Jump to content

Talk:List of The Simpsons episodes (season 21–present)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

All the viewer ratings on this page?

My media professor said today that Fox management had successfully petitioned the removal of the viewer ratings for each episode from this page, I thought he was having me on, but I can't see them anywhere? Is it true that Fox had the ratings removed because they didn't want a public perception of ratings dropping, and thus perceived advertising value? SmallEditsForLife (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I wish, I'd love to see Fox try that. I'd love the chance to tell them how the bad show is now. But no. The ratings were never listed on this page, some people have added some, but they were reverted because the additions were incomplete, unsourced or poorly sourced. The consensus is to not include them here, but they are all (or will eventually all) be on each episode's page. Gran2 12:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Besides, if there were some kind of petition, it would be for more than The Simpsons, and all of the other Fox shows have either ratings on the episode table, or a separate ratings table underneath (I think just Family Guy for that one, and on the individual season pages). No, I think your media prof. if either pulling your leg or casting assumption as fact. KnownAlias X 12:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, your professor is sort of correct. The ratings data are copyrighted by Nielsen and they have been actively involved in removing data from the net and espescially the older season tables. That is why it is so how to find data for older seasons.
The reason why you can't find ratings data on this page is because we only have incomplete information. It is quite hard to find information from all the way back to 1989, espescially since The Simpsons finished out of the top 30 for every season except the first. -Maitch (talk) 09:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Gran2, can you please leave your personal feelings about the show out of the discussions? You seem to weigh in everywhere you can, and it's neither relevant nor helpful. To remind: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."
That said, Nielsen barely has a leg to stand on. The information's out there in hundreds of print and web articles every week, and I can guarantee you that a) not every media outlet using the ratings is paying Nielsen for the data, and b) Nielsen isn't going after everyone. Wikipedia's simply vulnerable because they can have someone edit the pages themselves. That is, if they're engaging in this kind of thing at all (of which I'm really dubious).PacificBoy 03:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I know for a fact that thefutoncritic.com was forced by Nielsen to take down season ratings overview several years ago. They even had the information removed from the web archieve. I don't know if they do it anymore. They can't control the internet and we can just use newspapers as a source. It is still pretty hard to find overall season ratings for The Simpsons seasons 2 - 9, because the show were out of the top 30 and newspaper don't print full lists. I would appreciate it, if anyone was up for the job. . --Maitch (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
In the case of Futon (I've seen people try to use it as a source), they are allowed to post the ratings for a seven day period, so next week's Monday ratings will replace this week's Monday ratings, ect. But you're right that there's no archive there. KnownAlias X 13:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

For those interested in working on this. Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Ratings shows the information we already know. Complete this and the table will appear in this list. --Maitch (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Additional episode numbers

For some reason, someone has added a second episode number to each title, described as: "the episode number within its season: i.e. 1506 would be the sixth episode of the fifteenth season." I know some shows do this, but The Simpsons never has in any official material I can find. If someone can (and this is important) prove that this is necessary to the article (i.e. if they're listed this way in other countries), please say something. Otherwise, it's just another silly episode number reference that doesn't need to be there, and I'm taking them out.PacificBoy 03:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Why shouldn't they be included? The numbers have been there ever since this became a Featured list in 2006 and they're helpful. If you're looking for, as an example, the fifteenth episode of the third season, you don't have to count all the way to fifteen to find out what episode it is. Theleftorium (talk) 11:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
There's clearly a consensus for them as they're included in pretty much every equivalent episode list. It's a pretty common method of description. Gran2 11:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I see and value both points, and realize now that I addressed the wrong issue. I have absolutely no problem with listing episodes by season and episode number within the season, I just feel that they should be listed in the established style of other shows' episode pages (see List of Seinfeld Episodes and List of Friends Episodes for examples), which put the season number and episode number in separate columns. Listing them here as "82 - 501," for example, implies that The Simpsons has a unique numbering system because it's handled differently from other shows. And I don't see other shows using a running total of number of episodes (i.e. the "82"). Please see either of my examples before responding, thanks.PacificBoy 00:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Right, I didn't realise that's what you meant. But yes, you are correct, separate columns is how other lists do it and it is how this should be done to. Gran2 10:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I've been incredibly busy over the past few months and haven't gotten around to doing this. Of course, now that I finally make the move, I notice that the episode sections are semi-protected. Before I go ahead and separate the season number and episode number as discussed, I want to make sure there are no problems. I'll wait a week before getting started.PacificBoy 01:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Your suggestion is fine and in line with other FL's, so please go away and do it. The current semi-protection is to keep IP's from adding made up scheduling

information. --Maitch (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Order

