Talk:The Simpsons Movie

This article was voted on for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Simpsons Movie. The consensus was to merge it to The Simpsons. dbenbenn | talk 00:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unmerge this article and the "The Simpsons" article

The rationale for merging the two articles was that there is no concrete evidence that any plans for a movie exists. Now that the teaser trailers have been shown during Ice Age: The Meltdown and during the latest Simpsons episode, and various media outlets have reported on it, I think that there is enough "proof" to move it back. Abhorreo 00:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The teaser trailer

It was added that the end of the teaser trailer has Mr Burns saying "excellent". I saw the version on television, and don't remember that part... Perhaps it was only on the Ice Age version? If so, I think it should say so. Abhorreo 05:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it's there, as can be seen in this video capture of it [1] -Kaizersoze 07:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Thanx also for the link, I shoulda thought to go look for that myself... It allowed me to make the play-by-play of the trailer more accurate.

BTW, in case anyone brings it up, generally describing the trailer in detail is perhaps overkill, but in this case the person looking it up would likely be a hard core simpsons fan, and if so, I think they would appriciate the details on any information available on the movie. Abhorreo 15:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I specifically remember Mr. Burns saying "Excellent"

I updated the Url to the teaser page, the old one ( http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/thesimpsonsmovie/teaser/ ) didnt work anymore --Janzomaster 17:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Image

Do we really need that image? It's not suitable for anyone under 13 years of age to view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.56.136 (talk • contribs)

What? What image? Do you mean Homer in underwear? So? What's your problem? 69.67.231.99 03:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

then don't look at it... A:) it's a cartoon, B:) the TV show has shown him in his underware several times, C:) Wikipedia is not censored for minors... - Adolphus79 05:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In Simpsons: Hit & Run you can aquire it, and the OFLC classified it as G(General). 203.171.95.32

The rumors and hoaxes section

Perhaps there should be two sections, one for all the past hoaxes and rumors about a possible simpsons movie, and a different one for speculating about the new (confirmed) one? Both are their own topics, and sure to be expanded upon... Abhorreo 16:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well its done, I belive the change is for the better, but I am not sure about the titles for the two sections, especially "Speculation and trivia" - There is probably a better way to put that... Abhorreo 02:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps seperate subsections for confirmed facts and speculation? The bulk of the information would need to be rewritten and moved around, however... Abhorreo 23:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

^{This has been quite a delightful conversation with myself :)}

Related Quotes section

I'm not sure if its really appropriate for an article on a movie to have a "related" quotes section (not quotes from the actual movie), but there are plenty of interesting and insightful ones, so I am going to create one... Abhorreo 15:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I moved the quotes over to Wikiquote _si»abhorreo»^T 09:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Zimmer or Elfman

IMDB says it will be Danny E. So, which one will really be on charge of the soundtrack?

The IMDB is not a reliable source when it comes to composer information. -> http://www.soundtrack.net/news/article/?id=747 --80.140.223.148 08:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I Bow down to the great Matt Groening.02:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Oakley & Weinstein

Bill Oakley & Josh Weinstein were the show runners for 2 years! Why didn't they participate in the writing of the script? Registered user 92.

Don't know. You will probably have more success getting answers on the IMDB message boards. s»abhorreo»i 07:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Speculative?

Can we remove the 'celebrities might make a cameo or larger appearance'? Isn't that virtually a given as a possibility in a Simpsons-based project?

It is even confirmed that Erin Brockovich is going to make an appearance, so just remove it. --Maitch 13:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Removed. _si»abhorreo»^T 03:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• It is quite possible that the movie will be presented as a IMAX release. My reasoning for this is that FOX recently released "Night At The Museum" in IMAX, maybe they were "testing the waters" of this format for future releases. Also, the fact that in the trailer it is mentioned the film will be in 2-D which could be intentional to throw off the audience.Ericnet 06:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Even if it is available in IMAX (which strikes me as being unlikely for a conventional cartoon), it certainly wouldn't be in 3D. That's an issue that the producers and the shows fans feel strongly about. _si»abhorreo»^T 07:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• That's very true, I didn't even consider the "conventional" animation aspect but just to let you know Disney re-released "The Lion King"(about 90% traditional animation) about 3 years ago and it came out great and made some extra money too. We just added IMAX at the theater I manage and I talk with the IMAX people about once a month so I'll try to keep you advised, they are very big on the 3-D(Superman, Spider-Man 3, Harry Potter 5 all will be 3-D). Do you think most fans would approve of the IMAX release?

