Jump to content

Talk:The Simpsons/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

WTF cannot edit??!

This article is shockingly wrong!! Why the hell does it say 499 episodes when last night was the 500th??!??!

And to make matters worse, this error cannot be corrected because the page can't be edited??!?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.237.238 (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


Springfield has been identified as Springfield, Oregon

Springfield[1] should be updated on the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.243.170 (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No it hasn't and no it shouldn't. See this. What Groening actually said, which itself wasn't really new, is already in the article. Gran2 23:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

They fixed it

What the Chiz!!! Man. Dude they fixed it get your facts right. Besides just because wikipedia did not have it does not give you a good reason for you to swear and complain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacman451 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


Requested merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was no merge. -- Gran2 00:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The Simpsons (franchise) → The Simpsons

There is no reason for it to be separated.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

S23E19 == Antarctica ??

If you look, when the globe is turned, it turned northward, but it's south pole "Antarctica" is displayed, although it should be the north pole "Arctic" .. D´oh.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.180.51 (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge from Recurring jokes in The Simpsons

Has actually been discussed in 2009 and merged. See Talk:The_Simpsons/Archive_3#Merge_from_Recurring_jokes_in_The_Simpsons --Tikiwont (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

In absence of any new arguments, I've reverted to the redirect. Feel free to open up a new discussion below if you see a potential to reinstate improve the previous article. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Well discussion has started at Talk:Recurring jokes in The Simpsons --Tikiwont (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Children?

It is NOT because of the fact that it is animated, but rather, these are the following reasons I would like the show to be considered "children's":

  • Many young adults who are now in their 20s and 30s nostalgically remember enjoying The Simpsons when they were children.
  • The Tracy Ullman shorts appealed to a family audience.
  • Some people have said that the very first season made it seem like a kid's show at first. It was not until the second season did it begin to lean more towards an audience aged 13 and above.
  • Back when the show was new, the eponymous family (particularly Bart) was often blamed for encouraging indisciplined behavior among CHILDREN in particular. Read the "Controversy" section very carefully.
  • The series may lampoon some serious issues, but climatic change, religion and politics are things that can be tolerated by preteens (10-12).
  • Preteens are considered to be children, right?
  • Maybe most of the show's jokes may appeal more to older teens and adults, but there are also some sight gags that can make children laugh.
  • Their have been some musical albums inspired by the Simpsons. The articles that describe them consider them to be "children's music".
  • There are children who go around wearing Simpsons T-shirts and playing Simpsons video games.
  • The Simpsons have been featured in commercials that involve marketing candy to children.
  • Maybe the series is rated TV-14, but shows do not always HAVE to be TV-Y or TV-G just to appeal to a family audience. There are many family-friendly shows and TV specials that carry the TV-14 rating.

PRProgRock (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

seems right to me the info you have said here well done for this info.

--Iniced (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

So, can the Simpsons be considered a "Children's television series"? PRProgRock (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how any of the reasons you have provided indicate it is a children's show/film. Citing Wikipedia is a bad idea, but there's some secondary content, so let's take a look at Wikipedia's page on Children's film:
"A children's film is a film aimed for children as its audience. As opposed to a family film, no special effort is made to make the film attractive for other audiences. The film may or may not be about children. In Unshrinking the Kids: Children's Cinema and the Family Film which is a chapter in In Front of the Children ed. Cary Bazalgette and David Buckingham BFI (1995), Cary Bazalgette and Terry Staples argue that "Children's films can be defined as offering mainly or entirely a child's point of view""
So three points: it's intentionally aimed at children, "no special effort is made to make the film attractive for other audiences" and it offers "mainly or entirely a child's point of view". None of these apply to The Simpsons in any form whatsoever. So by definition it is a family show/film (and its intended target has always mainly been adults). Gran2 21:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is family-friendly. PRProgRock (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Gran. CTJF83 00:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
First, it needs a source, per WP:V, otherwise its original research. Second, have you seen the show? Some of these episodes I wouldn't want my kids to see. It's not The little Mermaid.--JOJ Hutton 00:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I HAVE seen the show. I have also seen the Tracy Ullman shorts. I'd DEFINITELY let my kids watch the Ullman shorts, and they can tolerate religion and politics. PRProgRock (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Since none of us know anything about you, what you would allow your kids to watch is different then what more conservative parents would allow their kids to watch. Also, just because you allow your kids to watch it, doesn't mean it's a kid's show. CTJF83 03:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
It matters not. Unless a reliable secondary source is found to support the it, the information won't be added to the article and the Simpsons will continue to be known as a hard core porn show, oh wait, that's the Telley Tubbies. (just kidding). Still not a kids show.JOJ Hutton 21:17, 13 June 2012 (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: not moved per WP:SNOW. Favonian (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The Simpsons → The Simpsons (TV series) – I know this may be a shock to you Wikipedia users, and I really did not want to request this myself (sorry if opinions are not allowed), but in order to actually know that it's a television series, it needs to be redirected to The Simpsons (TV series). 68.44.51.49 (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