What was the point of somebody moving the episodes from season 7 on to the right of the list? It's very annoying and unneeded, and needs to be remedied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.44.29.58 (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, they used to all be one style then some guy changed them. I thought he'd changed them all but I guess not. I've reverted back to how it was because I can't be bothered to change the rest. Gran2 21:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ratings tables for earlier seasons

I noticed someone added ratings for episodes on the season 23 table, So if its okay can I add ratings scores for earlier seasons, I wanted to ask first before I go ahead and add seasons worth of information only for it to be taken down. Buffyfan64 (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, you can do that. Just make sure that you provide reliable sources for the ratings. I have seen a couple of people trying to add numbers from message boards, news groups or fan sites. Those will be removed immediately. TV by the numbers from Zap2it is a good source. --Maitch (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Lord...

My God, somebody really messed this page up. We need to lock this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.9.214.238 (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Production line

Shouldn't the production line in the series overview say for every episode's first 2 or 4 letters/numbers in this Production Code, e.g. in season 3, episodes 1 and 3 have 7Fxx and not 8Fxx according to what's said in there. ICarlytranslator (talk) 11:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

seasons 11 and 12 ratings

What does that disclaimer mean that the jump in rank did not have anything to do with a huge gain in audience when the chart shows the total households jumped almost 80%. While households is not the same as viewers, it would be virtually impossible for an 80% increase in total households to not also mean a significant jump in total viewers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.106.1 (talk) 11:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying: The seasons 1-11 figures are for households; Seasons 12-present are individual viewers. They are calculated differently so not comparable. Gran2 12:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
To OP: It just means that the average Simpsons episode was viewed by an average of 1.8 people in a household, which does not seem far fetched. The disclaimer should be there, because the methods are not comparable. These days the network only cares about the 18-49 demographics or the 18-30 demographics. The Simpsons still does well there, so if we added those numbers, the Simpsons would jump up the charts yet again. --Maitch (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Where, exactly, in the source does it state that "The difference between the rank from season 11 to 12 is not a reflection of a huge audience gain, but rather that the show did better in terms of actual viewers in comparison with other shows"? This seems like original research to me, which is clearly not permitted. If its not, provide an inline cite showing where a source gives that particular interpretation of the numbers; you can't just make that interpretation yourself.--CoJaBo (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the table has it wrong. Sure, it is told why there are two tables. But, that is where it goes wrong: season 12 is in the first table in which the column header is "Households". Season 12 should be at the up-row of other table which has "Viewers". Though, at least when I look at the tables, they are attached to each other, making it effectively one table. 85.217.42.90 (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Fox ad

The FOX-Ad..Is that even allowed on this?This used to be an encycolpedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.207.239.29 (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's not copyright. CTF83! 01:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

References

Something strange happened to the references... Unreal7 (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

See #Article needs to be split or condensed somehow and Template talk:Episode list/sublist#Template limits being exceeded, where I have asked for help. I may work on this some more, if nobody else does soon. – Wbm1058 (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Article needs to be split or condensed somehow

Since this August 2013 edit, this article has been too big, and has joined Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. I removed unnecessary navigation templates, but that's not enough. There don't seem to be any easy answers. Either we split the article into seasons 1–13 and 14–26, or lose some of the detail about each episode. Are there any other long-running TV series that have run into this issue previously, that might give a precedent or guidance on how to handle this? Wbm1058 (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

