User talk:Scorpion0422/Archive 5

O'Brien Trophy

You can nominate it for FLC, there's only 3 trophy lists at FLC currently, and two of them are at the bottom. Maxim_(talk) 13:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Prince of Wales Trophy

Is ready for closure at (4.5/0) (I'm not sure how to count you :D). Usually I would have closed this, but I have to run now, so can you do me this favour? Thanks! Maxim_(talk) 01:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and BTW, you can use Template:NHL award/noimage if there's no image for the Crozier. I simply grew fed up with trying to understand how to make it optional, so I just created a second template linked to the original without an image field. Good night! --Maxim_(talk) 01:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of a team that can't even make the finals for 40 years... --Maxim_(talk) 01:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Futurama Roll Call

Hello, you are currently listed as a member of Wikiproject Futurama though you may be inactive. This seems to be the case for many members so I am sending this message to help renew interest in working on these articles. If you are still interested in working on Futurama related tasks please visit the wikiproject page to see how you can help. If you have time please also join in the recent discussions on the talk page, in particular I would personally appreciate comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Futurama#A new proposal for episode articles. Thank you for your time, hopefully I didn't annoy you too much. If you would not like to receive messages such as this in the future then consider removing yourself from Wikipedia:WikiProject Futurama/List of participants. Happy editing. Star dust 8212 01:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Good Spotting! You are right, the actual quote is, "We were going to make it the premiere episode and Jim brooks called us after he saw it and said...etc" So it doesn't imply that he saw it after the premiere. I'll make the change and also edit the al jean qoute becuase he alos said that if they made it the movie then they wouldn't have a premiere episode and would have to make another. --Simpsons fan 66 05:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo

Yeah, it doesn't look user submitted, so I don't see a problem with using it. Gran² 15:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I've, finally finished Season 6, so I'm going to nominate it for FL. Anything that needs changing in it. Gran² 16:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the characters list, which do you prefer:

Name	Voice actor	First appearance
Disco Stu	Hank Azaria	"Two Bad Neighbors"

Table?

Manjula Nahasapeemapetilon (Jan Hooks, Tress MacNeille), "Much Apu About Nothing"

Or text?

Cos right now I'm thinking the table (whether its made sortable or not), might be better. Thoughts? Gran² 15:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right I finished sorting it (without descriptions or tables), and I've tried to reference every first appearance, but there are quite a few I couldn't source. So before I do anymore, could you have a look at it? If you could check for factual accuracy, add or subtract any characters and cite anything you can, as that would be a big help. Gran² 16:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time

Well, the merger took place without much consensus building. It will serve to lower vandalism, but at the cost of the article's content. The merger did not preserve very much at all. The Redirect doesn't even point to the section where the subject article is mentioned (but not discussed). --Bejnar 21:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was just the list of the top ten, then someone had deleted the discussion section, with footnotes, again. --Bejnar 21:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Barnstar-Simpsons.png

This is a copyvio. You can't take a crop of a copyrighted movie poster and pasted into another picture and claim that it's under the GFDL. I've given you notice about this; I'll deleted quite soon as a copyvio, but if you ask me, the process will be smoother. --Maxim_(talk) 20:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's uploaded a new (IMO much worse) version... Gran² 21:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The simpsons hit and run

I have been working on a much better version of The Simpsons Hit and Run for some time now and it almost ready for upload. However someone recently added the titles and purposes of missions in the Plot section. I can't decide if it's a useless piece of trivia and wether I should include it in my newer version. Your thoughts? --Simpsons fan 66 11:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Threat

This external posting states

Oh, and one last thing before we get started (WIKIPEDIA RELATED~!) - This self-assured twat needs to die now, or at least die soon. Seriously, readers - if you despise power-abusing dictatorship and selective information, or you enjoy the concepts of free speech and equality (or, heaven forbid, you just really like me), visit his page and call him out for his bullshit.

If you need admin assistance in helping you deal with this, please let me know. Apparently, the poster lives near Brighton. Also may want to follow up at 911. -- Jreferee t/c 15:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The simpsons Hit and Run

I have uploaded a test version of The Simpsons Hit and Run here. As you will see I have only really changed the text, adding new sections and expanding the plot. It doesn't have any references or pictures, which I hope to remedy later on. Could you please give it a look and add any suggestions on the page's disscusion page with your signature? I really appreciate your opinion. --Simpsons fan 66 23:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but I wasn't aiming to get the article to any sort of status, merely tidy it up. I suppose it's an idea, but I don't think I would find to much information. Do you think I should make an effort to get it to GA/FA? --Simpsons fan 66 00:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New version is uploaded. I removed the plot subheadings and changed the text slightly. Its way too long but hopefully it will get cut down overtime. If I have the time I'll find some references but I don't think it will get to GA. --Simpsons fan 66 00:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the tips. I'll add the refs for the other show runners, but I'm not sure how much I could add with development. I can see why Season 2 had it, but nothing really happened in season 9 apart from a new show runner. Also, about copy editing... I'm not really much of a copy editor, at all. I had a hard time wording some stuff originally, I can't see myself fixing it. Is anyone else at the project a good copy editor? Xihix 00:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured list

