Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

AssessorTags

Hello! I thought that I'd bring to your attention a new script which I have created, AssessorTags, which helps to add WikiProject banners to talk pages. The banner for this project has have now been included in the script, so it may be helpful when locating and tagging articles. Documentation for the script can be found here, and if you have any questions feel free to ask at my talk page. Please not that I will probably not be watching this page, so comments left here will not be responded to. –Drilnoth (T • C) 01:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The Real Simpsons House

Hello awesome Simpsons project. I am working on an article on the life-sized replica of The Simpsons House in Henderson, Nevada. It is in my user space now. What I am looking for is someone in the Las Vegas area willing to drive over to Henderson and take a few photos of the house, it no longer looks like the Simpsons house unfortunately and I haven't been able to find any legimately licensed free-use images, but am holding out some hope. Any help would be great, thanks. --IvoShandor (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, glad to see people working on Simpsons content. Are you going to try this as an individual article, or merge it with 742 Evergreen Terrace? There used to be a page for it [1] but it was merged. Personally, I would prefer one article (the 742 page could be trimmed down quite a bit), but I guess its up to you. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think using our current article would be best. As for a picture I'd recommend asking someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Las Vegas or Wikipedia:WikiProject Nevada as they are (probably) gonna be in the area. CTJF83Talk 19:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you guys think. I'll paste it in when its complete, if that works. I went to the Nevada project once before, but never got much of a response. Just thought there might be someone around, as this project seems more active. I have no doubt we'll get a photo, somehow. --IvoShandor (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I added it in, there's more to add to it, I think most of the sources I found are there, a few more might be found on the Las Vegas Sun website. --IvoShandor (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The merge looks good to me. Did you post for help on the Vegas project? CTJF83Talk 19:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. Now the article pretty much passes the notability test. --Maitch (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Just queried the Vegas project for photo help. Anyone here who wants to start trimming the article a bit in the fictional areas should go ahead and do that. It looks like it could be condensed, cleaned up, and maybe, eventually well referenced. Would be cool to see an article like this featured or something.--IvoShandor (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As an afterthought, if any project members make a trip to Vegas, maybe they can stop in Henderson? The address is the article. I did some copy editing there too, thanks everyone for your advice and consent. :-) --IvoShandor (talk) 05:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Help with Resources

Although not a member of WP:SIMPSONS, I've recently been working on Brush with Greatness- to the extent that I believe I can take it up to GA class from Start. However, I lack the entire second series (having only seen it 1-2 times when I borrowed it from the local library). Consequently, while all other areas of the article are fine, I'm stuck with the Production. If anyone could help write that section (it's on the Episode Commentary, et cetera), their effort would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance! Cheers. I'^mperator 00:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice work! You can sign up for the season two featured topic drive here. I can do the production section for you, although I may not be able to do it until next week. Also, if you're looking for reviews to use in the reception section, I have a list of links here. —TheLeftorium 10:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I have some time over tomorrow so I will do it then. —TheLeftorium 19:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Simpsons and Comedy WikiProject

Hi there,

I'm a member of WikiProject Comedy and I have been tagging several Simpsons articles, mainly whenever they are nominated for FA, FL or GA. However, some people believe I should not tag the episodes. I would like your feedback so as to know which action I should take.

Thanks,

ISD (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Tagging - how so? Cirt (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, they claim that as the Simpsons WikiProject is already affilated with the comedy one, there is no need to add the "WikiProject Comedy" template to the article talk page and put it under our WikiProject too. Also, as the comedy WikiProject is not editing the aritcles themselves, some claim there is no point and we are just trying to boost up our number of GAs. ISD (talk) 07:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Who is "they" ? Cirt (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ctjf83 and Scorpion0422. They left messages on my talk page. ISD (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well those would be members of this WikiProject, yes. I personally am not sure what the end problem would be, it's simply the matter of another WikiProject tag on an article's talk page which doesn't take up much space, and is quite helpful in assessing overall statistics and also helps greatly for example in maintaining Portal:Comedy. Cirt (talk) 08:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, seeing as you are a member of this WikiProject Cirt, you may be best in sorting out this issue with them. ISD (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Again is it my personal take that the WikiProject tags are appropriate, but that's just me. Cirt (talk) 08:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I see. Well, I think it is best to carry on what I am doing for the moment until an agreement is reached. ISD (talk) 08:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ah I see it doesn't seem like a big disagreement to me from what I read on your talk page, just queries. In any event I assume good faith and know that you are just doing the tagging for articles that come to your attention as they get to GAC, not because they get to GAC - and even if that were the case, the WikiProject is not any one person so no one is "taking credit", like I said it is just a great way to keep track of the overarching statistics of both projects. Cirt (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes that's probably it. Sometimes I have difficultly understanding this sort of thing due to my Asperger's syndrome, so I probably got hold of the wrong end of the stick somewhere. ISD (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I just think if WP Comedy is going to tag our GACs then they should help work on articles to get them to GA status, instead of tagging ones we work hard to get up to GA status. CTJF83Talk 08:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that it is always nice to have more help, I just think there should not be any if this then that sort of thing. The tagging in and of itself is helpful, as it helps to keep track of statistics. Cirt (talk) 08:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Cirt, it is a bad way of keeping track of statisticks, because it gives bias data. If you were doing a poll, you wouldn't just ask the people who were succesful. I certainly object to just tagging articles that are GA. A projects mission is to keep track of all of those articles that are not very good, so that in the end you can have broad coverage and improve those bad articles. With the comedy projects model, bad articles doesn't exist. They don't just do with The Simpsons. It is also done with everything else. In fact, there is hardly any activity in the project itself. All it does is tagging succesful GA's and FA's, so that those can end up on their frontpage and thus overinflate the importance of the project. I would say that if they want to tag Simpsons articles, then they should tag them all.--Maitch (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm more than willing to support the comedy WikiProject tagging all the articles. The reason that I haven't done it previously is because it would take such a long time to do. However, if everyone in the Wikiproject helped, I'm sure it would help. ISD (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Chicago project (whose motto should be "if that person has ever set foot in Chicago, they belong in our project") has a bot that regularily goes through all categories relating to Chicago and tagging them as part of the project. Perhaps you could try to do that. Although I think I agree with Maitch's next statement. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have changed my mind. I don't see the point in having overarching WikiProjects tag a subproject's articles. WikiProject Comedy is a sub project of WikiProject Culture. Should Culture also tag all The Simpsons articles? And if so, what's the point? Why spend so much time tagging when in reality it is double work and takes time away from actually improving articles. --Maitch (talk) 12:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

For those interested, I have started a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Guide. --Maitch (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

ISD, if we decide to tag all Simpsons articles in the end, WP:AWB can do it easily and quickly. But as said earlier, we already have WP:DOH to cover these articles. We could add on dozens of projects, but there is no point to it. CTJF83Talk 04:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course I agree that it is best to tag all relevant articles and not just the quality-rated ones. Cirt (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

And More Help

Could someone help me out with The Simpsons (season 11)? I'll probably be able to complete the summary sections, but, once again, I'm hopeless with the other two sections. :/ I'm currently trying to turn it into a FL... Cheers. I'^mperator 22:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll vie for Season 10's! D= Cheers. I'^mperator 16:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

List of one-time characters in The Simpsons AFD

List of one-time characters in The Simpsons has once again been nominated for deletion. Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters in The Simpsons (6th nomination) CTJF83Talk 20:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

These days I am kind of neutral to the fate of this list. I would like to note though that people seem to want it deleted, because the don't like "one-time" in the title. List of guest stars on The Simpsons is almost the same kind of list and it has never been nominated. I would like to suggest that we merge the two lists, so that we can end this circus once and for all. --Maitch (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That might be a good idea. But that list would be really long, is that gonna be a cruft problem for some people? CTJF83Talk 19:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really. The way I see it we should only include characters that have been performed by someone other than one from the main cast. That way the finished list would be almost like List of guest stars on The Simpsons but with character bios and real world content if available. --Maitch (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The Simpsons (franchise)?

This is an idea I've been considering because looking through The Simpsons, a good chunk is devoted to merchandise, the film and the ride. The article seems to shift focus between being about the half-hour show, and being about the entire franchise (for lack of a better term). So, perhaps it would help to have a page for the entire franchise (Ullman shorts, half-hour show, books, comics, video games, movie, ride, etc.) while The Simpsons would be devoted almost entirely to just the half-hour show. I'm not sure if franchise is the best title. Alternatively, it could be called The Simpsons merchandise, but I dislike that idea because the ride and film don't really fit into that, or The Simpsons media. But, I would rather have the article be about the entire "The Simpsons" brand rather than just be a list of media. (There is precedent by the way, ie. Firefly (franchise)) -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me, and I think "The Simpsons (franchise)" would be the best name. TheLeftorium 19:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. The Simpsons should just be about the show, and the franchise page for everything else. CTJF83Talk 19:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I think this would work. And I agree that "franchise" is the most appropriate name. Gran² 19:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, The Simpsons just went above 100 KB, so we may have to do something about that. It has 42 KB of readable prose and according to WP:SIZE it "may need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)". So I think we should do something to shorten the article, since it is not really that complex as say World War II. --Maitch (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

My plan was to merge all merchandise & film info into one "other media" section, and move most of it to a franchise article where it can be covered more indepth. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've created The Simpsons (franchise) and removed some stuff from The Simpsons. It's still very rough and I am going to try to expand it quite a bit. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Older episode GAs

Mountain of Madness was nominated for GA reassessment. It is true that many of our older episode GAs (which includes most of the articles of the season 8 GT) are rather low compared to the newer ones. Perhaps we should work on bringing some of them up to standards before we continue on with the current drives/ -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was actually thinking about this the other day. Perhaps we could set up a page with all the episodes that needs to be expanded? TheLeftorium 15:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've started a page here for now. —TheLeftorium 15:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Gran2/Free-use The Simpsons images

I made this page a long while back as a personal semi-quest to get an image for each person related to the show but mainly because I got bored one day and enjoy wasting my time making trivial list/catalouge things. Anyway, the point is that I think it'd be more useful if this were a project sub-page as that would perhaps alert people to some of the images we need and then they may be able to get them. Thoughts? Gran² 16:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, sounds like a great idea as a subpage off the project, could be quite useful. (And in fact it was useful during work on the portal's featured drive.) Cirt (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree also, great subpage idea. CTJF83Talk 16:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Treehouse of Horror DVD commentary

Does anyone know where I can find a transcript for the episode's commentary, or could someone add any relevant info to the production section? Thanks. Also, does anyone know if there exists one of those official looking images that I see used on recent ep pages for this ep? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, nice work on the article! I can do the production section for you sometime next week. :) And no, there are not any promo cards available for this episode. TheLeftorium 17:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking about merging the cultural references info into the plot summary. Is there an episode MOS that this would contradict? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better to merge it with the production section. TheLeftorium 16:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've started the move.