If seasons 25 and 26 are removed, then the article still fits, with a post-expand include size of 2031906, which is just inside the maximum of 2048000. So we could split to seasons 1–24 with a new article for 25 and beyond. Or maybe 1–15, which would eventually be an even split if the show ran for 30 seasons. Culling down the content would be a lot trickier because the content is mostly transcluded from the individual season articles. You can see the problem by noting that some templates at the bottom of the article are not transcluded, and the references are not shown either. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at some T.V. shows with heaps of episodes, and most of them did something like this or this. However, I think doing a split for each decade would be best. Fudgemuch (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be better if we replace e. g. {{:The Simpsons (season 1)}} with a table containing the same information as now shown in the list. That way we would’ve less template includes. —Morten Haan (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I slept on this and when I woke up I had an idea for a solution which happens to fall right along this line. I think we could solve the problem with {{subst::The Simpsons (season 1)}}. I'll boldly try this solution, as it can easily be reversed. It's worth a look to see if this idea could work. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
That, by itself, didn't fix it. I'll try substituting the next lower level template as well, i.e., all the {{subst:Episode list/sublist}}s. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Wow. That was messy. Now the episode summaries are all over the place. For example the string "While Christmas shopping, Bart sneaks off and gets a tattoo." is found six times in the source—and this is something we don't want to appear in this article at all, so ideally that should not be in the source even one time. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
We need a special temporary template that is made for substitution. —Morten Haan (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
The idea of transcluding text from the detailed pages such as The Simpsons (season 1) was to keep this page synchronized with the detail pages in terms of the content that it's showing. The detail pages that this main list transcludes, such as The Simpsons (season 1), use an <onlyinclude></onlyinclude> pair to only include the episode list part of those articles, and then rely on the {{Episode list/sublist}} template to further cull the content by only including what is needed. That "sublist" template breaks down on this task, as rather than "onlyinclude" the episode summaries "not at all", it does so six times, albeit just in template logic that isn't displayed. I'm thinking that this what-to-display logic may be contributing to the template limits problem, and maybe {{Episode list/sublist}} can be fixed to do a better job. The last tweak to that template was about the ShortSummary parameter not showing references for content that wasn't displayed. Another patch to "onlyinclude" ShortSummary on the detail pages might help. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed for now, but my solution isn't pretty. I copied the text between the <onlyinclude> and </onlyinclude> tags from the first seven seasons' articles. Now the parser profiling data (at the bottom of the page in preview mode) shows that the Post-expand include size is 2037428/2048000 bytes. Thus, we 10572 bytes to spare, before season eight's article will need to be copied too. Any edits to the first seven seasons' articles will need to be manually copied to this page to keep them synchronized, if the edited text is between the <onlyinclude> and </onlyinclude> tags. Anyone who has a more elegant solution is of course welcome to implement it. – Wbm1058 (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

How about noinclude'ing the viewership? Or at least the references to viewership. alainmcd (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll admit to not understanding what the problem is (is it too many templates?...), but I know there wasn't a problem before a) the, in my view, totally pointless transclusion from the season articles (nothing is going to change in that info, and if it does need to be, it will take minutes to do so, so unless I'm again being ignorant of something, what exactly is the point?) and b) the addition of the Nielsen ratings, which are included on the season pages, so don't need to be here as well. If both of these things are fully reverted, and we just have 25 tables listing the numbers, titles, writer/directors, airdates and production codes, wouldn't that solve the issue? Again, forgive me if I've got the total wrong end of the stick here. Gran2 17:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem is not too many templates per se, but rather too much text being transcluded. Usually it is mostly templates that are transcluded, but in this case, parts of articles such as The Simpsons (season 8) are being transcluded, as if they were "templates".
Given that two editors have suggested that the viewership (Nielsen ratings) doesn't need to be shown on the main list article, I have made changes to the sandbox of Template:Episode list/sublist to implement that. For demonstration of that, see List of The Simpsons episodes#Season 8 (1996–97). I've used the sandbox version to remove the U.S. Viewers column, but the column is still there on The Simpsons (season 8). This should help mitigate the problem, but will need a consensus at Template talk:Episode list/sublist#Template limits being exceeded, as the change affects other TV episode lists. Any list articles showing the Viewers column will need a slight change to remove the column, like I did here. – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I just checked the post-expand include size with this tweak to remove the viewership column, and it's down to 2012967, which is a bit less than the 2037428 figure I reported above. Multiply that reduction by about a couple dozen, if we do this for all the seasons. Only a couple others don't have ratings shown (yet). Wbm1058 (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

As I requested at Wikipedia:Lua/To do, module:episode list has made the {{Episode list}} and {{Episode list/sublist}} processing a bit more efficient. But this may only have bought us a bit more time, as the post-expand include size of this version (19:40, 8 July 2014) is 2036942/2048000 bytes. – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@The Mol Man: Can you tell what is causing the "Cite error: The named reference McCann_2005_68.E2.80.9369 was invoked but never defined" at reference #507 in List of The Simpsons episodes? I'm having a little trouble tracking this one down. Thanks again for helping by creating the module! Wbm1058 (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: It was a reference that invoked as a self closing tag inside the summary, but it was actually defined earlier in the text, outside of the transcluded content. I just switched these around so that it was defined inside the summary to remove the error. moluɐɯ 21:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Upcoming episode The Simpsons Guy....

