Talk:The Simpsons

The Simpsons received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

In The Future Section

Is it really appropriate to have an entire section of this article dedicated to the future "flashforwards" as shown in a single episode. It adds nothing to the article except an episode synopisis for this one recent episode. I propose removing this section. Gblaz 19:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Early Comments

Am I the only one that dislikes the way this page reads like a fan site? I'm not a Simpsons hater by any means, in fact I'm an original fan who was a 9-year old TV watcher when they started--but I really disagree with a lot of the glowing characterizations in here that I think are completely out of line with the tone of a professional encyclopedia article. To the extent Wiki is just a repository of fansite splurge I think it needs to be reigned in. 12:55 Shanghai Time 12/17/04

The Simpsons actually do not live in any state. That episode was out of the regular continuity, and in fact the voice over that said "Northern Kentucky" was changed to say "Southerm Missouri" in a rebroadcast of that episode. So I cut " , Kentucky (the identification of which was a long-running joke/mystery until they finally came out and identified the Simpsons as "this Northern Kentucky family" in the "Behind The Laughter" clip show), " from the article

Adam850

I think I have finally found something as to the controversial Scotchtoberfest. Frizzensparks.com has confirmed my beliefs as to its nature. After being invented by the Simpsons writers, some some Scots decided to make it a proper celibration of "all things Scottish" (see the link). It is now an event with ale-brewing and so on among a small number of Scots on "the third Friday of every October" (I think). Maybe we should add it to the article about its real-day values. There is a lot more info about the subject to be found by googling for "Scotchtoberfest" (a lot of them are personal homepages with photos etc of the small celibration). If anyone wants to discuss it on my talk page or here I encourage them to do so. - Ludraman, 2145, 25-02-04

Well, if you're right, then we should put it back in it's own article, and add that information about the real-world version. - Bulbaboy 01:02, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't know - after all it was started by the Simpsons! If we add in about its real values, and keep the redirext running, the best thing is probably to keep it part of the main Simpsons page. - Ludraman, 1705, 26/02/04

I was roaming through one of The Simpsons' executive producers, James L. Brooks' IMDB profile and notice that in one of his old shows, Room 222. There is a character named, "Principal Seymour Kaufman." Any relations to Principle Seymour Skinner? -- DraQue Star

Is it the longest running animated programme? how long before it becomes the longest running sitcom or tv show overall?

It won't ever be the longest-running television show. It may outpace shows like Gunsmoke but shows like As the World Turns and Guiding Light have been airing every day since the 1950s. It just won't ever be the longest-running show. Mike H 19:32, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Concerning Mr. Burns: His mansion is located at the corner of Croesus and Mannon streets. Isn't that MaMMon? I don't want to change if I'm not sure. -- Zoe

I'm planning to promote all the Simpsons article from "subpages" to main articles, as I did with the Middle-earth articles. Any objections? Speak now, before I spill coffee on the nuclear reactor controls... Ed Poor

I object - I don't think they even deserve sub-pages, forget about main articles. Graft 08:23 Jul 25, 2002 (PDT)

This is more of a rant than an objection. If someone two hundred years from now were to judge society through Wikipedia, they would conclude that the most prominent cultural creations of the past 150 years were Tolkien, Heinlein, and the Simpsons. Dickens doesnt rank half as high as them in terms of what is written about him and his work, though he was more prolific and certainly more influential. Why are there more references to Homer Simpson than to Homer the Greek? (And I don't just mean dead white males either: Achebe, Joan Baez, etc. are all in pitiful states.) There is more about Bart Simpson than there is about most presidents. Is Wikipedia an account of the human experience or is it a survey of pop culture c. 2000 AD?

I will probably get flamed for this. I can deal with it. I guess it also means that there is a lot of work left for me to do.Danny

I hate to throw cold water on your proposed flame fest, but actually that was a keen observation. Pop culture does seem to dominate the Recent Changes this week. --Ed Poor

This week, last week, the week before, etc. I am with Graft on this. Take it as an "object." Danny

Definately agree with both Danny and Graft here... I mean is the main content of Wikipedia aimed at beig a representation of our current culture or of the history of our culture (which I'm afraid spans a little more than the last decade or century for that matter... Human history has outlived civilisations, never mind countries or the physical (buildings and the like). Social humans have been around writing their history for thousands of years, never mind before that... and here we are with some of best editted articles being about a cartoon series (granted quite a good one). -- *<:@)

Incidentally the imediate family Simpsons (Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa and Maggie) have twice as many search hits as Johann Gutenburg (inventor of movable type) - ie references to said people...

