Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Category:Works based on The Simpsons?

I recently created the article MacHomer and noticed that there is a Category:Works based on Macbeth. Which made me think that perhaps we could make one for The Simpsons. Articles on parodies/tributes do occasionally creep into the main Simpsons categories, such as Ralph Wiggum (song) and Simpsons Already Did It. But, they are out of place there, so having a category would be useful because it would connect together those (and other) articles (although other than the three already listed, I can't really think of any other parodies/tributes not related to the show, although I guess the non-official books about the show would fit). I guess the argument against is that The Simpsons has not been around nearly as long as Macbeth, nor has it inspired as many parodies. Looking through Category:Works inspired by characters in written fiction, there are categories for major works that have been around a long time like Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet, Robin Hood and Dracula. The only one for a comparable recent work is Category:Harry Potter derived works, which is itself not overly large. This makes me think that it might be worth giving the category a try, and seeing how others react. Thoughts? -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 19:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I see no harm in trying. Gran² 22:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I've created the category here. I'm defining a "work based on The Simpsons" as something that features the characters of the show or is about them, but has no involvement from any of the show's staff. Because of that the 20th Anniversary special was excluded, as was Nancy Cartwright's book. I'm sure that I'm missing some stuff, so please loet me know if you notice anything. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 19:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

List of The Simpsons couch gags

Ebe123 wants to split the page up so each season has its own page. Comment here. Pages were already created [1] CTJF83 12:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

More details at next section. ~~Awsome EBE123~~(talk | Contribs) 19:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Couch gags

I think that because that List of The Simpsons couch gags page is 132kB long, I thought that we should make each season have it's own page. I already made each season have each a seperate page. I would just make sure that it's ok before deleting the tables of the seasons couch gags and then replace them with the links.

The pages

I strongly oppose this. If length is an issue (and it not exactly a pressing one), then the existing page should be trimmed of excess detail. It's pushing notability guidelines to even have the list in the first place; separate ones for each season is totally uneeded. Gran² 21:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Echoing what Gran said. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  - Ditto CTJF83 22:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Media franchises is up for deletion

I have nominated Wikipedia:WikiProject Media franchises for deletion at WP:MFD. Please comment here for any concerns. Thank for your time. Regards, JJ98 (Talk) 19:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Rename Radioactive Man (The Simpsons episode)

Shouldn't we rename this to Radioactive Man (The Simpsons)? Radioactive Man disambigs itself. CTJF83

Yeah I think so. Gran² 18:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Official site

Hello. I am not a member of this Wikiproject here, but I am on Spanish Wikipedia. I have noted that all links to the episode guide from the official website (http://www.thesimpsons.com) are broken. It seems they launched a new version, and the list is not available online anymore. Do any of you know another reliable source to replace all the links? Thanks in advance for the answer, Mel 23 (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The official site still has guides - here - so the links just need to be changed. Gran² 20:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply and the link. Mel 23 (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The infobox template

Some users think they know best. So, they try to get rid of a working format that has been used by this project since before I arrived here. I refer to the listing of episodes in our infobox template. A user has nominated one of the episode listing templates for deletion here, believing that "Diverging from the standard approach does not help our readers." Personally, I think that listing episodes in a template at the bottom doesn't help our readers either, but that's just me. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 14:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Lenny and Carl merge?

I've been wondering about whether Lenny Leonard and Carl Carlson should have their own articles. Neither of the articles seem to establish notability and I haven't found any sources to indicate it. However, maybe some more Simpsons-savvy will have more luck. At any rate, it seemed I should start a discussion before going ahead and redirecting them, as they are semi-important as far as recurring characters go. (NOTE: I'm about to leave a note on the two article's talk pages about this discussion). Harry Blue5 (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they should be merged into a list, but I think their articles should be merged together. Individually their notability is not stonewall, but together they certainly qualify. Case in point, the IGN Peripheral characters list lists them together. I'm fairly sure there is a fair bit of production and reception information out there. Gran² 23:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Even together there's still only one source so far, so I think there needs to be more sources found before they can get their own article(s). That said, if they are kept, I fully agree that the two should be merged together. Harry Blue5 (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with merging into one list; while connected, they are not so connected that they qualify as one subject. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. They almost always appear together, when they appear they make remarks about eachother, the most defined characteristic they have is their relationship (with little else), and have the same reception. It's similar to the articles on Kang and Kodos and Pokémon Black and White. Harry Blue5 (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I almost never watch The Simpsons, and an episode that I caught yesterday had Lenny without Carl. It's either a huge coincidence or they are more independent than those examples, which are never discussed apart. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Bot

How about getting a bot (Maybe called CouchBot) to update List of The Simpsons couch gags . I do it alot and its like each week we have to update it. All the information is on the episode page so the bot can take the info from there. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 16:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems kinda pointless to create a bot to make one edit every week (or usually longer). Gran² 21:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Gran. A user tried something like that a long time ago, but in the end decided it wasn't worth it. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 00:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Project

How about we could make a little project here that is to get 75 of our articles featured articles and 300 Good Articles. We could show off our progress on the project page. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 16:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Note

I am requesting unprotection of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebe123 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC) ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism cleanup needed

Nancy Cartwright

Diff = entire paragraph of sourced material removed, from a WP:FA quality article. Can this vandalism edit please be reverted, and the sourced material restored? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Episode before after

I thought of this. It is of putting {{Simpson episode|before=|after=|season=}} at the end of episode pages. We fill in the parameters of the episode before that one, the one after and the season. It will put for example A Tale of Two Springfields.

Before that episode there was Treehouse of Horror XI so we put [[Treehouse of Horror XI]]. After, there was Insane Clown Poppy. We put [[Insane Clown Poppy]]. It comes from season 12. We put 12. It will also add the category of episodes of that season. How about it? ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 20:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Major changes to plot sect of FA article, "The Joy of Sect"

Please see Talk:The_Joy_of_Sect#Major_changes_to_plot_sect. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The Simpsons in the Classroom: Embiggening the Learning Experience with the Wisdom of Springfield

The Simpsons in the Classroom
Waltonen, Karma (2010). The Simpsons in the Classroom: Embiggening the Learning Experience with the Wisdom of Springfield. McFarland. ISBN 9780786444908. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

A most interesting secondary source, could be a neat Wikipedia article. -- Cirt (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topics/Simpson family

What's going with this? Did Lisa's FA fall through or are we going to work on that again, and get back our featured topic? CTJF83 21:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

GAR for Girly Edition

Hello. I have started a GAR for Girly Edition here if anyone wants to fix the problems I stated. GamerPro64 00:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Start-class articles

We now have less Start-class articles than GAs! :D My focus this summer will be to improve as many start articles as I can. I started with Go Simpsonic with The Simpsons today, which I think I can nominate for DYK now. Theleftorium ^(talk) 19:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Good work all!!...Lisa to FA? CTJF83 21:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

TFAs?

There is currently a TFAR for Bart Simpson for an unspecified date. [2] I wouldn't object to it being used, but I was wondering if anyone had any ideas for other TFAs we could try for. I thought it might be nice to get Stark Raving Dad as TFA on September 19, which would mark the 20th anniversary of its airing. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 03:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as Homer's Enemy, The Joy of Sect and Phil Hartman were all put up without anyone requesting them, I'd wager the whole Homerpedia thing is a thing of the past. They probably noticed that our articles kept getting high hit ratings (I mean, we have four entries in the list of most viewed TFAs). So yeah, Stark Raving Dad on September 19th. Save Bart for the 500th episode or something equally horrifying. Gran² 10:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree about Stark Raving Dad. There's also Lisa the Vegetarian, promoted more than a year ago, but October 15 is perhaps a bit too close to September 19. Theleftorium ^(talk) 12:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

And it's the movie's fifth anniversary next years as well... Cripes. Gran² 12:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

How about Stark Raving Dad on a date related to Michael Jackson? Can we get it in on June 26, the 2nd anniversary of his death? Or is this too close? I have no idea how TFA works. CTJF83 21:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Raul doesn't really like using death dates, and marked MJ's death date last year so it's unlikely it'd be repeated. 20th anniversary of airing is more momentous. Gran² 22:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, ok...I was just thinking of a solution to Left's comment about that and Lisa the Vegetarian being close in date. CTJF83 22:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Bot now updates portal recognized content

Check this out:

Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Very nice! Theleftorium ^(talk) 09:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, apparently Portal talk:The Simpsons/Features has no "former" good or featured content — meaning this project maintains all that quality stuff, over time, quite well. — Cirt (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, we are the best... ;-) Theleftorium ^(talk) 15:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Leaving this project