I am surprised that the 109th United States Congress was promoted to a Featured List with so many red links. I was denied even a GA due to a couple of red links, and I would think that a promotion to FA or FL should be to a much higher standard than a GA. Is it that a List is held to a lower standard than an Article? Just curious.--Appraiser 02:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the 109th United States Congress which has 8 red links in the "employees" section. Some of these people are likely not-notable and should be changed to black text, which I suggested in the FLC debate comments. But the nominator and you, the promoter, evidently disagreed about the red links being a problem. That surprised me, because, as I said, I nominated an article for GA, which was rejected due to a few red links.--Appraiser 11:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: List of Survivor contestants

Great. I've put the nomination in my watch list. If anybody has any objections, I'll try to jump in and fix it. Hopefully it passes this time! -- Gogo Dodo 05:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I understand that, but there is no sources needed (apart from the CD itself), and it does have a neutral point of view. You yourself must have noticed this error by now, that the tracks are out of order and have different titles to the sequences they correspond with. I mean, why would the track that plays during the scene when Marge and Homer are undressed by animals be called "Bart's Doodle"? And what did Bart's nude skateboarding have to do with "Release the Hounds"? I just think its a good idea to point it out. -- Silva Storm

Bob

Good job, I looked for some other sources but I couldn't find anything much, none of the Grammer interviews I found mentioned Bob. The only thing I found was this, [1] which has a quote on Bob from Meyer and Groening which could be of some sort of use. Gran² 17:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done (in the sandnox version). It'll probably need some work though. Gran² 15:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how reliable things like Amazon are considered, but here is some more Bob merchandise. Plush toy, different plush toy, figure gift box (third thing down), piece about Kenyan Simpsons carvings, guy says the Bob one is the best, Bob foil knife. Gran² 17:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright database

The copyright database is fine for sourcing titles in general, but not to a specific season (it would be speculation to do so). If it's on the LoE, it's fine (it's a Simpsons episode), but the title being added to that page looks to me as if it's implying it's a S19 episode (which we're not sure it is). Will ^(talk) 20:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you're welcome

Hello, you're welcome. I noticed the edit summaries while looking at Recent Changes, and I thought I'd help along the article just a little bit. With the Wikiquote link, I don't think there is nearly as much need for lengthy quotes of Bart's calls now. As for the making the links between projects, I still rely on "Show preview" a lot. ;) --Kyoko 02:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FL Main page proposal

You either nominated a WP:FLC or closed such a nomination recently. As such, you are the type of editor whose opinion I am soliciting. We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September). When Today's featured article (TFA) started (2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month. I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page. Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 1 2007, voting starting December 1 2007 and main page appearances starting January 1 2008. For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual content will resemble the current content at the featured content page. Such output would probably start at the bottom of the main page. The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries. However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge. See the List of the Day proposal and comment at WP:LOTDP and its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NHL Plus-Minus Award FLC

I've done all the fixes you needed, have a look. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 00:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FTC?

As well, I'll be doing some cleanup on the articles while the NHL plus-minus award list is at FLC. There are a few things that ought to be touched up in some articles, because the standards (leads most notably) have risen in the past few months. I almost went for a nomination tonight, but then I reconsidered. I'm also planning an FAC for Stanley Cup, and I'm currently working with User:Awadewit on it, a very skilled copyeditor. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 00:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sideshow Bob

Yeah, I'll see what I can do. Zagalejo^^^ 02:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this might be somewhat difficult for me, since I don't think I ever saw his last two appearances. (If you haven't guessed, I'm strictly a "classic era" kind of guy.) But I'll try my hand at copyediting, and I can browse through some newspapers to see if there's anything worthwhile. I'll try to get to work tomorrow afternoon. Zagalejo^^^ 04:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the EW article at Newsbank. The exact quote is this: "Kelsey Grammer's grand voice-performance as Sideshow Bob is Frasier pickled in arsenic." If you need more, let me know.