(Homer or Marge or Bart or Lisa or Maggie) and Simpson vs.
Johann Gutenberg

Which do you reckon contributed more to society? -- *<:@)

Even Homer Simpson on his own has more references... *sigh* -- *<:@)

Subpages discussion

Couldn't these pages (characters in a tv show in general) be moved to a subsection of thier respective shows? For example, "The Simpsons/Marge Simpson"? This may be bad advise...I'm new and haven't got my bearings yet as far as article organization. Rlee0001 09:27 Jul 25, 2002 (PDT)

We used to have subpages (with the "/" character), but the latest thing is:

Marge Simpson -- if nobody real has that name
Marge (The Simpsons) -- for the character if there's a name conflict.

By the way, welcome to Wikipedia! --Ed Poor

I totally agree with Rlee. These new articles are getting ridiculous. Every frigging character on the Simpsons does not deserve an article!!! So far, Ed, you also asked if there were objections, and already got two. Danny

Good point, Danny. Perhaps we could consolidate 15 or 20 of the minor characters into a single article. A side-effect of promoting the sub-articles is that we can readily see how trivial some of them are. I'm going to stop promoting the various Simpsons/Tina Trivial articles for now. --Ed Poor

Jimbo Wales has already said in previous debates (not sure exactly where right now) that he would be quite happy to see articles for individual fictional characters or even articles for individual episodes (assuming they are long enough to warrant their own article)... --Rebroad 15:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm leaning more toward Ed here. The Wikipedia article namespace should be a single flat namespace, with no inherent "structure" implied by the names, so the slashes have to go. It is a matter of taste, though, whether to make many small articles or to collect several topics into one. Clearly, "Homer Simpson" is as important to American culture as Huck Finn or James Bond, and may have lots of references outside just the series, so he gets an article to himself (and probably Bart as well). But as for the collection of minor ones, I imagine a single "Characters from The Simpsons" article will do just fine; all the old slash articles can point to that one--there's no harm in having a specific title redirect to a more general article that includes its subject. --LDC

That sounds reasonable to me. Danny

Agree. Ktsquare

Also agree! Thanks guys. Rlee0001 11:21 Jul 25, 2002 (PDT)

All power to you, objection fifthed -- *<:@)

Unless otherwise directed, I'm going to continue as before, getting rid of the "slashed" subpages and promoting each article to, for example, Krusty the Clown and Lenny (The Simpsons). I'm primarily interested in moving away from the obsolete subpage system.

If anyone would like to consolidate some minor characters, especially those whose page consists of only, say, 3 lines or less -- please go ahead. I will adjust the REDIRECTs accordingly. --Ed Poor

Hold on, Ed! So far everyone has voted against all these new pages. Why keep making them? There are no directives from above in Wikipedia. It seems like most people so far agree that all characters except for Homer and possibly Bart can be put on a single page. Danny

Tell ya what: If you will consolidate the minor characters, I will adjust the redirects. Work with me on this, or I'm going back to Middle-earth. I miss the elves. --Ed

Frankly, I don't think this is important enough for me to waste my time with it. And what I say about the Simpsons goes just as much for all elves, gnomes, leprechauns, and other dimensionally-challenged characters in Tolkien's world. Danny

Ed is doing exactly what you want now, Danny. He moved the single line of text from "The Simpsons/Lenny" into the main characters page, and made it link there. I think that's a fine way to do it. He's not creating all the old "/" articles--those are already here. He's just making them redirect to the collective one. He is further suggesting that he'd rather someone else do the rest of them. Can't blame him for that either. --LDC

That's not what I see happening. Danny

I really prefer each character to have their own page. What's wrong with that? Wikpedia is not paper, so there's no minimum size for an article. Besides, I enjoy clicking the links to explore the relationships between the various characters. The hypertext aspect of the content is lost if I have to scan up and down trying to find, say, the creepy boss, or who broke Lisa's saxaphone. Let's gather some more consensus before I start "heavy lifting" again. --Ed Poor

Here is my take on what's wrong with it. I always pictured Wikipedia to be a vast project, a compendium of human knowledge and experience. It is not a paper encyclopedia so the amount of information it contains can, in theory, be limitless. In that sense, it is an opportunity to take full advantage of the Internet as a valuable source of information about just about everything, and each of us has the chance to make that happen. That being the case, I forgave Wikipedia when I found information lacking. It is a work in progress, and, as such, the gaps will be filled in over time. I still believe this, by the way.