Hi, its me, Jj98, member of this project. I decided I going to leave The Simpsons WikiProject because it makes me disappointing you do not tag the banner in portal and project pages in talk page, because you're model after WP:ANIME. So, I quit the project. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 20:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Why would you leave because of that? Have you tried discussing it with the project? CTJF83 20:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've tired to tag {{WikiProject The Simpsons}} banner into the Portal:The Simpsons and files, categories, projects and templates, Scorpion0422 every time removes and reverts it. Well, since I am not really happy removing all of The Simpsons WikiProject banners in non-article talk pages, luckily, I have been tagging all The Simpsons episodes, categories, files and templates with the {{WikiProject Animation}} and {{WikiProject Television}} banner tags, to ensure that all The Simpsons related artilces that is part of WP:ANIMATION and WP:TV. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 20:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing it with him, or posting on here? CTJF83 20:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I've never been discussing with him and or posting him here. Scorpion0422 asked at my talk page about the Animation WikiProject back in February. Since I've been tagging all the animation related articles myself with the {{WikiProject Animation}} tag, I almost got blocked, while I've been asking him at my talk page, while I've editing around the WikiProject Animation banner a lot, before being protected by an admin back in March. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 22:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles I helped improve to GA

Just a heads up, I've removed from my watchlist a few Simpsons articles I helped improve to GA quality. You can view those at User:Cirt/Contributions, in the "Good Articles" section. I'll still try to help out with the Portal, and I'll probably be around for copyediting, I'm just refocusing a bit for the time being on other areas including: general articles about Freedom of speech (books, films, etc) and U.S. Supreme Court cases. If anyone's interested in those areas, feel free to let me know if you want to help out! :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added all of your GAs to my watchlist now. I'll try to keep vandalism and unsourced info away. :) Theleftorium ^(talk) 10:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much! :) — Cirt (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggested improvements list

Okay, I've been meaning to do this for a long time, but here we go. The following is list of the episode GAs I personally think either no longer meet GA standards, or at least do not reach the standards of some of our more recent episode GAs. The common threads seem to be too short leads, a lack of reception material, poor written/organized production sections and in some cases lack of potential themes/analysis sections. Many of the articles vary in terms of 'need', as it were. I considered presenting it in some kind of 'need order', but decided not to bother. Let me finally stress that this is not an attack on anybody's work. Many of these were articles I wrote! And I'm probably underselling a lot of these, so if you think there are some where there is no problem, then by all means say and remove it. Gran² 23:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't 'need' work, but is perhaps room for improvement, principally analysis

Season 10 topic drive almost completed!! (only The Simpsons (season 10) left)

Hark, fellow Simpsonites! We are almost done with the season 10 topic drive; all we have left is the season 10 article itself! I'd hate to come off as lazy, but I think it's for the best if I don't try to toil with it, since I've never attempted to edit a season page before. So, is anybody up for it? All help is appreciated! Thanks in advance! :D Queenieacoustic (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I've actually never written any season pages either, but I'll try once I've finished Alone Again, Natura-Diddily. :) Theleftorium ^(talk) 20:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice!! Thanks for your help! :D Queenieacoustic (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Simpson family tree

Talk:Simpson family#Family tree. Any comments would be welcome. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 19:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal: Van Houten family and Flanders family

Please give your opinion at Talk:List of recurring characters in The Simpsons. Thanks, Theleftorium ^(talk) 11:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm back

Hi

I just want you to know that I am back on Wikipedia. Originally, I left because I had too much stress in my real life. I think, I abandoned some projects on WP:DOH and for that I apologies. Anyway, I can see that people have carried on producing even more quality articles for WP:DOH. That is excellent! Keep up the good work. --Maitch (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I was actually looking at your contributions like two days ago. What a coincidence! And welcome back! Always great with more active members. :) Theleftorium ^(talk) 09:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Damn, it sure has been a while. Great to see you back. Gran² 09:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge Shelbyville with List of locations in The Simpsons?

See discussion at Talk:List of locations in The Simpsons#Merge of Shelbyville. Comments will be appreciated. --Maitch (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Y Done --Maitch (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge Lenny and Carl (part two)

I have proposed that we merge Lenny and Carl in one single article. I am aware of the previous discussion, but it seemed like everyone thought it was a good idea, but no one got around to set up tags and so forth. Go to Talk:Lenny_Leonard#Merge_Lenny_and_Carl and voice your opinion. --Maitch (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Done --Maitch (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Cleaner character list structure

I would like to propose that we merge/redirect the following lists:

List of animals in The Simpsons Y Done
List of media personalities in The Simpsons Y Done
List of fictional characters within The Simpsons Y Done

That way we would a much cleaner character list structure (recurring, one-time, guest star). As it is now you can find Bleeding Gums in both the recurring and celebrity list. Sideshow Mel and Rainer Wolfcastle can only be found on the celebrity list. Of course it would probably make the recurring character list over 200 KB, but it would be easier to find stuff. --Maitch (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Support I agree that all should be merged. And even if List of recurring characters in The Simpsons gets too big, we can split it into two (although the list really needs to be cleaned from fancruft so this might not be needed). Theleftorium ^(talk) 11:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Sounds sensible to me. Split the recurring list alphabetically if needed. I think we could stand to merge a few character articles as well: Martin Prince, Hans Moleman and Cletus Spuckler jump to my mind. Gran² 11:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, we could merge these list first and see how big it gets, but we could probably remove some stuff from the recurring list. --Maitch (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The lists are now merged and we ended up with a 206KB large list. We should probably split the list into two parts. Also, I think that a lot of the characters needs to get their bios trimmed. --Maitch (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! I'm not sure I like the idea of a split yet, though. Trimming the bios might be enough... Theleftorium ^(talk) 20:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I just looked through the list of long pages on Wikipedia and it would only become the 218th longest page on Wikipedia in its current form. In fact, not far behind sits the article on Barack Obama with 203KB, which is a featured article. So I'm in favor of just trimming the list. Splitting it would cause a lot of trouble with links and it wouldn't be easy to edit. --Maitch (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

History of the Simpsons

I have just made a major rewrite to History of The Simpsons. Basically, the article is a condensed version of everything we have written so far. I have tried to balance the article a keep it down to about 100KB, which is the length of The Simpsons.

I think this could be a future FA for the project, but I need your help. First of all, it would be nice if you would read it and see if there are any omissions. --Maitch (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic work. I think we need to mention more clearly the negative reaction there is to the show now and Jean especially. This could be useful: [3] Gran² 21:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is kind of tricky, because there is criticism of Jean in the article, but that was before The Movie. So, now the negative reaction is basically the same as before, only amplified. So, basically we need to find an article that discusses the difference between season 13 Jean and season 22 Jean. --Maitch (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice work! But some of it may need to be summarized, since this should be a summary of our other articles and shouldn't duplicate them. Some unimportant stuff can probably be removed too. The Australian mockery and the Tokyo controversy don't really seem that important to me, for example. Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't decide whether to keep the "controversy" parts. Basically, every time the Simpsons travels, someone gets upset. I kept it in, because they were mentioned in the main article. --Maitch (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Frank Welker

Does anyone know why he left the show? Are there any articles about it? Theleftorium ^(talk) 13:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

He asked for a raise because many of the voices hurt his throat; Fox realized Dan could do SLH's voice. Welker was no longer hired. See here. Gran² 13:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm gonna try to get Santa's Little Helper to GA status. :) Theleftorium ^(talk) 14:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge Springfield (The Simpsons) and List of locations in The Simpsons

I have proposed that we merge Springfield (The Simpsons) and List of locations in The Simpsons. See discussion at Talk:Springfield_(The_Simpsons)#Merge_List_of_locations_in_The_Simpsons_into_this_article. --Maitch (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not certain about this one. I think there is considerable real-world notability, but the article presently doesn't really have that. It has a lot of potential to become a GA class article, it just needs work. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 18:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I need to clarify my proposal here. This is not one of those "let's merge x and y, because y is crap" situations. The deal is that when I was reading the article about Springfield, I really missed that we did not mention locations like Springfield Elementary School, Springfield Nuclear Power Plant, The Android's Dungeon & Baseball Card Shop etc. So I just want all the content from the list to be copied verbatim to the Springfield article (except Ogdenville, North Haverbrook, etc) --Maitch (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Stark Raving Dad for TFA

I have requested that Stark Raving Dad be the TFA on September 18 at WP:TFAR. I'm also quite happy to see that the project has become more active as of late. I wish I could say that my editing will pick up, but I return to school next week, so my already sparse editing patterns may become even more sparce. However, welcome back Maitch! -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 18:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I returned to school this week so I'll have less time as well. I'll try to check my watchlist as often as I can though, and do some article work on weekends and school holidays. Also, it looks like User:Queenieacoustic might have left, which is really unfortunate. :/ Theleftorium ^(talk) 17:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Repost: Suggested improvements list