After this happens (if it does), then I would be pleased to see the disambiguation page moved to The Simpsons. I made a discussion for that at The Simpsons (disambiguation)#Requested move. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey, all I want is that the disambiguation page would be moved to The Simpsons and The Simpsons to be moved to The Simpsons (TV series). I'm not trying to annoy you; it's easier to know it's a show. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article The Simpsons is: This article is about the television show. When people have read that, they should know it's a tv show. --Morten Haan (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The title should the name of the subject without explanatory comments, to the extent this is technically feasible. Kauffner (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy close. This proposal has no chance of passing. The rare reader who doesn't know The Simpsons is a TV series can find this out by reading the first sentence of the article. If the proposer thinks titles like "The Simpsons (TV series)", or "Canada (country)", or "The Beatles (band)", are necessary, I suggest they go to Wikipedia talk:Article titles and propose a policy change. szyslak (t) 14:25, 22 June 2012 (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.

Broadcast

I suggest we add a Broadcast section on article. Or Distribution, as in the House (TV series) article. --TBrandley 04:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Well if you want to and can properly and accurately source it, then go ahead. Gran2 08:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Missing info on influence in real life?

Is it worth adding that Simpsons lent to the name for the Albuquerque Isotopes or Fall Out Boy? It seems like it'd fall under "Influences on culture", but it isn't really an idiom or television-related. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Middle Class vs Working Class

There seems to be a contradiction in the article on whether the family are working or middle class. Whilst the lead claims,

The series is a satirical parody of a middle class American lifestyle epitomized by its family of the same name

The 'Themes' section says that the series [serves] as a satirical parody of a working class American lifestyle. Skimming the article on the family it doesn't seem to metion the class system at all. Obviously only one of the above can be correct in this case. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  19:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Just realised that that article claims Homer embodies several American working class stereotypes. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  20:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Well Homer does emobdy several working class stereotypes, but the Simpsons are broadly lower middle class. So that's what the article says now. This whole thing just shows how totally meaningless 'class' is as a concept. In the first few seasons they were working/lower middle class. Now, as the writers have become more detached from reality, they have clearly become middle middle or even upper middle. But, there's no reliable source for that kind of thing. Gran2 10:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I think middle class and working class have different meanings depending on whether you are from the US or Europe/UK. I'd say they are Middle Class, because Homer has a pretty good job working at a nuclear plant, they have two cars and cable television (right?). Then again, they can't seem to afford new clothes so maybe they're dirt poor. Bobbyfletch85 (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"Quality issue of The Simpsons

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

Good article, but a little too opinionated imo. Wimpyguy (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou for your analysis. I totally agree with you. It's quite hard to find the right balance... and I'm still trying to wrap my head around this article.. but I think I'm approaching a much more neutral version than what it was before. Nevertheless, I could certainly use some help. Care to give me a hand? :)--Coin945 (talk) 06:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Don Payne is Dead

Breaking News: Don Payne, writer of The Simpsons for 13 years, is dead. Circumstances are unknown, but Mike Scully did tweet a photo of Payne's parking space.

File:D Payne parking space.jpg
A photo tweeted by Mike Scully, showing recently deceased Simpsons writer Don Payne's reserved parking space, with a heart drawn under it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SamVJohnson (talk • contribs) 03:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


Hank Azaria became a regular voice cast member since the third season, not the second season. That needs to be changed.--Anotymous (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The source says he became a regular in the second season. He was certainly in the main cast for "Old Money". If what I've just said is wrong, you not to prove it. Gran2 08:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but Old Money is only one episode, just saying... --Anotymous (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It may be just one episode but he still became a regular cast member in Season 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazzaboy45 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a parody

Could we please substitute 'depiction' for 'parody'? The Simpsons is not a parody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groogle365 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Support - I would completely support this edit but where does it say parody. If you're indicating that somewhere in this article, it's being suggested that The Simpsons is a parody of humans, I'll grant you that should be removed. Please sign your post with by writing the following after your comment without spaces in-between: ~ ~ ~ ~ AmericanDad86 (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Missing...

The international broadcasters are missing... --Sofffie7 (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening Title Sequence

The article is awfully specific about the modification of the opening title sequence for the HDTV switch, but the title has changed many times before that, and I'm not just talking about chalkboards and couch gags. Example: For the entire first season, the sequence does NOT feature Homer dodging Lisa on her bike. --174.16.102.126 (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

"</ref>" in Text

In the Halloween episodes paragraph, the shortened footnote (sfn) to Turner does not require an </ref> to end. Instead it appears in the article text. Please change this minor error. Mysnailgary (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed - thanks -Mike (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

528 episodes?

Both the header and infobox give 528 episodes. However, List of The Simpsons episodes has 530 episodes. Though the same error is the header there also, the list still has 530. 85.217.42.90 (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Should be fixed now, thanks. Gran2 17:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Longest-running half-hour scripted series in primetime television

I realize that Gunsmoke currently has the most episodes for a scripted primetime television seasons and The Simpsons has the most seasons, but since Gunsmoke was only a half-hour series for the first six seasons, The Simpsons should be noted as the longest-running half-hour scripted primetime television series. --StewieBaby05 (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sazae-san has 2250 episodes, not 6000

The longest-running animated program, Sazae-san, has aired over 2250 episodes over 45 seasons. (http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2013-09-05/guinness-certifies-sazae-san-as-longest-running-animated-show) It is incorrectly listed as having over 6000 episodes in this Wiki article, which is curious since even the citation for that figure (from an article from 2007) says that the number of eps is nearly 2000.

