Talk:That '90s Show (The Simpsons)

Tenure Error

Should there be a note about the error where 'associate professor' Stefane August is implied to lack tenure? In reality, the title of associate professor is only given upon tenure - before that, one is an assistant professor (and if one fails to make tenure, the term is 'fired'). I was shocked that the Simpsons made such an elementary goof, especially considering the general nerdiness they've shown before this. Mokele (talk) 05:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's notable considering how many continuity errors they have made, something like that is minor. Anyway guidelines discourage sections on goofs.--The Dominator (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not a continuity error, it's an actual error.

Where in my post did I say it was a continuity error? And please sign your posts.--The Dominator (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"I don't think it's notable considering how many continuity errors they have made..." Thats where you said it.(I'm not the guy who originally posted that, I just noticed that) --72.83.82.238 (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes considering the amount of continuity errors they made, I didn't say that it's a continuity error, just that the episode made alot of them.--The Dominator (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Either of you want a ruler to go settle this? If you feel so strongly, edit the actual article. --68.195.52.30 (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And that is exactly how edit wars are started. The Dominator (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone who starts a sentence with and has no right to criticize. How could you make such an elementary error? (Consider the high level of nerdiness you've displayed in the past.) 67.71.140.165 (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

The University of Pennsylvania's The Button sculpture is shown in this episode on Springfield University's campus.

That might be a tad too trivial for inclusion, but if you find a source, feel free to include it. Please sign your posts by typing --~~~~ or pressing the sign button above the edit area, and add new posts to the bottom of the page.--The Dominator (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Anachronism

Homer quotes the Seinfeld episodes The Soup Nazi and The Sponge. Both episodes aired in 1995, indicating that the episode takes place in 1995 or later. Later a guy calls Kurt Cobain. Kurt Cobain died in 1994, so this is an anachronism.

It's no different than the continuity errors that the episode makes, unfortunately it's difficult to mention it without creating original research. Any way that's only one of many that the episode makes, so it's not that significant. Also please sign your posts.--The Dominator (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a weird 90s synthesis, verging on non-canon. For instance, Bart in 2008 must have been born in 1998, However, the closing scenes of the flashback approach the Millenium, and there's no sign of Bart or even Evergreen Terrace.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So, I agree that there are so many continuity errors (regarding both The Simpsons Universe and the actual universe) that this isn't notable enough to include; however, it's not original research, as all of the involved dates are easily verifiable. Though I suppose it might count as original research until the poster does, in fact, cite the relevant dates.Choiniej (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

CR Bullets vs. Paragraph

I'd like to know people's opinions about this as there are minor disputes, I prefer the paragraph since to me, it seems like bullets imply that the list is complete (which it isn't and isn't even supposed to be), the paragraph form on the other hand outlines the types of references made. Just want to know people's thoughts on this, thanks.--The Dominator (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Paragraphs definitely! All of our GAs use paragraphs, and they also seem to cut down a little on random CRs Ctjf83^talk 06:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Just my thoughts (I know I can't change anything permanently, so I won't press the issue), the paragraph does not read any better than the bullet points. The paragraph reads more like a collection of different thoughts clumped together, while the bullet points at least implies separate thoughts. There is no "flow", which is what well written work needs. Rhino131 (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and see what you can do about cleaning it up, if you want Ctjf83^talk 20:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I might go through other pages to see if I can fix it (its not too bad on this one). Its no big deal, its just that one random sentence after another in paragraph form reads a little odd. Rhino131 (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a paragraph is just random sentences, isn't too well structured and is just a paragraph for the sake of being a paragraph, but bullets make new users assume that since the CR they noticed in the episode isn't in here then we must have forgotten it, the article is then flooded with original research. So yes the paragraph needs to be structured better, but the bullets don't solve much.--The Dominator (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying it should be changed to Bullet points, because the GA people prefer the paragraph. I'm just talking about adding in words like "and" or "also" at the beginning of sentences. Rhino131 (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A parody of the Floating timeline?

"The plot of the episode parodies the series' sliding timeline"

I have issues with that statement and I don't wish to turn this into a forumesque debate so I'll keep it short. That statement is a POVish analysis of the plot and it definitely needs a source from one of the production staff. Personally, I didn't see it as an intentional parody of the floating timeline, just an episode where the staff decided they didn't care about continuity. If it was a parody, it would have been done with a lot more sarcasm and there would have been some references to it. Does it mess up the timeline? Certainly, but is it an intentional parody of it? Maybe, but we shouldn't say it is without a source. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it was supposed to be a parody of the timeline, but I do agree that it should be removed unless well sourced.--The Dominator (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I had thought it was the new writers not knowing about the older episodes time line, or trying to introduce a time line to younger viewers. If it was a parody, it would have been clear. Rhino131 (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Bart's line about never hearing about the 90's sort of shows that it was intended as a parody. I doubt that it was an error from the writers but I guess your second possibility makes sense.--The Dominator (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I took that line as saying kids don't know/remember anything before this current modern age. But we won't really know unless there is a source. Rhino131 (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there's no way of telling without an inside source so it's best to just drop it from the article (which has been done).--The Dominator (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Parody" is the wrong word to use in my opinion. Perhaps saying that it is a reference to the Simpsons' floating timeline makes more sense. I'm sure it was obvious amongst the writers that this would break continuity, but I don't think the episode was intended to do that. They just wanted to have fun with characters. In order to really enjoy the show, a viewer has to understand that nothing makes sense. --Fez2005 (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It was either a "reference" or simply a "use" of the floating timeline. "The Way We Was" was written when Bart was 10 in 1991. Now, he's ten in 2008. Obviously, things happened more recently than they used to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.54.251 (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking for a reference I think would make it clear - an article somewhere (Slate maybe?, I can't remember) which indicated that the writers decided to have the story because of the unexplained age difference basically, one of the writers asked once "hey how come Homer (and Marge) are 36/38 and had a 10 year-old son straight out of high school?", which they decided to make a story out of. I've expanded on this slightly in the article, but don't want to go beyond the small changes I made without finding a reference. Anyone remember reading it last year? Quadparty (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not a "parody" of the floating timeline, it's an ABUSE of it! And I have NEVER seen such blatant abuse of the concept of the floating timeline! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.105.197 (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Archive