I'm thinking about removing the treehouse image and moving Kang and Kodos up. They are the only part that there is much critical commentary on a visual aspect of the show. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that sounds like a good idea. :) TheLeftorium 19:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

I was looking at the TV episode GAs that needed to be swept, and three of them are Simpsons articles. I left a note for the reviewer at User talk:Masem#GAR. Basically, two of them need some paperwork updated as they appear to still be GAs, and Kamp Krusty may need some work to remain a GA, although I fixed the outstanding issue mentioned in the review by removing a second non-free image. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

IP edits by 99.253.225.109

99.253.225.109 (talk · contribs) = going around to articles, reformatting paragraphs to bulleted lists. Might want to look into it. Cirt (talk) 05:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with these edits. Most of those paragraphs had no flow or internal organization anyway. They're collections of disparate ideas which, I think, are easier to digest as bullet points. I realize that goes against established consensus, but sometimes you just can't force information into paragraphs. Zagalejo^^^ 06:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are multiple episode articles that do have significant discussion and analysis in paragraph format in Cultural references sections. Cirt (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah, there are a few exceptions. But there's no advantage to organizing this kind of info into a paragraph. Zagalejo^^^ 06:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, bulleted list format encourages edit-creep, and additions of unsourced information will begin to persist. Cirt (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

That's probably true, although unsourced and otherwise bad additions can always be removed. Anyway, I'll try to contact the user, and see if he wants to join the discussion. Zagalejo^^^ 21:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think paragraph form looks nice, but I also think bullets are a little easier to read, because you can clearly find each reference. I say stick with paragraphs though. CTJF83Talk 21:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Bart Sells His Soul/GA1

The GA Reviewer for Bart Sells His Soul has brought up many issues at the GA review subpage, Talk:Bart Sells His Soul/GA1. I would appreciate any help with copy-editing, and addressing these issues during the GA review to hopefully help get this article up to WP:GA quality status. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do tomorrow. Also, I'll try to get the production section for Bart's Inner Child done this weekend. TheLeftorium 20:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I think though that help from multiple editors working to address points at Talk:Bart Sells His Soul/GA1 would be very useful, as it is always a good idea to get some fresh eyes. Cirt (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll pitch in wherever I can as well. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay thank you very much. Cirt (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: The GA Reviewer has raised additional concerns = [2]. This after helpful copyediting by Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs). Again, would really appreciate as many editors as possible looking into addressing points from Talk:Bart Sells His Soul/GA1. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 10:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Homer Simpson image

File:Homer Simpson 2006.png File:Homer Simpson.svg I recently uploaded an SVG image of Homer, but was directed to the consensus of WP:SIMPSONS that a specific image had already been decided on, which I have added to the right. I would like to appeal as to whether the SVG file that I created can be used in the Infobox for Homer Simpson, and if not, then can an updated version of the current PNG image in use be taken from the FoxFlash website, which has uploaded a new, more aesthetically pleasing image of Homer. Gage (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally I prefer the existing PNG image, and I believe that was the consensus we agreed when the newer image became avaliable. Gran² 12:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The svg image looks silly, the existing one captures Homer's personality better. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the doughnut one too. CTJF83Talk 19:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Same here. He looks out of character in File:Homer Simpson.svg. TheLeftorium 19:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Bart Sells His Soul at Peer Review

The article Bart Sells His Soul is currently undergoing a peer review, input would be appreciated at its peer review page: Wikipedia:Peer review/Bart Sells His Soul/archive1. Cirt (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Does it really need a peer review? It's not that bad. I'd rather try to get it to GAC so we can get that season 7 GTC going. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I explained my rationale for the peer review, at the peer review subpage. I would really like to hear some additional feedback, before trying again for GAC. Cirt (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Now at WP:GAN, again... :P Cirt (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Woo! :) Are you going to ask User:Philcha to do another review? TheLeftorium 23:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it'd be helpful to get some fresh eyes. A previously uninvolved editor commented at the peer review, I might inquire with that user. Cirt (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Spider-Pig (song)

A user has been creating a page for the Spider Pig song from the movie. [3] Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums, singles and songs says "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."

It does have some notability because it reached #3 on an Irish chart, but that's pretty much it and do we really need an entire page that just says that? It doesn't include much that can't just as easily be said in the album page, so I think it should be merged there. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Recurring jokes in The Simpsons

I'm starting to think we should merge the page with The Simpsons. There are few sources, and some of the jokes added are either very minor, not actually recurring or are a comedy staple used in many shows. Take, for example, this recently removed gem:

From the catchphrases section: Sherri and Terri are always asked, "which one is the evil twin?" They hate being asked that, especially since they've been asked that for years. An example of this is when Alex Whitney, the new sophisticated student at school asks, "Oooh, twins! Which one is the evil one?"

First of all, it's not actually a catchphrase. Second, I can't remember this being used again (although it doesn't mean it wasn't), but it certainly isn't used often enough to warrant any kind of mention. Either it should be merged, or we should come up with some kind of criteria, because looking at it, it's a huge mess with some things randomly added by IPs and some notable jokes not mentioned at all. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion taking place here CTJF83Talk 04:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Homerpedia or bust

We have gone 7 months since having a TFA, so we might be able to get one in this year. We've previously had Homer's Phobia on July 27, 2007; The Simpsons on December 17, 2007; Troy McClure on May 28, 2008; and Treehouse of Horror (series) on October 31, 2008. All four were requested, we've never had a randomly placed TFA. These are some options:

• The Simpsons Movie: July 27
• Something, most likely Homer Simpson or Bart Simpson (or possibly even The Simpsons Movie?), on December 17, 2009 (the 20th anniversary of Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire) or January 14, 2010 (the 20th anniversary of Bart the Genius, which FOX recognizes as the "official" series premiere).
• Phil Hartman on September 24 (birth date) or May 28 (date of death).
• Nancy Cartwright on October 25 (birth date).
• The Simpsons Game on October 30 (release date in US)
• The Simpsons Hit & Run on September 16 (release date in US)

Thoughts? I'd really like to get something as TFA on December 17 or January 14 as it's not often a series celebrates 20 years on the air. But, I know Gran2 was hoping to get The Simpsons Movie in at some point. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I definitely think we need to get Homer on the front page. Is each page only allowed to be a TFA once ever? If not, we could try for The Simpsons on December 17, since it's been 2 yrs since it has been there. CTJF83Talk 01:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Barring extremely rare circumstances (Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 4, 2008), TFAs are never reused. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. CTJF83Talk 01:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with either The Simpsons Movie on July 27 or Homer Simpson on December 17, 2009. TheLeftorium 10:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How bout AND, we should try for both! :) CTJF83Talk 16:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that since we've already had 4 TFAs in 16 months, we should wait a year before requesting any more (because some users like to complain about such things). Perhaps we could try for December 17, 2009 and July 27, 2010? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have no experience with TFA, but if you feel people will complain cause WP:Doh rocks and we are awesome with all of our FAs, then I'd say wait too for the 2nd. CTJF83Talk 16:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather wait for a slightly more meaningful milestone for TSM, say five years (so July 27, 2012). There's also bound to be a better DVD by then, so they article would be more complete. I say we try with Homer on December 17. Gran² 16:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could try to get the Matt Groening article to FA, then get it as the TFA on that date. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Better DVD Gran? Like what, they rerecord commentary and release a new DVD? CTJF83Talk 16:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it's likely they'll produce a "Collector's Edition" DVD or something, with more deleted scenes, another commentary and other extras, possible with some of the scenes re-added. Gran² 16:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ok CTJF83Talk 16:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

199 GAs...

The clock is ticking down... :) (remember this?) TheLeftorium 14:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I think our next concern should be to go back and clean up some of the older GAs. It's also only a matter of time before we can get the season 7 GTC going (but we should be careful, I anticipate strong opposition from a certain user, since Lefty, Gary and I are all in the WikiCup). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Great work everyone. And agreed on improving older GAs (FAs as well), I also think we should bring the season 6 and 8 lists in line with season 7. Gran² 12:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting unrelated trivia. Following the death of Michael Jackson, Stark Raving Dad had 16,900 views (more than triple what it received the first 25 days of the month, before that it averaged 250 views per day) [4] and Do the Bartman had 1,700 views [5]. (The Michael Jackson article has had 9 million views in 3 days, including an unbelieveable 5.9 million in one day, which might just be a single day record [6]). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, apparently he almost took the Internet with him when he died. Anyway, Cirt got the 200th GA, Bart Sells His Soul, and I have nominated season seven here. TheLeftorium 09:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:40, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Should this page still be semi'd? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

A Class rating

What is the process for this? I can't find a rationale on the individual article talk pages. Hekerui (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no process. Anyone who thinks an article meets the A-class criteria can promote it to that. TheLeftorium 13:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

A Class is valued higher than GA Class, but articles like The Simpsons (season 10) and List of guest stars on The Simpsons had no review at all (and the latter should be a list, right?). Why not do it like other projects - three people who had no significant work done one the article have to approve? Hekerui (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Stark Raving Dad

My current goal is to try to get the page to FA status. I think it's possible - there is quite a bit of backstory and other related bits about the episode - but it does need some copyediting and some more sources would help. What it needs:

• Copyediting
• More reception information
• Hopefully some of the commentary sources can be replaced with news articles (although none published recently, there's a good chance they used us as their source)
• Possibly some comments by Jackson (or his family) about the episode?
• Unfortunately, the Bill Oakley NHC source for the sequel will have to be dropped as it is a forum. It is the only one which says it was for season five.
• More on the references to Jackson's life or works in the episode.

Any help from any project members would be most welcome. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'm a fan of MJ so I'll try to help out as much as I can. Theleftorium 22:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject The Simpsons to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 20:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That's awesome. Thanks! Theleftorium 14:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes to popular pages lists

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

• The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
• The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
• I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
  • This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
  • This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
  • There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
• The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
• The data is now retained indefinitely.
• The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
• Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [7]

-- Mr.Z-man 00:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Simpsons (season 10) production

Can somebody who owns the DVD expand the production section? Nergaal (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Heartbroke Kid

I started work on "The Heartbroke Kid" article yesterday, an article which was in the "unreferenced" section of the wikiproject. I have so far taken it from this to this but need some help finding production info, reception and popular culture info which can be cited. Please let me know if you can help, or equally add cited info to the article. Thanks. 03md 08:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll do a Newsbank search later, but to be blunt, it's unlikely there will be all that much information, certainly not until the DVD is released. Gran² 08:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice work on the article! Unfortunately, as Gran2 said, there isn't much information available until its released on DVD. If you want to get an article to GA status, I suggest you chose an article from the earlier seasons. I'd be happy to help you out. Theleftorium 16:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Documentary

Great news everyone! They're paying us $50 a day to film some of the documentary here! And by that I mean, I talked to the guy touting around NHC for stories for the new Spurlock documentary and asked them if they were interested in hearing about the work we did here, and they said they were. So I'm recommending they come on IRC, that way they can talk to more than one of us. Gran² 17:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

We're gonna be on TV? Woo-hoo! What's the username of the guy on NHC? Theleftorium 22:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the guy - And yes, it might be worth contacting him as well. I've no idea how they are going to do it though (they're a researcher for it), so I'd imagine they just want info... Gran² 22:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what to tell him, tough... :P Theleftorium 22:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you could give him a link to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-21/WikiProject report. Theleftorium 22:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The special now has a page: The Simpsons 20th Anniversary Special - In 3-D! On Ice! It's a little soon, but I was looking through google news and found some reports on the filming, so I figured there was enough content to sustain a page for now (as adding these reports to the season 21 page would be undue weight). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay she says she will be on our IRC channel from 4PM BST tomorrow, if any of you wish to come on that what be great, you may well influence the documentary (as in, they might mention us). Gran² 19:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So, how did that go? Zagalejo^^^ 04:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I missed the chat, but it went pretty well. She basically asked us about what it is we do, if there were any stories we felt they should cover and if we could send her some funny vandal edits. It's possible that Gran2 might be interviewed for the documentary. She also gave us her e-mail address, and said if we wanted to we could contact her. So, if anyone wants to do that, ask me, Gran2 or Theleftorium, and we'll e-mail her address to you. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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 10:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it was only a matter of time before that happened. It shouldn't be too hard to clean it up, but I don't know if we'll be able to bring it to current FA standards on time. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion

A user (the same one that nominated Cape Feare for FL removal) has decided to nominate Template:Simpsons character and Template:Infobox Simpsons episode for deletion, with the bulk of his argument being that generic templates exist and The Simpsons doesn't need individual templates. The former has already survived deletion, and if the latter is deleted, we'll lose the individual season lists (as well as the links to the seasons). Template:Simpsons Sideshow Bob is also up for deletion, although I wouldn't be upset if it were deleted. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone nominated the episode infobox for deletion last week... It was snowball kept. Gran² 06:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there some anti-WP:Doh witch hunt going on that I'm unaware of? CTJF83Talk 07:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Smithers

I want to help improve Snithers to another level, can anyone offer there help. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Useful source