Okay, I've been meaning to do this for a long time, but here we go. The following is list of the episode GAs I personally think either no longer meet GA standards, or at least do not reach the standards of some of our more recent episode GAs. The common threads seem to be too short leads, a lack of reception material, poor written/organized production sections and in some cases lack of potential themes/analysis sections. Many of the articles vary in terms of 'need', as it were. I considered presenting it in some kind of 'need order', but decided not to bother. Let me finally stress that this is not an attack on anybody's work. Many of these were articles I wrote! And I'm probably underselling a lot of these, so if you think there are some where there is no problem, then by all means say and remove it. Gran² 13:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Given recent events, I would like to help with this. I'm probably going to focus on those articles that need most attention. --Maitch (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I did some work on My Sister, My Sitter (it's not great, so any expansion is appreciated). It seems like most articles from season 8 lacks reviews. We can just use the reviews from Mountain of Madness on the rest of the season 8 episodes. I am going to go through all episodes from season 1-10 to ensure that there is ratings information for all episodes. --Maitch (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. My plan was to add reviews to the old articles, but I'm taking a break from this, because I want to go deeper with my ratings research. I believe I can dig up the seasonal rankings for all seasons. --Maitch (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't 'need' work, but is perhaps room for improvement, principally analysis

Rename

This Wikiproject Should be renamed "Wikiproject Simpsons" because it sounds like a better name for a Wikiproject. (74.77.134.184 (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC))

Seeing as the name of the show is "The Simpsons", I see no reason why this should be changed. Leaving out part of the show's name makes it sound unprofessional. Gran² 18:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be changed because whenever most users hear 'Simpsons' they think of The Simpsons so the 'the' is unnecessary. Martarius (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Even if most people associate 'Simpson' with the 'The Simpsons', it is still more precise to use 'The Simpsons'. If you take a look at Simpson, there are plenty of people and places that 'Simpson' could refer to. --Maitch (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

There are many people and some places with Simpson but they are less likely to have a WikiProject of their own when compared to 'The Simpsons'. Martarius (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Recently, I did some ratings research for the old episodes. Using the keywords "simpsons" and "ratings" I got over 500 of articles per week, where 99% of the articles were for O.J. Simpson and not The Simpsons. People could easily start a project covering his football career, movie career, and murder trial.--Maitch (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've re-dircted Wikipedia:Wikiproject Simpsons here. Problem solved. Gran² 18:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Showrunner topic

Most of our showrunner's articles are GA's. Do you guys think we could create a topic with History of The Simpsons as the main article? --Maitch (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking of a way to create a showrunners GA topic for a while. List of The Simpsons showrunners was a possibility, but this is probably a better idea. Althought I think History of the Simpsons needs to make clear somewhere what the showrunner is/does and the position's notability. All of the showrunners are GA bar Mirkin (which is at GAN) and Reiss. I'd be up for a collobaration on Reiss's page if anybody is interested. Gran² 22:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I might help out later. I just need to clean up my Media article first. --Maitch (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm too busy to help out right now, but it definitely sounds like a good idea! Theleftorium ^(talk) 15:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The Simpsons showrunners

9 articles

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

Well, Stark Raving Dad made the main page. That's good. Then, some genius decided that an image of Michael Jackson wasn't important enough to the article and removed it from the TFA blurb. That's bad. Then, some even smarter genius decided to replace it with a very low quality copy of The Simpsons logo that was admittedly taken from FoxFlash and includes a even Trademark symbol! That's ugly.

Seriously, that image made the article look bad. It made our project look bush league because users will think that we have to resort to copying The Simpsons logo. Why couldn't the admin that was confused by the image of Michael Jackson have simply left the blurb imageless? That would have been preferable. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 23:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It is funny how a lot of people feel that they can "improve" an article without having any knowledgde of the topic. Anyway, I lurked around Commons for a bit and it seems like you can't copyright simple text logos, so the image in question is not copyrighted, even though is has a "TM" in it. --Maitch (talk) 07:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Foreign voice actors

Lately, I have been removing tags fra foreign voice actors who dub The Simpsons into their own language. The reason for this is that I feel that overdubbing is derivative work and that the actors in question have had many original roles in voice acting, but also in live action. I believe that the only reason why The Simpsons is mentioned so prominently is because the English readers do not care about German or Japanese television. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe these people are celebrated in their own country as the German Smithers or Japanese Troy McClure. So I wanted to know how you guys feel about these people. Are they within the scope of WikiProject The Simpsons? We don't tag prominent guest actors such as Glen Close. --Maitch (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, they shouldn't be counted as part of this project. If they are revered for their dubbing of the show in their own countries, that doesn't really seem notable for the English Wikipedia. Gran² 23:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the tags should be removed. Theleftorium ^(talk) 10:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Statistics box

Is there some reason why there are 0 articles showing up in the statistics box? Rreagan007 (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. I just figured the bot was out of order. It worked a few days ago. --Maitch (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

People can see the table here until it is fixed. --Maitch (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Relevant AfD

If anyone can demonstrate that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Simpsons (pinball) does or does not meet inclusion criteria, their participation in the discussion would undoubtedly be welcome. Jclemens (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

300 GAs!

Marcia Mitzman Gaven became our 300th GA today! (Although technically we've had more GAs since some of them are featured now) Great work everyone! :D Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, great work everybody! Gran² 23:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Woohoo! This place has changed a lot since I joined in 2005. It is amazing to think of. I would like to thank everybody for their hard work. Some day everything will be of at least of GA quality. --Maitch (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

B-Class checklist for WikiProject Animation

Greeting, I am a coordinator for WikiProject Animation. A B-Class checklist has been added to the project banner, along with the work group text, including the importance function. The B-Class checklist will include 6 point parameters to assess against the criteria. If you have any questions, please discuss at our talk page. Thank for your time. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 21:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Matt Selman has become a showrunner

I just read a post on Chris Ledesma excellent blog about music on the Simpsons and stumbled upon something. He claims in this entry that Matt Selman is executive producer for the upcoming episode "The Book Job". Interestingly, he says that this is his second time. Does anyone know what the first was? --Maitch (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what the other episode is, but being an executive producer on an episode doesn't mean you're a show runner. George Meyer, for example, has executive produced several episodes but he has never been a show runner. Theleftorium ^(talk) 23:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. The thing is that he used the phrase "his second time in the captain’s chair this season". That sounds like a showrunner. He is also leaking information about the episode here. Usually, that is Jean's job. --Maitch (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's quite a strange way of phrasing it, but unless we get something formal we'll have to assume he is just an executive producer and not a showrunner as well. Gran² 23:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course. --Maitch (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to revisit this topic. Matt Selman's name was the first name in the credits in the "The Food Wife" - before Al Jean. --Maitch (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It is now confirmed. In this post by Chris Ledesma he uses the phrase "running the show" for Selman when talking about "The Food Wife" and "The Book Job". He does not however want to comment on whether Jean is stepping down or cutting back. --Maitch (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Woohoo! The last two episodes have been pretty good. Let's hope this continues. Theleftorium ^(talk) 14:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the last two episodes. Maybe they should just rotate the show runner position every second year like the good old days. Some fresh eyes wouldn't hurt. --Maitch (talk) 09:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Tagging

I noticed that there were no project pages, templates, categories, and the like tagged with {{WikiProject The Simpsons}}, which I found odd. When I came across Template:The Simpsons Star, I noticed that the talk page was speedily deleted under G8 with the explanation that "this project does not tag templates". Befuddled by this, I ask why? The project page says nothing about this, and frankly, ever other project I've come across tags everything in their purview. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The consensus before has been not to tag templates, images, etc. But that was decided a long time ago. I guess it does make sense to tag these kind of things. Theleftorium ^(talk) 14:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, one of the things I enjoy most about this project is that people actually work on improving the articles instead wasting all their time tagging stuff. I don't really see the need for tagging anything else than the articles. --Maitch (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Who says the two are exclusive? Why can't you do both? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Time is limited. For all the time you spend tagging all the redirects on a project you could have written several GA's instead. I have just seen far too many users that logs hundreds of hours tagging pages with the fifth or sixth WikiProject. The purpose of Wikipedia is to write the best possible encyclopia, not spending all your time doing administrative work. --Maitch (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Theleftorium ^(talk) 16:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Tagging takes about ten to twenty keystrokes. Writing GA's, while more important, is much more time consuming than that. Administrative work is part of the encyclopedia, though not as important as article quality. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's too time-consuming, why not use a bot to tag them? A bot was previously used to tag images for WikiProject Video games (Snotbot task 2) and it worked well. That could be reused to tag this project's images. As for templates and categories, anything with "The Simpsons" in its name should be taggable without resulting in false positives. Reach Out to the Truth 21:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that. It's a good task for a bot. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Except Wikipedia books and The Simpsons portal, which was tagged by the project. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 21:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