In September there will be an hour long cross-over of The Simpsons and Family Guy called The Simpsons Guy, It is currently listed as an episode on Family Guy episodes but not here. Will there be two distinct 30 minute episodes like they did with the Hurricane! episodes for American Dad!, Family Guy and The Cleveland Show and if so shouldn't there be an entry for the episode included in The Simpsons episodes for Season 26? or will it simply a one hour broadcast of The Simpsons or a one hour broadcast of Family Guy? TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a one-hour long episode of Family Guy that just happens to have some Simpsons characters in it. A note of it should probably be made on the season twenty-six article, but it wouldn't be appropriate to include it in the actual episode table since it's not an episode of this series. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 06:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Bumping the limits again

This is a continuation of the discussion started at § Article needs to be split or condensed somehow

I've commented out the navigation templates at the bottom (they weren't displaying properly anyway):

That gives a 2029881 / 2048000 bytes Post-expand include size (see Parser profiling data: at the bottom in Show preview). I'll see if that leaves enough room to transclude the upcoming season. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes! It fit: 2041232 / 2048000 bytes. – Wbm1058 (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

And restored the four episodes that apparently have not been scheduled yet: 2045462 / 2048000 bytes. Fitting in the entire season 26 will be a challenge. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. The transclusion of season 26 with this September 26 edit has pushed the article over the limit again, or The Simpsons (season 26) has grown since then to exceed the limit. – Wbm1058 (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
OK. If I commented out the transclusion of season 26, then it still fits. But keeping it in required that the first three seasons got copied (un-transcluded). Now at 2045972/2048000 bytes. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of Simpsons Movie

There appears to be rough consensus to include it in the article (notwithstanding objections). I'd say it's up to the editors as to how to include it. My suggestion would be to do as the X-Files list does and note it chronologically, but if editors feel this isn't appropriate then maybe it could be listed only in the "overview" table. That may make more sense as the page is ginormous now and the TOC is already suppressed. Protonk (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should The Simpsons Movie be included in this list of episodes? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments
I have pointed WP:TV to this discussion already. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I intend to raise it on the respective talk pages depending on the outcome of this RFC. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 03:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand. What's the criteria for being relevant? Being Simpsons related? Should we list Butterfinger commercials too? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 03:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Exclude. I think this is a valid "see also", but it's quite clearly not an episode. I don't think this is actually hurting the encyclopedia by its inclusion in the list, but I can't see any reason other than tradition to keep it here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for inviting me.

I think it's stupid having the movie listed on the episode guide page. Yes, as stated quite a few times, it's not an episode! Episodes are shown together on TV; the movie was shown at theatres. Plus, the movie has been out for 7+ years now, and there's only just been this "agreement" that episodes should contain the movie? I rest my case.--24.67.32.131 (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Exclude. At least in its current form. The film is not part of the series continuity, so including it in the series overview and giving it its own table is unnecessary. Information about the the movie is already in the article lede. Having it like this increases the size of an already bloated page. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Let's just not forget that I brought this up on the Talk Page and gave the users a good time to point out their reasons to why it shouldn't be there and no one said anything. Only after I put it there, some unexperienced users tried to undo it without reasoning here, not wondering why someone would have put it there and claiming it shouldn't be there simply because they didn't want it there or because it wasn't an episode. Then, I talked to every single one of them and reasoned the why it was there.
Answering 24.67.32.131, the only reason why it wasn't here for more than seven years is simply because no one has put it here. That is not an excuse to why it shouldn't be there. Besides, putting movies on the episode's list isn't something that "there's only just been this "agreement"" nor something I made up.
And SchrutedIt08, it is inevitable, the show has 26 seasons (and counting) and a feature movie. If the size of the page becomes a problem, it is more suitable to split it in two rather than taking off things from it.
Thank you - Artmanha (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Include It seems a logical place for it, and follows the conventions set by lists for other shows. Icarosaurvus (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Exclude per others above, simply is not an episode of the series... Roberticus talk 16:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Include in article Exclude from table. It seems pretty odd to me that it is included in the table and has a subsection of it's own within the listings of each season. It could easily be mentioned in a sub section elsewhere in the article, or in the intro or in the see also IMHO. --Shabidoo | Talk 02:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Include Because the Simpsons is almost exclusively a television show, a reader may reasonably expect to see all of the Simpsons material here, so mentioning the movie in this article makes sense. It is not taking up any undue space; it's pretty much a single chronologically placed line with a link to the main Simpsons Movie article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protect just ended

See subject for details 202.160.16.175 (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The Simpsons Movie

Following the standards for other TV shows that have feature-length films, it should have a redirection to the movie's article on the episode's section. It must be featured between the seasons on which it was originally released -in this case, between Season 18 and Season 19. If there is no further discussion about this, I may add it myself soon. Thanks Artmanha (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

As there were no further discussion, I added the movie to the episode list. Thank you. Artmanha (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry but the movie does not qualify as an episode of the tv series. It was not made as an episode, it was not marketed as an episode it isn't mentioned in offical counts. So it doesn't belong in the list. Grapesoda22 (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
You are, obviously, right that's it not an episode but - for whatever reason - films are included on TV episode lists (be they theatrically released films or not). See List of The X-Files episodes, List of Wizards of Waverly Place episodes and List of Hannah Montana episodes as further examples. And please, try checking WP:TV if you still have a issue so that they can debate a more community solution. Thanks - Artmanha (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed it. Artmanha added it to the list without strong consensus for its inclusion, and the subsequent edits removing it don't bode well for such a consensus to ever be obtained. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

