that good simply because there isn't enough stuff out there to make them that good, but that doesn't mean we should be ashamed of them and hide them away. All this talk of "ratios" is bollocks, you don't delete something because you can't make it FA, you make it as good as you can and then settle for that. Priority number 1 on Wikipedia shouldn't be appearances, it should be providing as much useful information as possible.
I think the plot summaries would have to be shortened too if the articles were merged, for example if we look at "Pray Anything" again, I would say the plot summary length looks fine to me (though I haven't read it), but it's longer than any of the plot summaries in the much cited Smallville (season 1) - and yet higher up this thread, that article was given as an example of one that would be merged. So there's something else that would be lost.
The change proposed boils down to making things look better in exchange for a net loss of information - rst20xx (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
First off, I am opposed, as always, to any episode merges. To make this short, your reasoning seems to suggest that any episode that is not or cannot become GA quality does not need to have an article. I would say that there are many articles that are not GA, but nobody is going to delete them. All episodes are worthy of a page not matter how "important" or "sourced" they are. To me, the main reason later episodes have not become GA yet is due to the lack of DVD releases. If there were no seasons released on DVD now we would be having this same conversation about some of the early episodes. If the episodes are merged, (but I hope they are not) I would suggest this wikiproject have a Featured Topic drive for the later seasons after the DVD's come out. The information in the DVD's will enable any later episode, even "Pray Anything" to become GA, just as the DVD's did to early episodes. Rhino131 (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
(reply to rst20xx) There has been no talk of deletion, only trimming of things that shouldn't have been there in the first place. When you've got 10kB of material that mostly doesn't fulfill wikipedia's inclusion criteria, and your are able to trim it down to 3 kB of superb quality, you may as well merge the 20 articles of 3kB into 1 article of 40 kB (with reduced redundance of 20*1kB). Trimming the 20 articles without a merge will just result in the same bad articles after a while because of the "ooh it's a stub it needs to get expanded with junk" mentality of driveby editors. At least that's been my experience. – sgeureka t•c 15:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
(reply to Rhino131 and Zagalejo) Any article can be unmerged again as long as there is some level of information. So if a new season of DVDs is released, then we would have to unmerge the entire season. If Zagalejo can find some information from a newspaper, then we would have to unmerge the episode. I don't think we should be as strict as Bignole is. I don't have any problem with a short article like Mountain of Madness as long as it is sourced. The problem is just that most of the articles from the later seasons consists only of a plot and an infobox (there may be an unsourced cultural references or trivia section, but that should be removed). I think we should do something about those articles now and not wait for the DVDs to come out in several years. --Maitch (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've always felt that if a page has the potential to be fixed up, we should just leave it as an independent article. Zagalejo^^^ 20:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

IRC times

Curse the time differences that plague our countries! As I write this it is 12.30 PM 24th April, yet it is 9.30 PM yesterday in Iowa, 10.30 PM yesterday in Canada, and 3.30 AM today in London! By the time I get home from school everyone else has only just arrived into the present day. I never truly appreciated these differences until I joined wikipedia. It also makes IRC chat during weekdays next to impossible. I keep forgetting on weekends, but when I remember, it is either too late or no-one is there. What times (in your respective states/countries) do you guys typically sign in? --Simpsons fan 66 02:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm typically on at points between 6 PM and midnight, although not all at once (ie. I may be gone for several hours during that period). -- Scorpion0422 05:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Using Cite Episode and Ref Tags

I have been going through Springfield (The Simpsons) and changing all instances of (Example) "As in Bye Bye Nerdie, Lisa is shown to have 18 toes."

That exact sentence wasn't in the article, it is just an example. I have been going around and adding Cite Episode and Ref Tags "Lisa has 18 toes. <ref>{{cite episode|title= [[Bye Bye Nerdie]]|series= [[The Simpsons]]}}</ref>

Is this the proper thing to do, or should they be left the previous way. I personally think it looks better with the Cite Episode tags, and just want to make sure.<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you are supposed to use the cite episode tags in character info sections, rather than saying "In this episode" and "in that episode" every other sentence (most of our good articles do this) but in real world info sections like creation and development, it is okay to give specific episode examples. I hope that answers your question.

And the use of the citation templates vary from article to article, but this is the full version that should be used: <ref>{{cite episode |title=Today I Am a Clown|episodelink=Today I Am a Clown |series=The Simpsons |serieslink=The Simpsons |credits=Cohen, Joel H.; Kruse, Nancy|network=Fox |airdate=2003-12-07 |season=15 |number=6}}</ref> -- Scorpion0422 05:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I will try and go through and add all the extra information soon. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added all of the info you posted to every single episode reference in Springfield (The Simpsons). I am pretty tired now. Turns out I was so tired that I forgot to sign <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The Regina Monologues‎

Hi. Nice work on that article. Have you considered taking it to GA? --Maitch (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to expand the reception section, but after that I was aiming for GA. Gran2 18:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Could someone help me?

