Talk:Bart the General

Alternate Bart the General

Here is a 4 minute long alternate episode someone made http://virtual.dyc.edu/~foogirl/ghxyk2/video/BART%20THE%20GENERAL.mp4

deleting 2nd sentence

Since the Simpsons in syndicated all over the country, stating how many times it has aired could quickly go out of date. So i'm going to delete that sentence. --Natalie 00:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Bart the General parody

Someone posted about a parody, giving a youtube address, and crediting it to "the popular famicon website." Seeing as famicon.net (the site referred to) is a mousetrapping, screen-spamming mess of a site, it seemed the wisest thing to remove the citation Bustter 09:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I DISAGREE! 00:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)00:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)00:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)00:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)00:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)00:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)00:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, however, under protest. 130.156.160.65

I still diagree! 01:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)01:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)01:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)01:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)01:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I too protest.

Should -your- personal taste of a website or meme really dictate what should be placed in an informational article? It doesn't sound like a very scientific approach here.

Science is an evil of mankind. I do not let it dictate my life as you have chosen to let it yours!

Fair use rationale for Image:Herman-simpsons.jpg

Image:Herman-simpsons.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of January 16, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Would recommend trying to remove some weasel words.

2. Factually accurate?: Six sources are not really enough to justify GA status. Ten would be more acceptable.

3. Broad in coverage?: Article appears to be broad in its coverage.

4. Neutral point of view?: Appears to have an NPOV.

5. Article stability? No real evidence of edit wars etc.

6. Images?: Would recommend using {{Non-free use rationale}} for images.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. ISD (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.

1. Some have been removed. Is it enough? Otherwise you must specify wherein the problem lies.

2. The article holds as many references as possible. I have checked the internet as well as several books and I can't find anymore. Several other Simpsons episodes have been passed with only six references, so I don't think it should be a problem. The question is if you can find anything that is unreferenced.

6. I have removed one fair use image and inserted two free images instead. --Maitch (talk) 09:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Three things:

Can you show me an example(s) of articles that have been promoted with six references.

I think the "Bart the General poster" could still use the {{Non-free use rationale}} template.

I don't think the two free images are strictly relevant. You can use the one of Herman that was already in the article. I just believe that using the {{Non-free use rationale}} template would make the summary look better. If you want examples of these templates being used, may I recommend the Green Wing article as a reference point, which use the template on its images. ISD (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Mountain of Madness, My Sister, My Sitter, The Canine Mutiny and This Little Wiggy has six references as well as being GA's. Simpson Tide only has five references. King of the Hill only has four references.

I have inserted the fair use template on the poster.

Well, I was thinking about the image of Herman and concluded that is what purely decorative and therefore unuseable. Do you disagree? --Maitch (talk) 07:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose so, although I do believe that the two other photos are also purely decorative. I think that the one image would do fine. ISD (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the two free images have been removed. --Maitch (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

GA passed

Well done, I now believe that this article is of GA standard. Keep up the good work. ISD (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Debut Appearances

Don't see the problem with adding this section since it is standard for episode articles and this one is not different. If a reader would like more information about Nelson Muntz or Herman, they'd just have to click on the link to their own article. Cladeal832 (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't standard for episode articles. The only one that actually has one is Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire and that's only because there's so many. None of the other need them, becuase the can all be featured in the production section. Gran² 22:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there is no point of having a seperate section for two or three characters. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

See Krusty Gets Busted, The Crepes of Wrath, The Call of the Simpsons, Dead Putting Society, Moaning Lisa, Realty Bites, Bart vs. Thanksgiving]], Three Men and a Comic Book, Two Bad Neighbors, etc... more out there. Nothing wrong with more info then less. 65.95.3.36 (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The info is already in the article, it doesn't need its own section. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to note, I wasn't the one who did that on Girly Edition, some other editors had added that section since I made it a GA. xihix(talk) 01:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724223022/http://starwars.com/community/news/media/f20070724/index.html?page=3 to http://starwars.com/community/news/media/f20070724/index.html?page=3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)