User talk:Maitch/Archive 5

Simpsons ads

I'll take a look eventually, but I have my hands full with a couple of other things right now. Zagalejo^^^ 18:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, what are you looking for, exactly? A source saying that the Simpsons are advertising icons, or something to that effect? Zagalejo^^^ 19:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to as many online sources as I used to, so this may require a library trip. I'll keep you updated. Zagalejo^^^ 08:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have found this. I'll see if I can access the whole thing. Zagalejo^^^ 21:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, guess I can't. Not at the moment, anyway. Zagalejo^^^ 21:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spin-Off

Will do. Good job with the page, it looks great. Gran² 10:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it isn't our most pressing concern (seeing as we need to get "Poochie", "Spin-Off" and "Pauper" to FA before the end of August) but I've nearly finished The Regina Monologues; it just needs a bit more stuff. For such a well publicised episode, I can't really find any reviews or ratings figures on Newsbank or anywhere else. The Reception section is all that's lacking really. Anyway, as I say, it's not the most urgent thing we could be doing, but if you have a chance, could you see if you could find anything else about the episode? Thanks. Gran² 12:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking. Gran² 09:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FT?

Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria#Retention -- Season 9 is a bit closer, only needs one more WP:FA, not two, to retain its WP:FT status - maybe we should concentrate efforts there first? (The Principal and the Pauper is probably still the best bet at this point.) Cirt (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, makes sense. Cirt (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to get to both when I get a chance. Cirt (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About plagiarism in The Simpsons Spin-off Showcase

You have to do more than simply change a few words here and there. There are long phrases in that section that are taken verbatim from the Alberti book, and aren't even put into quotes. Just because you didn't copy the entire sentence doesn't mean it's OK. I don't think you understand what plagiarism actually means. Read this. Zagalejo^^^ 07:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homer Simpson

I've decided that the time has finally come to push the article to FA status. I wanted to add an analysis section, so could you please chip in some stuff from Leaving Springfield? Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your comment here, I do not have the book and Google Books does not offer a preview, so you are more qualified than I am to add it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll see if I can find someone else. BTW, what do you think of the article? I've been expanding it bit by bit over the past few days and I have it up to 54,754 bytes (up from ~38,000 five days ago) and over 100 refs. Do you think anything vital is missing from the article? (other than an image of Castellaneta, but that's not for a lack of trying) -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. About one of your points, I learned today that the Oxford English Dictionary and The New Oxford Dictionary of English are two completely different, unrelated in any way dictionaries. The OED is the more prestigious of the two, so it is mentioned in the lead. As well, I created a page for Homer Groening, which could be controversial. If anyone afds it, I wouldn't oppose it because he directed a NN film, created a NN comic strip and ad agency. Just about the only notable things he has done was win a award for WWII and be the namesake for Homer. However, I thought I'd try giving him a page anyway. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Simpsons character

Template:Simpsons character has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Mythdon (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Simpsons#Need_help_on_Production_section_for_.22The_Day_the_Violence_Died.22

Hi please have a look at the discussion; you were mentioned. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons 138th Episode Spectacular

I saw you took over this episode. I was wondering weather you would mind if I work on this article. I have done the previous two clipshows in the season 4 and 6 and I think it would work much easier for me if I continue with clip shows. Nergaal (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bump? Nergaal (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Some Enchanted Evening (The Simpsons)

Thank you. I'm just glad that someone is listening to it. Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 20:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Lars von Trier The Kingdom DVD cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Lars von Trier The Kingdom DVD cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

alt.tv.simpsons

I conducted an initial GAN review of alt.tv.simpsons. Check out my suggestions in the review page. Please address each one individually and I'll cross them off as we go along. Thanks! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are still some outstanding issues, but they shouldn't take long to address. Also, for future reference, don't strike other people's objections, leave them for the person who made them to strike. This REALLY annoys some people... --Hunter Kahn (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All the issues are now good (I shortened the Who Shot Mr Burns thing, please take a look and make sure it's OK) but one issue remains: images. Go check out my new comments. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for adding the images, I think they add much to the article. I'm definitely ready to pass this GA now. One change I made, however, was placing the Simpsons Archive picture in the lead. I tried using the website infobox template, although I'm not sure if it's appropriate for a newsgroup. Take a look and see what you think; if you don't like it, feel free to drop it, but keep the Archive photo up in the lead. Nice work! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marge vs. the Monorail

Hello, Maitch! I would first like to thank you for the comments you have provided both on my talk page and on the "Marge vs. the Monorail" talk page. I have replied to your comments on the talk page as well.

I do have a question about the possibility of editing Recurring jokes in The Simpsons, however. I highly doubt that tributes to The Flintstones are a recurring joke, so I think that editing that particular article would be inappropriate. Could you please clarify or elaborate more on your suggestion?--Edp318 (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying the link to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; that definitely cleared up some confusion.