Film Rating

A PG-13? Ridiculous! I think it's clear from the trailer (taking into account it was shown during Ice Age 2, a PG/G rated film) that the film will be aimed towards a younger audience. I suggest this section is removed.

I don't know about that, but it is unsourced information. I think we should give the person who added it (or anyone else) an opportunity to provide a reference before removing it. _si»abhorreo»^T 00:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 are kids films, and they are both rated PG-13. And plus did you read the clip dialogue? "I'll kill you, you son of a bitch" really doesn't sound like it belongs in a PG-rated film.

"Bitch" has been said multiple times in the show, which is usually rated TV-PG --Rubber cat 02:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

TV ratings are different from movie ratings. Also, many episodes of The Simpsons are rated TV-14. Pacaman 20:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen Back to the Future, was rated PG, and the word "bitch" is said some of the times. "Bitch" has been said multiple times in some PG-rated film. I've also seen The Lion King, which was rated G, and the word "kill", which is not profanity, is said some of the times. "Kill" has been said multiple times in some films rated G or PG. So can't The Simpsons Movie be rated PG, since most of the episodes of the series are rated TV-PG? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.216.140.118 (talk • contribs)

From the article: "The film's producers expect that the film will be rated PG-13 by the Motion Picture Association of America, as it will contain stronger language and subject matter than that of the TV series.[Bowles, Scott (2006-04-02). "Mmmm, popcorn: A 'Simpsons' film in '07". USA Today. Retrieved 2006-04-02. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)]." —tregoweth (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Spiderman has a rating of M 15+ in some countries, instead of PG13+ --|K.Z|Z.K| Do not vandalize... 08:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Still if you read the first stories boards Bitch is used once and Bitch can only be used once in a PG I think.Themasterofwiki 18:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Film Ratings.com it will be rated R for strong language, violince, and crude and sexual content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eddyspokie3 (talk • contribs).

I believe you're mistaken; as of a minute ago filmratings.com doesn't even have a listing for The Simpsons Movie. —tregoweth (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Speculation

What a no-no. I don't care how credible the plots aintitcoolnews or random wikipedians come up with may be. This is not a site for speculation. Xubelox 03:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well then perhaps "speculative" is the wrong word. It isn't random information that some bored Wikipedian came up with when he was drunk, it's relevant information that may end up being incorrect, but is likely and logical enough that it deserves mention. You might make a case to remove Ain't It Cool News bit, but I believe the rest is appropriate. _si»abhorreo»^T 08:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

How is it relevent? No matter how logical it may seem, it is still classified as original research. It is completely unacceptable and has no place on Wikipedia. There are plenty of other places where people can find this "information", but Wikipedia is not that place. Xubelox 20:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant because it is significant information about The Simpsons Movie. Nothing there is original research. There are sources for everything other then the top bit, which is "source-based research". _si»abhorreo»^T 21:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The recent 3 additions at the bottom of the speculative section could use some citations... _si»abhorreo»^T 05:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Those sources could have been concocted by anyone. A tabloid is hardly a credible source. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball and only verifiable information belongs here. Sillygostly 23:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Previews