A-class review

I have thought it might be beneficial for our project to have an A-class review process. A-class review can help prepare an article for FAC in a less-pressurized setting in which project members look over the article. The venue is similar to FAC in which the editor can support or oppose an article as well as offer comments to help with its improvement. See WP:HWY/ACR for an affective A-class review process that has successfully prepared articles for FAC. Our project's ACR process can be modeled after that. Dough 48 72 23:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think that would be a good idea. This project has too few active members. And it's not very often that we bring articles to WP:FAC. It's probably better to just ask other members to look over an article on this page. Theleftorium ^(talk) 23:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we can revisit this idea if the project becomes more active in the future. Dough 48 72 16:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. People come and go on this project, but usually you can count the active participants on one hand. So if you want somebody to help you with your article, then you could just write a message on this page. --Maitch (talk) 09:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Reference to C64 game producing hobby enthusiasts?

In the computer event hall, there is a large stand from ProtoVision. The logo is definitely stylized to play on ActiVision - but how come it says Protovision? I belong to a group of enthusiasts who still develop new games for the old Commodore 64 computer, and we are called Protovision. The spaceahip on the screen could well represent our flagship game "Metal Dust", a space shooter game with a similar space ship. And as the Simpsons/Futurama have already referenced to C64 at times, I think they might really mean us! We have taken the name "Protovision" from the film "war games", were a computer from the fictitious firm Protovision tries to take over the world. But in the movie it is a hardware producer, not a game producer. So, do you believe that ProtoVision here is actually referring to us, C64 nerds? It fits quite well, as also other retro computer things are referenced in the hall (Dig Dug, Centipede, Activision..). Our homepage: protovision-online.com Jaktrip (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, but you can always ask Matt Selman on Twitter [4]. :) Theleftorium ^(talk) 11:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Chris Ledesma

I have been thinking about starting an article about Chris Ledesma (music editor for The Simpsons). We pretty much use his blog for every new episode, so it would be nice to have an article to explain who he is. The problem is that while I could use blog for his biography, it would only be a primary source. I'm not sure if it is a good idea. What do you guys think? --Maitch (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea! There are a few reliable sources that mention his name: [5], [6], and on Newsbank. This one ([7]) could be useful in the article. He's also been nominated for two Golden Reel Awards, so that should add some notability. Theleftorium ^(talk) 17:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I will try and whip something together in my user space before I create the article, so it won't go straight to AFD. --Maitch (talk) 09:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge the episode guide books

I have proposed to merge The Simpsons: A Complete Guide to Our Favorite Family, The Simpsons Forever!: A Complete Guide to Our Favorite Family ...Continued, The Simpsons Beyond Forever!: A Complete Guide to Our Favorite Family ...Still Continued, The Simpsons One Step Beyond Forever!: A Complete Guide to Our Favorite Family ...Continued Yet Again, Simpsons World The Ultimate Episode Guide: Seasons 1–20. Have your say at Talk:The Simpsons: A Complete Guide to Our Favorite Family#Merge discussion. --Maitch (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Featured portal candidate: Animation

Portal:Animation is currently a featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 23:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Update: It's now successfully an WP:FPORT. — Cirt (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Guest Stars

Hello all, although signing up to the Wikiproject, I haven't contributed much (that said I am a massive Simpsons fan) but I have attempted a go cleaning up the List of guest stars on The Simpsons table via. my Sandbox. Feel free to let me know if you think I should stop/have any suggestions or improvements or want to help out (currently whittling down Season 6). Ideally this should be a WP:FLC because the show is notorious for having guest star celebrities. — Lemonade51 (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Your version of the list looks really nice. The only problem is that you can't sort all the names alphabetically. You can only do it per season. Anyway, the hardest part of bringing this to FL, is to reference all the guest stars. Cheers, --Maitch (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Would it be better to sort it by season? Or you could just put the Season No. on a seperate row...? — Lemonade51 (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The guest stars list has always bugged me. There are two ways of doing it, the way it is presently and the way you have done it. Each is equally flawed: the present one is terrible from a navigation viewpoint, your version has the downside of being unable to sort the whole show, and thus find quickly how many episodes a guest star has appeared in... You're version is certainly much clearer. As for FL (as Maitch said) every entry needs to be fully sourced and there needs to a section of background-production content. Gran² 23:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding seasons, I've now moved it into a column which is sortable. With sources, from say Season 9 ownwards, it will be easier to find reliable websites to reference as press releases from FOX and news articles about that particular celebrity featuring on The Simpsons will be available. It'll just be the previous 8 that may prove tricky. — Lemonade51 (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I took your version and separated the seasons with a thin coloured line (see it at User:Maitch/draft2). What do you guys think about that solution? --Maitch (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks clearer, but the problem is that the table breaks up when you sort it - as in the lines all go to the top. If there's some way to skip directly to each season, while keeping a single table, that would be the best method. And Lemonade51, the first eight will be pretty easy to source, there are several books on the subject. Gran² 10:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Gran2: Ok, how about this version User:Maitch/draft2#Version 2. The season colours are in a column, so that they won't be in the way when you sort them and you can skip to the first episode of a season - even after you have sorted them in a different order!

Lemonade51: I don't think sourcing is impossible. Try and look at Gran2's earlier work User:Gran2/Sandbox. I think you can use Simpsons World The Ultimate Episode Guide: Seasons 1–20 for the seasons 1-20 and after that it gets really easy to find sources.--Maitch (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheers for the reference suggestions. Maitch, the second version looks much more neater. — Lemonade51 (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Maitch, that's perfect, exactly the design it was needing. Gran² 12:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Right I've completed the first nine seasons in Maitch's format, if anyone wants to have a go doing Season 23 and working your way backwards, feel free to do so. Either way I'm sure this can be finished excluding references by Thursday. — Lemonade51 (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

(Just something I noticed) When you sort by episode number, 129 comes before 13 etc. Should it be like that? Theleftorium ^(talk) 17:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope. If you can by any chance fix it, that would be great. — Lemonade51 (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I think if you put a 0 before them (ie 013) that might fix it. Gran² 18:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Does the trick, thanks. — Lemonade51 (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a technical solution to that without putting "0" before the number. I don't have time to look at it right now, but you can look it up (or I can do it later). --Maitch (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if you have the time to look it up that would be great. The layout of the table is complete, just need to add references and clean up the key. — Lemonade51 (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Great work. I have Simpsons World The Ultimate Episode Guide: Seasons 1–20 so I'll aid the sourcing when I have some time. Gran² 14:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Great work! I have some ideas though for improvement.

What if we alternated the yellow colours between what we have now and a lighter (yellow) colour for the seasons that are currently not released on DVD. That way it would be clearer to distinquish season 15 from 16 for instance.
- Done, it's Season 15-23 excluding Season 20 of course.
Do we really need the production codes for the list? Production codes are mostly for Simpsons geeks. It would be far more useful for the readers to have the release dates on the list. --Maitch (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. I'll be prepared to remove it if everyone can come to a consensus. — Lemonade51 (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC

I have figured out the numerical sorting without adding "0"'s. Check it out at User:Maitch/draft2#Hidden numerical sorting. You should just use the {{nts}} template. --Maitch (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll try to sort that out tomorrow and finish tagging the refs for Seasons 21-23 -- I'll leave the rest of them for Gran to complete. — Lemonade51 (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Another DVD Commentary mention

From "Large Marge"

Someone tells a story about how that plastic surgeon guy got his name.
Nancy Cartwright: "That's gonna be on wikipedia tomorrow."
Everyone laughs
Al Jean: "By the way, don't believe everything you read on wikipedia. [others laugh] Well people take these commentaries and they go 'everything in it is a fact'. And, you know, it's not. We're just recalling these things from 10 years back and, you know, we have our own prejudices and memories."

This kind of thing has been mentioned in past commentaries. My favourite is when Matt Groening says that Elizabeth Taylor didn't really say F-you to the writers. Of course, Matt himself had said this numerous times over the years.