[8] Just read this. As most of the editors here are, presumably, American, I'd imagine that they wouldn't be aware of DS. May be useful as a source. DJ 22:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Suprisingly I think the majority of really active users are not American. Anyway, thanks, I actually read that earlier. DS is a sort of mediocre source, they tend to report a lot of unsubstantiated rumours and very minor things as fact but it's nice to here from David Mirkin, even if the only thing that could be used for is proving that the staff are still ignorant about what we think of this show now. Gran² 22:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll use it in the Lisa the Vegetarian article. Theleftorium 14:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

this is why I don't like Digital Spy. They take someone's comments from an interview and re-report them as if it's news and make it look like the guest star has a good chance of appearing.. They've done it before with Britney Spears, Gordon Ramsey and Gordon Brown. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion RE: WikiProject page

A discussion is occuring about the content of the main page of this WikiProject here. DJ 22:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious, what do you have against this project? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF. DJ 23:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried that after the 2 template deletion nominations and the FAR. But this seems to be going a little far, especially since you took it to ANI immediately without expressing concerns here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You didn't. The "anti-WP:DOH" comment has been bashed about before. Notice the above discussion. DJ 23:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't my comment. Do you have any diffs of my accusing you of such bias before? Seriously, is there a reason why you feel it is necessary to target this project? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As I've said, see the previous discussion on this page. If you feel I've broken a guidline, take it here. I don't need to justify myself to you. DJ 23:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, WP:ANI says "Frivolous complaints and unsubstantiated requests for administrator intervention do not belong here. Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion. Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." I'm pretty sure it applies to projects too. My point is, you should have brought it up here first and we could have worked something out. ANI is the wrong place to take that kind of complaint and if I didn't know better, I'd think you did it just to make the project look bad. None of the members complained (even though I referred to all of us as nerds), just you and it's funny because I created the banner as a response to users who dislike our project and believe we are wasting time on cruft. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Can the section be tagged as humour (as if we couldn't all recognize it as such, but still) and moved downwards? Unfortunately, humour tends to come down to personal opinion or at least is not always universally shared. Since it's an open project, presumably I can start editing to imsert my own opinions too - but that's hardly productive, right? The purpose of a project page should be to outline its aims and to draw editors interest to contributing. As a dedicated fan/addict of The Simpsons, I can see the humour, but I can also see how this is not the "professional" way that we should be approaching topics. In a way, the header hints at a closed group of editors who are in on the whole thing, as opposed to all those others who don't get it. It's not a big huge deal, but it would be nice to see the project page made more in line with standard practice. (At least it's an active project, as opposed to the empty echoing space that so many other wikiprojects have become)

Also, it doesn't include "List of references to Canada" - I'll have to dig up my extensive Simpsons trivia notes made before I discovered that Wikipedia had done it all before me... Franamax (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the "disturbing content". [9] Does anyone object to the new text, or prefer for the entire thing to be removed? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The "evil network" cue only makes sense if you've seen the show, nothing in that bluelink indicates where the humour is. The "nerd" bits are funny if the word is indeed shown in quotes or if they are self-described nerds. Otherwise, again lacking knowledge of how the show itself presents the concept (many many times, one of the core themes in fact), the word itself is often used in a pejorative sense, a nerd is almost as bad as a geek. There is great humour in the fact that all those "nerds" have become wealthy by doing their thing, but again, that's only apparent to someone already familiar. Does that wording explain your project to newcomers, or does it encourage them to become members and participate? Or is it an inside joke? Franamax (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Simpsons (season 10) FLC

Ok, fine. The title's a little bit misleading; this is about a FAC for The Simpson season 10, but rather how to get their. I'll list some things here:

• I could do with a major copyright; after all, though I did do most of the expansion for the plot summaries, I could do with a quick copyedit.
• Could someone with The Simpsons Forever!: A Complete Guide to Our Favorite Family ...Continued help out a bit with the production section? I only had a quick glance with the book (borrowed it from the library, lost it, found it, long story), so I wrote some facts about the cast and directors, but I sitll need the freelance writers and the usual writers.
• Does the reception section really belong there? I mean, season 14 became a featured topic, and yet it had no "reception" section... Just a thought. That, plus I'm too lazy to expand it right now ;-) Again, any help will be appreciated.

If these concerns can be fixed, then this article might just have a shot at being a WP:FL :) Cheers, I'^mperator 16:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Screenshots

There seems to be a tendency not to include screenshots in episode articles any more; this has been the case with several new GAs. Why is this, is there some new policy? Lampman (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Most screenshots don't increase the readers' understanding of the topic. Theleftorium 14:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I would disagree with that. A well-selected screenshot reminds me immediately of which episode the article deals with, if I've seen it. Of course the alternative to a picture is perhaps a thousand words, but why make it harder than necessary? Lampman (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available. If a screenshot can easily be described in words then we shouldn't use one (see "1. No free equivalent"). In addition, significant critical commentaries are needed to qualify the inclusion of non-free images. Theleftorium 16:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why, but book GAs and FAs are allowed a picture of their cover. Same with albums. People dislike episode articles, I guess. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, WP:NFCI states that pictures of covers should be used as identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). Theleftorium 17:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm just talking about how the rules are actually applied. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly my point. I'm familiar with the policy on non-free content, but it seems to be interpreted very differently from project to project. To a certain extent I suppose everything can be described adequately in words, but for subjects so dependent on visual expression as Simpsons episodes, I think a visual aid would be highly beneficial. Lampman (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty much a decision to made by the major editor of the article, unless you can come up with sourced commentary on a visual aspect of an episode, in which case add it and illustrate it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

List of The Simpsons episodes

Should we put a brief description of the episode plot on this page? I know it would be a lot of work, and the season pages already have descriptions, but if someone comes to this page to find an episode, and have no idea what season it is, they can easily find it. CTJF83 chat 08:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Nah. That list is long enough. Theleftorium 09:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be that if you have season pages you don't need them on the main list. As we have over 400 episodes, even one-line descriptions would make the page very long. So, no. Gran² 09:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

New book: The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History

This is a heads up about a new book coming out in NA today called "The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History" by Jon Ortved. (If the name sounds familiar, it's because he wrote this article). Here's a snippet from it about Michael Jackson: [10].

Amazon describes the book as such:

"John Ortved's oral history will be the first-ever look behind the scenes at the creation and day-to-day running of The Simpsons, as told by many of the people who made it: among them writers, animators, producers, and network executives. It’s an intriguing yet hilarious tale, full of betrayal, ambition, and love. Like the family it depicts, the show's creative forces have been riven by dysfunction from the get-go—outsize egos clashing with studio executives and one another over credit for and control of a pop-culture institution. Contrary to popular belief, The Simpsons did not spring out of one man's brain, fully formed, like a hilarious Athena. Its inception was a process, with many parents, and this book tells the story."

It sounds helpful, but we should be careful because these books do have a tendency to be a bit... liberal with the details. I'd have to read it first, but any book that advertizes itself as "Uncensored, Unauthorized" should be treated with caution. It might only be useable for it's interviews, but we'll have to see. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 12:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds very interesting. I've pre-ordered it. Theleftorium 14:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at my copy now, glad it came before the post office go on strike... It's much thicker than I though it'd be (it's called Simpsons Confidential here). From quick flick-through it looks mostly to be interviews, like a lengthy section of one, with some of his own words underneath. He's got a whole Conan chapter. Gran² 16:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Do any of you have The Gospel According to the Simpsons, Bigger and Possibly Even Better! Edition? I'm gonna head to the library in a bit and check it out. CTJF83 chat 16:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I got the book today, and looking through it, it's quite detailed. It offers a different version of the creation of the show (ie. Other than the lobby version), but I've noticed that accounts conflict quite a bit and one guy, I forget his name, seems to like giving himself a lot of credit. I think we should stay with the common creation story for now, because it is the version stated by Matt Groening and James L. Brooks. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to do Sam Simon's article. Gran² 07:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit, I'm disappointed in the book as a source. The book follows the model of Live from New York: An Uncensored History of Saturday Night Live with interviews with various people. However, in the case of the SNL book, the author was able to get comments from quite a few important cast and background figures, including Lorne Michaels. In The Simpsons book, only a few cast members, writers and producers participated (there are comments from the likes of Groening and Brooks that were taken from other interviews). As such, some figures are given undue weight. Conan has an entire chapter while the EP reigns of David Mirkin, Oakley & Weinstein, and Scully are covered in a few pages. Bob Kushell and Rob Cohen (who were interviewed) get extended mentions while David S. Cohen, Ian Maxtone-Graham and Ken Keeler are barely mentioned at all. I haven't finished the book, but I find that generally the stories are more about the behind the scenes politics rather than about the production of the show. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Finished. Like the show, in my opinion the book kind of went down hill as it went along. Still an enjoyable read but I agree with Scorpion about the lack of production stories, I guess we'll have to wait for an official book for that. Still an amount of useable stuff (as I have the UK edition if I do use it I'll need the NA page numbers...) But you can really see the effect of Brooks telling a lot of the staff not to talk to Ortved. Still more factual errors (he says Maya Angelou guest starred) and proof-reading problems. I also got the impression he may have used some of our pages as a starting point... (His quote from Alf Clausen on his lack of inclusion in the movie is in the article here. It took me the best part of a day to find.) So on the whole it was good, except for him saying "When You Dish Upon A Star" is better than "22 Short Films About Springfield". Gran² 20:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

He also says that the classic era ended with season 6 (I was surprised at how negatively Mirkin is portrayed, and how little is said about Oakley & Weisntein), which counts against him. Some of the stories about guest stars are useable though (if anyone needs a citation template for the book they can copy, there's one at Simpson and Delilah, but remember that it's for the Canadian edition, so page numbers may be different that others). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

After looking around, I felt there was enough material for a page for the book, so I created one for it here. I'm still working on it. I haven't yet decided if I should include a blog written by Ortved [11] in which he says that Brooks and Fox tried to stop him from writing it. I'm hoping a more reliable source will come up. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Question for anyone outside Canada or the States

I've been slowly expanding the article, and it's already a pretty good size - possibly within GA reach. Who knows, maybe some day it could be a FA (though it would need some comments from the staff). I have a question for Gran2, Theleftorium, and anyone else outside the US of A or Canada. Is the book still called The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History? And who is the publisher (if anyone could give me a link to that publisher's page on the book, it would be great. 99% of my google searches are turning up sales websites). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice work on the article. The publisher is actually the same here in Sweden, since the book was just imported (and I doubt it will get translated into Swedish anytime soon). Theleftorium 20:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm surprised at how nicely it's shaping up. I managed to find the info for the UK, has the book published under a different name anywhere else? (P.S. I've got my scary name for Halloween ready to go) -- No TV and no beer make Scorpion0422 something something 01:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Go crazy? Damn, you took the only good quote! What do you think of mine? :-P Thecrematorium ^{Happy Halloween!} 10:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Disguised trivia sections

A trivia list which has had the bullet points removed and made to superficially resemble a paragraph is still a trivia list. That's exactly what most "cultural references" sections on individual episode articles are. Even "Good Articles" like Lisa's Rival suffer from this. Has this phenomenon ever been addressed at WikiProject The Simpsons? Mike R (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Reliably sourced sections highlighting what the writers were referencing in the episode (and cultural references are one of the show's hallmarks) is not the same as mindless trivia. "Mayor Quimby and Sideshow Bob's mayoral debate is a reference to the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon TV debate" is not the same as "in the debate between Quimby and Bob, Quimby's hair sticks up so it appears he has devil horns". If such a section is unsourced it is removed. Gran² 19:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The cultural references sections are useful for understanding allusions and parodies, which are a major part of the show (sometimes the basis for entire episodes). Plus, they can usually be sourced, so we don't have to rely on our own interpretations. For the most part, I don't have a problem with those sections. (Well, I'd actually prefer that the cultural references were in bullet point lists, for the sake of readability, but that's a different issue.) Zagalejo^^^ 19:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Zagalejo. These sections can be very important in some articles (take Lisa the Vegetarian, for example). Theleftorium 20:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay you have some good points. But still, it is impossible to look at a cultural references section like in Lisa's Rival and escape the conclusion that it is a list that has had the bullets removed and been disguised to look like a paragraph. A mere sequence of unrelated sentences does not a proper paragraph make. Mike R (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually I do recall writting that section in "Lisa's Rival" from scratch. I'll try and re-word it. Gran² 21:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Cape Feare

