Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 85: Line 85:
== Changing the state to Oregon. ==
== Changing the state to Oregon. ==


Also, it should be Lane, County, Oregon. The evidence is in an article when Matt Groening HIMSELF sends a plaque to [[Springfield, Oregon|Springfield, Lane County, Oregon]] saying they are the "REAL Sprinfield".[http://www.registerguard.com/news/2007/07/27/d1.cr.simpsons.0727.p1.php?section=cityregion The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, USA<!-- Bot generated title -->]]
Also, it should be Lane, County, Oregon. The evidence is in an article when Matt Groening HIMSELF sends a plaque to [[Springfield, Oregon|Springfield, Lane County, Oregon]] saying they are the "REAL Sprinfield". [http://www.registerguard.com/news/2007/07/27/d1.cr.simpsons.0727.p1.php?section=cityregion The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, USA<!-- Bot generated title -->]]

Revision as of 03:07, 16 August 2008

Which is worse: Unreliable sources or unsourced facts?

We have a lot of articles that are tagged for being unsourced. Most of the later seasons can only be sourced by using unreliable source. So I was wondering which is worse: An article cited by using unreliable sources or an article that is completely unsourced. --Maitch (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tough question. Probably completely unsourced. I mean, I think that really, we can count stuff like SNPP and Simpons Channel as fairly reliable. So they're better than nothing. Gran2 09:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also say unsourced, because unreliable sources really show, that the user added a fact because they think it's true, while usourced facts could be added by vandals. Martarius (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. No source can indicate that an editor has possibly just made it up. A least with an unreliable source, it shows that an editor has added it because they have seen information somewhere. --.:Alex:. 10:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that a lot of the cultural references for the episodes in season 19 are supported by unreliable sources. I was wondering if this was the way to deal with all the unsourced newer episodes. --Maitch (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Channel 4 Censorship

I live in Britain and I watch The Simpsons in Channel 4. Is it alright for me to add sections of Channel 4 Censorship, which I saw episodes full on Sky One, then saw it censor some parts out in Channel 4? I've already been doing it for a while anyway, and found many censors of episodes, comparing it to the originalSCB '92 (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship cuts are generally not notable unless they are really big and have been reported by a news source or can at least be reliably sourced by something else. The only C4 edit of any notability is when the aired "Trash of the Titans" without cutting the word wankers. Really, any minor censorship cuts (both British and America) are just trivia and should not be mentioned. Gran2 18:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural impact on H.M.S. Pinafore

Hi! As everyone here probably knows, half a Simpsons episode is devoted to H.M.S. Pinafore, making it one of the most obvious and necessary inclusions in a cultural impact section ever. However, I don't know of good sources for The Simpsons. Can anyone lend us a hand by finding us a source? =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you just need a source that says the episode ("Cape Feare") includes part of the score, you can use this or this. If you need more detailed analysis, let me know, and I'll see what I can dig up. Zagalejo^^^ 01:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. I've added both =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the season 18 pages?

I was looking over them and some were in huge messes (ie. 2 identical cultural refs sections, stuff that was cut and pasted improperly from previous versions, refs to previous episodes sections) and most were protected even though they had little vandalism beforehand. What did I miss? -- Scorpion0422 02:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems most of the season 18 fell off my watchlist. I've been on everyday, but not all day, so I've probably missed some stuff. Gran2 08:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A month to save our FTs

Well we have about a month to save our Featured Topics. All we need to do is get The Principal and the Pauper, The Simpsons Spin-Off Showcase and The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show to Featured status. Really it's just copy-editing (Pauper is very, very close) and a bit of minor expansion and we should be there. Gran2 15:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should be high-priority. Cirt (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone should listen to the commentary track again for Poochie to make sure that we got everything that is useful. The rest is just a matter of copy-editing. Perhaps we could get a user from the league of copyeditors to help us. --Maitch (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is a great idea. Cirt (talk) 03:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I listened to the commentary again and added to cultural references stated very clearly, that for some reason I missed when I first did it. There was some stuff that we might want to include that I didn't put in yet, so I suggest a couple of other listen to the track as well. Gran2 11:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listing of Relatives

I don't think we should list ex spouses as relatives in the infobox, as they are no longer related. Any other thoughts? Ctjf83Talk 22:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and while we have this topic going, who agrees that we shouldn't list unnamed or unseen characters, such as Homer's cousin Frank/Francine Ctjf83Talk 22:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both points. Zagalejo^^^ 16:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green Guide