Anyway, Jean is right, people need to be a bit more careful when it comes to commentaries, especially when it comes to discerning what is and isn't a joke. I've seen a few articles in the past (can't remember which) where they cited things from the commentaries that I'm pretty sure were just said as jokes. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 00:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh Al, such a joker. No wonder this show is still winning Emmys (or not) with a wit like you in charge... Gran² 14:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That's true, and I'm sure I did that mistake with a few of my first articles. But it's nice to know that they've read some of our work. ;) Theleftorium ^(talk) 14:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I got out of that quote was that 1) they read our articles :-) 2) DVDs should be released faster so that they don't have to sit and recall something they did over ten years ago. --Maitch (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The third thing is that Al can't make up his mind. He complains that wikipedia is unreliable because vandals make up stuff. He complains that wikipedia is unreliable because people source statements to his comments. The show will never get better with Commander Cuckoo-Bananas in charge! -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 16:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't listen to Al. He is unreliable. He says so himself. ;) Maitch (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Project banners

I occasionaly get in this argument with editors, and I suppose I should seek a new consensus.

This argument is regarding the project banner placed on talk pages ({{WikiProject The Simpsons}}) that denotes that a page is part of our project. The talk page of every Simpsons mainspace article includes one of those tags. However, some editors think non-mainspace pages (templates, categories, images, portals, books, etc.) should be tagged too.

There are a few edit-hungry editors out there who are not members of WP:DOH, but seem to think that they should be able to dictate our project scope. We, as a project, had previously decided to limit our scope to just main page articles, and not tag every simple non-mainspace tag. Some projects do do this, and that's fine. We don't. Personally, I don't see the point anyway.

It's one thing to add a tag to our portal, since it is a major part of the project. It's a completely different thing to tag a redirects, images, book pages, minor categories and minor portal pages. These things do not require regular mantainance, so there's really no point in including them in our project.

What do some others think? -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 20:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely. Can someone give me a good reason to tag project pages, books, categories, etc? Because I can't think of one. Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally I've got no objections either way but I wouldn't myself go to all that trouble. :P — Cirt (talk) 05:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Greg Daniels

Hello, I was wondering if anyone could help me turn Greg Daniels's article into a Good article NoD'ohnuts (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You'd want to talk to Gra2, he's the best at working on articles about the writers. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 15:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks NoD'ohnuts (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts

2011: The Review

You know the drill. Here are our charts from December 31 of previous years.

This is 2006. 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
The Simpsons articles		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
The Simpsons articles		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
The Simpsons articles		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
The Simpsons articles		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

December 31, 2010:

The Simpsons articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
Quality	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

And, drum roll please... December 31, 2011!

The Simpsons articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
Quality	Top	High	Mid	Low	Total
FA	4	3	14	1	22
FL	1	14	1	1	17
GA	4	17	283	11	315
B	1	12	32	24	69
C		7	64	21	92
Start		7	148	50	205
Stub			11	85	96
List		4	2	6	12
Assessed	10	64	555	199	828
Total	10	64	555	199	828

Here are our gains from the past six years.

The Simpsons articles		Year
The Simpsons articles		2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Quality
	FA	2	9 (+7)	15 (+6)	21 (+6)	21 (-)	22 (+1)
	FL	1	10 (+9)	14 (+4)	15 (+1)	15 (-)	17 (+2)
	A	1	3 (+2)	5 (+2)	4 (-1)	4 (-)	0 (-4)
	GA	1	67 (+66)	136 (+70)	219 (+83)	239 (+20)	315 (+76)
	B	55	34 (-21)	28 (-6)	34 (+6)	59 (+25)	69 (+10)
	C	-	-	19	37 (+18)	56 (+19)	92 (+36)
	Start	536	490 (-46)	399 (-91)	317 (-82)	289 (-28)	205 (-84)
	Stub	164	151 (-13)	167 (+16)	160 (-7)	138 (-22)	96 (-42)
	List	0	0	4 (+4)	7 (+3)	9 (+2)	12 (+3)
	Total	759	764 (+5)	787 (+23)	814 (+27)	830 (+16)	828 (-2)

It was another good year for WP:DOH, although our overall article count actually went down... I'm not sure why, but it could be because we merged a bunch of character pages. Still, we gained an FA, 2 FLs and 76 GAs. We also eliminated 42 stubs. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 20:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

We also removed the foreign voice actors from the project so that should explain why the article count has dropped. Looks like it's been a pretty good year! Nice work everyone! Theleftorium ^(talk) 20:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup, we also had the second best year in terms of GAs (after 2009), which is great. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 21:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Great work all! Let's keep it going for 2012! BTW, what was last years FA? CTJF83 21:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Must have been Stark Raving Dad. Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, ok, thanks, CTJF83 21:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

A very good year all around, well done everybody. Still not entirely sure why David Mirkin failed. Ah well. Do we have any targets for this year? Gran² 22:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Season 13 should be complete soon (Blame It on Lisa just needs to be passed), and all the season 23 episodes that have aired so far are GAs so that season has a chance at becoming a GT as well. Other than that I don't know. Theleftorium ^(talk) 22:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think one goal could be to improve the remaining major characters whose articles aren't yet at GA. The big ones are Mr. Burns, Moe, Grampa and Apu. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 01:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I can assist on those, least copy editing...plus I'm gonna get Three Gays of the Condo to GA CTJF83 06:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

A very good year indeed. Nice work everyone! The assessment table is looking really good now. It won't be long before half of our articles are either featured or good. One of my goals for 2012 is to work on the links on the main template {{The Simpsons}}. It is more difficult, but more readers read those articles than the episode articles. --Maitch (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent work, all 'round. ;) — Cirt (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

TFD

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 5#Template:The Simpsons episode count. Dough 48 72 00:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Is and Am capitalization

Hi, should the pages A Star Is Burns, A Star Is Born Again, and Today I Am a Clown capitalize "is" and "am"? |Randomno| WP 19:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, bud. That is the exact way n which IMDB and other sites (sites that are refer ed to) write the names of the episodes. So, let it be that way.Aditya San. (talk) 06:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hrm, those aren't the best sources, can we get better reliable secondary sources for those spellings? Or better yet, the official websites of the production groups involved? — Cirt (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Error in "The Least Viewed Episode"

There is something wrong when it comes to the question of which is the least viewed episode of The Simpsons series. The page on Four Great Women and a Manicure says that the it is the second least viewed episode of the series, with the first being Million Dollar Maybe. But the page of Million Dollar Maybe says that the least viewed episode is actually The Great Simpsina. Why is there this contradiction? Please resolve it! Aditya San. (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Presumably because nobody updated the page for Four...Whatever, after it got pushed down to third worst. Gran² 15:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Upcoming TFA scheduled for Today's Featured Article

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 28, 2012

FYI, I don't really maintain this article anymore so it'd be appreciated if folks from this project could keep an eye on it for vandalism, etc. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

- No problem! Gran² 08:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  - Will do! :) Theleftorium ^(talk) 15:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Relevant AfD

This wikiproject may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snowball (The Simpsons). Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

FLCR

I have nominated List of The Simpsons episodes for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBrandley (talk • contribs) 16:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Episode template

I have taken a first stab at an episode template with {{The Simpsons episodes}}. At first I used this format. The alternate format that I contemplated is like the one I used for {{Mad Men episodes}}, which is generally best for series that have some seasons where most of the articles are not created. Because there are so many episodes/seasons for The Simpsons, we might want to go with the latter format which just displays one season of episodes, but I am giving the current format its chance. I will await feedback before deploying or changing to the single-season episode display format.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

To be honest I don't see the need for a template like this. If you go to an episode page, for example Lisa the Vegetarian from season seven, you will see that all the seasons + all the episodes of the seventh season are linked in the infobox. Theleftorium ^(talk) 08:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that they are all linked in the ~~wrong~~ unconventional place, does not mean that we should not create the conventional navigational device. Most episodes are linked via a navbox, not an infobox. People are much less likely to look in the infobox for this type of navigation. None of the 30 seasons from other shows at WP:FT or WP:GT use an infobox to link the episodes. All of the other series (30 Rock, Doctor Who, Family Guy, Fringe, Lost, Millennium, The Office, Parks and Recreation, South Park, Spooks, The X-Files, Smallville, Supernatural) that have seasons at FT or GT except for Homicide: Life on the Street have navboxes for episodes (and I recently created {{Homicide: Life on the Street episodes}}, which I will soon deploy). I have also noticed that all of the shows with more than 10 seasons use the format I described as the alternate format (see {{Doctor Who episodes}}, {{South Park episodes}} and the malformatted templates at Category:Family Guy navigational boxes).. I am going to switch.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. Using the format in {{Mad Men episodes}} seems best. Theleftorium ^(talk) 09:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox > Navbox. Why would I want to scroll to the bottom? Gran² 09:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I have just reformated the proposed template to be like {{Mad Men episodes}}, {{Doctor Who episodes}} and {{South Park episodes}}. This format was the originally proposed template format.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I am saying we should put the content where the reader will expect to find it. I am not saying you have to remove the odd content presentation from this show. I just don't know any other shows that lay out their episodes like that and most of the exemplary presentations of episode content on WP use the navbox to navigate in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

O.K. since no one has a good reason why The Simpsons should be the only series at GT or FT without a navbox, I am going to start to deploy the template.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought "it's totally pointless" was a pretty good reason. Cheers for clogging up my watchlist. Gran² 09:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I interpreted your silence to my 09:55, 25 August 2012 response as understanding that navboxes rather than infoboxes are the conventional way to link these types of articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I did up through season 10 last night. Hopefully, I will come close to finishing tonight.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That does seem like a massive waste of time, especially since all of those links are already included in the top infobox template. The template adds absolutely nothing to the article; if I was at a season six episode and I wanted to view all of the season 9 episodes, I'd still have to go to either a) the season 9 page or b) any season 9 episode. I'm strongly considering nominating that template for deletion. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 02:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Must List of The Simpsons episodes be split?