The previews of the movie that this article links to require a codec for Windows Media Player that is quite difficult to get hold of (or at least did and was for me - I may be the only person with this problem). Also, the previews were available from YouTube but are not anymore because they were used without the permission of FOX (they seem to have been filmed without permission as well). However, I have found them here, although it may not be long until these are made unavailable too. Perhaps these links should be provided as well/instead? (Please tell me if I am the only person who found playing these clips a problem) George C 13:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A website that plays the clips like that is preferable to linking directly to the video files (as it's currently done). I actually originally added links to the YouTube clips, which were then removed/replaced/updated as YouTube took down one set of clips and someone else put them back up. Eventually the YouTube links were just replaced with the current ones. Fox may send a request for removal to Grouper too, but in the mean time I agree that your links are best. Feel free to make the switch. _si»abhorreo»^T 14:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the YouTube clips back in a while ago because they were the only way to view the clips at the time. This was before I noticed they were added and taken off before. If there are better sources, I'm all for replacing them -- just as long as there's a way to view the clips until the movie is in theaters.--Undertow87 00:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I too was wondering whether the linked videos (and images) within this article are legal, and/or have the permission of FOX. Considering the fact that they don't seem to be linked from the FOX website, they may well be illegal ... in which case, shouldn't they be removed?! --Jatkins 19:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Is Clip 1 only available as the poor quality filmed-from-the-back-of-a-cinema clip as it is or is there a version of it taken from the original video file like the other two? George C 09:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The animatics were shown at a convention, and thus I think only recorded on phones. So of all the clips, the animatics should probably go. Gran2 10:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I agree. If no one else posts within the next week (by 23 February, 2007), I will remove the animatics. --Jatkins 15:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Large sections of the clips were shown in a commercial on American Idol, and Fox has released stills of it (as shown in the article). It seems that they are phasing the clips into the "public", and at some point they shouldn't be any different than the trailers..._si»abhorreo»^T 17:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I take your point, but even if they were shown on Fox they are probably still protected by copyright law. If there's a link to them on the Fox website or something then that would be a different matter... --Jatkins 11:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Animatic hosting

I see you have the animatic clips hosted on grouper.com

I am going to soon have an unlimited webspace server with no ads or popups, when I do, I will rehost the animatics there so that they can be played without ads everywhere. However, I need a way of downloading them. Where can I do this?

Restructuring

I've just had a go at merging and reforming such information. Please continue to clean-up this article folks, it was a bit messy and we need to find more citations for things. Thank you. Wiki-newbie 15:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

A restructuring is appropriate, but it doesn't make sense to have everything moved under the "history" subsection. After the movie is released, perhaps, but not now. Now that they aren't under a common umbrella, the headings "Confirmed" and "Speculative" don't make any sense, and it also doesn't make sense for "Speculative" to have its own top level section while "Confirmed' is a subsection under "History". _si»abhorreo»^T 10:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be obtuse....

But what exactly is the plot of this film? Is there going to be ANY plot at all or is it going to be the same worn-out humor the show suffers from now? PatrickJ83 23:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The plot hasn't been released yet, but every scrap of information that is available should be in the article. The trailer for the movie is coming out shortly, there should be more known about the plot then. _si»abhorreo»^T

The writers and producers are being extremely tight-lipped about the plot, and as Jim Brooks said himself, that they'll be throwing out fake plots. It's also common practise for TV producers to do the same in order to conceal any plot twists that may occur. (Particularly in season finales). But in answer to your question, no there is no known verifiable information on the plot apart from what is available in the trailers that FOX has released over the past few months. Sillygostly 03:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Movie trailer premiers tonight

We should keep an eye out for it appearing on a clip website, so we can add it to the article as soon as possible. _si»abhorreo»^T 00:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

M rating

ive heard the movie will be a M rating because of the violence. is it true?