Cape Feare was kept as an FA. Well done everyone! :) Theleftorium 21:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons couch gags

List of The Simpsons couch gags has been listed at AfD so please leave your comments there. I really don't see the point in having this page, to be honest, but that's just my opinion. Theleftorium 21:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Nick Riviera

Hello. In this article it says that Dr. Nick is Argentinian. Do you have any reference for this? Does the character mention it in any episode? I know that I should post this message in Talk:Nick Riviera, but no registered users seem to comment there. Thanks in advance for the answers. Mel 23 (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, they have never revealed Dr. Nick's nationality in any episode. However, some users like to speculate based on a character's accent and will add their opinions/original research. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Book

thse anybody own the simpsons book where they analiys lisa--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What is it called? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

well there are three i think Planet Simpson, The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer and well no i think there is no more, but if there is could you tell me.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

And also the lisa book.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about this one? If so, it's not really an analysis of the character; it's more of a Lisa-themed advice book. Zagalejo^^^ 04:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Then no i take that one back--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 14:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

TFA proposals

As we discussed earlier, we would like to get a TFA on either December 17, 2009 or January 14, 2010, to commemorate the 20th year of the show. Of our current FAs, the ones that haven't been TFA already that make the most sense are Homer Simpson or Bart Simpson. Not just because they are the main characters, but because they made their post-Ullman debuts on December 17, which directly ties them to that day. As such, it would be a preferable day to January 14, but what might count against us is that The Simpsons was the TFA on December 17, 2007. I'm not sure what the policy is, but some might object to it because of that. It should be noted that Homer's page has been a FA longer, which might count in its favour.

Here is my proposed blurb for Homer:

Dan Castellaneta

Homer Simpson is a fictional main character in the animated television series The Simpsons. Homer is the boorish father of the Simpson family. With his wife, Marge, he has three children: Bart, Lisa, and Maggie. As the family's provider, he works at the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant. Homer embodies several American working class stereotypes: he is crude, overweight, incompetent, clumsy, lazy and ignorant; however, he is also fiercely devoted to his family. He is voiced by Dan Castellaneta (pictured) and first appeared on television, along with the rest of his family, in The Tracey Ullman Show short "Good Night" on April 19, 1987. Homer was created and designed by cartoonist Matt Groening while he was waiting in the lobby of television producer James L. Brooks' office. After appearing on The Tracey Ullman Show for three years, the Simpson family got their own series on Fox, which debuted December 17, 1989. Homer is one of the most influential fictional characters on television. He was ranked the second greatest cartoon character by TV Guide and was voted the greatest television character of all-time by Channel 4 viewers. Castellaneta has won four Primetime Emmy Awards for Outstanding Voice-Over Performance and a special achievement Annie Award for voicing Homer. In 2000, Homer, along with the rest of his family, was awarded a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. (more...)

And Bart:

Nancy Cartwright

Bart Simpson is a fictional main character in the animated television series The Simpsons. At ten years of age, Bart is the eldest child and only son of Homer and Marge, and the brother of Lisa and Maggie. Bart's most prominent character traits are his mischievousness, rebelliousness and disrespect for authority. He is voiced by actress Nancy Cartwright (pictured) and first appeared on television in The Tracey Ullman Show short "Good Night" on April 19, 1987. Bart was created and designed by cartoonist Matt Groening while he was waiting in the lobby of television producer James L. Brooks' office. After appearing on The Tracey Ullman Show for three years, the Simpson family received their own series on Fox, which debuted December 17, 1989. During the first two seasons of The Simpsons (1989–1991), Bart was the show's breakout character. Bart Simpson T-shirts sporting various slogans and catchphrases became popular, selling at a rate of a million per day at their peak. Bart's rebellious attitude and pride at underachieving caused many parents and educators to cast him as a bad role model for children. Time named Bart one of the 100 most important people of the 20th century, and he was named "entertainer of the year" in 1990 by Entertainment Weekly. Nancy Cartwright has won several awards for voicing Bart, including a Primetime Emmy Award in 1992 and an Annie Award in 1995. In 2000, Bart, along with the rest of his family, was awarded a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. (more...)

Feel free to make any necessary changes. If anyone has any other ideas for a potential TFA, please let me know. -- No TV and no beer make Scorpion0422 something something 21:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'd prefer Homer over Bart. He's more "famous" these days. Thecrematorium ^{Happy Halloween!} 22:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah I agree with Left, let's try for Homer on the December date. Darwin won't be in the way this time. Gran² 22:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the James L. Brooks part will be a bit confusing for people not familiar with the backstory. Wouldn't the blurb below be better? Theleftorium 18:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Dan Castellaneta

Homer Simpson is a fictional main character in the animated television series The Simpsons. Homer is the boorish father of the Simpson family. With his wife, Marge, he has three children: Bart, Lisa, and Maggie. As the family's provider, he works at the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant. Homer embodies several American working class stereotypes: he is crude, overweight, incompetent, clumsy, lazy and ignorant; however, he is also fiercely devoted to his family. He was created and designed by cartoonist Matt Groening and is voiced by Dan Castellaneta (pictured). Homer first appeared on television, along with the rest of his family, in The Tracey Ullman Show short "Good Night" on April 19, 1987. After appearing on The Tracey Ullman Show for three years, the Simpson family got their own series on Fox, which debuted December 17, 1989. Homer is one of the most influential fictional characters on television. He was ranked the second greatest cartoon character by TV Guide and was voted the greatest television character of all-time by Channel 4 viewers. Castellaneta has won four Primetime Emmy Awards for Outstanding Voice-Over Performance and a special achievement Annie Award for voicing Homer. In 2000, Homer, along with the rest of his family, was awarded a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. (more...)

Yeah, that is much better. Shorter too. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I too would prefer Homer. CTJF83 chat 18:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I like homer but for resons that i will not explain i would perfer Bart to become the TFA as he is the breakout character of the series.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You have a point. However, Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire was Homer-centric, so his page would be more appropriate. If December 17 is recejted and we go with January 14, then it might be better to go with Bart as the episode was Bart the Genius. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay that seems fine to me.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 17, 2009 - w00t! Kudos to Scorpion0422 for his excellent work on the article last year! :) Theleftorium 21:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Same here congrats, happy simpsonary to you all.;)--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

)

Homerpedia returns!

Homer Simpson has been scheduled as the TFA for December 17 and will be the second Simpsons page to run on that day. Please check over the blurb, and if anyone has a chance, it might not hurt to go over the article again. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. We should prepare for a shitstorm of vandalism and "y is dere a simpson article on wiki this is not important"/"OMG WHAT IS THAT PICTURE DOING THERE, THAT'S SOME GUY NOT HOMER I'M SO CONFUSED" type comments. Gran² 18:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I was prepared for that back when THOH ran last year, and I was very surprised when there were very few talk page comments, and none along those lines. And this article is quite a bit better than that one was. I wouldn't be surprised if the image crusaders decided to kick up a fuss over the four fair use images on the page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It only lasted 3 1/2 hours before the image was removed. It's really not worth the effort of trying to get it re-added. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

3 hours, 40 minutes in and the page has now been semi-protected. It seems a little premature to me because there was really only one vandal. I'd also like to remind everyone to keep an eye on the Simpsons watchlist [12] today because I have noticed more activity on Simpsons pages. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm impressed. "That is is really silly and should be removed right now" is my quote of the day. Gran² 08:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The ratings are in: 82,000 views. [13]. That's actually a bit of a disappointment because Treehouse of Horror (series) had 102,000 views the day it was featured (October 31, 2008) [14], Troy McClure had 133,000 on May 28, 2008 [15] and The Simpsons had 130,000 on December 17, 2007 [16]. The media attention from the 20th anniversary combined with the TFA did give a huge boost to other Simpsons pages, including The Simpsons (just under 30,000 views [17]), Dan Castellaneta (28,200 [18]), Matt Groening (10,900 [19]), Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire (3,700 [20]), The Tracey Ullman Show (7,700 [21]), Good Night (The Simpsons short) (7,200 [22]) and the rest of the Simpson family (Bart - 8,100 [23], Marge - 6,100 [24], Lisa - 4,600 [25], Maggie - 4,500 [26]. if that doesn't sound like a lot, consider that those pages average about 500 views per day). Hell, even The Day of the Locust got a big boost in viewers. It's a good thing that almost all of those pages are at least GAs, hopefully the users that decided to check out other Simpsons pages were impressed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

So, our writers and directors templates have been deleted

Which is ironic because they were created when the categories were deleted (and most users said "More appropriate as a template"). I'm rather annoyed because the project wasn't notified about it (and we should have, considering how many pages it affects). Should we ask for a review? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to post "Hey, why weren't we informed?" So yes, I think we should ask for a review. Gran² 00:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to search the CFD categories? I can't find the one for the writers category. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_16#TV_writers_by_series - Oh yes, that day, when all of the useful categories that people actually used were deleted. Gran² 00:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wife Hope - Successful GA Review

Hello to everyone at the WikiProject for the The Simpsons! This is to let you know that The Great Wife Hope has successfully passed its GAR. Congratulations to everybody that worked on it. Keep up the good work. -- Nyxaus 16:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:The Simpsons Christmas episodes

I've nominated this category for deletion. The discussion is here CTJF83 chat 20:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

2009: A retrospective

For those curious, this is what our article assessment chart looked like on December 31, 2006:

And for those curious, the 2 Featured quality articles we had at the end of 2006 were The Simpsons and List of The Simpsons episodes, while the GA was Homer Simpson.

The Simpsons articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Class
	FA	2					2
	A		1				1
	GA	1					1
	B	6	26	15	8		55
	Start	2	28	415	64	27	536
	Stub		5	22	84	53	164
	Unassessed
	Total	11	60	452	156	80	759

This is what it looked like on December 31, 2007:

For those curious, these are the GAs & featured content we had at the end of 2007.

The Simpsons articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Quality
	FA	2	9	7	1		19
	A	1	1	1			3
	GA	2	6	59			67
	B	4	17	9	4		34
	Start	1	32	385	69	3	490
	Stub		1	23	108	19	151
	Assessed	10	66	484	182	22	764
	Total	10	66	484	182	22	764

And this is what it looked like on December 31, 2008:

The Simpsons articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Quality
	FA	4	1	10			15
	FL	1	11	1	1		14
	A		2	3			5
	GA	4	8	121	3		136
	B		15	8	5		28
	C		7	10	2		19
	Start		19	319	59	2	399
	Stub		1	25	119	22	167
	List		1	1	2		4
	Assessed	9	65	498	191	24	787
	Total	9	65	498	191	24	787

and here's what it looks like now:

The Simpsons articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Quality
	FA	4	3	13	1		21
	FL	1	12	1	1		15
	A		1	3			4
	GA	4	13	195	7		219
	B	1	14	13	6		34
	C		4	28	5		37
	Start		12	243	60	2	317
	Stub		1	21	120	18	160
	List		4	1	2		7
	Assessed	10	64	518	202	20	814
	Total	10	64	518	202	20	814

Pretty good. In 2008, we added 83 GAs, 6 FAs (which is on par with the number added in 2008), 1 FL, 4 GTs and reduced our number of start class pages by 82 (not as good as 2008 when we shrank the number by 91). There was even shrinkage in the stub category, which went down by seven. We saw the addition of only one character article GA (The Itchy & Scratchy Show, though Sideshow Bob made FA) but saw the remaining five cast members promoted to GA (and Nancy Cartwright was also pushed to FA), Phil Hartman promoted to FA, plus James L. Brooks, George Meyer and some animators (like Dan Povenmire) went to GA. We also branched out into merchandise, two video game articles were promoted to FA, and My Life as a 10-Year-Old Boy made GA. We even saw alt.tv.simpsons promoted to GA. Our one FL was The Simpsons (season 14), and hopefully we can get some other season pages promoted this year. We also had a number of DYKs and Homer Simpson made TFA on December 17.