Many episodes of Sazae-san feature more than one story (for example, one 25 minute episode may be comprised of two or 3 separate mini-episodes), which is perhaps where the "over 6000" number comes from. Nevertheless, the number of episodes should read "over 2250," not "over 6000." 199.21.149.243 (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)trogon

The Adult Genre

There is a clear consensus against removing the information, that The Simpsons is an adult show. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have concerns about the sources, and the content that AmericanDad86 has been adding. The sources that he is adding has very poor context, and the user is not relizing that, and that could be a problem. The content is not understandable to readers, because they are reading mostly lies from books written by authors that have degrees, but not the kind of books all about the series. I highly recommend that the content with the poor context sources should be removed, and not to be re-added. Blurred Lines 15:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support Per filing party. Blurred Lines 14:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The reference is nonetheless scholarly and while it is not comprehensively based around The Simpsons, it supports the concept of it being an adult show. Considering my personal knowledge, I believe the context of it being adult-themed may be inherent enough that an in-line citation there is unnecessary. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 20:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - What DarthBotto said. AmericanDad86 (talk) 07:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The reference is in fact credible. What you're trying to say is that just because the author of the book didn't take part in the production of The Simpsons it isn't reliable source? This is far from being true. If this were the case, then half of the references on Wikipedia would have to be reverted. Just because they weren't involved in the production of the show does not mean they do not have expertise in this subject. Meatsgains (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

Old discussion back in November 25 that was going nowhere. Blurred Lines 15:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I personally think that the adult theme is no concern to the show, as mainly the show's ratings are TV-PG, and not such thing as TV-14 to the show's image. Also, the reference that the user added (AmericanDad86) involved a book written by authors that were not part of production, nor creation / developers of The Simpsons, in which that can affect reliability as of what it says in WP:RS. I just hope that the users (AmericanDad86) & (Grapesoda22) understand that re-adding the genre is not going to make the article better, as of now this is starting to get lame, and needs to stop immediately. I am willing to clear things out, and hope to differ that no one gets snappy after the process just moments ago, I have reverted the edits already, as of it has been 2 days since the last edit. Blurred Lines 01:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Blurred Lines, are you active on Wikipedia or not?! You have been putting up wikibreak notices in a hissy fit because you're not getting your way so editors don't know whether or not this edit is under contention. If you would like to discuss the matter maturely and civilly, please cut it with the wikibreaks. Right now three editors disagree with you so it's important that you seek consensus. I tried to step in as a liaison and provide a scholarly source when you were edit warring with the others, but that was to no avail as you are still not satisfied with my source. Moreover, your claim that The Simpsons is NOT an adult animation would require complete reconstruction of Wikipedia's own adult animation article as it heavily emphasizes that The Simpsons IS an adult animated sitcom. And as Grapesoda told you, this airs alongside other adult animated cartoons. As he said, you cannot tell us that Family Guy and American Dad are not adult animated cartoons. AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
@AmericanDad86: Really? I has on a wikibreak one time, not more than once. No, I am not very active on here as I used to be, as of what it says on my talk page. Also, you mean two editors, which is yourself, and Grapesoda22, because WikiAnthony is not part of this. Just because a book was written by authors who had nothing to do with the project of The Simpsons, doesn't mean it knows everything, as of what it says on WP:RS. No, it's not a adult animation, just because that similar shows are a influence to the show, being a recreation on adult animation shows made by creators of the shows, doesn't mean that the show should be marked that too. The show is nothing related to Family Guy, or American Dad, the show has a piracy to be watched by all ages of people all over the world. Just in case you haven't looked WP:RS, please read it like right now if you get the chance, because obviously your not getting me very clearly as I thought.
Blurred Lines 22:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Working on the 14th season eps

So the 14th season is the earliest Simpsons season to not have any GAs or FAs (besides The Simpsons (season 14)). To remedy this, I've started working on some of the episodes that were sorely in need or work. Many of them have already been heavily expanded in recent years so I stayed away from those ones.

What are your thoughts on the 4 I've worked on so far (Pray Anything, Strong Arms of the Ma, ‎Treehouse of Horror XIII‎, C.E. D'oh‎)?--Coin945 (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding the AV Club classic Simpsons reviews to Wikipedia articles.

Is Gracie Films notable?

I decided to work on the Gracie Films article just now, after clicking on it in fascination only to discover much Simpsons-related trivia, and a very generic descriptive section that mostly tied it to James L. Brooks. I subsequently googled for information and really didnt find much at all. I started to question the company's existence as an entity, and what they have actually done. Is it merely a brand name that Brooks uses to produce things through (read: throwing money at)? Thoughts?--Coin945 (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by questioning its existence as an entity, but yeah, a production company can just be a legal vehicle for getting films and shows made. It's not necessarily hugely interesting in itself.
However (and I don't vouch for its accuracy) there's quite an impressive list of Gracie productions here. http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Gracie_Films
So it might be worth checking into further to see if there's company history, culture etc. worth writing about. Barnabypage (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone have a source that confirms Mr. Burns and Sideshow Bob as supervillains?