The Wizard article might be harder to track down. It's definitely not available at any of the online databases I can access, and I'm not sure I'll even be able to find a print copy. The Chicago Public Library doesn't carry Wizard, nor do any nearby university libraries. If you want, you can try Worldcat to see if any libraries around you carry it, although I kind of doubt any of them would keep more than the most recent issues. (But if you're interested, it's listed as "Wizard: The Guide to Comics".) Zagalejo^^^ 04:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, someone at the Comics Wikiproject might have a copy at hand. You can try asking there. Zagalejo^^^ 04:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Next time

On User talk:BlastOButter42, Scorpion0422 said:
You should actually look for the discussion before making accusations. -- Scorpion0422 05:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I didn't mean to be making any accusations, but it's true that most of the article is now gone after only after the agreement of "five experienced editors", and while I'm certainly not disputing that this was a consensus, a content removal of that magnitude would have better been blessed by an AfD, one of which the article survived back in '06. Cheers, -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 06:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No longer stubs!

After noticing that "Kill Gil: Vols. 1 & 2" was on the Wikiproject in the "cleanup" section, I worked hard, to expand upon it and not make it a stub. I removed the trivia, but I added references and a reception section. Well, I changed the whole thing. Hope you like it, reply back to this message as soooon as you can!

- Yours truly, Superior_(talk) 21:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, at least I attempt to be positive. I might as well be talking to a doorknob. I'll ask someone else to check.

- Yours truly, Superior_(talk) 00:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nnnnnext

Is there any type of article we havn't done yet? I mean we've done a hella of a lot of episodes, three characters, the movie, the main page, the episode list, a load of seasons, a castmember and a crew member. So is there anything colossal that we havn't done yet, that really needs to be done? I mean I don't really feel like doing another character from scratch right now. Getting Bob to FA could be easier than starting something else from scratch. Also, I think at some point we should work on Phil Hartman (I did some work on the death section a while back, but it needs a lot of work). So, actually I vote to do Phil's page (unless there's something we really should do) and then get Bob to FA after its passed its GAC and got a few more comments from people. Gran² 17:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is something that would be a long way off, but (assuming 6 & 9 pass) after we have FLd the other seasons, they should be a pretty easy Featured Topics to get, with the episode list as the main article. Gran² 18:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current look is great (assuming every award will be in a table). As for inclusion, awards with pages is probably the best system, so there's nothing else really that needs to be included. Gran² 19:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I change my mind about tables, the current article looks great. As for IMDb, I'd don't really see it as a problem, not for awards anyway. Gran² 19:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed a few things, but I think what's there now is excellent. Great job. Gran² 16:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing 22 Short Films at the moment, what would you recommend for the main image? Because the only thing I can think would be best is the title screen. I'm going to use an image of the Herman, Snake and Wiggum scene for the cult ref section and an image of the Skinner/Chalmers for the production. So any ideas for the main one? Gran² 21:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that (slightly) restored my passion for episode pages, so I went back to the list we made, crossed out the ones that are now done, and added a couple more.

Some Enchanted Evening (The Simpsons episode) (although Maitch was working on it...)
Krusty Gets Busted (Introduced a pivotal character, inspired a dozen future episodes)
Treehouse of Horror (The first THOH episode)
The Way We Was (Inspired a bunch of future flashback episodes)
Bart the Daredevil (Matt's favourite, features possibly one of the greatest jokes of all time)
Homer vs. Lisa and the 8th Commandment (Submitted for Emmy consideration)
Stark Raving Dad (Huge episode that involved Michael Jackson and is quite famous)
Lisa's Substitute (Fan favourite, Dustin Hoffman, the main episode James L. Brooks did)
Flaming Moe's (Popular)
Mr. Plow (Submitted for Emmy consideration... Plus it's a fan favourite)
Homer the Heretic (Often cited as important, my school uses it to teach RE)
Krusty Gets Kancelled (I've seen this one high up on a number of media Top ten lists)
~~A Streetcar Named Marge (Also submitted for Emmy consideration... Plus it's a fan favourite)~~
Homer's Barbershop Quartet (Lots of good production info and cultural refs)
Rosebud (The Simpsons) (Top 5 episode from EW)
~~Deep Space Homer (Again, lots of good production info)~~
Homer the Great (Hugely popular)
A Star Is Burns (Matt Groening disliked the episode, and would make for a good page if we can find good sources)
~~Who Shot Mr. Burns? (Part One)~~ and Part Two)
~~Mother Simpson (Okay, this one is just one of my favourites... But it is a fan favourite as well)~~
Two Bad Neighbors (Highly controversial episode)
~~22 Short Films About Springfield (Format bending episode)~~
The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson (Seen this on a few top episodes lists)
The Principal and the Pauper (Again, a highly controversial episode)
The Cartridge Family (Lots of good production info)
The Joy of Sect (one of my favourite episodes, plus we could have an excellent cultural references and comparison to various cults/religions section if we can find the sources)
Natural Born Kissers (Matt Groening's favourite episode)