The problem I think is that so much of the information being filled in is really trivial. In this case, it is the type of information that belongs on a fan page, rather than an encyclopedia. It is frustrating to me (and I assume to several others) to see so much energy expended on this kind of work, when so much else needs to be done. As an example, make a list of what you consider to be the twenty greatest books of all time. Now see how well they do in a Wikipedia search. Pick a few random presidents and do the same thing. Or figure out how much information we offer about countries that does not appear in the CIA World Factbook. What about the sciences, animals, etc.? Some of the articles are great, while are lucky if they have anything more than a little stub.

Don't get me wrong. I am not against contemporary cultural icons either. I first found Wikipedia in the course of a heated argument with a friend over the various properties of red and gold kryptonite. Still, I think that there are so many other cultural icons that are missing. With the Simpsons, all that is missing is the episode guide (and I am NOT saying that it should be added next). For example, a classic American icon is Hiawatha. There is no article about Longfellow here. So is Yogi Bear. Does Booboo merit a separate article? How about "picnic basket"?

Also there is the question of POV. Forget Dickens, Chaucer, or even Toni Morrison. A disinterested observer coming here for the first time would get the impression that the Simpsons is more important than Bugs Bunny, the Honeymooners, Your Show of Shows, etc. Is that accurate, or are all the Simpsons articles merely a reflection of fandom? Do Rachel, Chandler, and Ross each get their own page? How about Sam Malone, Woody, Carla, and Norm Peterson? As for Tolkien vs. Dickens, will every character in the Pickwick Papers get an article too? How about in Huck Finn?

Finally, something about cultural icons. It can certainly be argued that Homer and Bart have risen to the status of contemporary cultural icons. I am still forced to wonder whether anyone will remember them ten years after the show goes off the air. Can you name all the Ninja Turtles?

Michaelangelo, Donatello, Leonardo and, um, er, don't know the last one (Carravagio?). And I hated those turtles! Still, with any luck the articles there are about the artists, not the turtles! PaulHammond 13:06, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Raphael, obviously!! And the bad guy was called Shredder (they're the world's most fearsome fighting team... they're heroes, in a half shell, and they're green... when the evil Shredder attacks, those teenage guys don't cut him no slack!!) *continues humming* Yeah that's all I had to say, so? :p - 22:31, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

These are just my thoughts. Feel free to disagree. Danny

Of course, since they were named after very famous Italian artists. But, to the point: you're right, Wikipedia lacks several substantial encyclopedia articles. I, like you, hope they will come, and try to help, as do most of the people that edit a page here. But not all of us are knowledgeable on all of these topics, sometimes not even knowledgeable enough for one topic. I don't care about that (though I do know _something_), as I just take some books or website to look things up when I think it deserves editing. But not everybody does, so they edit things they know about. Their jobs (which for many happens to be computer related) or studies, their home city or country. And also the things they see on tv, or the movies they watch, the books they read, etc. That's a reasons there's a lot of "popular culture" around. And that's just fine with me.

And I don't think the fact there's a lot about one topic means the Encyclopedia as a whole is not NPOV. For that matter, baseball would be the most important sport around, and the September 11 attacks the most important event of all time. They're not. And everybody that comes here and realises what the project is and is about will recognise that fact.

About forgetting icons, I think that here, where I live, in the Netherlands, more people will have heard of Homer Simpson than of Huckleberry Finn - and they'll remember him.

Less specific, I don't think we should try to "ban" specific sorts of material from the pedia unless we're pretty sure it isn't encyclopedia material. What I mean: if you "ban" cartoon characters, what more shouldn't be here? Jeronimo 14:30 Jul 25, 2002 (PDT)

I agree that we shouldn't ban anything. I just think more sense and consideration of the goals of the project should be considered when adding information. BTW, I think in America too, Homer is more identifiable than Huck Finn. Personally, I am not happy about that either. Danny

There's an election at Talk:Characters (The Simpsons) that you might like to vote in, Danny and others. I don't promise to abide by the majority, but I guarantee that your votes will influence me enormously. Ed Poor

Just to add my $.02...