Recently, I came across an article about how The Simpsons has influcenced the world of comedy, and what various writers, actors and comedians thought of the show. It was published in The Age, an Australian newspaper, in the Green Guide section, which is a mini-newspaper published every thursday. I guess it is like "TV Week" magazine, in that is contains TV listings, reviews, tech news, etc. Anyway, the article features quotes from, among other (small-time) Australians, Rove McManus and Chas Licciardello. Would there be any possible use for these? --Simpsons fan 66 06:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great. You can add it to The_simpsons#Influence_on_television, which is a bit short considering the impact The Simpsons has. --Maitch (talk) 10:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sorry this took so long guys, but I've had a fair bit of work. I've reviewed the quotes, but the Chas one isn't really usefull. The Rove one however looks like it might be good. Here is the full quote.
"The Simpsons have influenced a lot of my comedy friends. There's an episode, a Cape Fear parody, where Sideshow Bob gets hit in the face with about 20 rakes and it takes a good minute and a half for him to go through them all, which, in television terms, is a very long time for a joke, and it's a perfect comedy moment. It's now a yardstick for comedians when we talk about how you can keep going with a joke in that same way. We call it The Sideshow Bob Rake Idea. And when, if a joke falls flat, rather then just stop and move on, you keep going and reference the fact that the joke didn't work and all you're doing is making it worse for yourself, we use the phrase, 'How will I get out of this hole? I'll dig my way out.' That's a Simpsons line."...
"When I was in Los Angeles, I had the chance to sit down at a Simpsons table read, and you really see where the sucess of the series comes from. They read it as live, they don't stop. They get a crowd of people in and as they get a laugh, they write a note. I don't know how many other shows would do that." - Rove McManus
As you can see, this might be useful in the The_simpsons#Influence_on_television, or even on the Cape Feare page itself. If anyone want to use the quotes, here is a reference with all the necesary information, I hope. Drop me a message if there are any issues.[1] --Simpsons fan 66 13:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Call of the Simpsons needs to be reassessed

I have edited The Call of the Simpsons quite a lot and it needs to be reassessed. I'm new to the project (this is the first episode article I've worked on) so if someone experienced could reassess it that would be great. =) Thanks, TheLeftorium 14:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good, so I've reassessed it as B class. It needs a bit of work before it's GA class, but it's a very nice start. Also, welcome to the project, I'll give you the welcome template deeley in a minute. And also, nice work the comics page, I saw that last night. :) Gran2 14:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will try my best to improve it further! :) TheLeftorium 15:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you guys find information about the Nielsen ratings? All I could find was this. TheLeftorium 15:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'll probably have to use a newspaper archive, like Newsbank. A handful of newspapers papers print the weekly ratings. Zagalejo^^^ 19:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision to Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria being discussed

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured topic criteria#Require more FAs? about the possibility of increasing the requirements for a featured topic, namely requiring more featured articles or lists. The current requirement is 20%, or one in five. I have proposed raising this to 25%, or one in four. There are other editors who would rather go straight to one in three. As large topics, Wikipedia:Featured topics/The Simpsons (season 8) and Wikipedia:Featured topics/The Simpsons (season 9) would be among the most affected by this change. They are both under the current 20% requirement and are being retained under a grace period set to expire this month. Your comments and thoughts on the subject are welcome at the above link. Thanks, Pagrashtak 18:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the 1/3 would kick in a year from now, so September 1st, 2009, so you'd have a whole year to bring them up to standard, and perhaps could be given more time if needed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...So you'd need 9 featured articles/lists per topic to retain your topics - rst20xx (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No offence but if your going to keep upping the threshold of exceptability, why not just ban FTs with GA articles completely, then there wouldn't any more problems. It's incredibly unlikely that we'll save the season 8 topic by the end of the month, season 9 probably will be though. Chances of really improving them beyond 20% featured status isn't exactly very high, so this is very welcome news... I'll guess we'll have to see what we can do. Gran2 19:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It'd a good thing I don't believe in conspiracies, or I'd think people were doing this solely to target us, since we'd be the only ones affected. I hate to say this folks, but this is the end of our FTs, because I refuse to play this game of catch-up every six months. They seem determined to get rid of our topics, so just let them. -- Scorpion0422 20:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commented at the thread below Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs). These changes are quite frustrating and almost is motivation enough to not work on WP:FT drives anymore. (Not quite at that point yet for me, but it is certainly frustrating.) Cirt (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject The Simpsons participants...WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises' scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on multimedia franchises. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help the project get back on solid footing. Also, if you know of similar projects which have not received this, let Lady Aleena (talk · contribs) know. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. You can sign up here if you wish. Thank you. LA @ 21:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Franchise naming convention discussion at WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject The Simpsons participants...WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA (T) @ 22:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the state to Oregon.

Also, it should be Lane, County, Oregon. The evidence is in an article when Matt Groening HIMSELF sends a plaque to Springfield, Lane County, Oregon saying they are the "REAL Sprinfield". The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, USA]

  1. ^ McManus, Rove (2008-06-12). "The Age". Green Guide - Lessons from Springfield: 12. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)