This page is getting a bit long, you think we could archive?--The Dominator (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

sure why not  Done Ctjf83^talk 08:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

== Errors == Should we put a little blurb under the cultural references part that says the timeline of the 90's that is shown in the episode is messed up? For example, it is apparent that Nirvana hasn't been formed yet, so that would place it in 1990/91, but we see a Sonic the Hedgehog billboard earlier with both Sonic and Amy on it, even though Amy wasn't introduced until 1993. The whole episode is more of a all-in-one 90's, but I still think we should make a mention of the various errors they made while making this episode. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC) :A lot of people have pushed to include it and I agree that it would probably be best to include some mention of it, although absolutely no specific examples since there were alot of errors made and new users and anons will start adding loads of OR. The Dominator (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC) ::I think the whole timeline of this episode makes no sense at all. Grunge music was invented in 1985/1987, yet it clearly ends in 1999, and anyway, if the simpsons followed a real timeline, bart would be 32, lisa 30 and maggie 23.

Misplaced Apostrophe

When using an apostrophe showing omission the punctuation goes in front of the number so as to signify the fact that it's replacing the numbers that are no longer there. Therefore, 1999 is shortened to '99, 2008 is shortened to '08, etc. Also, if one is referencing a given decade, such as the nineties, there is no apostrophe needed inbetween the zero and the "s"; one just needs to simply add the letter. This particular error seems to be everpresent in many articles on Wikipedia. I realize it's an easily overlooked mistake--that's why I'm addressing it.Larphenflorp (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think that is how it is listed in the Simpsons website and other official sites, which is why the article is titled that way. Rhino131 (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Is that worth noting somewhere in the article? Just a thought.Larphenflorp (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I suppose it depends on if it was deliberately make like that by the writers or they simply did not know. Rhino131 (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't think we should include it per lack of knowledge about it. We don't know why the title is like that therefore there isn't much left for us to write. The Dominator (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
        • According to TV.com, the apostrophe comes before the 9. I agree with Larphenflorp that, grammatically, this is where it should be. I wasn't able to find the episode referenced on the official Simpsons site so don't know whether it's their (deliberate?) mistake or our mistake. Wavehunter (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
          • TV.com is not a reliable source though grammatically it would be correct. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 01:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
            • According to The Simpsons Official Website, the apostrophe comes before the 9. CheeToS (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Music?

What is the classical music that was playing while Marge was moving out? 70.15.111.216 (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's "Bitter Sweet Symphony" by The Verve 70.15.111.216 (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, does the song 'margarine' sound like 'glycerine' by bush? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken pachi (talk • contribs) 00:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

And I hope someone's aware that Nirvana in no way, shape, or form created grunge. They were simply the first grunge band to to reach super stardom. Soundgarden was the first to make it to a major label, and neither Soundgarden or Nirvana were on the Deep Six compilation, which is arguably the first grunge record, which was released in 1986. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.207.7.131 (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Something he missed...

In one scene, the Comic Book Guy says "...and that is why The Lord of The Rings can never be filmed!" Clearly, he hasn't heard of Ralph Bakshi's 1978 adaptation. 24.250.2.98 (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

One could argue that it did not film the entire trilogy; and that the sequel especially badly misrepresented the next parts. (I think it was done by different people?) Jackson's introductory summary of the rings follows Bakshi's version closely btw. - Tenebris

Time and space

Why is it that Simpsons' fans have absolutely no problem with the ongoing and deliberate geographical impossibilities, but flip out and blame the writers over each temporal impossibility? - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.76 (talk) 08:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Because continuity in comedy cartoon series' is critically important to the amount of enjoyment derived from the series. Obviously. We don't want peoples' suspension of disbelief ruined in a cartoon about yellow people and equally unnatural hair colors. 98.234.116.17 (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yellow people who also NEVER AGE. Bart should have been reborn twice by now. I don't recall the exact episode, but in one episode someone says (Bart?) how everything on TV is not always possible, and in the next second Homer walks by the window while also being inside the house. Who cares if it massages the continuity? Bart almost failed the the fourth grade like 17 years ago, yet he's still in the fourth grade... that's not very continuous. I think there should be some mention about how this episode is a big fan favorite, based on my looking up Sadgasm on youtube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.101.10 (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Fans just faced their own age and discovered that their youth became a history :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.232.15.88 (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

---

That 90's Show → That '90s Show — The Simpsons Official Website states that the title of this episode (Season 19, episode 11) uses correct punctuation. The target page is currently a redirect to this page. CheeToS (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Seems straight forward from the discussion above. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Teacher

Is teacher a negacionista or simply a revisionist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.141.32.201 (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Another question about the teacher: There's a brief scene with the gas man fixing the thermostat who talks of a woman he loved. It almost seems like it was intended that he was supposed to be the heart-broken professor, but something got cut and we're left with a pointless interaction that makes no sense. Has anyone found any official comment on whether or not the gas man was the former professor? four tildes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.6.131 (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on That '90s Show. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080131224051/http://foxflash.com/div.php/main/page?aID=1z4&ID=71 to http://foxflash.com/div.php/main/page?aID=1z4&ID=71

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)