Some of these will be harder than others, I mean something like PATP has to be comprehensive. But these are the main ones we need to do, I think. Gran² 11:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Holy Crap Lois!" You guys are really dedicated! Nice work! Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 01:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Peer review - Blue Harvest (Family Guy)

Hey, you're the one who replied to me on the peer review page (I also reconize you from WP:PW and WP:SP). Well, regarding your suggestions, I have done a some considerable revamping of the article here on my sandbox. I just wanted to see your feedback now. TTYL. The Chronic 07:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:List of U2 awards

We just included every award we could find in the Internet that they had received :-) Good luck! --Agüeybaná 20:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay!

Season 9 is a featured list :). I will start to gather sources and such and start to make all the episodes in Season 9 GA. But, what sources do you suggest I use or how would I find good articles for episodes? I have the commentaries, the Simpsons Forever book, BBC, and a few other sources I saw on GA'd episodes, but what else? Xihix 02:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar, it's my first reward :P. The only thing about reception I'm worried about is for the featured articles I'll have to get. I'm thinking a more known episode (such as Trash of the Titans, being the 200th episode) would be better for FA, though. Also, this may be a stupid question, but do you have any tips on distinguishing who is who on the commentaries? Hearing only voices and being able to tell who it is could be a little difficult... Xihix 02:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'll think about it. Xihix 02:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions

Thanks for your help in straightening this out. Looks like I really messed up on that one. I'll leave the nomination alone for a while and let it run its course. I sincerely apologize, and I assure you that I definitely want to avoid any conflict of interest. GaryColemanFan 02:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Survivor contestants vandalism

Just an FYI, but when the List of Survivor contestants anonymous IP vandal strikes again like he did at 71.35.159.243 (talk · contribs), you probably will want to revert all of his other edits as he's making a mess of several articles. He's changing IP addresses every few days as you might have noticed. -- Gogo Dodo 04:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awards won by the Simpsons

Sorry, I somehow missed your message. I'll try to look at the page sometime tomorrow. Zagalejo^^^ 03:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found a source for the American Comedy Award ("'Best in Show,' 'Malcolm in the Middle' and 'Will & Grace' Top Winners at The 15th Annual American Comedy Awards". Business Wire. 23 April 2001.) The show won the award for Funniest Animated Television Series. Do you want me to look for others? Zagalejo^^^ 19:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source for the Golden Eagle award. Zagalejo^^^ 19:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look for a place to put them. I think the prose sections could use some copyediting, but I might have to do that another day. Zagalejo^^^ 19:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a little bit better, although I might like to experiment with other layouts to see what's best. If I have time tomorrow, I'll fiddle around with it in a sandbox or something.

I'll see what I can find as far as EMAs go. There's probably something about them on Lexis-Nexis. Zagalejo^^^ 04:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've hit a snag. I can't find any list of nominations for the 1993 EMAs. I'm sure the information exists somewhere, but it might require a bit of effort to find it. (The Simpsons definitely didn't win, though; Dinosaurs did.) I haven't looked into the International Monitor Award yet; I'll probably do that later tonight. Zagalejo^^^ 20:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been busy at a Chicago project FAC, so I haven't been able to do much more. I'll try to concentrate on Simpsons stuff later in the week. Zagalejo^^^ 07:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did look into the International Monitor Awards. So far, I've found that the show won three for "Treehouse of Horror V": Best Achievement in a Television Special; Best Achievement in Audio Post-production for a Television Special; and Best Achievement in Editing for a Television Special. ("News and Notes" The Record. 7 November 1995.) That leaves six unacounted for. Zagalejo^^^ 08:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it also one two in 1996 for "Treehouse of Horror VI": Best Electronic Special Effects, and Best Audio Post-Production. (Carolyn Giardina. "Monitor Awards honor the best of the best." Shoot [a periodical]. 13 September 1996.) I'll keep looking. Zagalejo^^^ 08:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the 1995 awards would be the ones for Treehouse of Horror V. I think.