From what I've heard, it will be PG13. In terms of content, it will probably be not a lot different than on TV, because they stillshow a lot of violence (in some episodes) as well as nudity and some language. Apparantly the language will be a little more "profane" but thats it. Don't expect a Simpsons version of "Uncle Fuka" or anything. -- Scorpion0422 02:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I doubt it. The only circumstances in which The Simpsons has ever exceeded the PG rating in Australia was due to assisted suicide themes in Million Dollar Abie and scenes of drug use in two other episodes. So unless they use the F word once or twice (which I REALLY hope they don't), or if the movie is abundant with moderate impact content, then it would be rated M. The Simpsons has never been rated M for violence as far as I'm concerned as the violence depicted in the series is typically comical in context, and despite the gory nature of some violent images, they don't exceed the PG rating due to the melodramatic and unthreatening nature of the violence. Sillygostly 04:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Austrailian, but I'mm pretty sure America has a different rating system than you guys because we had "parental advisory suggested" when Selma was getting married. The Simpsons movie will probably be PG-13, i think, because the simpson writers will not want to have to dumb down their content for a pg rating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.149.55.127 (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

There is already a section about the rating so put it there.Themasterofwiki 20:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a show that's always been between PG and PG-13. PG has gotten the reputation (Napoleon Dynamite withstanding) for "family films". The show is not for little kids, (the classic argument of animation being stereotype as being "just for kids", even though there are notable exceptions) Doc Strange 10:53), 25 March 2007 (UTC)

A joke

You know the film isn't real right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.41.14.138 (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Then they made the trailers and released them for a joke? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.185.78 (talk • contribs) 07:42, Dec 16, 2006 (UTC)

The trailers were not for a joke, they were just to promote the film's release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.216.119.173 (talk • contribs) 00:57, Jan 09, 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to believe that the film's a joke. There's been tons of press about it, and apparently work began in 2001. From my personal experience, fans have been speculating about a film from a long time. Also, I'm not sure how necessary these comments are -- it seems pretty clear that the film is real. --Jatkins 19:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Plot Summary?

I removed the following suspicious plot summary. Feel free to return it with an appropriate source.

Homer causes an accident at the Springfield Power Plant. He gets fired and gets ran out of town. So Homer goes on a mission to find himself meeting past season characters. Meanwhile his family is on the look for Homer but get in some deep trouble. Homer fails to find himself and returns to Springfield. He finds his family's gone and now knows he has to save his family!

Is this the actual movie plot? If so, please say it or isn't to User:Spidermanfan94's discussion page. --Spider-Man Fan 1994 21:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

David H. Flint 00:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the third animatic clip does hint to the actual plot, with Homer dumping a contaminated silo into the river. Nothing about the SNPP, however. — NES Boy 18:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Trailer transcriptions

The transcriptions of the trailers are (1) excessive, and (2) copyright violations, and should be removed. Thoughts? —tregoweth (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the detailed descriptions are a bit much, but remain short of overdoing it. The descriptions, along with the other bit and pieces you have been removing, should stay in the article IMO. I hope this doesn't turn into a sort of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_is_not_paper vs http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletionism. So, I disagree that they are excessive, and you'll have to describe just how they violate copyright. Thanks, I hope we can work this out without resorting to violence. _si»abhorreo»^T 19:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

My congratulations to tregoweth for cleaning up the article. Describing trailers is not encyclopedic. Wiki-newbie 19:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that describing the trailers is pointless. Why not just readd the apple link (which disappeared for some reason) that had the trailers? -- Scorpion 19:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There's already a link to the official site, which links to Apple's trailer site. —tregoweth (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason why we can't cut the middle man and readd the apple link? -- Scorpion 20:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper. If you want to remove content, there needs to be a good reason. Quote from the linked section:

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page.

