Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcuts:
WT:Simpsons
WT:Doh

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons page.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II.
Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here.

Contents

[edit] I, (Annoyed Grunt)-Bot

Is this the right title? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. --Maitch (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems to fail "article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" over at Wikipedia:Naming conventions. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
It's still the official title of the episode: [1] -- Scorpion0422 20:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I imagine this has been discussed and somone decided it was best to ignore our naming conventions in this case, which is fine if that's what happened. Otherwise it seems like readers would be more familiar with D'oh than (annoyed grunt), even is that's the title it was originally given. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you prove that "I, D'oh-Bot" is the more used title? A google search gets 2000 hits for D'oh but 3000 for Annoyed grunt, so it seems that that one is slightly more used on the internet. -- Scorpion0422 21:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) No, but D'oh is much more used than annoyed grunt. It seems obvious to me that most english speakers will know D'oh better, but I could be wrong. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  • The title is the title, the naming convention doesn't mean that we should make the title inaccurate if that is the official episode title (which it is) and the naming convention shouldn't be applied in a case where a title would be made inaccurate by implying it, something that should probably be clarified next time someone decides to propose updates to the naming conventions. Cat-five - talk 08:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Issues with Mona Simpson

I just went through a number of Simpsons articles to double check for trivia and quote cruft (I didn't see any) and noticed that there are serious issues with tense on the Mona Simpson article and it could use a bit of work because of the recent change in tense due to her "removal" from the series as an active character. A certain number of "is"'s should be changed to "was"'s however depending on their usage some should stay the same regardless of her status. Cat-five - talk 08:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The tense is correct, per WP:TENSE and WP:FICTION, just becuase a character has been killed off or has left the show, does not mean they enter the past tense. Fictional characters were never real in the first place therefore they never stop being fictional characters. Articles related to fiction must be written in an out of universe point of view, therefore, whether dead or not, a character will always be a fictional character. Gran2 14:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some Enchanted Evening at FAC

Hi, I decided to give Some Enchanted Evening a try at FAC. It would be helpful if somebody could help me by doing a copyedit. This is requested at the FAC. Thanks in advance. --Maitch (talk) 09:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I Can't Believe It's a Bigger and Better Unofficial "Simpsons" Guide

Is this book worth buying? What exactly does it contain? I've seen it used as a reference in several articles, and I'd like to check it out for myself, but it seems like it's only available from two libraries in the United States. Zagalejo^^^ 02:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've considered getting it before, but I have no idea if it's just what the BBC use on their pages, or if there is anything more. It'd probably be better to switch of the BBC sources to the book directly. Any, Amazon have it for 1p here so I may as well buy it. Gran2 05:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Oakley has sent me his images

Most of them are group shots and in most cases cropping out individual images would make them too small for use in individual bio articles. But, we can use the one for images of Bill, Josh and Jeff Martin. And we have some nice group shots for the main article. Please do not upload them yet. I still need to make sure Bill is willing to freely license them per this

  • Image 1 - 1994 (from L to R): Bill, Josh, Mike Reiss, Jeff Martin
  • Image 2 - 1992 - staff photo (R to L): David Stern, CJ Gibson (?), Jon Vitti (partial), John Swartzwelder, George Meyer, Ken Tsumura, Mike Reiss, Josh Weinstein, Bill Oakley, Conan O'Brien, Al Jean (partial), Jeff Goldstein, Colin ABV Lewis (partial), Mike Mendel. Front row: unknown, Lona Williams, Dee Capelli
  • Image 3 - 1993? (L to R, first row) Yeardley, Mike Reiss, Marge, Bart, Silverman (kneeling), Tompkins (standing behind him), Josh, Bill (behind Josh), Sakai (behind Bill), Mirkin, Greg Daniels, Jennifer Crittenden, Al Jean. Second row, on stairs: Unknown, rightmost two are David X. Cohen, Dan Greaney
  • Image 4 - 1992 - Conan hanging out in Bill & Josh's office
  • Image 5 - 1992 - The offices. Conan and Dan McGrath, center