If you check carefully, I put the request for the adition of the movie, and after 17 days with no furter discussion about it, I added it to the article. I have reasoned why I did it and proved why it should be here. Most of the users who questioned it were users with no previous experience on Wikipedia's policy, even then, I talked to all of them and they consented it.
What you're accusing me of - editing without any consensus - is exactly what you did here. You should first use the talk page, wait for a response and then, if you were proved right - with a consensus - you should edit the article. Also, I strongly advice you to pay attention to the conversation above where I pointed why it should be here rather than not be. Thanks. - Artmanha (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
No consensus =/= consensus. I'm going to start an RfC. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Artmanha, there has not been a vote! You're the only one who thinks it should be there and changes it whenever anyone else edits it, knock it off! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.111.63 (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Outdated reference cites

Among the current 610 cites (as of 28 Jan 2016), many of those webpages no longer reach the Simpsons data, but TVtango.com still shows episode titles+ratings, such as by:
    • http://www.tvtango.com/listings/1990/11/08
That TVtango webpage, for "1990/11/08" shows the TV schedule for Thursday, 8 November 1990. Also, the cite templates of wp:CS1 cites (such as {{cite web}}) generate a lot of internal, unseen CoINS metadata which also fills the post-expand include size. Hence, a different form of cites could link to TVTango.com but not use so many large cite templates. In fact, just using minimal, shorter "title=TV Tango 1990-11-08" parameters could also reduce the include size somewhat. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

See also the related discussion at Jimbo Wales' talk page: Cite templates too large to fit on some pages. – Wbm1058 (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Time for a split?

I think it's time we split this page. It's just getting too big. The template size is breaking constantly, and most recently it's caused the FL star to balloon. Anyone else agree? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The first season sub-page was already substituted, and I just substituted the second season to get back inside the limit: The post-expand include size is now 2,091,283 bytes; the limit is 2,097,152 bytes. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
One option might be to merge the Home media section to List of The Simpsons home video releases. I removed that relatively recently-added section here, to get back inside the limit, but that was rejected here. So much for bold-revert-discuss. So far, on that section, we've had bold-revert-bold. ;) Wbm1058 (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Season 3 has been substituted. Post-expand include size is 2,088,122 bytes. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe the substitution method is ideal as it causes this article to include redundant text, most notably the episode summaries,and will result in errors over time due to now having two episode lists for each season (this is one of the main reasons we transclude!). It's also defeating the purpose of splitting into individual seasons by keeping the page size high. This is something that requires project wide attention as it's likely to become an issue at other pages, so I've asked Wbm1058 to raise this at WT:TV where we may be able to come up with a better solution that is supported by wider consensus and so will negate the problem of local resistance to possibly unpopular resolutions. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Of course sub-page substitution is not an ideal solution. There may be no ideal solution, so we will need to settle on the best compromise solution. This issue has been building for a long time. See § Article needs to be split or condensed somehow and § Bumping the limits again above for earlier discussions of the problem. The problem manifests here because few other TV series last for 27 seasons. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to ask the MediaWiki developers if they could increase the applicable template limits (post-expand include size is the applicable limit here). If the limit can't be increased, then we need to somehow work within it. We keep this in sync with the individual season articles by occasionally re-substituting them. One way to reduce transcluded content would be to lose the "U.S. viewers", and maybe "production code" columns from the comprehensive "List of episodes" articles. But if all the other TV shows don't want to lose those columns because limits don't require them to, then that only leaves the possibility of customized templates just for this article. Here's how List of The Bill episodes, a series with 26 seasons, solved the problem. Another example is List of The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson episodes. A split by decade was also suggested; that would split this to three articles. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Losing columns isn't the way as the requirements for these vary from series to series. In any case, loss of viewer numbers would be removing valid encyclopaedic content. The split by decade may be a suitable option. Alternatively, splitting by a defined number of seasons might also be a suitable alternative. As I understand it though that sort of thing has resulted in opposition, which is why I suggested taking it to WT:TV. Re-syncing articles periodically is an overhead we shouldn't have. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Just a note that the viewer numbers would still be included in the individual season episode lists, they would just be removed from this comprehensive list of all episodes of the entire series. I tried implementing this approach earlier, but found it to be a lot of work to get any significant improvement from that approach. Earlier someone converted a template to use Lua, and that was an incremental improvement that bought us some time before less desirable solutions were required. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Revisit

It is clear that the problem is not going to go away so I think wee need to address this problem now, once and for all. My proposal is simple:

  1. Create List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20) and transclude seasons 1-20 to that page.
  2. Remove all of the episode tables for seasons 1-20 from this page and replace them with one (just one!) link to List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20).
  3. Adjust the series overview table so that links for each season point to the correct page. The series overview table can be transcluded, or a cut down version can be duplicated, at List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20).