Look at List of Case Closed episodes (seasons 16–current) and List of Case Closed episodes (seasons 1–15). Shall that list be given the same treatment as Case Closed episodes? --George Ho (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No. It's not too long, so splitting it would be pointless and confusing. Gran² 15:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Gran. Also, the Case Closed episode list is more detailed since it contains both English and Japanese titles. Theleftorium ^(talk) 16:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

TV.Com

I was just at Trilogy of Error and the link I used did not work. I think the links are out of date and might require some checking into. -50.137.10.10 (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

A new season is out on DVD, so that means...

The writers' wikipedia obsession continues. I haven't heard all of the commentaries yet, but there is one mention so far:

In the commentary for Marge vs. Singles, Seniors, Childless Couples and Teens, and Gays, someone mentions that Jon Vitti is married to George Meyer's sister. Jon says something along the lines of: "If you check out my wikipedia page, you'll find two fascinating paragraphs about me, and one of them mentions that I am married to George's sister." He said that slightly sarcastically.

I'm sure there will be others, so I'll post them when I hear them. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 00:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Another one!

From Diatribe of a Mad Housewife: Someone (Ian Maxtone-Graham?): "On wikipedia, I believe, I did a tiny bit of research because I was super bored and I believe on wikipedia it says that this plot is based on a story, a fairy tale, by Margaret Atwood called Bluebeard's Egg and I did, uh, a little bit of research about Bluebeard's Egg, shy of actually reading it, and it didn't have anything to do with this story. [laughter]" Here it is: [8], it was removed a month ago. I should point out that it said that it was the "idea of Marge's novel", not the whole episode. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 02:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 November 17

There are still many images that need deletion reviews. However, mass reviewing in one discussion is very bad. Also, the administrator who deleted them is currently retired, so what can we do? --George Ho (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Request to anyone who with a copy of the episode guide The Simpsons Beyond Forever

We're currently trying to improve the references in the article The Matrix. The article's Legacy section contains a few examples of times that the film's special effects and aesthetics have been parodied, and I know that the Simpsons episode "Insane Clown Poppy" contains a bullet time spoof in its couch gag. The problem is finding a reference for this from a reliable source. However, I assume it's mentioned in the episode guide book The Simpsons Beyond Forever.

So could anyone with a copy of that book please check that it confirms that the couch gag of "Insane Clown Poppy" is a parody of the special effects in The Matrix, and provide the relevant page number and publication details in order to add it as a reference? Thanks! --Nick R^Talk 13:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Here you go. Gran² 16:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Bates, James W.; Gimple, Scott M.; McCann, Jesse L., Richmond, Ray; Seghers, Christine, ed. (2010). Simpsons World The Ultimate Episode Guide: Seasons 1–20 (1st ed.). Harper Collins Publishers. p. 1018. ISBN 978-0-00-738815-8.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)

"Quality issue of The Simpsons

I've finished my draft for an article examining the conversations surrounding the supposed decline in quality of The Simpsons, which has dominated the public discourse of the show for at least 10 years. Please have a read and tell me what you think. Oh, and don't hesistate to improve it. I'm pretty much done with it for now so there's no chance of an edit conflict. :)--Coin945 (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality issue of The Simpsons
- While it is a nice effort, I think this is way too detailed. And section headers shouldn't be questions. Regards, Theleftorium ^(talk) 19:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou for your input Theleftorium. Can I ask why you think it is too detailed at the moment? Is there any information I have skipped over that you think is important? I know you are a prolific figure around here, and so perhaps you could give me a hand with getting this article up and running? There are a couple more subarticles I think we need, such as Critical reception of The Simpsons and Cultural impact of The Simpsons.. perhaps you could rally up some people so we can get to work. :)--Coin945 (talk) 04:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

To be completely honest, I really don't think we need these articles. I think everything can be nicely summarized at The_simpsons#Reception_and_achievements. Sorry. :/ Theleftorium ^(talk) 16:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

My theory is that if there is any series that should have spinoff articles for all these different things, this should be it. I've always thought this article was a bit light in information. If you take a peak at the amount of spinoffs Shakespeare has, that is the sort of detail i think such a prolific series as this should have too. It is definitely big enough for each of those articles to be notable. A lot of those Simpsons-related articles haven't been touched in years (The Simpsons became featured in 2007 and I doubt has been heavily edited since), and have had to create criminally short summaries of quite complex and intricate topics related to the show. Are you seriously suggesting that you can sum up the enormous influence The Simpsons has had in two paragraphs? There is just so much more to talk about. I think these articles are necessary, and would love to help you in making them.--Coin945 (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If anything there should be a Critical reception of The Simpsons article, that focuses on both the golden years and the declining quality. The Simpsons quality issue is way too detailed and much of the information can be summarized or removed. Theleftorium ^(talk) 17:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd support a single 'Reception' article, encompassing the whole history of the show, but nothing beyond that. Gran² 17:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Might I ask why? Also, as I said, that is a draft of the article (there are a bunch of sources in the External Links section that need to be included, and many bits need to be shuffled around to create a coherent article), and so of course it is not going to be perfect. However, I stand by my view that this is a very notable thing and has the right to stand on its own. I guess we just have to sort out the issues of bias. I'll add some more stuff about the show's retention in quality. Your help would be great. :)--Coin945 (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I also wanted to add that the notion of the article being "way too detailed and much of the information can be summarized or removed" is totally understandable, and often a side-effect of my "an artist knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add but when there is nothing left to take away" style of creating articles. Right now I'm adding. After that, I'll start taking away. Please, help me out if you can. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the various subsections and the structure of the article. You may not think it is necessary, but the fact is that now it exists, and it is unlikely to be deleted any time soon, so any assistance you can give me would be grand :D.--Coin945 (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I still think a Cultural impact of The Simpsons or Influence and legacy of The Simpsons article would be awesome. The book Planet Simpson has some great information that we can use. There is so much more to this show than just the facade - the episodes. It's all the behind the scenes stuff that I'm most interested in. And I'm sure many others too. The information is certainly out there. It's just a case of getting our hands on it.--Coin945 (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Basically, I like all the work you put in this article. It is great to see more people involved in Simpsons articles.

The article itself needs to be more focused. Try to cut down on the long quotes and people essentially saying the same thing. Also, try to focus more on getting great sourcing for the article. If you have two sources saying the same thing, pick the newspaper over the blog. I'm not entirely sure on Wikipedia's policy on this, but I think you need to balance the article, so that it is not just criticism pr. [[WP:SPINOFF]. This seems like a POV fork. Good luck. --Maitch (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this article is necessary to be honest. But you've obviously put a tonne of work into it. The first thing I noticed is sourcing to blogs and forums. Blogs might be okay depending on who is writing them (ie. A critic might be useable, a fan blog is not) but all forum sources need to be removed. Otherwise will people will come along and add their opinions and source them to forum posts they've written. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 02:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments

I find it confusing that List of The Simpsons characters and List of recurring The Simpsons characters coexist and overlap without one even acknowledging the other directly. I understand that the latter has character synopses and the former doesn't, but the article naming and organisation is confusing. It may help if the latter article was named something other "List of ...".
In List of The Simpsons characters the "Episode name" and "Original air date" columns are confusing since by definition all characters here appear in multiple episodes. Is this the first appearance?
Some synopses from the old article at [9] appear to have been lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.87.55 (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Simpsons clip shows

Template:Simpsons clip shows has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. szyslak (t) 07:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Lisa the Skeptic