As far as specific recipients go, I only see information for the 1996 awards. For the first, the recipients were Richard Raynis, David Silverman and Matt Groening, plus Brad Lewis, Tim Johnson and Denise Minter from Pacific Data Images. For the second, the recipients were Bobby Mackston, Kim Haves, Travis Powers, Terry Greene, R. Russell Smith, Greg Orloff, and Mark McJimsey. Zagalejo^^^ 20:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Congratulations on getting List of Survivor contestants promoted to a FL. Nice work! =) -- Gogo Dodo 19:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: I'm glad to be of help. Don't forget to move the article from your "Other notable contributions" to your FL section. =) I've thought about starting a WikiProject, but I'm not sure I have the time available to really do a good job. Help, yes. Organize and/or lead, probably not. -- Gogo Dodo 19:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Florida hurricanes

Heh, actually it's up for Featured topic already. It was a goal from about a year ago, and now it's finally done! Hurricanehink (talk) 13:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insert section name here

Seems like a good idea, although it would have to be well sourced. There are several Harry Potter pages of a similar idea, so it should be good to do. If we include all different types of controversy, no matter how trivial it would seem then were covered. I mean Homer's Phobia had some controversy (not as much as I had thought, but some, if we can find more that'd be great for this page, and H'sP). PanP massively, Streetcar, some of the staff hated Homer at the Bat and 22 short films. And a Star is Burns of course. There's probably a load more, I'll look into it, but the page seems like a good idea. Gran² 17:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. That reminds me, did we ever come to a decision about having "First line" in the box? Or was it agreed that it would spawn to many edit wars? Gran² 21:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Claymore chapters FLC close

Hello. Given that I had just addressed the concern given by User:Circeus, and that a compromise had been made on the date issue, I question why the nomination needed to be closed, considering that on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Naruto chapters (Part I), Circeus commented that he would have supported the same article with the changes. If the nomination could possibly be reopened, then I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since a new nomination would take ten days. =/ In any case, given that the person with the primary oppose was willing to compromise, changes were actively being made on the article, and the user said he was about to support with the designated changes, then I would say it definitely was heading towards a consensus. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New FA

Replied on my talk. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 00:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Can you give me an example of some article that later became FA/GA, where you used audio commentary from a DVD? How did you cite it? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Check out this user page, hehe. Movementarian (talk · contribs). Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 15:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Do you terribly mind if I do the "nom" for the GAC and later FAC? If you do, I won't mind, I was just curious and wanted to be polite and check with you first. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 20:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Feel like dropping your two cents at Wikipedia:Peer review/A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant/archive1 ? Haven't gotten many hits there yet. The article was listed as GA, then reviewed during some sort of GA drive, where the reviewer kept it as GA. I've since expanded it, and added cites and a more comprehensive lead. If you don't have time, that's okay, this is straying outside of South Park / The Simpsons arena. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 23:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- I made some new categories that are inputted from userboxes already in use by Wikipedians, so you can see some stats (if they put the box on their user page) about Featured Content Contributors on the project. See Category:Wikipedia Featured Topic contributors, which I thought you'd be interested in. Either this is the one of the most elite group of Featured Content Contributors on the project, or people just don't use the templates that much, or both. Cheers. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 05:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Reply

According to the list, only 1 is GA. Does that mean that all articles in season 9 have to be promoted to GA/FA to make it a featured topic? If so, why season 9? Why not a season that already has a few GAs to lessen the work? --Simpsons fan 66 01:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't have season 9. I only learned of commentaries a year ago, and only became passionate about Simpsons commentaries about half a year ago. Then I got addicted to Wikipedia 2 months ago and learned the value of commentaries as sources. I haven't had a chance to purchase any box sets and have only got season 1, 4 and 5. Hopefully I will get a couple for Christmas. I was thinking about committing to season 4, but If there are several people dedicated to season 9 then I'll see what i can do. If I get season 9 then I'll get back to you. Sorry. By the way, I have been trying to get Mr. Plow to GA. Do you thinks it's ready? --Simpsons fan 66 02:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The plot? Don't you mean the production section? The plot is shorter then Kamp Krusty but the production is probably a tad long. --Simpsons fan 66 02:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for putting the awards section in, it looks good. Is it ready for nomination or should the production section be shortened? --Simpsons fan 66 02:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simpsons FA drive

Yeah, I've had that episode on my to-do list for a while. I plan to look at it soon, but other people are free to work on it in the meantime. Zagalejo^^^ 03:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got everything good from The Cartridge Family commentary, but the page could still use some more info. Any thoughts? I'll ask Zagalejo if he can find anything, especially to source the two points in the production section with fact tags, that were there anyway. Gran² 10:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two good P and the P analysis sources - [2], [3] Gran² 14:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good so far, nice balance in the "Role" section. When I've done "Cartridge" I'll see if I can find anything for Smithers. Although I have a few more things I going to do some more work on as well. Gran² 10:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King of the Ring (1998)

I see your going to be going on and creating a full article with it. If you need any help, you know where I am!! I'm guessing your doing it because you have the DVD/VHS. A key that I used with One Night Stand (2005), is (for the event section):

Watch the DVD on your PC OR VHS on your TV.
- Open a WordPad document.
- At the end of each match, just type out any key notes (interference, referee knock, weapons, finish etc.)
When you have finished, try and put this into full paragraphs and drop it into the event section onto Wikipedia. Don't worry about the prose and whether it sounds "great", you can deal with that later.
Try and find SOURCING (the hardest part!). Well here's one (and it's reliable!!) :)
Insert it into the article.