That leaves all of the other content on this page, including the most recent seasons. The only difference is that seasons 1-20 won't be here. I'm going to ping @Taylor Trescott and Wbm1058: as previous participants. Wikid77 is obviously aware of the problem and @Bignole, Cyphoidbomb, Favre1fan93, Geraldo Perez, and AlexTheWhovian: are all experienced editors in the TV project who should probably be aware of this. If I've forgotten anyone, please let them know. I'm going to volunteer to do the split, just so nobody else has to consider it. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Cite templates are huge and could be hardcoded: For each wp:CS1 cite template (like {{cite_web}} for one), the template expansion consumes ~1,500 bytes of the 2MB "wp:post-expand include size". Note how only templates use the expansion space; other text uses zero space, but Lua cites use 4x the length of title+url and other parameters. Hence, for each 20 cites which are hard-coded, then 30,000 bytes are freed, by cites hand-edited as, "[http... Page Title]". TVtango.com. 2 Feb 2016." (etc). Then those 3 small bottom navboxes can be uncommented to display again. The whole list, with 600 cites, if redone as hard-coded cites, could free over 500,000 bytes (1/4 of the total limit), but that would be too extreme at this point. However, with many hardcoded cites, then 5 more seasons could fit into this List, with no need to split seasons. These huge cites have been a major problem since 2012, and other templates could format those same cites 3x smaller, such as {cite_quick} deleted in 2013. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for linking that 3rd TfD, but re-reading reveals actual no consensus, as 3 Keep v. 4 Move, while the logical consensus was Keep due to allowing more templates per page (within the limit of the "wp:post-expand include size"). So now we find the Keeps were right as they predicted future page-size problems, as now the maxed-out "List of The Simpsons episodes" became too big by 2014. It took them 3 TfDs, but the deleters finally found someone who slanted towards move/delete. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Most editors don't understand the technical issues and will continue to use CS1 templates, so recoding all 600 cites, a huge job, is just delaying the inevitable. The best solution is to force a smaller size for the whole page by splitting the page. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Once the page is smaller then dozens of regular cites could be added during the coming years, I mean over 300,000 bytes would be available for years to come. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • We could split it into multiple pages, but page titles really should be descriptive and "A" and "B" aren't, especially for readers who arrive at the pages from somewhere other than this page. List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20) gives readers a clear indication of the page's content. As for the second page, List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 21–present) is probably best. It gives us 13 seasons, or until cancellation (whichever comes first) before we have to think about renaming the page. There's no need for notes either, the page links can be simply formatted as
* [[List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20)|Seasons 1–20]]
* [[List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 21–present)|Seasons 21–present]]
--AussieLegend (✉) 17:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • A split definitely needs to happen. However, you'll need two new articles, because this article here would have to become a disambig page to be appropriate. So because of that I'm a bit inclined to agree with Bignole on doing an even split rather than a hard 1-20 and 21-present, only because who knows how much longer the series will be going on for, and say it's another 15 or so seasons, that will put the total to 42, and your static break would be uneven. At least for the time being, the non-static split lets you format two even pages, and when we ever get a conclusion to the series, then they could be moved to static disambiguators. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Revisiting a suggestion I made in § Time for a split? above: One option might be to merge the Home media section to List of The Simpsons home video releases. I removed that relatively recently-added section here, to get back inside the limit, but that was rejected here. So much for bold-revert-discuss. So far, on that section, we've had bold-revert-bold. ;) Wbm1058 (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC) Splitting the "home media" section would be awkward. I'm going to copy that to List of The Simpsons home video releases and make it an overview section of that article. Perhaps that could be renamed to The Simpsons home media. – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The Simpsons home media would be in line with the MOS, which talks about a "Home media", rather than a "Home video", section in the main article. It seems silly to include home media in this article if there is a dedicated article for it. The reversion of your edit was by an inexperienced editor who was probably not aware of the problems. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, I've merged the "home media" section. That got the post-expand size down to 1,986,343 bytes; I restored the other navigation boxes, so now it's back up to 2,023,352 bytes. So we've backed off from "emergency" status again. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Great size reducion; now I can start citing by other websites for the broken-link ew.com rating cites, and the post-expand size will drop much more. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