-- Scorpion0422 05:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, those are excellent! I could probably crop most of the individuals from image 2 and definitly image 1. Good job. Gran2 05:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
And, there's an image of John Swartzwelder. That's a bonus. Does anyone think we should try asking if he can send us current images of himself and Josh? He does look quite a bit different now. -- Scorpion0422 14:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yep, clear proof that Swartzwelder is real (as if there was any doubt). And, yeah, I agree we should ask if he can take a current image of himself, Josh and Rachel Pulido (who I recall is his wife). Gran2 14:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have sent Bill's permission e-mail to OTRS. Hopefully they'll be useable by Monday. I uploaded them onto commons: Image:The Simpsons office building.jpg‎, Image:Conan O'Brien - Simpsons.jpg‎, Image:Simpsons plane.jpg, Image:Simpsons writers2.jpg‎, Image:Simpsons writers1.jpg‎. You'll know when one of these templates is added: {{PermissionOTRS|ticket=URL}} or {{PermissionOTRS|id=ticket number}} -- Scorpion0422 18:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Neat stuff! I like that Conan picture. Before he made it big... Zagalejo^^^ 18:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That was quick... Image:Simpsons plane.jpg has been listed for deletion because of the plane and the inclusion of the characters. At first I was hoping that I'd be able to crop out some of the people, but 1. Most of them would be too small for infoboxes, 2. Cropping out the group would only allow us to use a few people and 3. We already have some good group images. So, it could be worse. -- Scorpion0422 23:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prequel List/Category?

- I have season 4, 3, 1 and most of 2 at home. I was looking for a list of episodes like Lisa's first Word or And Maggie Makes Three, Homer marries Marge, etc. I'd like to create such a list and plug it into Simpsons Categories, but I'm wondering if it's appropriate. If there's a Halloween List, can there be a pre-series one? Jethro 82 (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need for a new page, list or category, but a template for the flashback episodes might be a possibilty. Gran2 10:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it is inappropriate with a list or category since the continuity is soo loose. Can we even call "That 90's Show" a flashback show? --Maitch (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a flashback which destroys all the other flashbacks. ;) Gran2 12:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oh great...

Well we have another article on the main page and I can hardly contain my excitement. Troy McClure will be TFA for [[May 28] 2008. No, I'm sure it'll be great, and I love having our articles as TFA (minus the vandilism), I just generally think that three The Simpsons articles in one year is too many. Anyway, "wiki-politics" aside be on the watch for slightly higher levels of vandilism over the next week. Gran2 10:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. I was hoping to try The Simpsons Movie for July 27, but this'll be fine. -- Scorpion0422 23:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Gratz on Troy McClure making it to the front page guys... sorry I haven't been editing much lately, been extremely busy with a new company... just happened to check out wikipedia regarding the Phoenix landing, and immediately recognized a Simpsons name as the FA... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is a new one

We've had people who in the past claimed to be Al Jean, Wes Archer, and the guy Artie Ziff is based on (not to mention the people who keep adding writers and directors months prior to episode airdates). Now, somebody is claiming to be the real Armin Tamzarian that Ken Keeler named the character after. [2] He says the name should be spelled Armen, but all official sources spell it Armin, so I reverted it. -- Scorpion0422 05:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Armen" seems to be correct. [3]. I highly doubt this is someone pretending to be the guy. Zagalejo^^^ 05:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
You never know, but it just seems doubtful to me that he would randomly show up on wikipedia on those two pages. It may be how his real name is spelled, but both the Simpsons Forever book, and the official website spell it Armin. -- Scorpion0422 05:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
What other pages would he have gone to? They seem like logical places to me. Neither of those sources is bulletproof. I'd say we just let it go, since it's just one letter. Zagalejo^^^ 05:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
You are correct, they are not bulletproof sources, but neither is a guy claiming to be someone a character is based on. I think we should leave it as Armin for now (it is the slightly more common spelling of the name) and see if this user returns or not. -- Scorpion0422 05:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I did see that he changed "Principal Charming" to "Principal ChArmeng", which seems odd. However, all the evidence I see shows that the real guy does spell his name with an E, so I think we should at least refer to the claims adjustor himself as "Armen". Zagalejo^^^ 05:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It may be wise to take this into a broader forum. RFC? Zagalejo^^^ 05:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the ChArmeng thing could just be the result of some sort of "Find and replace" tool, so that may not really mean much. Zagalejo^^^ 05:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Nah, an RFC is not really necessary. We should try and be consistant with official sources, but it's probably fine for now. Although I'm sure somebody will eventually change it back because it's a longstanding edit war. -- Scorpion0422 06:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Seeing that Tamzarian is an Armenian surname, I can say that "Armen" is the correct spelling because it is one of the most popular names among Armenians; see Armen.--Crzycheetah 06:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip! Zagalejo^^^ 06:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Importance ratings