There has yet to be shown a solid reason for removing the content. Tregoweth hasn't shown how it violates copyright. Can we please leave the current version as it is, until we reach a resolution on the matter? We're coming close to the 3rr as it is... _si»abhorreo»^T 21:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• The trailers are Fox's copyrighted property; the transcriptions are derivative works containing a substantial amount of the work, used without Fox's permission, which is copyright infringement.
  Even if the trailers were public domain, long quotations like that are not something I've seen in other articles. —tregoweth (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't generally see this sort of detail in many other articles, either, but if we never did anything unprecedented, we would never move forward. Speaking of precedent, and on a less philosophical note, could you provide examples of previous cases where parts of a Wikipedia article were removed due to being derivative of a copyrighted work? What we have here (being overly descriptive?) isn't directly addressed in any Wikipedia guideline I could find. It might qualify as being "an abridgement and not a summary" as described here, but that's pushing it. Also, you are allowed to create derivative works based off of Fair Use, and if you scroll down that page and look through the Fair Use section, you'll see that many of the conditions it describes fit this. In any case, outright slashing the entire sections isn't the right thing to do. _si»abhorreo»^T 03:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary, which was eventually moved to WikiBooks because it was a summary, and not an encyclopedic article. Also, summarizing something for the purposes of discussing it might fall under fair use; a straight transcription wouldn't. —tregoweth (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Reading down the list of factors: It is not for a profit competitor; It is for "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research"; The trailer is publicly published; It is merely documenting the original work; It helps the authors ability to sell it; It is not a detailed description of the movie -- It is a detailed description of a piece of promotional material that FOX released to promote their upcoming movie. Bearing this in mind, I think you can make a case for Fair Use. Notice I said description and not transcription, I think that's an important distinction. The animatic piece is in the format of a transcript, but the trailers are not. If they trailer's description's have crossed the line, that should be addressed separately. _si»abhorreo»^T 01:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Putting aside my copyright concerns, the sections about the trailers take up a disproportionate amount of the article. Noting that the trailers received a lot of attention, briefly describing them, and perhaps pointing to where they can be downloaded should be sufficient. Also, I just made some edits to the article, mostly changes I had previously made that were reverted along with my deletions; I wish to point out that I didn't touch the trailers sections. —tregoweth (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with has been a positive experience, and I'm tempted to keep my mouth shut for the sake of making a concession in return for your (albeit a temporary one) own, but... I object to your other changes as well. They are more then "trims", you removed large sections of content and formatting that were valuable and legitimate parts of the article. Wikipedia is not paper, and there is no reason to pare down the article, removing all but the bare minimum of related information. I don't think the trailers take up a disproportionate amount of the article; Perhaps they will once the movie is released and the article fills up with standard movie information, but until then, the trailers are the most relevant pieces of information available. The article also seems more "balanced" in its "pre-trimmed" state. _si»abhorreo»^T 22:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the transcription of the clips, I think the first one is wrong. This part... Lenny: So, uh, who is gonna kill him? Moe: Uh, I think the people in the front row. ...should be: Lenny: So, uh, who we gonna kill again? Moe: Uh, I think the people in the front know. Scott 13:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Entirely too much detail for an encyclopedia. Goldfritha 02:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected from soundtrack vandal

I've semi-protected the article in hopes of driving off the persistent user who insists on adding information on a fictional soundtrack album. If this is causing any problems for legitimate edits, please let me know. —tregoweth (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Soundtrack vandal is really the the UPN vandal, a mass vandal who delibirately adds incorrect information to film-related articles (Just to let you know). He even tried to impersonate me [2]; I feel honoured! Anyway, me and David Levy are the main people trying to take care of him. Perhaps you'd like to help? --AAA! ^(AAAA) 11:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, some people have too much time on their hands. I have experience with mass vandals (User:VaughanWatch) and they are not fun, especially the persistant ones. It's especially funny because when the soundtrack is released released (because there WILL be one), I'm more more than willing to bet that there would be little rap or pop music on it, but you never know. -- Scorpion 14:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons Movie (soundtrack), the page has been made again, I've nomed it for speedy deletion. Gran2 07:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm cleaning it up and I'm reporting him to an administrator. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 08:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The forked The Simpsons Movie (film) has been recreated, and I redirected it here, but I doubt the creator will just give up. Leebo⁸⁶ 21:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