My point was merely that having that static break would require the potential for renaming 2 pages and then ultimately having to find every link again and fix that appropriately. If you have a non-static disambiguator, you don't have to worry about that because the pages would remain the same name (only the content inside would change). You'd only set notes on the main page, so those would be the only thing needing adjustment there. Just a though. I just don't particularly care for seeing specific seasons in the title like that, one because it makes the title even longer than it needs to be, and two because you hardline yourself into the page that will ultimately require more movement.
I also think that some information could be removed from this page in the time being to clear space. Media, ratings, undated episodes. This page is so large, a lot of that stuff probably exists elsewhere anyway. No need for redundancy when you're this large. That might buy you time while it's decided how best to split/name the pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Why would it ever be necessary to rename List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20)? Pages don't need to be even in length and it makes sense to break at a tenth season (10, 20, 30 etc) even if the series got to 42 seasons. Twenty seasons will fit a page without breaking the post-expand include size while 30 will not. Ten seasons is do-able but then we'd have 5 pages (assuming 42 seasons) instead of 3. Even if it became necessary to rename List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 21–present), it's not necessary to "find every link again and fix that appropriately" as redirects fix that. List of NCIS episodes (season 1)#ep7 still works just at well as NCIS (season 1)#ep7, six years after it was moved. We could even set up List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 21–40) as a redirect to List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 21–present) from the beginning, just on the assumption that the series will last past 2029. The other thing to consider is that, because seasons will be transcluded to the pages, there will actually be very few links to these pages anyway. Most links will go to the season articles, which are unlikely to be renamed given our current guidelines. That said, anything can happen in 13 years. Wikipedia could even end. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Opinion requested, opinion provided. Good luck. :)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone else have an opinion? --AussieLegend (✉) 05:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Template:Series overview § Example 5 - Extra information shows how extra columns for ratings can be added to the table in the Series overview section. See List of Seinfeld episodes for an example list article which does this. I'd like to merge the Ratings section into the Series overview section. This will both shorten the length of this article and simplify splitting. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, there's no real reason for an extra ratings table in the format of the one used in this article. Everything can be added to the series overview table. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Just a note that it makes no sense for the ratings table to be sortable. It's already in season and years order. The third column is sorting apples and oranges; 8.6m households sorts against 8.6m viewers. Rank sorts by the first digit, so "100th" sorts first, "21st" sorts second, and "87th" sorts last. To sort correctly all the years the ratings are in the top 99 would need to have a leading zero on the number. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I see that Seinfeld § Episodes transcludes List of Seinfeld episodes, but the equivalent section The Simpsons § Reception and achievements is separately hardcoded into the main article, lacks citations for each line item, and indicates "viewers" rather than a mix of "households" and "viewers". Wbm1058 (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I've found that generally, there are a lot of things about ratings tables that make so sense in most TV articles. There seems to be a completely different set of editors, mostly anonymous or newly registered, who edit only for the purpose of adding ratings tables with some weird formatting. I'm forever fixing these tables. The one in this article is unique, and somewhat different to the rest but, if merged into the series overview table, will eliminate several issues. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Not sure that you still need to use relative section links to avoid reloading the entire page when clicking on a section link. I think that issue may have been fixed. In any event, I'm in process of boldly implementing a somewhat novel solution to the include-size problem, which will require updating these links, so please bear with me. We can address the page reload issue later, if it's still a problem. I've created List of The Simpsons episodes* and now need to finish the integration, which will require some coordinated edits to make it live. Better to just do it, and we can discuss afterwards and tweak it or revert if there are issues. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not really sure where you're heading, but just remember that the page has to be editable by the average editor, most of whom don't even know how to properly format a table. ;) --AussieLegend (✉) 19:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, the split is now  Done. See if you can follow what I did, feel free to ask any questions. I think it's kind of an elegant solution. I just split off the first 10 seasons, if you want to balance it out more by splitting off another season or two, that would be a good test to see if you can figure what to do to extend the split. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