I think they might meet the definition given they are in comic books. Blocking out the sun could be closer to James Bond villainry like Hank Scorpio. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it's subjective. CTF83! 23:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Idioms

The idioms section should be renamed as something else, "neologisms" perhaps? The content currently in that section has deviated too far from what an idiom is really defined as. Simpbad219 (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Auto-confirmed User

I wanted to place a full stop at the end of the main picture caption but since this article is Semi-Protected, it says that I'm not an "autoconfirmed user", which is odd seeing as I've had a Wikipedia account for over 5 years now and have made over 1,200 edits. Any help anyone? AnimatedZebra (talk) 05:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The Simpsons should be noted as the longest-running half-hour scripted series in primetime television.

I know this hasn't been mentioned in any articles, but The Simpsons is, in fact, the longest-running half-hour scripted series in primetime television. Gunsmoke was only a half-hour series for the first six seasons before it expanded to a full hour for the rest of its run.--StewieBaby05 (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Art Show

The Simpsons was recently the focus of a major art exhibit in Toronto, Canada. (More info: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/tv-s-the-simpsons-celebrated-in-dartmouth-art-exhibit-1.2737917 and http://torontoist.com/events/event/new-simpsons-art-exhibit-is-one-you-doh-not-want-to-miss/). There should probably be a brief mention in the reception section, since the show is a gathering point for a lot of artistic works that are derivative from the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.199.46 (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2015

The accumulated salary for each of the actors over the 25 seasons is $94,240,000.00. 63.99.29.18 (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Simpsons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2015

So, I'm doing a draft of the animated sitcom John, Bon & Don. I really need copy and pasting bits and replacing them with new bits. Please? 58.96.113.248 (talk) 08:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. You are very welcome to drop by my talk page and l'll try to help you. Sam Sailor Talk! 10:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2015

i want to edit their page, included the article.

i want to edit protected pages please. i want to edit their page. Archivecraft (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Simpsons’s faith

What is the Christian denomination to which the Simpson family belongs? 190.166.212.10 (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The Simpsons' faith is never confirmed in the series, aside from a joke in "The Father, the Son and the Holy Guest Star", where Reverend Lovejoy says that the church is part of "The Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism." Ptprs (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2016

In television content 5.2, it states that "The Simpsons has had crossovers with three other shows". As it then follows with four listings of crossovers, and going on to list a non crossover. 131.109.225.36 (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)Edit the official count of crossovers to four from three. Also, edit the last sentence of the same paragraph about The Samsonadzes by moving it to the proceeding paragraph concerning shows that have been influenced by The Simpsons, considering that it's not a crossover at all and in fact a not so uncommon foreign knockoff of a successful american staple.

Done --allthefoxes (Talk) 16:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Character names and Portland streets

It's probably worth mentioning somewhere that many of the characters in the show are named after streets in Portland, Oregon:

  • Ned/Rod/Todd Flanders: NE Flanders Street (this one is the most commonly known from my experience, seeing that most of the street signs have "d" written on them, spelling out "NEd Flanders")
  • Helen/Timothy Lovejoy: NW Lovejoy Street
  • Marvin Monroe: SE Monroe Street (actually in Milwaukie)
  • Herbert/Janey Powell: Powell boulevard/highway

There are probably some more as well. -- SatanicSanta 04:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit request under "Halloween Episodes" section

It's stated in the "Halloween Episodes" section that "as of 2011, every Treehouse of Horror episode has aired in October", despite the fact that most do not actually fall on Halloween. I'd like to request an edit to this section by removing the statement altogether. Seeing as how season 12 aired Treehouse of Horror #11 on November 1st 2000. Not to mention the following nine seasons also aired the Treehouse episode in November. Seasons 12 - 22 all aired their Halloween Specials (Treehouse of Horror #s 11 - 21) in November, spanning the years 2000 through 2010. Therefore, the previously mentioned quote is extremely false. IvIguy22 (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, One example is how Treehouse of Horror XVI didn't even air until November 6th of 2005. This needs to be corrected. The fact that this suggestion has had no people respond until now even though it's an easy fix suprises me but nevertheless. I was going to change it myself, but since it is here on the talk page, I think discussion still has to happen for someone to change it. --Windyshadow32 (talk) 04:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit request on May 24 2016

Near the top of the article, it says (at the time of this writing) that The Simpsons is "currently airing its 27th season". However, the article for The Simpsons's 27th season says that said season ended May 22, 2016. If the 27th season has ended, shouldn't this article say that The Simpsons has concluded its 27th season (at least until season 28 starts)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.111.69.45 (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Simpsons. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Simpsons. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). 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) 21:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

"It's the 20th Century Fox debut in animation."