And he's got another new account, ah well, have a good laugh at this "official the simpsons move soundtrack" image he's "found" [3]. Gran2 21:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Anyway, that one has been blocked, the image is deleted, and the redirects have been protected. I wonder who the new sock will be... --AAA! ^(AAAA) 23:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please round up some more admins? I've caught another, and we'll be needing more than 2. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 02:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears that this talk page is no longer (semi-)protected. Please could an admin with some spare time once again semi-protect this talk page to help prevent vandalism from unregistered vandals editing under IP addresses. Thanks! --Jatkins 19:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think protecting the talk page is necessary, as this vandal just reposts the same text occasionally. Revert his edits, block the account used, all is cleaned up. —tregoweth (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The vandal is back with a new account (User:Lil Nanna). I've reverted some of the edits made, and tagged The Simpsons Movie: (the soundtrack) for speedy deletion. Can an admin take the proper actions? Leebo⁸⁶ 20:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That guy is REALLY starting to get annoying, I reported the user to an admin that is currently online and hopefully all the added pages and category will be deleted and protected. Also, this is off-topic, but the soundtrack info they keep adding really sounds terrible (Lil Romeo on a Simpsons soundtrack... COME ON!) -- Scorpion 20:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking, should we report him to Long Term Abuse? --AAA! ^(AAAA) 06:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know.. I'm leaning towards a yes, because this guy doesn't seem to get the message that NO ONE BELIEVES HIM! Let's see what the admin does first. Gran2 07:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that people are doing stuff about this, but if this offender (believed to be the The UPN Vandal) keeps vandalizing under different accounts, then how can we stop them? I'm all for banning this vandal and stopping him messing up Wikipedia, but if we can't stop him, why bother. We're just giving him what he wants. --Jatkins 11:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thankfully, the guy isn't smart because he always gives himself away by posting here first, but are you actually suggesting that we cave into a vandal and let him post whatever he wants? -- Scorpion 13:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I was just thinking that it was a bit pointless if he keeps coming back under different accounts. I'm not used to dealing with vandalism on wikipedia, but I do understand that you're ways the best. --Jatkins 20:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I read the article when it was up. There seemed to be a large amount of gangsta rap and emo, with this supposed soundtrack not even containing the classic Danny Elfman theme.Doc Strange 10:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I added an external link to a fan site dedicated entirely to this movie (by the looks of it the first and only fan site out there)

why should this link be deleted?

fan site: simpsonsmovie2007.com

I like to see fan sites receive as much attention as any other resouce that briefly covers a topic. At least they stay updated. I've listed plenty of other fan sites across wikipedia for various topics without any problems. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wozzaofrare (talk • contribs) 05:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I personally feel it should stay, I mean I have actually ben looking for a site like this in ages and now there is one! I know it isn't official but until the film is released, it is good. I mean it beats the Simpsons Channel, which is good, but it hardly ever updates. So I say keep it, it isn't really linkspam. Gran2 07:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• If unsourced rumors should not appear in articles, there is no reason why an article should link to a site featuring unsourced rumors. Also, even including the rumors, there's not enough content on the site to justify a link. —tregoweth (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this has come down to an edit war, could another editor please make a decision which both Tregoweth and myself will abibe by. Clearly there is a difference in opinions and already one editor has offered an opinion that the link should stay. My point is that the link is something that is being updated regularly which would be a benefit since other links are static pages which rarely update. Rumors are content that shouldn't appear directly on the wikipedia site which *as per the rules on external links* would class this content as something that should be linked to externally

wozzaofrare (talk)

That is not a valid reason to link to an external site. In any case you will be hard pressed to justify a link to a fansite, let alone one that is practically empty. _si»abhorreo»^T 01:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Green Day

Just so people know, the most recent trailer featured a BRIEF shot [4] of a band that was later revealed to be Green Day. Based on that, many are predicting that they will be appearing as themselves. It's all speculation, so remove anything that gets added, but I just figured I'd mention it so people know where the speculation is coming from. -- Scorpion 16:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I hadn't seen that, add I've watched the trailer a fair few times. Who revealed it to be Green Day? Gran2 16:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the point. It hasn't officially been revealed to be Green Day, the characters all just look quite a bit like the Green Day band members (except Simpsonized, of course). The black clothing and red tie on the singer makes me fairly positive that it is Green Day. Still, it shouldn't be mentioned until its official. -- Scorpion 16:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see, sorry me being stupid, but yes agreed, it should be in the article until officially confirmed. Gran2 19:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that IS DEFINITELY Green Day!! I wonder what song they'll play, hope its 'American Idiot' haha! CoolChris 10:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Green Day confirmed to be in the film and playing on song, in this article. Adamravenscroft 12:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that. I'll add a small note that nothing has officially been confirmed, but that spokespeople for the band say they will appear and a song will be featured. -- Scorpion 16:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Right I think we should, using the above source, list Green Day. We've reverted it for so long now, but that source does pretty much confirm it. So I guess we best put it in. Gran² 15:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

