Talk:That 90's Show

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article is on a subject of mid-importance within The Simpsons.
Tasks you can do: Here are some tasks you can do: edit Collaboration: Featured topic Drive Copyedit: Merge: D'oh! → Homer Simpson (Discuss first) Cleanup: Bouvier family, Politics in The Simpsons, Springfield's state, The Simpsons Road Rage, Otto Mann, Martin Prince, Ralph Wiggum, Milhouse Van Houten Shorten plot synopsis: Future-Drama, A Star Is Torn, All About Lisa, Mona Leaves-a, Smoke on the Daughter, Large Marge Reference: Bart Simpson, Bongo Comics, Cheese-eating surrender monkeys, Comic Book Guy, Homer's Odyssey, Itchy & Scratchy in Miniature Golf Madness, Joshua Sternin, Lona Williams, Montgomery Burns, Night of the Living Treehouse of Horror, Rainier Wolfcastle, List of Springfield Elementary School students, Steve O'Donnell, Springfield's state, The Heartbroke Kid, The Itchy and Scratchy Game, Weekend at Burnsie's, World of Springfield Expand: The Simpsons Theme, Josh Weinstein, Bill Oakley, Bongo Comics, Mark Kirkland, Jim Reardon Stubs: Neil Affleck, Bob Anderson (director), Wes Archer, Bart's House of Weirdness, Big Bad Book of Bart Simpson, J. Stewart Burns, Itchy & Scratchy in Miniature Golf Madness, Simpsons Classics, The Simpsons: Bart vs. the World, The Simpsons Bowling, Virtual Bart More...

---

Archives
Ratings information
1. Archive 1

Contents 1 Tenure Error 2 Trivia 3 Anachronism 4 CR Bullets vs. Paragraph 5 A parody of the Floating timeline? 6 Archive 7 Errors 8 Misplaced Apostrophe

[edit] Tenure Error

Should there be a note about the error where 'associate professor' Stefane August is implied to lack tenure? In reality, the title of associate professor is only given upon tenure - before that, one is an assistant professor (and if one fails to make tenure, the term is 'fired'). I was shocked that the Simpsons made such an elementary goof, especially considering the general nerdiness they've shown before this. Mokele (talk) 05:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's notable considering how many continuity errors they have made, something like that is minor. Anyway guidelines discourage sections on goofs.--The Dominator (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not a continuity error, it's an actual error.

Where in my post did I say it was a continuity error? And please sign your posts.--The Dominator (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"I don't think it's notable considering how many continuity errors they have made..." Thats where you said it.(I'm not the guy who originally posted that, I just noticed that) --72.83.82.238 (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes considering the amount of continuity errors they made, I didn't say that it's a continuity error, just that the episode made alot of them.--The Dominator (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Either of you want a ruler to go settle this? If you feel so strongly, edit the actual article. --68.195.52.30 (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And that is exactly how edit wars are started. The Dominator (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

The University of Pennsylvania's The Button sculpture is shown in this episode on Springfield University's campus.

That might be a tad too trivial for inclusion, but if you find a source, feel free to include it. Please sign your posts by typing --~~~~ or pressing the sign button above the edit area, and add new posts to the bottom of the page.--The Dominator (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anachronism

Homer quotes the Seinfeld episodes The Soup Nazi and The Sponge. Both episodes aired in 1995, indicating that the episode takes place in 1995 or later. Later a guy calls Kurt Cobain. Kurt Cobain died in 1994, so this is an anachronism.

It's no different than the continuity errors that the episode makes, unfortunately it's difficult to mention it without creating original research. Any way that's only one of many that the episode makes, so it's not that significant. Also please sign your posts.--The Dominator (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a weird 90s synthesis, verging on non-canon. For instance, Bart in 2008 must have been born in 1998, However, the closing scenes of the flashback approach the Millenium, and there's no sign of Bart or even Evergreen Terrace.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So, I agree that there are so many continuity errors (regarding both The Simpsons Universe and the actual universe) that this isn't notable enough to include; however, it's not original research, as all of the involved dates are easily verifiable. Though I suppose it might count as original research until the poster does, in fact, cite the relevant dates.Choiniej (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CR Bullets vs. Paragraph