How to split a season

I'll split off one more season, and leave instructions here, which others may follow in the future to split off more seasons.

Splitting season 11 (follow the same pattern to split season 12, 13, etc.)
  • Open List of The Simpsons episodes for editing
    1. Edit the table-of-contents: add an asterisk: [[List of The Simpsons episodes#Season 11 (1999–2000)|11]] → [[List of The Simpsons episodes*#Season 11 (1999–2000)|11]]
    2. Edit the series overview: add an asterisk: | link11 = List of The Simpsons episodes#Season 11 (1999–2000) → | link11 = List of The Simpsons episodes*#Season 11 (1999–2000)
    3. Change 10 → 11 in the navbar: [[List of The Simpsons episodes*#Episodes|Seasons 1–10]] → [[List of The Simpsons episodes*#Episodes|Seasons 1–11]]
    4. Cut the section for season 11:
===Season 11 (1999–2000)===
{{main|The Simpsons (season 11)}}
{{:The Simpsons (season 11)}}

— Wbm1058 (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move

There is currently an open move discussion at Talk:List of The Simpsons episodes* which relates to this page. wbm1058 (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Season 29

Hey guys, did you know that there's no Season 29 yet? 'Cause I don't know when this information will be arrived, and I also don't know which month it will be informed either. Do you think 'Treehouse of Horror XXVIII' will pretty much be in Season 29 as far as I know? But still, there's no Season 29 yet, holy cow :! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.135.113 (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Color-blind challenged navigation bars?

Hey Grapesoda22: With this edit you changed the color of the navigation-bar that links to the other half of the list, to no color at all, which helps to make it blend into the table so that people with normal color vision might just overlook it. I see that your rationale was "The blue link doesn't work with the yellow background https://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html#fg=0645AD,bg=FADA00"

Given that, I wonder why you haven't yet changed the color of the equally non-conforming navigation bars at the bottom of the article, Template:The Simpsons and Template:The Simpsons episodes, as I went out of my way to make the inter-list navbar the same colors as those. wbm1058 (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of The Simpsons episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of The Simpsons episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Season 29 article

Hi.

Since we have the release dates for Whistler's Father and Springfield Splendor (the latter of which will act as the true Season premiere over the former), think we should create the Season 29 article, or at least create a table for Season 29 on here? Weedle McHairybug (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned on your talk page (I'm just restating it here for anyone else whom it might be relevant), in my opinion simply knowing two release dates doesn't justify making an article yet. I'd say wait until we at least know several more airdates or have other significant information regarding episode plots in the season. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 19:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Exclusion of The Longest Daycare

Is there any reason that The Longest Daycare isn't listed within this article, like The Simpsons Movie is? Unlike The Simpsons Guy, which I can understand appearing as a "see also", it was actually produced solely by the Simpsons team. --Jonie148 (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

For Treehouse of Horror XXIX

Hey guys, for Treehouse of Horror XXIX which will obviously be coming up in Season 30 this upcoming October, would it be cool if there is The Walking Dead parody which will be called The Walking Ned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.198.104 (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

why was the split done that way?

Shouldn't the first seasons be listed with the split article having the other half? Moving Seasons 1–20 to another article but keeping seasons 21 onward in this article, seems backwards. Dream Focus 04:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The split was made for technical reasons, as the page was so large that it kept breaking the post-expand include size limit which meant that a lot of content wasn't being displayed. It's not meant to be a separate article, it's a cache page for this one and was originally at List of The Simpsons episodes* for this reason. Essentially it doesn't need editing so, since the later seasons do, it makes more sense to keep the page that needs editing here. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Divide: 21-present into an article

The header is also the header for the 1-20 and 21-present, and also the tail. The header is a FL! Nhatminh01 (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Can we please list season 30

It would really help. My edits so far haven't gotten the Draft:The Simpsons (season 30) article on the ratings section.2601:447:4101:41F9:2000:DDE7:28C9:A3C2 (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Can Anybody Explain Why TV By The Numbers Changed

It now is back to 3.34. I actually saw 3.39 when I made the edit. Maybe it was an Internet troll hack. I don't know.68.47.64.121 (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Short film

Hi, can someone pleasae fix line witch Short film in section Series overview? Short film must be before season 24 in the table. Thanks Patriccck (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Anyone here, it is important! Patriccck (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
This is beyond my level of expertise. According to the HTML of the page, they should be in the correct order already. It must be something to do with the way the series overview section interacts with the rest of the code on the page, but I'm lost as to how. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is staffed by volunteers - a more experienced editor will hopefully be able to change it around when they get chance. --Jonie148 (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I've just noticed too, the page does already display correctly on mobile devices. Even more baffling! --Jonie148 (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Problems with updated Simpsons Episode info boxes

It seems recent updates to the info box for the individual Simpsons episodes are missing several listings now, particularly Showrunner(s) and guest stars. Manacek (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Archive of TVGuide website

TV Guide has a website about The Simpsons as far back as 1998 at least... See http://web.archive.org/web/19980123124754/http://www.tvguide.com/simpsons/

It could be a useful resource. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

After ZABF22

No info on the prod. code after ZABF22 so maybe it's a sign The Simpsons is coming to and end...let time correct me. --Anotymous (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_The_Simpsons_episodes_(season_21–present)/Archive_2&oldid=1146791103"