Regarding this sentence in the introductory paragraph, I don't consider it appropriate to use contractions in this context and feel it would be better changed to 'It is 20th Century Fox's animation debut.' I'd make this change myself but can't because the article is semi-protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.74.64.244 (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Rankings

For as long and meandering as the wiki entry is, why have seasoning rankings (not ratings) been rather blatantly left out? It would be nice to see these added. I would like to know them at least. Perhaps someone could add? Ckorr2003 (talk) 05:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2016

On the paragraph where the guy suggested Springfield might be on Australia, I would suggest adding that Matthew Patrick of Youtube's Game Theory suggests that, based on diverse clues sprinkled throughout the show, it's extremely possible that Springfield may be located in the state of Oregon.

190.219.169.142 (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not made a specific request in the form "Please replace XX with YY" or "Please add ZZ between PP and QQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Include in "Decline" section or addition to a new episode "Ratings" section

I created a graphic to support the decline section. I think it emphasizes the shift in quality well. I am open to suggestions to improve the figure if the community thinks it is worth posting.

I can't seem to upload the figure, but the figure is explained in more depth at 'http://tippori.com/blog/SimpsonsReturn/' and preceding posts.

<img href="http://tippori.com/images/blog/IMDB/SimpPercent.png"></img>

File:SimpPercent.png
A ranking of every Simpsons episode based on the percentage of shows their IMDB rating was better than [2].

Mckwit (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://news.yahoo.com/simpsons-creator-reveals-real-springfield-164221415.html
  2. ^ Kwit, MC. "IMDB Ratings PT. III". Tippori Inc. Retrieved 3 October 2016.

The Simpsons Take The Bowl

Do we think this topic is viable for an article? :)--Coin945 (talk) 11:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Baseball Hall of Fame

"Homer at the Bat" episode will be "inducted" in Cooperstown this spring. Does this belong in the "Awards and accolades" section?Pistongrinder (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see this discussion. Bright☀ 19:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Can Predictions Fit In This Article?

Should we consider making an article about their controversial predictions, including Donald Trump 's election win? Just throwing it out there.

--Fosterv16 (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Foster Vaughn

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 33 external links on The Simpsons. 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:

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) 05:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Simpsons. 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:

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) 20:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Simpsons. 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:

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) 20:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Jeremy Dower

Hello. A new article about an animator and musician named Jeremy Dower does not seem to be notable according to Wikipedia standards. I am thinking it would be best to merge the stub-article here to avoid taking it to AfD. There are sections in this article where this might be a good fit. It's not bad as articles go, it is just not a notable topic. I'd like some comments from other editors. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Simpsons. 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:

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) 11:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Pointer to RfC on "adult" in the lead

The editwarring this article has seen over use of "adult" in the lead sentence, and exactly how to phrase it if it's kept, has been mirrored at Family Guy.

Please see Talk:Family guy#Participant survey, for an RfC (a second one) on how to resolve this. The result there will probably guide resolution at both articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  17:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2017

94.197.121.34 (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Simpsons. 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:

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) 08:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Wimpy Kid mentions this

On the Long Haul, Manny turns it on this. On The Getaway, it makes a reference. 172.58.4.107 (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

DVDs

Season 18 has been released on DVD. I just bought it at a store (Fat Tony is on the cover). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.29.4.52 (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Article request: The Simpsons Trump administration shorts (or a better name?)

These shorts have gained a lot of press coverage and while not independently notable, together they tell an interesting story that deserves its own article.--Coin945 (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Unprotection

The page is semi-protected and move-protected. Could it be removed? 71.202.112.200 (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope, going by the very lengthy block log this would likely damage Wikipedia. What changes would you like to make? 5 albert square (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2018

Under the photo of "Part of the writing staff....." Please change "unknown" person in picture to Leslie Richter. "Part of the writing staff....Front row, left to right: Dee Capelli, Lona Williams, and Leslie Richter" 2605:E000:2402:A900:D84A:E548:DF14:F3E6 (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Danski454 (talk) 09:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

New tourist attraction in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

How is the best way to put this on Wikipedia?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The Problem with The Problem with Apu

I don't think the section on The Problem with Apu is written from NPOV. It calls the controversy "attacks" rather than more neutral language such as "criticisms"; it undermines the documentary by using the phrase "despite the fact"; and it doesn't reference any commentary from anyone on significant issues in the controversy such as the response episode. It also has a rather reductive summation of the documentary's themes - there were many aspects to the character of Apu that the documentary explores, and "declared the character was racist" is a rather poor way to explain that. --85.211.212.153 (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm surprised that section was up like that for so long, since it was written poorly. I edited it to make it sound more like a Wikipedia article and less like a high schooler's English assignment.--Teiladnam (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
At last! Thanks for editing it. It reads much better now. --85.211.212.153 (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The Simpsons (season 30) nominated for deletion

The Simpsons (season 30), the article on the currently airing season of The Simpsons, has been nominated for deletion. Interested parties are invited to participate in the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Simpsons (season 30). --AussieLegend (✉) 18:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2018

In the second paragraph of the section entitled "Continuity and the floating timeline," please remove the ever-superfluous and pointless phrase "That being said" from the second sentence.

Before: "That being said, however, continuity is inconsistent and limited..."

After: "However, continuity is inconsistent and limited..."