I also set some (unofficial) goals:

1. Reduce the number of stubs by [insert number, maybe... 10%?]  Not done
2. Bring all character articles up to the WP:FICT guidelines (should it not be deleted)  Not done
3. Try and get the remaining classic seasons (2, 3, 5, 6 and 7) to GT Close, but in the end,  Not done
4. Try to get more season pages to FL status (1-9 done)  Not done
5. Get [insert number... 10?] articles/lists to featured status  Done
6. Successfully complete one non-season GT/FT  Done (cast members)
7. Work on improving the articles for writers/directors/cast and try and get some GAs and maybe an FA  Done

The amount of content promoted went down in the fall, due to several of us going back to school. We also came close to losing Cape Feare, one of our first episode GAs and very first episode FA. But, all in all, I'd say that 2009 was another good year for the Simpsons WikiProject. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work everyone! Here's hoping 2010 will be just as good as 2009. :) Theleftorium 00:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Here here!!!:)--Saint Pedrolas J. ^{Hohohohohoh merry christmas} 00:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, very good job all around. I think as well as finishing the classic seasons GTs and doing some more season pages I think were should attempt a few more characters this year, like Buns and Moe. Gran² 10:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Some possible goals:

1. Complete the season 2 and 3 Featured topic drives.
2. Bring all character articles up to the WP:FICT guidelines.
3. Reduce the number of stubs by 10%.
4. Get some more season lists to FL.
5. Get some more character articles to GA, and some current GAs (like Lisa Simpson) to FA.
6. Improve Sam Simon to at least GA status. Also possibly some more crew members, like Brad Bird.
7. Get some episode GAs from the non-classic era.
8. Get some GAs in different areas (non episode or character), ie. The Simpsons (franchise), merchandise, etc.

-- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That all looks good. This year, I'm going to be further working on the season 21 articles, and I'm hoping on getting started on The Simpsons (season 12) as soon as I can get the DVD. Happy new year/decade everyone! :) The Flash ^{talk} 17:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-English versions of The Simpsons...

...has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-English versions of The Simpsons. Theleftorium 17:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topics/Simpson family

Just did a bit of reading and stumbled upon the fact that we've got until September to get another FA in the topic or it will be demoted to GT. Are we fine with this, or should we get to work on getting that third FA? The Flash ^{talk} 23:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Scorpion is working on getting Lisa to FA. Theleftorium 23:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah he is, i am colaborating as well lets hope it gose well.--Saint Pedrolas J. ^{Hohohohohoh merry christmas} 23:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I had been notified about it, but I haven't been worried too much because I think we can have Lisa to FA by then. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. --Saint Pedrolas J. ^{Hohohohohoh merry christmas} 01:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, just checking ;) The Flash ^{talk} 17:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder whether those Hollywood types totally screwed us over...

Well, the documentary is on next Sunday, and the bitterness within me is kicking in when I read things like this [27] that they did come to England to interview people, but couldn't be bothered to talk to me. They even talked to the kid who had the Hiemlich done on him because his friend saw it on the show, which I'm certain they wouldn't have found out about unless it was mentioned in the "Homer at the Bat" article. So my thoughts turned to the question of whether we will even get a tiny mention: I think the answer to that is, no. Gran² 17:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that whole thing kind of went nowhere. I guess we weren't crazy enough for them. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, we didn't get mentioned. They barely even talked about the show's huge popularity on the internet (there was a thirty second bit in which they talked about the people who complain on messageboards). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ratings table in The Simpsons

As of late, users have taken to adding a ratings table to the main article. For example: [28], [29] and [30]. These tables are always incomplete, and use questionable and unreliable sources. I've always maintained that seasonal ratings have no impact on a show like The Simpsons. It's not like it was a constantly highly rated show, which would make the ratings be of more interest. Considering how big the article is, such a table is basically just space wasting trivia. True, we do include ratings in episode pages, but I think ratings says more about a single episode than they do about a season. Either way, I thought I would bring this up here to try to get more opinions. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the table does take up too much space, and looks bad. With the episode ratings, it is in paragraph form, not table, and only contains one rating for the episode, not 21 for every season. I also agree the sources are bad, and probably not reliable. CTJF83 chat 07:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, no really point to it, especially when sourced as poorly as it is. Gran² 11:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the ratings would be a perfect addition for the Simpsons episodes list, as a seasons' overview. Nergaal (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Before anything like that is considered, better sources are needed. CTJF83 chat 19:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I see 6 of the 8 refs used in this version as being ok. Am I missing something? Nergaal (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That version has a lot of TBA (which is odd for something years old, wrong acronym I guess) I think the main problem is it looks out of place having a large table of ratings. CTJF83 chat 21:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The only reason that 3/4 of the refs in that version are reliable is that there are only eight references to begin with, and huge portions of "TBA". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The point I am making is that a table like that is actually appropriate and useful for List of The Simpsons episodes as adding two or three columns into the overview table would not change things a lot. Examples of FLs doing this are List of Lost episodes, List_of_Dexter_episodes, or List of The Office (U.S. TV series) episodes. For a show such as big as this I am sure such references exist and was doable for List of House episodes. Nergaal (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Those are all done in a better way then just throwing the ratings on The Simpsons. CTJF83 chat 02:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

high profile source

BBC has a neat top 10 classic episodes article. It is probably worth adding a note in the 10 episode articles about this nod. Nergaal (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure they read through our articles for some of that info, especially the Al Jean rake joke info, which I doubt they would have got from anywhere else (and I doubt they listened to the commentary), which is nice to see. But its a good list (except for The Monkey Suit, and I wouldn't pick SROAOF, but I guess its just for the history). Glad they acknowledge that LETS is considered the best and the show went downhill after season 9. Gran² 20:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

FT?

I probably missed the discussion, but we only have one Featured topic now?! Are we planning on reclaiming GT and making them FT? CTJF83 chat 03:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The other ones were demoted ages ago. I don't think we'll be able to get any of the seasons to FT. Not anytime soon, anyway. Theleftorium 18:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Aww, we should push for FTs again. CTJF83 chat 18:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Canyonero (car)

This article is due to be deleted; is there a place within the Wikiproject where the content can be integrated? THF (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I redirected the article to The Last Temptation of Krust. Theleftorium 14:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 01:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Our unreferenced BLPs:

• Tonino Accolla (Dec 2007)
• Karl Wiedergott (Oct 2008)
• Nancy Kruse (Oct 2008)
• Bob Anderson (director) (Dec 2008)
• Ned Goldreyer (May 2009)
• Lisette Dufour (Jun 2009)
• Rachel Pulido (Jul 2009)
• Shaun Cashman (Jul 2009)
• Tom Gammill and Max Pross (Jul 2009)
• Claudia Mota (Aug 2009)
• Nell Scovell (Oct 2009)

Lacking sources:

• Danny Elfman
• Jesse Leon McCann
• Steve Young (writer)

Guess we should make this a target. Gran² 08:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I sure hope they won't be PRODed at the same time... Theleftorium 21:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I added an IMDB ref to the first one. I didn't look into whether it was notable. I think all of them can have an IMDB link added, and the BLP tag removed. The whole unrefed BLP thing is pretty silly. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I did some cleanup work at Ian Maxtone-Graham. I basically started from scratch, so there may be some other potentially usable material in the page's history. Zagalejo^^^ 09:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice job, IMG and Sternin removed. Gran² 15:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark Ervin has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Ervin. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

List of The Simpsons billboard gags

I've started this article. THF (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I nominated it for AfD. Theleftorium 13:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone add that to the list, or tell me how to do it? This Wikiproject is different than the rest. I see Articles for deletion in the announcements, but don't know how to add to it. Dream Focus 22:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It is updated automatically by a bot. We're lazy around here. :) Theleftorium 15:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And now a user has added the billboard gag to the infobox [31]. My rationale for keeping it out has always been that it is in a small portion of episodes, and why should it infobox status over other recurring credits jokes? Why not add a sax solo field? Or a "Ralph's one-liner" field? Or a "Whatever flies across the screen at the beginning" field? Hell, why not a "Is it the long, medium or short version of the opening? Either way, the infobox should only contain fields that either apply to every episode, or could/will apply to every episode (The commentary field is kind of pushing it, but in theory, there will some day be a commentary for every episode (I very highly doubt that they will go back and add billboard gags for every episode). Otherwise, giving the joke a spot in the infobox when the opening credits has numerous other jokes is undue weight. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

We should perhaps have a second template box for the high-def episodes. Yes, it's only 5% of the episodes now, but it will be 10% in a year, and 20% in three years--and then it's going to be a pain in the butt that we're deleting the information and having to recreate it.

The Simpsons is one of the few useful areas of Wikipedia. It's a shame that so many are trying to drag it down to the poor standards of the rest of the encyclopedia by insisting on an un-Simpsonesque adherence to bureaucracy over usefulness. THF (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That's right, our main goal is to get rid off all content relating to the show and make it as useless as possible. It's not like the members of this project have contributed a dozen FAs and 200+ GAs relating to The Simpsons or anything. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

For the seventh time: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters in The Simpsons

There was a time when I vehemently opposed the deletion of this list, but now I really could care less. I think I'm going to stay out of this one. Users (mostly editors who focus on other television shows) like to say that Simpsons content is allowed to skirt around guidelines and have crufty useless pages. When they say this, that list is generally what they focus on and they ignore all of the great content that we have generated (because after all, one controversial list means all content relating to a topic sucks, right?). It's not my favourite list, and I really wouldn't miss it (because it is hard to maintain), but it does have its uses (and it is the project's 51st most viewed page, so obviously some users find it useful).

This is ridiculous. CTJF83 chat 18:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

How easy do you think it would be to merge it with the guest stars list? Nergaal (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well all of the names of the one-time characters who were voiced by guest stars are there... to be honest I don't think there's much else which could be mentioned there. Gran² 19:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• They rampage around, managing to delete other articles with less daily views, that have far less people noticing and participating in the AFD to stop them, and then come back to articles like this whenever they think they can manage it. The Wikipedia policy is to Ignore all Rules and use common sense. Is anything gained by destroying the article? Is the article hurting anyone? Is there any reason to destroy it other than some people don't like it? If a dozen or so people argued constantly on the guideline pages and ganged up on everyone to make changes, without the other 99.999999% of Wikipedia users even noticing or participating, would these suggested guidelines be something you'd take seriously, and allow them to use as an excuse to destroy things they don't like? Dream Focus 19:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons couch gags (2nd nomination) couch gags this time. CTJF83 chat 04:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

IRC?

Does anyone use the Simpsons IRC room anymore? CTJF83 chat 19:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I would, but I never remember to start IRC. :P Theleftorium 19:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL, we should go back to the days of being on there, and working on GAs together, Left CTJF83 chat 19:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps we should work out a clear time when we can all go on. IRC chats were certainly useful for coordination and the like... Gran² 19:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a good time for me daily, and for a 3-5 hours after 0500 UTC. CTJF83 chat 20:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Whats IRC. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Internet Relay Chat, it's live chat, we have a Simpsons room so we can collaborate on projects, or just chat. CTJF83 chat 21:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In all seriousness, it is in many ways the equivalent of facebook now when WinXP did not exist. Wow, there are ppl now on internet who never even heard of (m)IRC. I wonder if they used the internet before google even existed. Nergaal (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:The PTA Disbands

• Talk:The PTA Disbands

Please would appreciate others to weigh in here. There is some insistence on adding something non-noteworthy to this article. Cirt (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Mike Scully's life is a metaphor for everything that's gone wrong with this world

Incoherent ramblings:

Well I've been doing some biographies this week. Some are pretty GA ready (Mike Scully, Rich Appel, Matt Selman) but still need some work and expansion (if anybody can find any more sources on these three, then great). Others are not that far off (David Mirkin and Mike Reiss, need expanding and cleaning up, but getting there, and Left is working Al Jean). I've done alot of the 'unsourced' bios, to save them from eventual deletion (see section above) but most of those will remain start class for now.