I'm not a member of the project and don't wish to become one (just got drawn in by TFA), but I notice that there are more mid importance articles than there are low importance articles. It's my opinion that there should be significantly more articles in categories of lower importance than those of higher importance, i.e. more low than mid, mid than high, and high than top. This is the case for mid vs. high and high vs. top here, so should it not also be the case with mid vs. low? Richard001 (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

All episodes are of mid importance, so since there are 419 episode pages (over half of the project articles) there is naturally going to be more of them. All characters are also mid importance. -- Scorpion0422 02:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bouvier family

Does anyone else think this could easily be merged into the Simpson family article? They are all part of the same family, and it doesn't make sense to include Homer's relatives in the Simpson family article, but not Marges. -- Scorpion0422 18:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a Bouvier family article? Wow. Yeah, that could easily be merged in Simpson family. Gran2 18:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relatives for infoboxes

(copied from Talk:Abraham_Simpson#Relatives)

Hey, I'm semi-back! Anyway, since there is some issues with who we should list as relatives, I'll jump start the discussion. I think we only need to list main recurring characters in the relatives section, and close relatives, like we don't need to list Abe's daughter in laws, or Ling as the kids' cousin, his parents aren't recurring at all, I don't even remember seeing them, so I don't think they should be listed Ctjf83Talk 16:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, they appeared in one episode (Much Apu About Nothing) in a very brief flashback (which was likely one of Grampa's insane stories). Their names came from a non-canon source. Mentioning them in the article is fine, but the infoboxes are meant for characters that were more than a one-off joke. If we mention such minor characters, then the infoboxes would be chock full of such characters as Mother Shabooboo, Uncle Tyrone and the guy who plays a millionaire at parties. -- Scorpion0422 17:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL, ya, I don't have a problem listing some in the article, my above guidelines were for the info boxes. Ctjf83Talk 17:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I always assumed that at least main direct relatives, such as parents, spouse and offspring, were listed in these sections (well at least they are for other characters, even for characters for other things not related to The Simpsons). Abe's father has appeared in at least two episodes, "Bart Gets Hit By A Car" and "Much Apu About Nothing". But it seems that almost every edit I've made on these articles recently is supposedly "wrong" despite a lot of related articles contradicting the reasons given for the reverts. Bah, sort out your own mess then. --.:Alex:. 17:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I actually don't remember seeing his parents at all, it must be for a brief few seconds. I don't think a total of 10 seconds of someone appearing over the course of 420 episodes is enough to mention them in the infobox, even if they are parents of Abe. Also, just because one or two people think your edits are wrong, doesn't mean the are! Ctjf83Talk 17:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I know... it's just tiring and frustrating when it's relentless is all. Besides, I think we need a discussion on standardising the infoboxes anyway. Almost all of them have something different going on with them with many different aspects, we really should standardise them otherwise it becomes really, really confusing. With Abe's parents, well they are about on par with, say, Iggy Wiggum or Sheldon Skinner and yet they are listed hence why I thought I should add them there. --.:Alex:. 17:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Excellent point!!! Why do we even have those, from what I remember, one time characters just from "Raging Abe Simpson and His Grumbling Grandson in "The Curse of the Flying Hellfish"". You are absolutely right though, if we list them, we should list Abe's parents. But the question is should we list them. I don't think we should if they have only appeared in a few out of 420 episodes. We can discuss it here, or link this to a discussion off the main Simpsons page to reach a decision amongst the project. Ctjf83Talk 17:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer continuing the discussion at WT:DOH, as it seems a more suitible venue for discussion about the infobox in general. --.:Alex:. 18:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural References and related sections