The phrase detracts, rather than adds, value and meaning from the article. Hollyjd (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Request for typo correction

Ian Maxtone-Graham is currently incorrectly listed as active during 2005-2012. “Baby Got Burns”, credited to him, was written in 1996.

Thank you! UsersLikeYou (talk) 11:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2018

GRACIE FILMS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qqqqq1245 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Bart~ 4th grader Lisa~ 2nd grader — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qqqqq1245 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Springfield in "22 states"

There's a source that states there's a Springfield in "22 states", but when I looked there, I counted at least 29 (that's without counting variants on the name, like "New Springfield" etc). In our own list of places in the US we have at least 30 states with a "Springfield". I'm going to change the number 22 to say "at least 29"; if anyone has a problem with that, please let me know, thank you. Ewen Douglas (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

ABC Studios

I think 20th Television still produces the show. They just gave up distribution rights to Disney-ABC. :) Yay Dad (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Disney definitely now owns The Simpsons.[1]151.213.211.117 (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Disney bought 20th Century Fox, but that doesnt mean and creation or distribution changed. A banner on Disney's website is not support. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

But after season 30, ABC Studios will be the distributors from then on--151.213.211.117 (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Based on what? You need to provide a source. Thats how Wikipedia works. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 11:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I suggest putting Walt Disney Television in brackets because they also now owned 20th Television [2]151.213.211.117 (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

So what? It didn't say 21st Century Fox when they were the ones who owned 20th Century Fox. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Why are you making this difficult?151.213.211.117 (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I am making it very simple. You want to it say something specific, so based on WP:V I am simply saying to supply a WP:RS to support what you want. Thats a very simple request. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 17:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

[3]151.213.211.117 (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Great so Disney is marketing The Simpsons. So nothing on the page needs to change. Got it. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/03/20/new-disney-website-banner-suggests-fox-lost-the-simpsons
  2. ^ https://www.cinemablend.com/television/2468719/what-happens-to-the-simpsons-now-that-disney-has-acquired-fox
  3. ^ https://news.avclub.com/disneys-marketing-department-has-already-begun-the-proc-1833452061

Zombie Simpsons

Hi all!

I propose that an article entitled Zombie Simpsons be created, talking about the fan-created term to describe a perceived change in the show's structure to the point where it could be considered another show, contrasting the Simpsons Golden Age. It would bear some similarity to a previous project I worked on entitled Quality issue of The Simpsons which was later shelved.

Any thoughts on this?

Regards, Coin945

Sources

I think that is a great idea! I also think that we need to come up with a definitive point in the show’s history (I think Season 13) where it lost its way, and now it’s working to improve. Slowly getting better I think. Hope you like my suggestion, CodingCatSpeedySlothSimpsonsFan CodingCatSpeedySlothSimpsonsFan (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Futurama crossover is as important as the Family Guy crossover

If the Family Guy Crossover episode is given so much importance, I think we should give the same importance to the crossover with Futurama, specially because that show was also created by Matt Groening.

I think Simpsonarama needs to have more importance than The Simpsons Guy as Matt Groening created Futurama and The Simpsons too. CodingCatSpeedySlothSimpsonsFan (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Ideas for a timeline of The Simpsons

When did The Simpsons lose its way? Did it recover? Specific good/bad episodes? Regards, CodingCatSpeedySlothSimpsonsFan CodingCatSpeedySlothSimpsonsFan (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The question is, I suppose, CodingCatSpeedySlothSimpsonsFan, what do the reliable sources say on those aspects? ——SerialNumber54129 17:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Take a look at the worst, best and most controversial list, or the NoHomers list on simpsons.fandom.com CodingCatSpeedySlothSimpsonsFan (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2019

Homerfan12 (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Typo

"abandonment of character-driven storylines in favor of and overuse of celebrity cameo appearances and references to popular culture"

It should say "an overuse" instead of "and overuse". ---Joseki546 (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2017

Simpsons World Streaming closure confirmed

Here is another source which confirms Simpson World's closure once Disney+ launches: [1]. Use it if you wish. 2601:1C2:4E00:BB1:1CAD:222C:F43D:6CB1 (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

576i Picture format?

The article says that the earlier seasons were released in the 576i (ie PAL) picture format? Surely this cannot be true? I live in England (a PAL region) and the version we've always had broadcast on our TVs has been the NTSC version converted to PAL - this is true of all three major broadcasters of the show. Likewise, the official DVDs were NTSC converted to PAL. The resolution has always been low, with bad colors, and 30 frames per second - indicative of NTSC. If there was a PAL version produced then I'm sure broadcasters would definitely have used it? This has to be a mistake? Grand Dizzy (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2019

Change number of Emmy Awards received. It's now up to 34 Emmys, according to the Emmy count itself, link https://www.emmys.com/shows/simpsons Smontoyapalacios (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 17:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

"The SImpsons" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The SImpsons. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Rarely leads to punishment?