Hope this helps you with the event section! Any questions - you know where my talkpage is! :) Davnel03 16:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd choose one that you have the DVD for - or know a lot about. Davnel03 17:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry if you can't. Any queries, just ask! :) Davnel03 17:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds OK. If you wish I'll find sources for you for the "Background" section. I really don't mind. :) Davnel03 17:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have Foley's, but I do have Eric Bischoff's book, which I think gives a mention to it. I also have an Ultimate WWE Quiz Book, which does have something on KOTR. I'll have a look on that in the morning. Online source for the previous PPV - Stone Cold beats the odds - Over the Edge results. Hope this helps! Davnel03 18:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1998 RAW results. I've got to do a bit of sourcing on December to Dismember (2006) so I'll try and get some more in the morning. Stick the {{underconstruction}} tag at the top of the article, so no one makes drastic edits to it, or even worse, redirects it. Davnel03 18:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. Davnel03 18:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Season 9 reply

Hay, thanks for thinking of me, but I'll have to decline. I would love to participate, but the only episode of season 9 I have seen is Miracle on Evergreen Terence. My time here is also limited, and wikipedia is more of a hobby for me, I am not sure if getting refrences, outside sources and getting articles to GA and FA would appeal to me. I also prefer fixing character pages insted of episodes. But It's nice to know that you think of me as experienced enough to help with a FT drive, and if there is any sort of minor edits that do not require seeing the episodes that you need done, I'd be happy to help. By the way, if there is ever a FT project for season 3 or 5 I would love to help with that, I own those seasons and would be interested in improving their episodes.Rhino131 23:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed FLC

I've been away from my computer for a few days, and when I got back into town I noticed that you closed the FLC for Numbers in the Year Zero alternate reality game. You also closed and failed the article's previous FLC two weeks ago. The problem is that despite having two FLCs come and go now, the article has yet to garner enough votes to outright fail or succeed. I understand your intentions to keep the FLC page clear of any outdated nominations, but I'd rather not keep renominating ad naseum. Also, you closed the FLC despite two ongoing conversations: which makes these kind of things even harder to resolve. I don't know if unclosing the previous FLC is an option, or if you have any other suggestions that don't involve me reposting the FLC everytime you decide the previous one has gone on for too long. I'm open to suggestions. Drewcifer 05:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply Scorpion. Looking back at the combination of both FLCs, the article has garnered 1 Oppose vote, 1 Nuetral vote, and 3 Comments. That hardly sounds like a consensus to me. Also, as I said above, there were active discussions still going. The second comment in particular, which brought up a point about the lead and original research, was cut pretty short. I fixed the intro, and I basically asked for clarification on the OR thing, and asked if it really did apply. You closed the FLC before OpenToppedBus was able to reply and (hopefully) change his/her vote. And furthermore, who's to say that it didn't "look like it was going to be heading towards any kind of pass." or that "All of the concerns about the article were basically over criterion 1a3 which really isn't something you can easily fix."? I know there's some kind of wiggle room at FLC as far as closing list candidates goes (as opposed to the single FAC director guy), but I would disagree with you that it was such a clear cut case. Especially looking at some of the many positive things mentioned in both FLCs. To make a long post short, I don't feel satisfied with the way you closed both FLCs not because the FLCs were failed, but because YOU failed them of your own accord, with out any consensus reached. And it's going to be impossible to reach any kind of consensus of even anything more than a single vote if you keep closing it and I keep opening it back up again. I hope that makes sense. Drewcifer 19:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page reply

Hi Scorpion0422. Please send me the information (via email would be fine or just post it on my talk page). Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 02:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go through Multiplebraininjuries's posts, but if you can provide evidence (diffs, similar language use between T. G. Corke's website posts and Multiplebraininjuries's posts) that show Multiplebraininjuries also is T. G. Corke, that would save me some time. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 02:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper article

It seems like Kiehl's article appeared in several papers, with slightly different titles. I couldn't find a full-text version of the article as it appeared in the Ottawa Citizen, but other versions are available. Here's the Smithers portion:

Here are the facts: A Simpsons character will come out and be married by Homer, who becomes an Internet minister because he thinks he can make money by marrying gay couples. The wedding will be televised Feb. 20.