This is a note to let the main editors of Lisa the Skeptic know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 4, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 4, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

"Lisa the Skeptic" is the eighth episode of The Simpsons' ninth season, first aired in November 1997. On an archaeological dig with her class, Lisa discovers a skeleton that resembles an angel. All of the townspeople believe that the skeleton actually came from an angel, but skeptical Lisa attempts to persuade them that there must be a rational scientific explanation, asking the American paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould to test a sample. After Gould tells Lisa that the tests were inconclusive, she compares the belief in angels to the belief in unicorns and leprechauns and in response, Springfield's religious zealots go on a rampage to destroy all scientific institutions. The episode's writer David X. Cohen (pictured) developed the idea after visiting the American Museum of Natural History, and decided to loosely parallel themes from the Scopes Monkey Trial. There were mixed reviews. It has been discussed in the context of virtual reality, ontology, existentialism, and skepticism; it has also been used in Christian religious education classes to initiate discussion about angels, skepticism, science, and faith. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Above was posted to my user talk page, just updating here as well. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

New parameter

To make a long story short, please see the discussion at User_talk:Theleftorium#Simpsons_episode_parameter and the link therein and please provide a community opinion on whether it should be reinstated and added to more articles (seasons 1-4 have been done). Thanks, Rcsprinter (gas) @ 00:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I have yet to see a reason why this parameter should be added. Theleftorium ^(talk) 00:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

As it's only Theleftorium protesting, I think I will be bold and add it back again. Consensus for not including has not been shown. Rcsprinter (natter) @ 11:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I oppose this parameter because it is entirely subjective, ergo, has no place on an encyclopedia. I mean, who is the "focus" of "Cape Feare"? It's a Sideshow Bob episode, but the focus is, in my view, on Bart. Gran² 11:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, we need more photos

Most Futurama and South Park episode articles have photos on them, so why not Simpsons? It drives me nuts, especially since Simpsons is the only one I watch. Does anyone agree? Wimpyguy (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

No, we don't need any more images. Images should only be included if they meet the WP:NFCC. Most of the Futurama/South Park ones don't. Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete the Futurama/South Park ones then. Wimpyguy (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Ahem

I have removed the screenshots from the articles of Homer the Moe, A Hunka Hunka Burns in Love, The Blunder Years, The Lastest Gun in the West, Tales from the Public Domain, The Strong Arms of the Ma, The Fat and the Furriest, The Ziff Who Came To Dinner, The Boys of Bummer, Stop or My Dog Will Shoot and Thursdays with Abie and I will be removing more soon. I will only put them back if you agree to put more screenshots up on other articles. Wimpyguy (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Why was The Bart Wants What It Wants picture deleted?

It served to illustrate the hype around the episode before it aired. I want to know, who deleted the damn thing? Wimpyguy (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

So

What's to do? Wimpyguy (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Well the project is kind of dormant at the moment. Most of us (myself included) no longer have the time/energy to really do much beyond monitoring. If you want to help, the aim has always been to get every Simpsons article up to at least GA class, so my advice would be to find something you are interested in, look at the similar Simpsons articles which are GA/FA class as well as similar articles from other shows, and then start researching and writing them. In addition to that, many of the older episode articles (mostly from seasons 6 and 8) need to be brought in line with those from seasons 2, 3 and 7 (with commentary relistens, more thematic content and reviews from books like Leaving Springfield and the AV Club reviews). Good luck. Gran² 16:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Like Gran2 said, you could always try to bring episode articles to GA status, or improve some of the Start/Stub-class articles to B-class. I check Wikipedia every other day, and I'll continue to do that for a long time, but I'll be going to university in a month so I think my work here is pretty much done, unfortunately. Theleftorium ^(talk) 18:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Simpson family tree

I'd like to invite all the members of this project to contribute to this discussion. Thanks. WilliamF1two (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Source on Simpsons being written by math geeks

Singh, Simon. "The Simpsons' secret formula: it's written by maths geeks." The Guardian. Saturday September 21, 2013.

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Marcia Wallace

For those who haven't heard, Marcia Wallace has died and the show announced that Edna will be retired. Keep an eye on a number of pages. After deaths, users have a tendency to add "The Late" in front of the person's name to various pages. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 22:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject The Simpsons At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Simpsons episode has been nominated for deletion

Template:Infobox Simpsons episode has been nominated for deletion. You may view and comment on the discussion here. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (indicate) @ 21:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

List of multimedia franchises

I have decided to tackle the creation of a single comprehensive List of multimedia franchises. If you feel that The Simpsons is an appropriate addition to this list, please add it, with links to the supporting media. Cheers!

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The Simpsons (franchise) is soon a GA.

The GA-nomination is currently on hold and some things needs to be fixed. You can help! (t) Josve05a (c) 04:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Marge Be Not Proud GAR

Marge Be Not Proud, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. GamerPro64 20:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC relevant to this WikiProject

An RFC about The Simpsons Movie and its inclusion on an episode list can be found here. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"Think of the children!"

Think of the children

Hey The Simpsons WikiProject editors, long time no collaborate!!!

I've recently embarked on a Quality improvement project on the article: Think of the children. (used famously by character Helen Lovejoy)

A vast majority of the secondary sources I've come across note just how influential The Simpsons has been on the pervasiveness of this phrase in society.

I could use some help with additional research to find more secondary sources, if anyone wants to suggest any at Talk:Think of the children, I'd most appreciate it!

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 08:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gran2, Theleftorium, Scorpion0422, CTF83! Alt, and CTF83!:Any of you still around? :) (Or anybody else, for that matter?) — Cirt (talk) 08:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm kind of around lol CTF83! 17:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Helpful text from DVD commentary compiled by Scorpion0422, at here. Thanks very much, — Cirt (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

David Silverman listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for David Silverman to be moved to David Silverman (animator). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Merger needed

Hello everyone- Fox animated shared universe and Family Guy Universe have both recently been created. If we really need an article on this topic (and I'm not sure we do), we only need one- could we perhaps have some interested eyes on the article, perhaps with a view to merging them? Thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Can anything be done with Quality issue of The Simpsons?

You probably remember this article I put together a while ago. I'm not that good with the copyediting side of things so I have not been able to start the brutal copyedit despite my desire to do so. Just figured I'd leave it here in case it can be salvaged into a comprehensive article about...something. It would be a waste for it to disappear. I give you all permission to edit my userpage. :)--Coin945 (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Waylon Smithers

User:Phil A. Fry moved the article twice to Mr. Smithers. I don't think it should be moved because it isn't that common, like Mr. Burns is. I mostly only remember it from Mountain of Madness by Bart and Lisa. CTF83! 07:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably next step would be to start WP:REQMOVE on the article's talk page in a new sub section. — Cirt (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok. CTF83! 00:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to keep us posted here. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Cast lists

Hi; I've seen someone blanking the cast lists of Simpsons episodes, and some were reverted as vandalism (see history of "Homer at the Bat", for instance). I was wondering if there's an official stance on whether or not to include such sections?

Fennler (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Good Article promoted version didn't have it.
Good Article reassessed and kept version didn't have it.
Good Topic quality promoted version didn't have it.

Therefore, strongly say we should leave it out.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: It was the same user that was adding them [10], trying to go through and clean up this duplicate and also redundant info that also repeats material in the articles and has the same facts on the same page and says things twice. — Cirt (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Edits by DangerousJXD degrading quality of Simpsons articles that were previously high levels of quality

DangerousJXD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please see:

Problems with DangerousJXD (talk · contribs) actively degrading the quality of Good Article rated quality articles on Simpsons topics.

Could use some help here from experienced WP:DOH members.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter,

— Cirt (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Update: I've posted an update at both talk pages, hopefully to the satisfaction and compromise resolution of both parties. :) — Cirt (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

As I am outright disgusted by the above comments, I wish to have no further interactions with you if that's how you are going to interact with me. You are treating me like a common vandal and you (ridiculously) view my good faith minor copyediting as mass destruction of the entire encyclopedia. —DangerousJXD (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your kind understanding and agreement to cease disrupting the article's quality and stability. Much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

We all make mistakes; not everybody is willing enough to admit them. Instead, those people make comments like the above to reflect the complete opposite as to what is actually happening. We both know that comment is complete crap but you will never ever admit that but if you did, it would only be to 'win' the discussion. I'm not in any discussion to get the final witty comment. Just like any further comments of yours. They wouldn't be sincere comments addressing the issue. Oh well. To quote a troll, "Good luck" and goodbye. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I wish you the best in your future endeavors. — Cirt (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Book or website?