Bart's rebellious, bad boy nature, which underlies his misbehavior and rarely leads to any punishment, This could only have written by someone who has never watched a single episode! Bart nearly always gets punished in the end and we see him being punished at the start of every episode!!! John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 04:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

And its quite a running gag that Homer has Bart on a choke hold when the boy's misbehavior angers him. Dimadick (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2020

change something on the episode slot of the show please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterandhomerfandom12 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

List of episodes hard to find

Right now the link to List of The Simpsons episodes is inconveniently "hidden" in the infobox. IMHO it would best be placed like a link to a "Main Article" or "Further Information" for easier access. TY 79.214.127.238 (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not hidden in the infobox. The infobox link is standard for all TV prorams that have a separate episode list. There would normally be another link from the section incorporating the series overview table but that is not transcluded here. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I came here to say essentially the same thing (except I wasn't even looking in the infobox.) It's bad form to require readers to scroll down through the article to find the information about seasons/episodes. (Who the hell would ever guess it's in the section called "Reception and achievements"??) The location of this information needs to be obvious in the table of contents, as it is in most articles about high-profile TV shows here at Wikipedia. The relevant section title can be called "Seasons" or "Episodes", or "Broadcast history", or whatever. But it should give readers a fighting chance to find it right away. - dcljr (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
The table of contents is for this article, not others, which is why the link to the list of episodes is not there. The infobox link is physically next to the TOC link to the relevant section. The infobox effectively serves as a bullet point summary of the program and it's where most readers go first. This is true for the more than 50,000 TV series that use this infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Last time I checked, the table with seasons info was in this article (just impossible to find without scrolling down through the article text). And where's the research that shows that "most readers go first" to the infobox? In any case, it is a well established convention that the TOC of TV series articles contain some kind of reference to the broadcast episodes, which is why such sections are addressed in MOS:TV (under "Parent, season, and episode article structure" and "Broadcast"). Just using the examples linked to from those particular MOS:TV sections: Doctor Who has an "Episodes" section, Sherlock has "Episodes", Futurama has "Broadcast history" and "Episodes" (which seems to ignore the no-single-subsections guideline), Riverdale has "Release" and "Broadcast", Designated Survivor has "Release" and "Broadcast", and Iron Fist has "Episodes". Can you point to any other TV series article that does not have any indication in its TOC where the reader mght find information about the individual seasons or episodes of the show? - dcljr (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and made a change that I think improves the situation. - dcljr (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

An 1980s series?

Whilst this show debuted in December 1989, I don't see how it's an "1980s American sitcom/TV series/etc" or how it should be put into that category. For starters, only ONE episode was aired in that decade, and the rest followed in 1990. In essence, it's a 90s/2000s/2010s/2020s sitcom, since the majority of the episodes were made and most especially shown in those decades. I just cannot see it as an "80s American comedy show" just because ONE episode, ONLY the FIRST episode, was shown in Christmas 1989. It just doesn't seem right. And yes, sure, the show may have been in the works in the 80s, especially the first season, but 99% of the episodes were shown from 1990 and onward. And if you want to count the production, then by that logic 1990 movies should be "80s movies" because they were most likely filmed and edited in 1989. So this logic doesn't work. – 110.175.194.211 (talk), 08:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The sitcoms by decade categories generally follow the date of the first episode. No reason to exclude the Simpsons. Dimadick (talk) 08:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

::Nobody is excluding the Simpsons – Others can argue and make a case for other shows with a similar background. It's just that The Simpsons is a popular TV show, and as such I noticed that one, and so I made this thread. Again, I could just never see it as an "80s show" if only ONE episode was aired in that decade. An odd analogy, but it's like calling someone born in 1989 an "80s kid". The show was akin to a few second old newborn in the 80s. Nobody knew of it much anyway, especially with that one episode. It became a 90s show, and as it kept on airing through the 2000s and till now, it would be affiliated with those decades as well. It really had nothing to do with the 80s. First episode is not substantial enough, as it's just one episode. My solution: We can keep "1980s American animated comedy television series", and remove the other categories that pertain to the decade just to give the 'sense' that 99% of the show's episodes were aired outside of 1980s. – 110.175.194.211 (talk), 14:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Just noticed this and wanted to add that The Simpsons shorts (48 separate stories) all aired in the 1980s. It was much more than just the one Christmas episode. Hammill Ten (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

See also: LGBTQ representation in The Simpsons

Not sure why this has to be at the top of the Influence section. It's a very minor and negligible aspect of the show. Seems more like agenda peddling to me and could give the impression that it's a major part of the show, which it is not. Could move it to the bottom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludens123 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't influence or agenda peddling (whatever in the world that means) on my part, but I honestly didn't know where else to put it. Anyway, I moved it down to the television section. I do think that page should still be linked to this one, since there are a number of LGBTQ characters in the Simpsons, even though none of those characters are in the main cast. Historyday01 (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting it should be removed or anything. It should definitely be linked. I would've suggested to put it in it's own Representation section but I couldn't seem to find a similar article regarding ethnicity in the Simpsons to combine it with. Ludens123 (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, well that's not a bad idea action. Well, I only linked it because if I tried to add a section for it, someone might claim its "undue weight." --Historyday01 (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

"Foreshadowing" section

This part is quite awkward:

"Other examples of The Simpsons predicting the future include the introduction of the Smartwatch, video chat services, autocorrection technology, and Lady Gaga's acrobatic performance at the Super Bowl LI halftime show. Conversely, some fact-checking sources such as Snopes have debunked many of these claims, including the aforementioned Lady Gaga one."