Anyway, my main point is outlining the future biography targets we need to work on (from the point of view of importance and also sheer doability as potential GAs): Sam Simon, Jon Vitti, Greg Daniels, John Swartzwelder, David Silverman, David X. Cohen, Bill Oakley, Josh Weinstein and Brad Bird, as well as possibly a few others. Due his recent 'drama' Conan's page has been pretty much done by other people, which is great. So there we go, I'm going to try and finish up Scully, Appel, Selman, Mirkin and Reiss (as said, if anybody can find some more sources or anything that'd really help). Then I'm probably going to try and work on Sam Simon, help would be appreciated there, especially when it comes to adding the stuff from Ortved's book because I've misplaced my copy. Gran² 14:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice work! I have Ortved's book so just let me know if there's anything you need. Theleftorium 15:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, his comments about Scully (how the staff felt he the best showrunner from their point of view) would be great. And then his stuff on Simon can eventually be added to his page. Thanks, Gran² 16:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll take look next week. :) Theleftorium 17:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If it helps, Rich Appel was interviewed for Ortved's book, so you might be able to get some bits of information out of that. Excellent work, by the way. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Al Jean is finished. I'd appreciate if someone could read it through and do a copyedit before I nominate it for GAN. Theleftorium 13:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• I can do that this Evening. The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 16:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Alright, thanks. :) Theleftorium 16:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Okay, done. Feel free to review any of my changes. The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 01:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you guys think we could get a "The Simpsons show runners" GT? Theleftorium 14:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well we'd probably need a main article? But aside from that, yes we could. Bill and Josh need doing obviously, I've sort of been laying off doing their pages because I can't really find all that much... But Groening and Brooks are already GAs, Scully and Jean are close. Mirkin and Reiss need some more work, but are not far off. Then that leaves Simon, Oakley and Weinstein. So yeah, it's possible. Gran² 17:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

So close, yet so far

There are just eight articles (six from season 3, two from season 2) in the way of us completing the Featured Topic Drive for seasons two and three, and puts us within striking distance of achieving the once unobtainable goal of getting every classic era episode to GA. I think we should get one big push together and try to finish those articles before the end of the month. Unfortunately, my reading week is over, but I'll pitch in where I can (I think I'll have time to work on one tomorrow).

Here's what's left:

1. "Homer vs. Lisa and the 8th Commandment"
2. "Bart Gets Hit By A Car"
3. "Treehouse of Horror II"
4. "Burns Verkaufen der Kraftwerk"
5. "Bart the Lover"
6. "Homer Alone"
7. "The Otto Show"
8. "Homer Defined"

-- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll work on Bart Gets Hit by a Car next week. Theleftorium 23:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Treehouse of Horror II has been ready for a GAN for months now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The plot section needs more work. A copyedit is probably needed as well. Theleftorium 09:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Opps, I've been slacking too, Homer Defined first, and then whatever is left CTJF83 chat 20:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Pound Foolish

At The Simpsons 138th Episode Spectacular, the DVD commentary is used as the source that Silverman used "Pound Foolish" as a pseudonym. However, it's not mentioned there. I've done some google searching, and I can't find a reliable source that says it. If we remove Silverman and just say that it's directed by "Pound Foolish", it wouldn't be long until an IP replaced it. Perhaps someone else will have better luck finding a source, otherwise, should it just be removed? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a mention in Leaving Springfield: [32]. Does anyone have that book? Theleftorium 11:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I already checked that one. It's just a list of episodes, and that page happens to have both Silverman and "Pound Foolish" (and no, it doesn't say Foolish is Silverman) listed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess we'll just have to change the article then. How about: "was written by Jon Vitti and directed by a person with the pseudonym 'Pound Foolish'"? Theleftorium 09:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Family FT

Hey guys, looks like the FT criteria is increasing on September 1 to half (instead of one third) that need to be FA. We should work on (at least) one more family member so Wikipedia:Featured topics/Simpson family will still be a FT in 6 months with the new criteria. We can finish season 2 and 3 drive first if you guys want. CTJF83 chat 20:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Lisa Simpson is being worked on right now actually. :) Theleftorium 21:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this can be the FA we work on, let me know what you want done. CTJF83 chat 21:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Lisa_Simpson#Comments_from_Scartol. Theleftorium 21:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I want to make sure I do more than enough work to justify claiming this as my first FA. CTJF83 chat 21:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Marge Simpson needs a lot of work, perhaps you can start on that? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Lisa's page is ready to go, so I'll nominate it at FAC soon. If anyone has a chance, could they please look through the article? Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Good luck! I'll see if I can take a look tomorrow. Theleftorium 21:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Archive 7/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Archive 7/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 23:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"Simpsons Character Template" suggestion

Hey guys, new to the project, it seems you're all doing an ace job. Was just thinking, maybe adding in a 'catchphrase' field to the character template might be cool. If left blank it wouldn't show up, characters can have listed multiple catchphrases. Homer's is "D'oh!", Barney's is just a belch, Dr. Nick's is "Hi everybody!" etc etc. Obviously there are some which could be considered catchphrases but aren't as recognisable and so shouldn't be included. Just a suggestion! Autonova (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, welcome! :) It's a good idea, but unfortunately I think it would only lead to edit wars over what is considered a catchphrase and what isn't. Theleftorium 15:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

A bunch of AFDs

For those that were unaware, there are a bunch of current afds for writers and directors.

• 17 Mar 2010 – Joshua Sternin (talk) nominated for deletion by Alankc; see discussion.
• 17 Mar 2010 – Jeffrey Ventimilia (talk) nominated for deletion by Alankc; see discussion.
• 17 Mar 2010 – Rachel Pulido (talk) nominated for deletion by Alankc; see discussion.
• 17 Mar 2010 – Jace Richdale (talk) nominated for deletion by Alankc; see discussion.
• 17 Mar 2010 – Ned Goldreyer (talk) nominated for deletion by Alankc; see discussion.
• 17 Mar 2010 – David Richardson (writer) (talk) nominated for deletion by Alankc; see discussion.
• 17 Mar 2010 – Steve Pepoon (talk) nominated for deletion by Alankc; see discussion.
• 17 Mar 2010 – Ralph Sosa (talk) nominated for deletion by Alankc; see discussion.
• 17 Mar 2010 – Rob Oliver (talk) nominated for deletion by Alankc; see discussion.

-- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It's hardly suprising, but sheesh, did he really need to do them all at once? The only ones I'd vote to keep (and well, I will vote to keep...) are Sternin, Ventinmilia and Richdale... I found no sources for Pulido or Goldreyer when I was cleaning our BLPs, even though I think they're notable, and didn't even bother for the bottom four. Maybe there is something, who knows. Gran² 19:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

After looking through, I think the pages for Sternin, Ventimilia and Richdale should be kept as they are.

I think Sosa and Oliver are just under the threshold, as they don't appear to have a lot of other credits.

Goldreyer, Pulido, Richardson and Pepoon appear to have notability due to their extensive credits, but all three pages would need more sourcing. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• What is of concern to some is that there are a number of other AFDs outside of the Simpson world from this nominator that are worrisome, such as his nominating Jim Morris (Pixar). I know that nominators are never required to practice WP:BEFORE, and that some editors considered it incivil to even complain about that lack, but how about WP:ATD? Is that becoming historical? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Season two GTC

Season two has been nominated at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/The Simpsons (season 2)/archive1. Nice work everyone! :) Theleftorium 22:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Great job everyone! CTJF83 chat 21:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator?

Why do we not have a project coordinator? I just became aware of the position, here is the LGBT example, should we elect someone? CTJF83 chat 21:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess we always thought there wasn't much need for one, since this is a much smaller and more focused project with fewer active members. I don't know if one would really make much of a difference. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That's true, we are a top notch project, with all of our GAs/FAs, etc. CTJF83 chat 02:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Scorpion. A coordinator isn't needed on a small project like this one. Theleftorium 13:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, CTJF83 chat 17:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: User:Scorpion0422 is now the WikiProject coordinator.  Done. :P -- Cirt (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

April Fools was last week! ;) CTJF83 chat 17:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Simpsons episodes by season

Twenty-one subcategories of Category:The Simpsons episodes have been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Mission accomplished!

Ladies and gentlemen, after over three years of work, we have finally achieved one of our earliest goals: Getting every classic era episode of the show to GA status. It began in early 2007 with Homerpalooza and it ends April 19, 2010 with Homer Defined. Now we have to work at making sure we don't lose any of our early GAs. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, we should get some kind of award for this, but I'm guessing nobody will care. But this is great work one and all. But yes, some of the season 8 and 9 GAs are looking a bit ropey so I'm guessing we should do something wit them at some point. Anyway, Gran² 16:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Great work everyone!! CTJF83 chat 18:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Woo-hoo! Nice work everyone! Theleftorium 19:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Guys, just wanted to stop by and say congratulations, this is a truly impressive feat :) What next? rst20xx (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

So The Joy of Sect has been scheduled for tomorrow's TFA

Unless I'm mistaken that's the first time Raul's just picked one of our articles, without it going through the requests page first. Keep a watch out tomorrow. Gran² 13:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool! That's one of our best episode articles. :) Theleftorium 15:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I was surprised to look at the main page today and see that there. I guess we won't be able to request anything for a while, was anyone planning on submitting any? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I might nominate Lisa the Vegetarian in October. I think the space between should be enough. Theleftorium 15:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

For those curious, the article ended up getting 65,000 views [33]. Not bad for a page that normally gets 100-150 views. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It was pretty amazing that there wasn't a single complaint that either a) there was an episode as TFA and b) a Simpsons article as TFA. Times do change, in a large part due to us. Gran² 10:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.

Books

Related articles

wikipediabooks

Make your own book with Wikiproject Wikipedia-Books
6 June 2011

ArbCom tally pending; Pediapress renderer; fundraiser update; unreferenced BLP drive
6 December 2010

Fundraisers start for Wikipedia and Citizendium; controversial content and leadership
15 November 2010

Wikipedia books launched worldwide
10 May 2010

Wikipedia-Books: Proposed deletion process extended, cleanup efforts
22 March 2010

New Book namespace created
11 January 2010

35k donated, WikiProject for Wikipedia-Books, 2M rated articles, and more
30 November 2009

Books extension enabled
2 March 2009

More articles

Make your own book with Wikiproject Wikipedia-Books 6 June 2011 ArbCom tally pending; Pediapress renderer; fundraiser update; unreferenced BLP drive 6 December 2010 Fundraisers start for Wikipedia and Citizendium; controversial content and leadership 15 November 2010 Wikipedia books launched worldwide 10 May 2010 Wikipedia-Books: Proposed deletion process extended, cleanup efforts 22 March 2010 New Book namespace created 11 January 2010 35k donated, WikiProject for Wikipedia-Books, 2M rated articles, and more 30 November 2009 Books extension enabled 2 March 2009

Recently an editor removed all the tags from all the various Simpsons books (such as Book:Treehouse of Horror, Book:The Simpsons (season 1),) etc... saying that the project only tags mainspace articles.

I'm not saying it's wrong to only tag mainspace articles, but why would you not tag books? These are considered part of content-space (although not mainspace), and need to be monitored for POV issues, style, presentation etc... Not tagging them would also cause the project to miss out on deletion discussions (should they happen) through WP:AALERTS and similar things, and will make it harder for editors looking to notify relevant people about discussions related to books on The Simpsons.

Since many of you may not know about books, I've place links to the various Signpost stories that talked about them. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You know, making a book part of a project doesn't mean that it will automatically be monitored more. They're already part of two projects (both of which have more active members than this one), so why is a third needed? Besides, your rationale ("need to be monitored for POV issues, style, presentation etc") can also be used for categories, templates and images, so should we tag all of them as well? No, because our focus is on mainspace articles. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This project is subscribed to Article Alerts, so yes it does mean that tagging them with the banner means they will "automatically be monitored more". (And I would also contend that projects should in general tag categories, templates, etc... I don't see what is lost by tagging them, or why taking care of templates and categories should be discouraged. After all anyone who wants to focus on articles can easily ignored categories if they are tagged. But that's another discussion.)