As for possible improvements to Recurring jokes in The Simpsons or a new article about influences on The Simpsons, I think your idea is really good and more practical for Wikipedia's purposes; however, I shall work on such edits on another day when I have less homework to worry about.

I actually did notice that Marge vs. the Monorail was a Good Article, and I initially picked this particular article because I ironically thought that I would have less editing to worry about. Think about it: why would you want to try to fix an entire terrible article just to add in one paragraph about satire in the episode? Then again, Good Articles have less room for change since they're already good, so it's clearly much harder to add new material. However, there is nothing to worry about my English assignment. I'm only supposed to research all of the satire in my Simpsons episode, edit its Wikipedia article as best as I can, turn in both the previous and current versions of the article, and write an essay about the satire. I can do all of these very easily, since I now clearly know enough about satire in Marge vs. the Monorail and can prove that I tried my best to edit the article to reflect my research, although it did take two days of debate to do so...

In your opinion, is it likely that Marge vs. the Monorail will ever become a Featured Article, or are the possible improvements so small that it will always remain a Good Article. What would be needed to make the article a Featured Article?

Thank you for the time you have spent in resolving the dispute on Marge vs. the Monorail. Your advice has really helped me a lot!--Edp318 (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it; I won't be working on it anytime soon. --Edp318 (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A smile!

Papercutbiology♫ (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Papercutbiology♫ (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FG

Your opinion would be appreciated here CTJF83Talk 01:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons GACs

I was wondering if you are still interested in getting episodes up to GA quality? here is the main FT drive page. Let me know, if you wanna work on more! CTJF83Talk 08:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HAHA, I have problems with commentary too! But maybe we could work on one sometime in the next couple of days. CTJF83Talk 15:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn quagmire

I'm not about to restore it, but if the hidden comment reflects an existing consensus, having the comment is one more reason for editors not to revert-war on the character's age.

What do you think of this edit, proposed by the currently-blocked anon? I don't agree with the heading change, and the interpretation is probably WP:OR, but I think it gives a sensible context to this information (which, if not included, will be re-inserted frequently by many first time editors), and doesn't overreach in the interpretation. I think it would be a compromise everyone could live with. (Without the heading change of course) would you accept this text as suitable for the article?

Proposing this in private because of the Talk:Glenn Quagmire flooding, and to avoid influencing the RfC. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding a statement to the RfC, by the way. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Quagmire age wording

I removed the notice since I realized nobody will be reading it. People will go straight to the point where they intend to insert the age. A notice like that would only be effective if it is placed somewhere near the point in which people wants to add the text.

I think [1] is almost a good compromise. I would keep "To match the retro character, the episode FOX-y Lady reveals Quagmire's birth year to be 1948" and not mention "making him 61 years old at the time, much to the surprise of his friends." I don't want to mention that he is 61, because that age is obviously going to be outdated as times go by. The last part is just indiscriminate plot detail. --Maitch (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think giving the age (and year, both stated in the episode) emphasizes what an anachronism he is, and in this wording it is contextualized as being within the episode. Nothing here says the show has a strict real-time chronology, so I think this works. If anything, the year prepares the reader for a very loose time continuity. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damien (South Park)

Hey Maitch. I was hoping you could help me out with something. Right now, the FAC for Damien (South Park) seems to be hung up solely on the image rationales for the infobox image and the Omen comparison image. If the Omen picture has to go, I can live with that, but I can't see justifying cutting the infobox image. I'd appreciate it if you could go to the FAC to voice your support if you think the images work, or to provide me with some feedback on how they can be fixed if they aren't. (Of everyone who has criticized so far, nobody has provided any helpful feedback yet). It's over here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Damien (South Park)/archive1. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 22:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Feare

I have nominated Cape Feare for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DJ 10:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for your opinion

Hi. Can you join this discussion in order to offer us your thoughts? It would be most appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Non-English versions of The Simpsons

I have nominated Non-English versions of The Simpsons, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-English versions of The Simpsons. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons Star

With the Simpsons WikiProject having reached it's goal of getting every single article about a season 1-9 episode, 203 in total, of The Simpsons to GA status. With that accomplished, I am trying to thank every member (and non-member) who was involved in the effort in some way.

		The Simpsons (Annoyed Grunt)-star
		WP:DOH has reached its long-time goal of getting every classic era episode, 203 in total, to GA. You earned this because you were quite heavily involved in the early stages of the project, and were huge help in getting us started. Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 23:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Treehouse of Horror

Please weigh in on Template talk:Treehouse of Horror#Inclusion of episode segments, so we can generate a consensus. Thanks, Fixblor (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]