PROFANITY

Hey,

Just so you know, profanity is not allowed on Wikipedia, please remove Dr. Hibberts Swear Phrase or Star out the swear word

Coolchris,

PS: IT IS against the rules to use profanity —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CoolChris (talk • contribs) 10:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

No, it isn't. Prometheus^-X303- 10:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Plus its a quote. And "son of a bitch" is hardly even that profane. Gran2 10:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool Chris, you know you have to use four tildes (~) to sign your comments? And don't space. It makes it hard to read. As to the question in hand. This website has an entry for the "f" word I have never heard of the rule about profanity if it's used in a quote. In that case the Wikiquote entries for Clerks., "The Big Lebowski and just about every R-rated movie are in violation Doc Strange 11:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

yo coolchris, ur allowed to swear on wikipedia... ive seen wikipedia say heaps of times that wikipedia iz not cencored for minors.... witch iz pretty much the same thing.. - kozmic|sk8r 02:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Plot

We should put some possible plots on the plot section of the article, here are 2 that i found:

When Homer accidentally pollutes the river with toxic waste from the nuclear power plant he gets fired from his job and everyone has to evacuate Springfield, possibly forever.

Homer causes an accident at the Springfield Power Plant. He gets fired and gets ran out of town. So Homer goes on a mission to find himself meeting past season characters. Meanwhile his family is on the look for Homer but get in some deep trouble. Homer fails to find himself and returns to Springfield. He finds his family's gone and now knows he has to save his family!

No. They are unsourced and speculative. See WP:V and WP:CITE. WikiNew 21:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

They are speculation. That is why your edits were reverted in the first place. Gran2 21:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons Movie Phone

March 11, 2007

I visited this article a while ago and saw info on a new simpsons it was deleted due to lack of references. Well i bring references to add it to the article.

http://www.firstshowing.net/2007/01/11/limited-edition-simpsons-movie-samsung-mobile-phones-on-display-at-ces/

Gundum285 16:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)gundum285Gundum285 16:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons Movie Premiere

I live in Springfield, Illinois and recently saw an article about a contest between around 22 Springfields throughout the USA to host the movie premiere. Is this worth mentioning? And would anyone care to add it because I don't want to. Tinkleheimer 02:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that and all the stuff about the trailers could be shoehorned into a "Marketing campaign" subsection? There's also a 7-Eleven promotion that's going on (11 7-Elevens will be turned into Kwik-E-Marts)... --Rubber cat 05:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations for use: add here

• Stephanie Sanchez (2007-03-28). "Real Life Simpsons Kwik-E-Mart". IESB.net. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |acessdate= (help)

Alientraveller 15:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• "The Simpsons Game rumoured for Wii and DS". Aussie-Nintendo.com. 2007-03-27. - only a rumour right now, but a citation none the less. Gran² 21:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Billington, Alex (2007-01-11). "Limited Edition Simpsons Movie Samsung Mobile Phones on Display at CES". FirstShowing.net. - and this from above. Gran² 21:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Couple of proposals for the page

To be able to use the two above references we need to create some form new section, any ideas would be good, as I've got none. (Apart from merchandise, but the real Kwik-E-Mart thing is not merchandise). And we should remove or move to wikiquote the transcripts of the animatic trailers. I mean we removed the production quotes, and every quote from the episode pages, so this one shouldn't be different. Gran² 15:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)