Why is a third project needed? Projects don't work in opposition, and each bring something to the table. Atom is tagged by both WP Physics and WP Phemistry, because the article is of relevance to both. Likewise in this case WikiProject Wikipedia-books takes care of all books, but we can rarely address more than generalities. I'm involved with WP Physics mostly, so if a sociology book comes out, my opinion is not usually as helpful as the voice from someone that would come from WP Sociology when issues related to content come up. Likewise I am not a Simpsons nut, so I do not possess the knowledge most of you people have. There's no equivalent book for the Simpsons yet. Take a look at Book:Family Guy. Is that book complete, or is something missing? Should other characters be included? Do other characters even have articles? I don't know. WPTV people might know. But someone from WP:WikiProject Family Guy would definitely know.

When Book:The Simpsons get created, these issues will show up as well. And no project is better equipped to address them than this one. So that's why, IMO, it should be tagged. That and I can't think of a single negative brought by tagging books. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Any comment? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Marge in Chains

• [34] and [35]

This is a WP:GA article. I have helped to get it to that quality status, so I would rather not myself get into a fracas here. Perhaps another editor could take a look at this recent issue? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Good article template

Consensus has been reached to use the template:

• {{Good article}}

Please feel free to add it to all WP:GA rated articles within this WikiProject, in the same manner of placement used as {{featured article}}. Thanks for all of your quality improvement work within the topic of this WikiProject! :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Futurama's revival

Hello. I'm planning on reviving the Futurama Wikiproject. And since Futurama and The Simpsons are both made by Matt Groening, I've decided to ask any members of this project to join. So uh... anybody wanna join? GamerPro64 (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Watchlist

• Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_Simpsons/Watchlist

Do editors check this for vandalism, unsourced additions, etc? I catch things on here from time to time. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I never do. But for kicks I clicked on one, and ended up reverting it as vandalismish. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I do from time to time. It's very useful on days that there's a Simpsons article on the main page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Watchlist is on my watch list, so I see any changes...whether I catch/notice them is another issue.... CTJF83 pride 18:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it's a useful gizmo. Gran² 20:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

GT/FT Drive

Is anyone wanting to continue our drives? I would like one day for every episode page to be at least GA. CTJF83 pride 03:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think people are waiting on the DVD commentaries, although I don't know much about it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

10,11,12 are out already...do you want to help? CTJF83 pride 04:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, am burned out on doing episode pages. The season 10+ commentaries aren't particularily informative (a good chunk of every commentary consists of them laughing at their jokes and complimenting their own brilliance), and I'm also not overly keen on listening to Mike Scully over and over again. But, I might be able to contribute here and there. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh boy, sounds like "fun" commentary...if you can at least review my GACs, before I submit them, I'd appreciate that! CTJF83 pride 05:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll do some copyediting on any you do, but I'm not writing them. Not getting season 10 onwards to GA is my self-contained protest against the show's decline. Enjoy. Gran² 08:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons episodes rated TV-14

FYI, I don't see that anyone has notified this wikiproject of this discussion. Jclemens (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Simpsons wikia

Solar Dragon (talk · contribs) added links to the Simpsons wikia to a bunch of pages. Since he tagged so many, I figured it was worth discussing. WP:ELNO #12 says "Links normally to be avoided: Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked."

And I think the Simpsons wikia does not meet that. Considering that Lostpedia, one of the finest fansites on the internet, isn't linked on Lost pages, I don't see how WikiSimpsons meets that. And that isn't intended to be a knock at the editors of that wikia, but very few of the pages there are complete. In fact, some of the wikia pages linked to, like Reverend Timothy Lovejoy, copied text from their wikipedia equivalents. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I also agree. The Simpsons wikia is a big mess and it's not something worth linking to. Theleftorium ^(talk) 08:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm suprised Lostpedia isn't linked, because Wookiepedia and Memory Alpha are, but those are two exceptional Wikis. I agree with the sentiments here. Gran² 11:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually Wikisimpsons is much more detailed than Wikipedia in all aspects of The Simpsons, except maybe episode plots which are quite thin in some places. I find it funny that you didn't start to talk about it on my talk page and ask me to stop rather to start a conversation here about it. "Simpsons wikia is a big mess", no it is not actually. The skin for one looks much more attractive than Wikipedia's and we have many detailed pages. Please explain what you mean by a big mess. And, I disagree with text copied from Wikipedia and if I notice any, I will remove it, even if it means making the article a stub again. So, next time try talking to me. As a bureaucrat on Wikisimpsons, I usually speak for the wiki. I don't like the way you seem to think that any other wiki other than Wikipedia is crap as that is not the truth. That is the way you are acting though. Remove the links if you want, I personally couldn't give a shit. Solar Dragon (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you think Wikisimpsons is such a shit hole, why don't you make it better instead of slagging it off. Solar Dragon (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't start a discussion on your talk page because I wasn't around when you were doing it. I figured that starting one here would allow for a wider range of opinions. As an example, Reverend Lovejoy contains quite a bit of copied text from wikipedia, yet it's nominated to be one of your featured articles. And, actually, it is quite possible for a wikia to be better than wikipedia. I pointed out Lostpedia, and Gran pointed out Wookiepedia and Memory Alpha, all three of which are excellent sites. WikiSimpsons is improving, but it still has a long way to go.

Either way, this is not about the quality of the site, it's about whether it should be linked, and policy says no. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know. If someone had pointed it out to me that it was against policy, I would have not bothered. I am against content copied from other websites, especially Wikipedia, therefore I have put the Wikidump template on the Rev. Lovejoy page on Wikisimpsons and it will not be featured until it has been sorted out. If you (or any one else) notices any other articles with content copied from Wikipedia, tell me what they are and I will try to sort them out. Solar Dragon (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Scorpion on not linking. CTJF83 chat 17:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, after reading through the page that Scorpion linked to, agree with Scorpion. Feel free to remove my links and I wish someone had pointed me to that sooner before I put the effort in. Solar Dragon (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps no one noticed while your work was in progress. I'll remove them since you agree now. CTJF83 chat 21:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ariel Ponywether / Firefox News

I have removed from several Simpsons episode articles citations to Ariel Ponywether's episode reviews on Firefox News (firefox.org), which is a fanblog site. A fan review should not be cited as though it were professional critical commentary. Thanks, The Hero of This Nation (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Stark Raving Dad

I know I've been saying this for about two years, but I think the article is nearing FA quality. I've slowly been improving it, and I think it's just about ready. All I need to do is one more sweep for sources, and a copyedit (or three). So, if anyone could take a look at it for me, I'd appreciate it. However, this really isn't a great time for me to nominate things. I just got back from an eight day trip, and I have a few other trips coming up in the not-too-distant future (including some time next week). I want to try to get it done while I have it my mind (because if I put it off until later it will probably take me another year to do it), so if I nominated it this week, would someone be able to watch the FAC for me after I left? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I might be able to help out. I also have an ambiguous schedule the next seven days, but maybe a couple editors could do what's required. Anyone else? If so, it would be good to start it sooner rather than later for me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be willing to help. Theleftorium ^(talk) 08:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

List of guest stars

I have been working on a list of guest stars on The Simpsons on-and-off for a while now and am not yet finished. At one point I quit, seeing as how there is no way to reference the guest stars pass season 14—the Complete Guide to Our Favorite Family books end on that season and the official website's episode guide doesn't list guest star appearances pass like season 10. But when I saw that Simpsons World The Ultimate Episode Guide: Seasons 1-20 was coming out, I decided to put back on working on the list. If anyone objects to the List of guest stars looking like this or has any input, let me know. Otherwise, I'll try to have the list ready by October, when the book comes out, so by then all that has to be added are the references. Yes, it will be a long list and will probably have to be split up, but for a show that has been running for 21 seasons, I think it's warranted.Tj terrorible1 (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Gran2 is already working on it: User:Gran2/Sandbox. Feel free to add sources there. Theleftorium ^(talk) 14:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've already implemented the table with basic sourcing and have pretty much abandoned it after that. Feel free to get the sources from that sandbox though. As for your design Tj terrorible1, it looks very nice, good work. However, I don't we can justify the length and certainly not more than one list. Also the main benefit of the present list is being able to quickly sort a see exactly how many times anybody has guest starred throughout the shows run. The main benefit of your version is the ease of skipping to the seasons. Each version has benefits as well as drawbacks. I like this style, so I might be in favour of switching to this, but the practicalities may negate that. Gran² 15:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the pictures and I like being able to sort and see overall appearances by each person. CTJF83 chat 15:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Characters' articles

IMHO, too many characters have their own articles. There are what, 30 characters with their own articles? In that spirit, I've nominated 6 ancillary characters (Professor Frink, Radioactive Man, Cletus, Rainier Wolfcastle, Lionel Hutz, and Nick Riviera for deletion) Purplebackpack89 18:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Why deletion? If you don't think they should have articles why don't you suggest merging them? Gran² 18:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Because there are some flaws with merge templates, at least the last time I checked. The major ones are that merge discussions don't really have set end dates, and in general they have less community imput Purplebackpack89 19:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professor Frink CTJF83 chat 17:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Lisa getting married

To bad we couldn't have done a DYK.[36] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal: The Simpsons: Minutes to Meltdown

Please participate at Talk:The Simpsons: Minutes to Meltdown. Theleftorium ^(talk) 13:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

We now have less than 300 start articles

Yay us! Hopefully someday we'll have more GAs than start-class articles. Theleftorium ^(talk) 14:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for it. CTJF83 chat 17:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Topic drives?

Is anybody interested in continuing the topic drives? Some limited interest was shown for the season 10, but that is not going very well. Other alternatives would be:

1. Treehouse of horror series: 11 of 23 ready - even in the crappy years these are decent; the problem would be limited availability of DVD commentaries, but this should be ok considering that the show received plenty of coverage in online sources in the recent years.
2. Seasons: 11 still not done - would be of limited interest to those not interested in doing lists, but would be nice to have an overall topic to link all those subtopics that are already done
3. Main topic: plenty of work left here but since nothing is happening, I imagine people would give time to this drive it enough chip in.

Thoughts? Nergaal (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm up for 10-12. I'd work on THOH, with help, what do you mean by Main topic? I'm up for almost any drive, if I can get some help, I'm not motivated if I have to do it all alone. CTJF83 chat 19:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Another thing that needs to be done at some point is the sprucing up of the older episode GAs, especially seasons 8 and 9, to bring them up to the standard of the newer ones (seasons 2 and 3). Gran² 00:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. CTJF83 chat 19:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Gone mergin'

Okay after ten minutes careful consideration, I propose the following character article suggestions:

1. Split List of recurring characters in The Simpsons in two parts (say A-M and N-Z or something similar).
2. Perhaps then reintergrate List of media personalities in The Simpsons into them.
3. Merge a sourced Snowball and perhaps Santa's Little Helper into Simpson family. Delete List of animals in The Simpsons. Snowball and SLH are the only animals of note as well as perhaps Blinky (who could if people want, be sourced and merged with the recurring characters list?). Mr Teeny can be covered on Krusty's page (and only really needs one sourced sentence), Jub-Jub on Patty and Selma's page. The rest are all adequately covered on episode pages.
4. I'd also argue for deleting List of fictional characters within The Simpsons. Itchy and Scratchy have a page, Radioactive Man (and Fallout Boy) can be moved to either the celebrity or recurring character lists. Do any of the other characters really justify mentions? Maybe The Happy Little Elves. McBain can be covered in Wolfcastle's section. Malibu Stacy?
5. I also propose merging Martin Prince, Cletus Spuckler and Hans Moleman.
6. And also I propose merging Lenny and Carl together.

Discuss these crazy ramblings. Gran² 19:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's what I think:

1. I agree.

2. I agree.

3. I agree about Snowball (not sure about SLH yet). The other animals can be merged with the recurring characters list.

4. Maybe, but I think we should focus on the stuff above first. Theleftorium ^(talk) 20:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

5. Same as 4.

6. I agree. Much of the content is duplicated. See also http://tv.ign.com/articles/730/730957p4.html, a reliable source which lists them together.