Now, back to the gossip. When Simpsons creator Matt Groening announced in August that a character would come out this season, early speculation focused on Waylon Smithers, the bow-tied, doll-collecting assistant to Mr. Burns, owner of the nuclear power plant. Indeed, the evidence has been increasing over the show's 16 seasons. Most poignantly: in the third season, when the power plant is 90 seconds away from a core meltdown, Smithers says to Mr. Burns, "Sir, there may never be another time to say I love you, sir."

Mr. Burns responds, "Oh, hot dog! Thank you for making my last few moments on Earth socially awkward."

But it doesn't mean Smithers will come out and get married. In fact, since he loves Mr. Burns so much, it's unlikely he'd marry anyone else. And Smithers coming out wouldn't be a surprise.

(Stephen Kiehl. "Who will Simpsons out? Smithers or Marge's sister? Series exec Al Jean won't say, and he warns speculators the show could still change". The Gazette (Montreal). 1 February 2005. pg. D5) Zagalejo^^^ 05:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smithers

I don't think the section is that bad. It focuses more on his sycophancy than his sexuality. I'll try to think if there's anything I could add. Zagalejo^^^ 05:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of Simpson family trips

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Simpson family trips, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Simpson family trips is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Simpson family trips, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 08:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed FLC

I can definately see your point. But, at the risk of splitting hairs, the FLC guidelines for closing a review says "Featured list candidates that are not promoted after 10 days will be removed from the candidates list to the failed log unless (1) objections are being actively addressed; or (2) although there are no objections, the list has not garnered 4 "Support" votes." The first FLC you closed hadn't garnered any objections (only 3 comments), and the second I was still addressing the single objection and the neutral vote. So really neither FLCs should have been closed in the first place, in my opinion. But, all crying over spilt milk aside, I'd really hate to keep nominating the article over and over again, since it'll just get annoying for everyone involved, and I could imagine people becoming hostile to the idea of supporting the article simply because it keeps getting nominated. I think at this point my only option is to renominate it a third time and perhaps message all the previous reviewers individually and tell them the situation and ask them to re-review the article one last time. I don't know if that's the best solution, but it's the only way I see out of playing cat and mouse ad naseum. Drewcifer 08:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have called it a "no consensus" closure myself. Such a closure is open to a renomination after a few months given that the list has improved. But it shouldn't have been reopened because it timed out, just like everything else. (If you're asking for my credentials, I have been closing featured picture candidacies for the last 8 months). MER-C 04:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably go "speedy not promote" for future nominations like this. That's what they do over at AFD. The featuring process isn't a series of revolving doors. MER-C 04:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I just don't have time to deal with it at the moment, so your right, I suppose I'll just renominate it later. Thanks for putting up with my complaints. Drewcifer 09:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may sound a little odd

I'm sorry, but this may sound a little strange I'm not sure if you'll be able to understand. Personally, I have been able to always make an article better after modeling it after a GA or FA article. For The Simpsons, I understand that we should model episodes after one of the FA episodes. However, it seems that the FA episodes we have are all these episodes that obtained so much attention from the media, or had completely new things (You Only More Twice, for example, giving it a huge production section). Now, I was wondering, would it be possible to get a normal episode that wasn't the most significant thing ever to become FA'd? You see, with season 9, I've noticed that just about none of the episodes were really that significant, versus episodes from season 8, like Homer's Phobia or Homer's Enemy (due to the large fanbase of Frank Grimes, therefore a bigger reception). Again, sorry if this sounds stupid, but it's hard to model an episode against something like those episodes for me :/ ✗iℎi✗(talk) 00:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know

I don't know, I don't really think its necessary, I'm not really awake yet, so I'll think about it and get back to you. Gran² 07:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to this [4] it isn't based on anyone - "Shearer said none of his Simpsons' voices was based on real people, with the exception of Principal Skinner." Gran² 19:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There probably is, but I've never heard of one. Gran² 07:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good, and really, I don't think that there's much more than can be said. Good job. Gran² 19:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive, easily the best location page we have, and the Orlando and 7-Eleven things are more than enough vultural influence type info. Don't really know which commentary would be best for a creation section though. Gran² 16:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simpsons reviews

Well, I'm reviewing most of them. Nice way for me to get back into the spirit of things following my holiday. What is your favourite episode by the way? Alientraveller 15:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me out on that Family Guy review. Alientraveller 23:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Itchy & Scratchy copyright violation

I should've considered that it would be a breach of copyright before posting, but the thought never crossed my mind. Apologies. I'm gradually getting the hang of this. SteveRamone 22:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thanks for putting together such a nice blurb and nomination for WP:TFA! And I love the picture you chose with it as well! It all goes together great. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 23:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Mr plow