I dearly love the Simpsons, and think it's some of the best television in the short history of television. I certainly think it deserves prominent mention in Wikipedia, and I think Homer Simpson is clearly an important American icon.

I do not think Sideshow Bob is an important American icon. Let's not even mention the acne-scarred teenager.

Okay, Wikipedia isn't paper. But if that's the case, why bother making any recommendations on content? Why is there a guideline against making dictionary entries?

I think it's obvious that there are some things that are appropriate for an encyclopedia and some things that are not. We have the freedom to be freer with our entries than Britannica might be, but I still think we should recognize that, for example, an entry for every single town in the United States might be a tad much. I think, when we create articles, we should consider whether they are, in a sense, worthy of note. There's all sorts of useless knowledge that we could choose to record in the 'Pedia. But I think utility and interest are things we should think about. Ten years from now, when the Simpsons is consigned to reruns on TV Land, I don't think anyone will want to know who Dr. Marvin Monroe is. I think we should be more selective, then, about what goes into Wikipedia and a bit sharper about what are essentially fan pages taking over what should be a very fine encyclopedia. Graft 14:13 Aug 1, 2002 (PDT)

Cut from article:

Merchandise

Actors

Cameos

I've been merging some articles. It occurs to me that I should have advertised the discussion about this here as well: see Talk:List of characters from The Simpsons for the details. Martin

"...longest running television comedy." Saturday Night Live? substituted "sitcom". DJ Clayworth 17:55, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Did the British Prime Minister really have a cameo appearance in the Simpsons. Which episode, did he play himself? More info please. Kowloonese 19:50, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I found my answer at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/reviews/3234778.stm He appeared on Nov 23, 2003. Kowloonese 20:14, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Are we sure that "The Simpsons" originally appeared Life in Hell? I was pretty sure that The Simpsons were only based on the character designs of the rabbits. (As the 138th episode extravagnza facetiously said: "an old drunk made humans out of his rabbit characters to pay off his gambling debts".) Someone should check up on it. UserGoogol 19:00, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

See [1] for similarities. Rmhermen 19:36, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

The Simpsons Sing the Blues

Maybe I'm just not able to find it but would I be right in thinking that there's no entry for the albums (I think there were two) released by The Simpsons? Would've thought there'd be mention of it, especially "Do The Bartman" which did so well in the UK. Also, and I admit I've not looked for them, but what about the computer games? violet/riga 22:23, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Simpsons Sing the Blues violet/riga 11:24, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Phil Hartman

Being such a high-profile actor and mainstay of The Simpsons surely Phil Hartman should be mentioned somewhere? violet/riga 11:24, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

He's there now, eh? Krupo

Odd comment, anon. Nowhere in this article is Phil Hartman mentioned - I really think he needs to be especially when his death caused popular characters to be withdrawn. violet/riga (t) 09:24, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That wasn't anon, I just forgot to sign off. Oops - have no idea why I thought he was already there... Anyway, he's in now! Krupo 22:05, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Which characters had to be withdrawn after his death? sars 22:33, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Obviously the ones which he did the voices for, mainly Troy McClure and the lawyer Lionel Hutz. --Jasper99 11:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Crowds

This line - how accurate is it?

Almost any riot, in above crowd reference, is started by Moe Sizlak of Moe's Tavern.

? Krupo 06:08, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Ramones

Anybody knows in which episode The Ramones are appearing?

They featured in episode 1F01, "Rosebud". They played at Mr Burns' birthday party, where he mistook them for the Rolling Stones (Burns: "Have the Rolling Stones killed", Smithers: "But sir, those weren't...", Burns: "Do as I say!") —Rory ☺ 20:43, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

The Politics of "The Simpsons"

Authority, especially in undeserving hands, is a constant target of the show's often sharp satire. This probably explains the often strong negative reaction to the show from social conservatives.