Forgive me if this has already been asked and answered, but I have a question. There are currently several requests to move pages from one title to another, based upon the titles given in the book "Simpsons World: The Ultimate Episode Guide". The reason I'm asking is because in some instances, such as A Star Is Born Again, the name in the book does not match up with the name given on the official website. I have no true problem with moving the pages, but I would like to have some sort of confirmation as to which guide we should be using as far as official titles go. The book should have been overseen by someone on the official Simpsons crew, but then the website is presumably more up to date. I'm also unsure as to whether we should go by the list title or how the title was promoted in the media. I want to avoid any potential reverts between the titles and an official consensus or answer would be nice. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

While reading this, I originally thought go with the website. The book, however, is authored be creator Matt Groening. I assume the book has it (the same as Amazon) says the DVD is, as A Star is Born-Again, as opposed to the website that has it A Star is Born Again. I don't know if we want to use the DVDs as a tie or what. I appreciate you coming here with your query. CTF83! 11:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for not posting here before I moved all those articles yesterday, I didn't think it would be particularly controversial. Anyway, I think in the case of "A Star Is Born-Again", we have to consider that the title is a reference to being a "born-again Christian", which naturally includes the hyphen, lending further credence to the title in the book. – Pee Jay 13:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I moved quite a few episode articles yesterday, based on the titles given in "Simpsons World: The Ultimate Episode Guide" (seasons 1–20), but apparently there is some disparity between the titles given in that book and in other sources. I can't find a full list of episodes from before season 19 on the Simpsons official website, so I don't know what other sources there could be. Furthermore, the Simpsons Wiki appears to follow the titles given in the books; I know we shouldn't use other wikis as sources, but it's at least a good guide that the titles given in the book are worth paying attention to. I'd welcome opinions on this please. – Pee Jay 12:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Oops, didn't notice the thread above. I've merged these now. – Pee Jay 13:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Well both book and site are official. The official site is run by Fox with no input from the staff so does have numerous errors. So I'd rather go for the book, but the best source is the title used on the DVD menus. Gran² 16:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you have copies of the DVDs? I hope someone does! – Pee Jay 17:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have all that are out! I think you should be able to search on say, Amazon.com and get a list of the titles on the DVD, example. CTF83! 00:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if I trust Amazon's item pages as a reliable source. If you could check the DVD menus for us, that would be best. I'll post a list of the titles that need checking tomorrow. – Pee Jay 01:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The following titles need checking:

S05E08 Boy-Scoutz 'N the Hood
S11E03 Guess Who's Coming To Criticize Dinner
S12E16 Bye, Bye, Nerdie
S14E09 The Strong Arms of the Ma
S14E13 A Star Is Born-Again
S15E08 Marge vs. Singles, Seniors, Childless Couples and Teens and Gays
S16E19 Thank God It's Doomsday
S16E21 The Father, the Son and the Holy Guest Star
S17E13 The Seemingly Neverending Story
S17E17 Kiss Kiss Bang Bangalore
S20E01 Sex, Pies, and Idiot Scrapes
S20E17 The Good, the Sad, and the Drugly

I understand seasons 17-19 and 21-24 have not been released on DVD yet, so no need to check "The Seemingly Neverending Story" or "Kiss Kiss Bang Bangalore", they can just be moved per the episode guide book. – Pee Jay 22:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

"It's a Bigger and Better" etc.

Hi all. I only edit sporadically and certainly don't want to step on anybody's toes, but there is something that's been bugging me about Simpsons articles. In most episode articles, the critical reception section mentions I Can't Believe It's a Bigger and Better Updated Unofficial Simpsons Guide by Warren Martyn and Adrian Wood, but should that info be there? Neither the book nor the authors have Wikipedia articles of their own and the book has one customer review on Amazon and appears to be out of stock. If it were being used as a source for facts it would be one thing, but shouldn't critical reception be limited to professional, respected reviewers? As far as I can tell, the only difference between these guys and any other Simpsons fans giving their opinions is that they wrote a book. Garing (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Writing a book is all it takes per WP rules. The book can't be just self published though. I don't know anything about this particular book. My guess is that it's allowed, if it's used so much. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is most certainly a source that meets both WP:RS and WP:V. It is a definitive resource on the topic. It is published by notable publisher, Virgin Books. — Cirt (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

BBC Cult URL format change for references to Martyn & Wood episode guide

The BBC Cult website's versions of the episode writeups from Warren Martyn and Adrian Wood's I Can't Believe It's... episode guide used to be in this format: http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/simpsons/episodeguide/season4/page19.shtml

However, those links now redirect to http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/genres/comedy

The BBC Cult site's main directory is still online, and some of its show-specific pages still work - just not The Simpsons!

There seems to be a backup at: http://bbc.adactio.com/cult/simpsons/episodeguide/season4/page19.shtml But if you go to http://bbc.adactio.com/ you'll see that it's not an official one.

This change could mean a lot of link correction is required on a numerous articles. (Not just Simpsons episodes, but also other things that cite the BBC Cult website.) --Nick R^Talk 16:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Decade portals

Is it okay if someone puts decade portals in the Simpson episode articles? For example Portal:1990s for episodes that aired in the 1990s, Portal:2000s for those that aired in the 2000s, and so on?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 12:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed move

List of The Simpsons episodes* has been proposed for renaming. Editors are invited to participate in the discussion, which may be found here. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Sideshow Mel article: Help pitch in

I have started making an article for Sideshow Mel but a couple of obstacles have come in my way such as the lack of time I have, getting rejected by the editors due to my inexperience with creating wikipedia pages and the fact that the official photo for him was taken off because I couldn't get licensing information meanwhile other official photos (The ones with Matt Groening's signature, that are above the character info). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sideshow_Mel

Thanks and please help. --J.rodz01 (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject The Simpsons/Archive 8 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Archive 8/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject The Simpsons.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject The Simpsons, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Treehouse of Horror 26

This is the first Treehouse of Horror episode not to show the title in the opening.

Megacheez (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The President Wore Pearls

I tried to do a little bit of work on The President Wore Pearls, what else needs to be done before some/all of the cleanup messages can be removed? --gupdoo3 3oodpug 20:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Frinkiac

The greatest website in the world exists, and might be of much use here. Any Simpsons quote (up to Season 17) instantly becomes a screenshot at Frinkiac. In the right hands, this could find the perfect illustration(s) for each episode article, insofar as they match the plot summaries. If you wanted to go crazy with it, you could do each paragraph. But if you're only adequately prepared to rock, it's still good. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The Great Phatsby - wrong description

"It marks the first hour-long episode of the series." - Both episodes combined last ~40 minutes, don't they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.217.70.143 (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Why are the episodes lists made in such a way that editing them normally is impossible?

Why don't we have two actual separate articles instead of this mess. It's terrible that the current main list begins with season 21 instead of the first season which is nothing but confusing for the average reader.★Trekker (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson: TFA

Hello. I wanted to let everyone know that The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson will be WP:TFA on September 11, 2019. The featured article has been in place for September's queue. In preparation, I have made some minor adjustments/additions. If anyone would like to contribute to tidy up the article, please do so! Thanks! FunksBrother (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

National Review column on The Simpsons anti-Trump segment

I found a National Review column on an anti-Trump segment. It mght be useful in describing a view towards that episode or towards the modern version of the show https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/the-simpsons-cowardice-tribal-comedy/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=idealmedia&utm_campaign=nationalreview.com&utm_term=68952&utm_content=8010668 WhisperToMe (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:The Simpsons for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:The Simpsons is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:The Simpsons until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. Certes (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Character articles merged into List of recurring The Simpsons characters

A number of merges have taken place of some notable recurring characters. There is some on-going discussion about these at the talk page which participants may be interested in, particularly this thread: Talk:List_of_recurring_The_Simpsons_characters#Snake_not_having_his_own_page_anymore. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Production codes as redirects

I think using production codes as redirects to individual episode articles is useful, however another user disagrees so I have stopped adding them for now. Any contribution to the discussion would be welcome, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 26#7F15 --Jameboy (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

File:I wont not use no double negatives.jpg at FFD

The screenshot File:I wont not use no double negatives.jpg, taken from The Simpsons episode, is discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 May 3, to which I invite you. --George Ho (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Most viewed stub in this Wikiproject

¡Ay, caramba! 8,689 289 Stub--Coin945 (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Itchy & Scratchy episodes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Itchy & Scratchy episodes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Itchy & Scratchy episodes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Mousymouse (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Ullman v. Twentieth Century Fox

Can I request that this article is written?--Coin945 (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

research about the Wikiproject

Hi, just to let you know that according to our research, this Wikiproject is the third most successful Wikiproject in history. Pundit|utter 11:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)