Theleftorium ^(talk) 20:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Left...except that SLH should be merged to the family page. CTJF83 chat 22:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think we should merge Springfield Elementary School into the recurring characters list + List of fictional locations in The Simpsons. Maybe we should split List of recurring characters in The Simpsons into three instead? Theleftorium ^(talk) 06:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, three parts and merge in the teachers (scrap the one-time ones listed). Also, do we really need Van Houten family? Or Flanders family? They could go to a three part list as well. Locations needs to be cleaned up at least, places like "Guidopolis" and "It Blows" don't really justify a mention. Gran² 10:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot about the family articles. I think those should be merged as well. Theleftorium ^(talk) 18:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of splitting the recurring characters page - it makes it a lot harder to navigate. I think we could just trim it a bit. We're able to explain Homer's role and personality in just six paragraphs, so there's not reason why a character like Jebediah Springfield needs such a large section devoted to him. I wouldn't be against merging the celebrities page, but again there would be length issues.

I'd have no problem with deleting the animals page. Snowball probably could be merged, but I'd say leave SLH for now. I'd also have no problem with losing the fictional characters page. I once tried to nominate it for deletion, but was unable to because there was a freeze on afds because of the arbcom case (and I just forgot about it). I'm not sure about merging Lenny and Carl, but I'd certainly have no problem with Martin Prince, Cletus and Moleman being merged. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

A new season is out on DVD, that can only mean...

That they mention wikipedia a few times! I'm through the first three discs and this is what we have:

• The Bart Wants What it Wants - Joel H. Cohen says that his brother Robert Cohen (writer)'s page says he was the basis for Milhouse (I checked the page, and it never said anything along those lines).
• Blame it on Lisa - Al Jean: "This year [2002], they [the WGA Awards] inaugurated the animation category, which, you check wikipedia, we've done pretty well in."
• Gump Roast - Matt Groening says "Contrary to popular belief, Elizabeth Taylor did not walk out on us." This MIGHT be a reference to wikipedia, but I find it funny because if anyone had that notion, it's because of this quote Groening gave in an interview: "She was to play little Maggie, saying her first word. We did 24 takes, but they were always too sexual. Finally Liz said, 'F**k you!' and walked out." [37]

I'm back, by the way. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha, that's so Jean. His only positive endorsement of us is to point how many awards they've won. Gran² 19:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Another one:

• Poppa's Got a Brand New Badge - Al Jean: "There's this thing online where it says 'Homer is modeled after Al's dad', which couldn't be, I didn't create the show, but secondly, my dad was really hurt. [laughs] So, I went to wikipedia and I deleted it." It's worth noting that there's a big silence after that, so maybe he said something else that was cut. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Updates to TV#MOS

I'm not sure how many people monitor WP:MOSTV or even WP:TV (the basic WikiProject for all of us), but we've been trying to get some feedback on additions to the TV Manual of Style. It largely has to do with the inclusion of "Overview" tables at the start of the page, the order in which season lists are presented (currently, there is no concrete order), and what is considered too much info for DVDs (i.e. should we be placing every detail about the box set in the article, from each interview to the aspect ratio, or should be keep it more generalized). Please see discussion at WT:MOSTV#Updates to the MOS. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The Simpsons articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the The Simpsons articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

TheSimpsons.com has changed its page links

And this is annoying because a number of articles, mainly GAs & FAs, use those pages as a reference. The new links are like this: http://www.thesimpsons.com/recaps/season3/#episode1 rather than http://www.thesimpsons.com/episode_guide/0301.htm . Perhaps we should start fixing some of the dead links. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Bot help? CTJF83 chat 03:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Storyboarding the Simpsons way

I'm not sure how many of you know about this link...

But I found http://dsudesign.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/storyboarding-resources/ which links to http://www.animationmeat.com/pdf/televisionanimation/strybrd_the_simpsonsway.pdf , which discusses how the Simpsons is storyboarded. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting needed at GA candidate Bill Oakley

• Bill Oakley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Bill Oakley/GA1

I am reviewing the GA candidate, Bill Oakley. It is pretty close, but needs a bit of copyediting — specifically, with regard to run-on sentences, and sentences that are a bit too long, and also in some places overusage of commas, and see also some other GA Review recommendations, at Talk:Bill Oakley/GA1. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 10:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

New episode guide

Simpsons World The Ultimate Episode Guide: Seasons 1–20 is now available in Canada and the US of A. It should be a useful resource, but it's not cheap. The listed price for Chapters is $170 (Canadian), which is... Quite a bit for a book. A local library has a copy so I'm going to borrow that, so if anyone has any requests for sourcing, let me know. -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 18:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Does it offer anything extra to the entries for the good episodes? Or is the only new material for seasons 15-20? Gran² 19:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, I haven't seen it yet. The book is apparantly 1200 pages, so hopefully they added some stuff to make it wothwhile. And, as it turns out, I wasn't able to get the book at the library because someone checked out the book before I did, so it'll be a while before I can get it. -- "Don't blame me, I voted for Scorpion0422" 20:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

THOH GT?

Back when I first nominated the Treehouse of Horror (series) page at FAC, a user asked if it was the first step towards a THOH FT. I said no, but now I think it might not be a bad idea. The project hasn't had a big collaboration in a while due to our finishing of the season FT drives, and this might be a good one. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Featured topic Drive/ToH, episodes 1-8, and 19 are GAs. Kang and Kodos (which might be a good idea to include) is also a GA. So, that means we have 12 other articles. THOH episodes are generally the second most promoted episode of a season (after the premiere), so sources shouldn't be too difficult to find. There are also DVD commentaries for 9-12. Is there any interest in tackling this and getting it done before the year ends? -- "Don't blame me, I voted for Scorpion0422" 15:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I can take care of Treehouse of Horror X if noone minds. CTJF83 chat 20:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'm free next week so I might be able to get some work done. :) Theleftorium ^(talk) 09:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to participation!

Hello!

As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary on January 15 and our new project: Contributions. I'm posting across these Wikiprojects to engage you, the community, to work to build Wikipedia by finance but also by content. We seek donations not only financially, but by collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here.

Visit the Contribution project page and the Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. Keegan, Wikimedia Fundraiser 2010 (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Another source

I found:

• Cain, Geoffrey. "South Korean Cartoonists Cry Foul Over The Simpsons." TIME. Saturday October 30, 2010.

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"That's really a cheat, isn't it?"

On one of the DVD commentaries for the 13th season, the producers made a joke about killing off Fat Tony and replacing him with his cousin Fit Tony, who then gains weight and becomes known as Fat Tony. Sounds ridiculous, right? Well, of course, they actually went ahead and did it in Donnie Fatso. So now Fat Tony is dead and we now have Fit Tony, except that he looks exactly like Fat Tony and is in fact now called Fat Tony.

So, how do we treat this? Do we make the Fat Tony page specific to the old character, then create a "Fit Tony" section at the recurring character page, or do we keep info on both characters in the same page? And it does appear that Fat/Fit/whatever Tony will return, because there is an episode in the copyright database called "The Real Housewives of Fat Tony". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Portal:The Simpsons/The Simpsons news

• Portal:The Simpsons/The Simpsons news

No updates since August 2010 - someone care to do the honors? :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought that the news section had been removed from the portal. Sure, I'll add some updates. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Cirt (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, lets not forget that we need a bot next time to update the news for The Simpsons portal. JJ98 (Talk) 04:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Nah, Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs) is much better than a bot. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Homerpedia has returned!

In case you haven't noticed, The Simpsons Game is the TFA for today. I don't know if this is on purpose or a coincidence, but December 17 is also the anniversary of the airing of Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire. So, this is the third Simpsons article to make the main page on this day after The Simpsons in 2007 and Homer Simpson last year. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

At least they can't yell at us: that's two TFAs in one year that we didn't nominate, Raul just picked them. Gran² 12:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

WE ROCK!! (I have been slacking lately though) CTJF83 chat 13:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

What Ctjf83 said. Theleftorium ^(talk) 17:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

OR issue at "Bart Sells His Soul"

Please see diff link. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Started sect for discussion about this, at Talk:Bart Sells His Soul. -- Cirt (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the end

Yes folks, Homer's Enemy has been scheduled to be the TFA on January 6. This means that there will have been 2, yes TWO Simpsons articles on the main page within a three week timeframe. This, of course, means that wikipedia will self-destruct and it could also mean the end of the world, we just don't know yet.

This being said, perhaps we should try fixing the article up a bit because it doesn't look up to par with our newer episode FAs. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

How very odd, I thought they hated us. Anyway, we should spruce it up. I might even suggest we ask Raul to swap it for another one... Gran² 16:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

He usually doesn't switch articles unless there are copyright concerns involved. I have time this week, I'll do what I can. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've expanded the article, so now it looks much better than it used to, although more copyediting never hurts. It could also use some more reception, but I think it's pretty much ready for the main page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice job. Gran² 18:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Can someone check the grammar of "characters'" in "Hank Azaria provided the voice of Frank Grimes, and based some of the characters' mannerisms on actor William H. Macy". Doesn't seem right to me. CTJF83 chat 16:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Homer's Enemy was viewed 65,200 times during its stint on the main page. [38]. For comparison, The Simpsons Game had 48,200 views last month [39]. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

2010: A year in review

For those curious, this is what our article assessment chart looked like on December 31, 2006:

And for those curious, the 2 Featured quality articles we had at the end of 2006 were The Simpsons and List of The Simpsons episodes, while the GA was Homer Simpson.

The Simpsons articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Class
	FA	2					2
	A		1				1
	GA	1					1
	B	6	26	15	8		55
	Start	2	28	415	64	27	536
	Stub		5	22	84	53	164
	Unassessed
	Total	11	60	452	156	80	759

This is what it looked like on December 31, 2007:

For those curious, these are the GAs & featured content we had at the end of 2007.

The Simpsons articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Quality
	FA	2	9	7	1		19
	A	1	1	1			3
	GA	2	6	59			67
	B	4	17	9	4		34
	Start	1	32	385	69	3	490
	Stub		1	23	108	19	151
	Assessed	10	66	484	182	22	764
	Total	10	66	484	182	22	764

And this is what it looked like on December 31, 2008:

The Simpsons articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Quality
	FA	4	1	10			15
	FL	1	11	1	1		14
	A		2	3			5
	GA	4	8	121	3		136
	B		15	8	5		28
	C		7	10	2		19
	Start		19	319	59	2	399
	Stub		1	25	119	22	167
	List		1	1	2		4
	Assessed	9	65	498	191	24	787
	Total	9	65	498	191	24	787

and this is from December 31, 2009:

The Simpsons articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Quality
	FA	4	3	13	1		21
	FL	1	12	1	1		15
	A		1	3			4
	GA	4	13	195	7		219
	B	1	14	13	6		34
	C		4	28	5		37
	Start		12	243	60	2	317
	Stub		1	21	120	18	160
	List		4	1	2		7
	Assessed	10	64	518	202	20	814
	Total	10	64	518	202	20	814

And here it is now:

The Simpsons articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	Total
FA	4	3	13	1	21
FL	1	12	1	1	15
A		1	3		4
GA	4	13	211	11	239
B	1	15	34	9	59
C		5	41	10	56
Start		11	221	57	289
Stub		1	13	124	138
List		3	2	4	9
Assessed	10	64	539	217	830
Total	10	64	539	217	830

Well, after the spectacular improvements we saw in previous years, 2010 seems rather disappointing. No gains at all in FAs, FLs or A class articles and "only" 20 new GAs. I think this is largely due to the end of our featured topic drives because now every episode from seasons 1-9 are GA or higher. However, we saw a marked improvement amongst our crew member pages thanks to Gran2, which is largely responsible for diriving up our number of B and C class pages. Our stub count also went down by 22. All in all, it was a good year, but lets try to do better in 2011. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem continuing on our topic drives, for 10-13 (or all seasons), but no one wants to do it. CTJF83 chat 15:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)