Thanks for all your work on the article! You guys did the whole thing while I was asleep! it was 1 am in Aust! --Simpsons fan 66 03:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Your powers are weak old man, soon I shall be the master." lol, seriously, I'm sort of looking for pages that really need attention. Homer the heretic already has a production section, I was thinking of returning to THOH III and finishing the job, I fixed it up a lot a while ago but it’s fallen apart with trivia. Failing that, I'll keep looking for a season 4 page that needs attention and has a lot of info on the commentary. Thanks again. --Simpsons fan 66 03:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which commentaries in particular? --Simpsons fan 66 04:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do, but no promises. I have a lot of homework and exams are approaching. I haven't done a character page before, Iv'e only just got the hang of the written style for episodes. --Simpsons fan 66 04:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the name of that episode where lisa joins MENSA? I know there is a flanders quote where after Lisa asks him if he has read the editorial section and he replies "I don't need to be told what to think... By anyone living!" --Simpsons fan 66 00:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the one. Do you want to include the quote? --Simpsons fan 66 00:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I saw the article, nice job so far! I'll keep an eye out for material. Lisa the Vegetarian has the whole Flanders family, including that reluctant British guy who is being forced to talk like a Flanders. --Simpsons fan 66 00:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to improve THOH III, but I don't know what to do about this section. It is without precedant but seems to raise a valid issue. Your opinion? --Simpsons fan 66 06:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review?

Now that TJOS has passed as WP:GA, do you think it's time to put it up for WP:PR on its way to WP:FAC? Also, anything else we can add to the article to expand something, or improve its quality further? Hehe, I just felt in the mood for spouting some abbreviations. Cheers. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 10:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- So, mind if I put it up for PR? Also, on a side note, I think I am slowing down on finding more good sources for Lisa the Skeptic. But it looks a lot better than it did. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 15:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - Oh well, maybe you've been busy lately. I think I'm going to wait a bit more for stability sake and to see if someone can get the DVD commentary for the other commentators Matt Groening, Yeardley Smith, and Steven Dean Moore, and then I'm just going to go ahead and see what happens at WP:PR, probably in a couple days. Worst case, we get some good feedback on how to improve the article a bit more, methinks. Cheers, and thanks so much for the suggestion to turn that template into a footer, looks much better. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Oklahoma

Ok, thanks! I appreciate it. It's hard to squeeze a request in before someone else does. I'll let you know in the next few minutes. Okiefromokla•talk 00:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Okiefromokla•talk 00:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias again. Okiefromokla•talk 01:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Carny

I'm cleaning up Bart Carny, am I suppose to change the cultural ref. list into an actual paragraph? Ctjf83 01:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After I clean it up, do I just remove it from the list or does someone have to check it out? Ctjf83 01:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wiki policy prevent us from posting a picture of every character on List of recurring characters from The Simpsons? Ctjf83 01:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So how many can we use? I was just going through to find out which characters needed pics. Isn't there some special curcumstance where, since they are all diff characters, we can use a pic of all of them? The page does say 'It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that users should follow. However, it is not set in stone" If i put in pics of all of them, are you going to delete some or what? Ctjf83 02:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I read about that, and you're right...but moving on...since I cleaned up Bart Carny, what do I need to do to get it to GA status? Or are we just doing the season as a whole? Ctjf83 02:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Trash of the Titans have no "cultural reference" section? Ctjf83 03:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you get a chance, can you look at Bart Carny and let me know what u think Ctjf83 05:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

did u get a chance to look it over yet? i wanna see what i need to fix Ctjf83 20:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, where do i get info on the reception Ctjf83 02:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King of the Ring (1998) on DYK

On 29 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article King of the Ring (1998), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--chaser - t 16:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Hello! The Pro Wrestling Collaboration of the Week for October 28 - November 3 is Bobby Eaton . Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next article for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, October 28.

Cast your vote to select the collaboration for next week! | Nominate an article that could be greatly improved! You are receiving this notification because you are listed as a member of the Professional Wrestling WikiProject. If you no longer wish to receive this notice, then please add your name to this list.

Delivered on 22:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC) by MiszaBot

NHL Plus-Minus Award

Yea, sure, I just added support. Sorry, I'm not sure how I forgot to add it before. Bsroiaadn ^Talk 02:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FL

Hey, just wondered what the status of List of Ipswich Town F.C. players was with regard to WP:FLC? Just over ten days gone now... Cheers, and keep up your good work. The Rambling Man 19:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, no rush, just wondering. I'd rather you did it to prevent any argument of conflict of interest. Again, my thanks, and my congratulations on your continued good work. The Rambling Man 19:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]