I've edited and modified a lot of cultural references, and I was wondering if we could address the inconsistency of this. Some pages have waaay too many references, some have one or two, and most have none. I've contemplated how to address this, and the only options I've found are 1. Remove all of them - some I think are noteworthy, but there's no objective way to pick out which ones to keep, so they'd all have to go 2. Create a page called "The Simpsons cultural references" or "Cultural References in The Simpsons." I wanted to get feedback from others on what, if anything, should be done about this. I'm willing to execute the decision myself and do the work, I just wanted to make a communal decision. JW (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC) - note regarding option 2, the individual articles' cultural references sections would all be removed, and a "see [ [page] ]" comment could be inserted instead JW (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with what is already there. Some episode have a lot of cult refs, because they just do. Alot don't, either because there are no sources to support them, or there just aren't any references in the episode. If it can't be sourced it goes, I don't see anything wrong with this. Gran2 13:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
My main motivation for addressing this is that on a lot of the episode talk pages, there is debate over what to include, whether the section should exist, etc. As of now, the general rule seems to be that if it's sourced, or very obvious, it's included. This was mainly just a proposition for a more specific general rule, but it can just be to only include sourced info. JW (talk) 03:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I actually think there used to be a cultural references in The Simpsons page (I forget the title so I can't check any deletion logs) but if it did exist, it were deleted. -- Scorpion0422 13:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Gran2. Cultural references are an integral part of any good episode article. Yes, some are complete trivia, but that will be resolved over time as new DVDs come out and more episodes become GA. --Simpsons fan 66 02:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Will someone please explain how cultural references sections are any different from trivia sections? Anthony Rupert (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
They all really need to be remade into paragraphs, as that's acceptable. It's the lists that cause the issues. I've seen a few articles where the lists were converted into prose and everything was fine. I think they should stay, because from a reader viewpoint they are really interesting sections and are indeed almost integral. --.:Alex:. 11:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
If they're remade into paragraphs, then yes, they should stay, but right now it's just a bunch of trivia. Anthony Rupert (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
We do actually have a lot of those with over 80 episode GA's, but we haven't gotten around to fixing every single episode article. That is why some articles doesn't even have cultural references and some have trivia like cultural references sections. --Maitch (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree w/ Gran2 (talk · contribs), Simpsons fan 66 (talk · contribs), .:Alex:. (talk · contribs) and COMPFUNK2 (talk · contribs). In general with regard to Cultural references sections for The Simpsons episode articles on Wikipedia, paragraphs = good, lists = bad. Especially unsourced lists that blatantly violate WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

See, I've never understood why people are so opposed to lists. Paragraphs may look nicer, but, depending on the nature of the information, lists are often easier to read and interpret.
Let's look at The_Joy_Of_Sect#Cultural_references. Do we gain anything from putting that information into a paragraph? The paragraph isn't really a paragraph, outside of its formatting. It's just a string of five unconnected ideas. We don't elaborate on any themes, or anything. Zagalejo^^^ 17:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Well in that case in particular that is more of a style issue than a sourcing issue (though I personally still like the paragraph format better). But I think the above discussion perhaps centers on lists of cultural references in articles where virtually all of said info is unsourced and/or WP:OR violations. Cirt (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that we should avoid OR. In most cases, that shouldn't be an issue with Simpsons articles, since there are plenty of published sources identiying the references. Zagalejo^^^ 18:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think we are all agreed on that one, it's already been mentioned above that this whole thing may just be about articles no one has paid much attention to yet, as opposed to the GA/FAs. Cirt (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New MOS for TV

The television community currently has an MOS guideline under proposal, and would appreciate all comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#MOS proposal in order to have the best possible guide for television related articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of The Simpsons media

I have been thinking about this list and I don't feel it is necessary. It is basically an excuse to make a list of Simpsons ads. This would have been fine if that list was sourced and complete, but that doesn't seem to be the case. We don't really need to have the season overviews as they are covered better elsewhere. So I would like to hear how you guys feel about the article before I send it to AFD. Maybe there is a way to save it. --Maitch (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)