I'd like to know people's opinions about this as there are minor disputes, I prefer the paragraph since to me, it seems like bullets imply that the list is complete (which it isn't and isn't even supposed to be), the paragraph form on the other hand outlines the types of references made. Just want to know people's thoughts on this, thanks.--The Dominator (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Paragraphs definitely! All of our GAs use paragraphs, and they also seem to cut down a little on random CRs Ctjf83^talk 06:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Just my thoughts (I know I can't change anything permanently, so I won't press the issue), the paragraph does not read any better than the bullet points. The paragraph reads more like a collection of different thoughts clumped together, while the bullet points at least implies separate thoughts. There is no "flow", which is what well written work needs. Rhino131 (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and see what you can do about cleaning it up, if you want Ctjf83^talk 20:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I might go through other pages to see if I can fix it (its not too bad on this one). Its no big deal, its just that one random sentence after another in paragraph form reads a little odd. Rhino131 (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a paragraph is just random sentences, isn't too well structured and is just a paragraph for the sake of being a paragraph, but bullets make new users assume that since the CR they noticed in the episode isn't in here then we must have forgotten it, the article is then flooded with original research. So yes the paragraph needs to be structured better, but the bullets don't solve much.--The Dominator (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying it should be changed to Bullet points, because the GA people prefer the paragraph. I'm just talking about adding in words like "and" or "also" at the beginning of sentences. Rhino131 (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A parody of the Floating timeline?

"The plot of the episode parodies the series' sliding timeline"

I have issues with that statement and I don't wish to turn this into a forumesque debate so I'll keep it short. That statement is a POVish analysis of the plot and it definitely needs a source from one of the production staff. Personally, I didn't see it as an intentional parody of the floating timeline, just an episode where the staff decided they didn't care about continuity. If it was a parody, it would have been done with a lot more sarcasm and there would have been some references to it. Does it mess up the timeline? Certainly, but is it an intentional parody of it? Maybe, but we shouldn't say it is without a source. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it was supposed to be a parody of the timeline, but I do agree that it should be removed unless well sourced.--The Dominator (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I had thought it was the new writers not knowing about the older episodes time line, or trying to introduce a time line to younger viewers. If it was a parody, it would have been clear. Rhino131 (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Bart's line about never hearing about the 90's sort of shows that it was intended as a parody. I doubt that it was an error from the writers but I guess your second possibility makes sense.--The Dominator (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I took that line as saying kids don't know/remember anything before this current modern age. But we won't really know unless there is a source. Rhino131 (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there's no way of telling without an inside source so it's best to just drop it from the article (which has been done).--The Dominator (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Parody" is the wrong word to use in my opinion. Perhaps saying that it is a reference to the Simpsons' floating timeline makes more sense. I'm sure it was obvious amongst the writers that this would break continuity, but I don't think the episode was intended to do that. They just wanted to have fun with characters. In order to really enjoy the show, a viewer has to understand that nothing makes sense. --Fez2005 (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

This page is getting a bit long, you think we could archive?--The Dominator (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

sure why not Y Done Ctjf83^talk 08:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Errors

Should we put a little blurb under the cultural references part that says the timeline of the 90's that is shown in the episode is messed up? For example, it is apparent that Nirvana hasn't been formed yet, so that would place it in 1990/91, but we see a Sonic the Hedgehog billboard earlier with both Sonic and Amy on it, even though Amy wasn't introduced until 1993. The whole episode is more of a all-in-one 90's, but I still think we should make a mention of the various errors they made while making this episode. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people have pushed to include it and I agree that it would probably be best to include some mention of it, although absolutely no specific examples since there were alot of errors made and new users and anons will start adding loads of OR. The Dominator (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it should say something like "Possibly due to the large amount of references in this episode, there are many factual errors in regard to when certain things happened in the 90's" Or something similar. If need be, the example I gave above could go in. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 04:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misplaced Apostrophe

When using an apostrophe showing omission the punctuation goes in front of the number so as to signify the fact that it's replacing the numbers that are no longer there. Therefore, 1999 is shortened to '99, 2008 is shortened to '08, etc. Also, if one is referencing a given decade, such as the nineties, there is no apostrophe needed inbetween the zero and the "s"; one just needs to simply add the letter. This particular error seems to be everpresent in many articles on Wikipedia. I realize it's an easily overlooked mistake--that's why I'm addressing it.Larphenflorp (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think that is how it is listed in the Simpsons website and other official sites, which is why the article is titled that way. Rhino131 (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Is that worth noting somewhere in the article? Just a thought.Larphenflorp (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I suppose it depends on if it was deliberately make like that by the writers or they simply did not know. Rhino131 (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't think we should include it per lack of knowledge about it. We don't know why the title is like that therefore there isn't much left for us to write. The Dominator (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
        • According to TV.com, the apostrophe comes before the 9. I agree with Larphenflorp that, grammatically, this is where it should be. I wasn't able to find the episode referenced on the official Simpsons site so don't know whether it's their (deliberate?) mistake or our mistake. Wavehunter (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
          • TV.com is not a reliable source though grammatically it would be correct. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 01:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)