Hi Im new with WikiProject The Simpsons and I was thinking that I would like to make or edit a page for this project so if anyone would like to help me just post a message on my talk

--Springfield MO Native JH (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Springfield MO Native JH

The Principal and the Pauper at WP:FAC

The Principal and the Pauper is up at WP:FAC, comments would be appreciated. FAC discussion page is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Principal and the Pauper. Cirt (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Springfield's state

At least they notified some of us this time, the last few Afds nobody bothered to tell us about (like the Capital City one, although I wouldn't have opposed its deletion). -- Scorpion0422 19:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference naming conventions

I'm just wondering, what is the general consensus for proper reference naming conventions. The two most common ones seem to be this[1] and this[2]. As you can see the only difference is whether the DVD is named as The Simpsons The Complete Fourth Season DVD or The Simpsons Season 4 DVD commentary. I believe the first name is the correct one, since that is the exact text printed on the boxsets. But that then raises another question, The Simpsons The Complete Fourth Season DVD is not really proper english, it should have a comma just after The Simpsons. What to do... What to do.... I realise that the adoption of a new standard would involve hours of work shanging existing GA/FA articles, so this probably isn't going to make me very popular! But I have to know, what is everyone else's opinion? --Simpsons fan 66 23:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Groening, Matt. (2004). The Simpsons The Complete Fourth Season DVD commentary for the episode "Kamp Krusty" [DVD]. 20th Century Fox.
  2. ^ Groening, Matt. (2004). The Simpsons Season 4 DVD commentary for the episode "Homer the Heretic" [DVD]. 20th Century Fox.
I think that #1 should be used and modified. There should be a colon after Simpsons and the first mention of DVD should be removed because it is mentioned later in the citation. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking exactly the same thing. --Simpsons fan 66 02:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I've never been a fan of either - it just looks wrong to put so much of that in italics. There doesn't seem to be any established convention for citing DVD commentaries, whether on Wikipedia or in external style guides, but I'd prefer something like the following:
Groening, Matt. (2004). Commentary for the episode "Kamp Krusty". The Simpsons: The Complete Fourth Season [DVD]. 20th Century Fox. Zagalejo^^^ 03:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer that one too. --Maitch (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
That's cool, but how about moving the (2004) nearer to the end? Such as
Groening, Matt. Audio Commentary for the episode "Kamp Krusty". The Simpsons: The Complete Fourth Season (2004) [DVD]. 20th Century Fox. --Simpsons fan 66 21:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should move the date to the very end. Zagalejo^^^ 00:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I forgot one thing, the code used for references automatically sorts the text into a prescribed order. So we can't move anything or change the italics unless we type everything manually and abandon the code. Maybe we should return to the original suggestion made by thedemonhog. --Simpsons fan 66 04:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not hearing much consensus, but as for myself, I'm going with demonhogs idea. Any further opinions before we let this topic die? --Simpsons fan 66 12:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Eh... It's not that much more work to format something manually. The current references just aren't professional looking. Let's try to come up with a good solution. Zagalejo^^^ 07:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Who Shot Mr. Burns? merge

I've been considering merging the pages for the two parts (which I first split up about a year ago) into one really good, potential FA. Does anyone oppose this? -- Scorpion0422 21:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, good idea, I think it would service the episodes better and would make a great potential FA. Gran2 21:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I also try and have to figure out a way to fit both infoboxes on the page, so it may involve having to make a custom infobox. -- Scorpion0422 22:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
This same thing happened with two South Park episodes (Go God Go and (Imaginationland), and there was a massive edit war over it. This shouldn't we an issue if we all concur. They did manage to merge the infobox details, so you could always ask them for advice. --Simpsons fan 66 02:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
South Park is a bit of a different show, the crew is basically the same from episode to episode, plus those episodes all occured during the same season, whereas in this case it's two episodes over two seasons. I think we'll have to lose the templates that list all of the episodes, and I can't imagine that this will go over well. -- Scorpion0422 03:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Definitly do some research over the proper procedures first. --Simpsons fan 66 06:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've started work on it, you can see what I have done here. I made custom templates for the page, and I still have some fixing to do before its ready for the mainspace, but any improvements anyone can make are more than welcome. -- Scorpion0422 06:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the plot section is too long now. It is longer than what you are allowed to write for a film article. --Maitch (talk) 09:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I will cut it down soon, for now I'm just working on a smooth merge of the two pages and I'll worry about that later. -- Scorpion0422 13:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)