Is this really true anymore? Earlier in the history of the show it was certaintly derided by some on the Right, but I think this is far less accurate today, given how non-partisan the political satire often is. --jonathan 22:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The show has and still does poke fun at politics from both sides of the aisle often even though it no longer is considered "edgy" in part to its now iconic status. Quite frankly, i'm surprised this topic doesn't have its own article yet. --Karmafist 00:46, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

voice actors

I altered the information on voice actors strikes to put the events in the right context to make it slightly more balanced, and not the "greedy voice actors strike" version of events that was fed to the media by Fox. Hope this is OK. --jamieli 7 Jan 2005

Series History

I noticed that the first paragraph in the Settings and Characters sub-heading briefly discusses the shows history. Maybe that first paragraph should be moved to the Series History sub-heading in order to arrange the article better and shorten it just that little bit. Jaberwocky6669 19:54, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

"The Simpsons was the first true TV series hit for Fox". . . Weren't "Married With Children" and "21 Jump Street" hit shows before the Simpsons got their own series? 24.195.22.186 13:56, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That depends how you define a "true hit". Yes, those series did become hits before The Simpsons, but The Simpsons was a bigger hit than both of them and one of FOX's biggest hits to this day. It's all subjective. Kaizersoze 20:52, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Under the Movies Within the Simpsons subheading

I'm being serious about the school of hard knockers listing, no vandalism, lol! Jaberwocky6669 02:59, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

I've taken "The Christmas That Almost Wasn't (and then Was)" out of the "TV Shows within..." section and moved it to the "Movies within..." section. It was over 2 hours long, was shown on DVD, is never cited as a TV series and is clearly a parody of some of the more hackneyed low-buget movies shown as Christmas specials. terranwannabe 04:31, Mar 12, 2005 (CST)

The downfall of the Simpsons

Being a huge fan of the Simpsons for the first eight years it was on the air I believe a section should be included on the page about its downfall. Most knowing Simpsons fans realize its quality has declined significantly over the past number of years. It's original intelligent humor has been replaced with crude jokes, pointless guest apperences, and Homer acting like a total buffon with no sign of any intelligence whatsoeverIwhich he did have earlier in the series). I believe there is a significant number of true Simpsons fans who agree with me, enough to justify an added section showing how the quality has declined. It will not be biased but a fair representation on what the Simpsons used to be like and what it is like now. I hope Wikipedia allows this section to be placed in the article and kept there.

It's funny; you call yourself a "huge fan of the Simpsons" yet you seem to really bent upon adding your opinion of how much the show sucks to a public Encyclopedia. That's pretty hypocritical of you. Not to mention that most of those statements are completely false.

I am a huge fan of the show, the first eight years, after that I am not a fan. I don't think I'm being hypocritical by saying the later years are not as good as the early years. If you are a fan of the Simpsons do you have to like every single episode- I dont think so. Shows decline as they get older, its a fact. The Simpsons has declined and we all know this, no one though seems to want to admit it. Watch a show from the fourth season and then one from last week and tell me if you think the show is exactly the same in quality. In terms of adding my opinion I don't think it is just my opinion but a large majority of Simpsons fans. That being the case I think it would be appropriate to add a section dealing with this. People reading the Encyclopedia deserve to know all the aspects of the show, even its decline. Also, I just saw a commercial for next week's Simpsons. It has Homer acting like an idiot because of some sort of brain damage and Gary Bussey guest staring. Do you still think my statements about pointless guest apperences and Homer acting like a buffon are 'completely false'??

Sign your edits please guys. I second the motion and agree with this sentiment exactly. The show totally sucks today and I rarely laugh once during a new episode; but pop in my season 4 DVD and I'm pissing myself from laughter. It's just a completely different show today and 90% of the brilliance it once had is totally gone now. The 'core seasons' of the show are clearly around seasons 3 to 9 with the peak of genius being somewhere around season 5-6. Look, I even made a graph...I like graphs....:). Seriously though, it will be utterly impossible to have a section titled "downfall of the simpsons". What will have to be done is to frame this in the view of the majority of viewers or something. Something like "many fans of the show percieve that over time after ....blah blah the simpsons blah blah blah...." The claims will need to be backed up with data which may be mined from usenet posts (instances of "that ep. sucked" plotted against season or something?) or from ratings on snpp transcript archives maybe.--Deglr6328 07:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I came here to add the exact same suggestion - there should bv a section on the change in the show (which many view as a negative change. 69.136.234.155

Since it's so popular amongst regular viewers of the Simpsons to talk about how much it sucks then just write it. Nobody's stopping you. I personally feel it's a bit redundant. How can anyone expect a show to be fresh and new after 350 episodes? Just the fact that it made it so far, tells that the quality of todays episodes are worth watching compared to its competitors. --Maitch 11:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Find some sites/references that discuss this and then add details to the page. Without such source information we shouldn't be writing original research about opinions and perceptions of the change of the show. violet/riga (t) 11:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is already covered in Jumping the shark and List of shows that are widely considered to have jumped the shark, where it is much better suited. Otherwise, you are just beng POV. Sonic Mew 14:43, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Longest running

Surely the simpsons is the longest running TV show in the world!? Shows like gun smoke may be repeated on a regular basis, but they were also axed many years ago... The first line of the article used to statte that it was the longest runnig animated sitcom in he history of 'US' television history. I changed this however to read 'television history' as there is no animated sitcom (that I have heard of at least) which can top it. If anyone knows of one from anywhare in the world that can feel free to amend it. IU believe that it is the longest running 'sitcom' in television history and maybe even 'show'. Can anyone think of a sitcom that has run for longer than this? I feel I may change it to say 'sitcom in television history' and let people make amends to it if they know otherwise as this seems to be the best way to get things done on wiki.

what about Frasier? didn't that run for longer? sars 16:12, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Guiding Light, The Tonight Show and Saturday Night Live have all run for longer. As for sitcoms, I'm not sure. violet/riga (t) 16:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, there are soaps which has existed forever. I would probably call it something like the longest running comedic tv fiction show. Maitch 17:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, Sazae-san is the longest running TV-show in the world with over 1500 episodes, and still kicking.

About 300 episodes are nothing.

Sazae-san is probably the longest running animated TV series, but by no means the longest running TV series in general. There several British programmes such as the soap Coronation Street which have run even longer, and have for some time broadcast more than one episode a week. --Zilog Jones 17:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Update: After consulting the Guinness Book of Records 1998 (sorry, don't have a newer one), NBC's Meet the Press is the longest running show (1947-), Coronation Street has been running since 1960 (twice-weekly, then three times a week since 1989), The Sky at Night has been running since 1957 with the same presenter, and the BBC's Last of the Summer Wine is the longest running comedy (started in 1973, though I think it may have ended now). There's no mention of longest running animated series, but I can't see it being anything else but Sazae-san. --Zilog Jones 17:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Korean Production of Simpsons Animation

Odd that the hundreds of people, 120 to be exact who are animators and technicians, in the Republic of Korea, just south of Seoul, who actually make the Simpsons animation are not mentioned at all. So we've added a reference to this in "Post-Modern Korean Culture" which cites production of this series in Korea.

AKOM does the real work and has for 15 years. And the man behind it is Nelson Shin head of AKOM studios.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-03/05/content_421986.htm

Seems fair to credit 120 people behind the scenes and not just the top 10 who get all the publicity, doesn't it? Great website.

Apparently all Korean references were taken out today, which is interesting - why?

POofYS Dated 01:45, 29 March 2005.

Trivia section getting out of hand

I reckon that all of the trivia section (and subsections) should be moved into Trivia about The Simpsons (or some other name). I propose to do this in the next couple of days unless there are significant objections. violet/riga (t) 23:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I think some of the trivia could also be incorporated into other sections of the article (Settings, Characters and Plot; Series History; etc.) --Kaizersoze 20:29, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

I've moved everything there now - some parts could be reintegrated if it is found appropriate. violet/riga (t) 16:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Coltrane/Coltraine

Was the cat's name Coltrane or Coltraine?

The article says Coltraine, but I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be a reference to John Coltrane. KingTT 01:45, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, its deffinately Coltrane. Bonus Onus 18:55, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Setting, characters, and plot

is it a coincidence that Dr Marvin Monroe sounds eerily like Albert_Ellis, the psychologist who pioneered Rational Emotive Therapy? I have an mp3 of an interview he did on Australian radio, which I might have to post part of if nobody believes me ...

It was mentioned on one of the commentaries that his voice is loosely based on some old psychologist whom many considered to have an annoying voice, but I can't remember the name. --Kaizersoze 17:37, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

listen http://users.bigpond.com/n_tait/ae.mp3

External Links

Should a separate page also be created for External Links, say at External Links for The Simpsons? Important links (e.g. TheSimpsons.com and The Simpsons Archive) could be kept on the main page, whilst other, less important links could go on the separate page, linked from the External Links section. --Andrew 21:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article?

Could this page be a featured article? I am reading the page and I think it is comprehensive, has a good image for the main page of the Simpson family and people like - even love - the show. Maybe it can be a featured article. --Blue387 02:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)