If the "aforementioned" Lady Gaga one was debunked, how could it be an example? Honestly, I'm not a fan of this section at all since it seems to mostly be about how it isn't true. What do we think about removing it altogether? --DHCKris (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I've been over this and corrected the skew away from the Simpsons being clairvoyant (something which would need scientific resources to prove) toward the fact that Snopes have debunked pretty much all of these. Gadgets like smart watches and video chat are science fiction staples, fairly easy to imagine - even kids can draw flying cars, but that doesn't mean they "predicted" the flying cars which will be around in 2200. The crux is that 32 seasons of TV yields a few things that come true, just as the majority of Nostradamus's predictions are utter failures but a chance few look like real events. It shames Wikipedia that a section with junk sources and promoting junk science had been present for so long Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2021

The Simpsons currently have 639 episodes 72.24.134.99 (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: There are a total of 701 episodes aired as of today. — YoungForever(talk) 21:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

"Showrunners" section

Needs updating to recognise Matt Selman as joint show runner from Season 32 onwards (in fact he is primary show runner for Season 33). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotorwalrus (talk • contribs) 15:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The basics

So I try to find season 9 episode 14 and find multiple 13's and 16's but not 14? That is, click link to 14 and it gives that number but says "fifteenth". I start to look around and several articles are misnumbered one or another way. Gee, "The Simpsons" draws mischievous or bumbling editors? Who'd a thunk it? Shenme (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Does the lead adequately explain why The Simpsons is important to someone who is not familiar with it?

From the (very long) pre-table of contents lead in this article, one can learn that The Simpsons has produced many episodes and won a lot of awards. There is a later section on "influence and legacy" buried way deep in the article that discusses neologisms coined on the show and its role in reviving televised animation. The latter is part of the story, but doesn't really present the whole picture. Generally, the first thing on any Wikipedia page is a quick summary of why the topic of the article matters, and this seems to be missing here. Surely there are well-established, citable sources for claims such as "The Simpsons was the first network TV comedy mostly written by people born after 1960" or "the use of subversion, sarcasm, and deconstruction on the show set a precedent for the next 20 years of televised comedy" which get closer to the full idea of why the show is important. Predestiprestidigitation (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2021

2600:6C64:727F:EBE1:EC76:B3A9:F9AD:CC5A (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Category: Television shows set in Oregon

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2021

I can edit the semi-protected pages including The Simpsons. Sonny The Asia Fan (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Rng0286 (talk) conts (extended confirmed and rollbacker!) Don’t judge a book by it’s cover (check rights) D'oh! 02:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2021

Make a link to the article "Dysfunctional Family" when it refers to the Simpsons as a dysfunctional family. This will be an easy fix. Pikiwedia98461 (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: We try not to link common terms. You can try seeking consensus for the change. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 Done. It was already linked later in the article, I just moved it to the first occurrence, which is in the lead. I don't think it's a common-enough term to not link. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2021

Change number of episodes from 712 to 713, please. Goojrr (talk) 06:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

 Already done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2021

In list of show runners, it should say Seasons 13-32 - Al Jean, and then Season 33= - Matt Selman. There were always some episodes produced by other EPs in earlier seasons, but the one listed here should be the 'main' show runner which is now Matt Selman. Otherwise it should be listed as joint for the last few seasons too. Rotorwalrus (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Rotorwalrus Before I do the edit request, do you have any sources to back up what you've stated so far? SoyokoAnis - talk 17:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@Rotorwalrus  Not done - Twitter is not a reliable source. Please see reliable sources. SoyokoAnis - talk 12:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
@SoyokoAnis Here's the link to Al Jean on twitter saying so: https://twitter.com/AlJean/status/1388946577302061056 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotorwalrus (talk • contribs)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Selman running more doesn't mean he's the main show runner, and a question asked on twitter is not a RS. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Attitude Monroe matters almost...

Marvin Monroe’s motto seems to be >>attitude matters almost<<. 195.226.105.183 (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

FA status (2022)

Almost fifteen years have passed since the article's promotion as Featured Article. Over the years, content has changed or expanded. I can't say whether the quality improved or worsened, even with newer additions like "Race controversy". The article is too large for me to thoroughly review, so I can't say much else at this time. --George Ho (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2022

I would like to update some source as some of it is outdated. 69YaNan420 (talk) 11:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2022

In the para Opening Sequence the reference to the chalkboard gag states that Bart "writes different things on the school chalkboard". The whole point of the gag is that he is 'doing lines' at the insistence of a teacher as a punishment for a prior misdemeanour". Doing lines was a traditional punishment with the hope that multiple repetition would make the pupil remember better what they had done wrong.

In summary, my request is:

Replace

"writes different things on the school chalkboard"

with

"is having to write lines on the school chalkboard as a punishment, demonstrating a prior wrong-doing and giving a clue to his behaviour"

Thank you. Stan Stan Dwellback999 (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: This phrase refers to things changing between episodes. He writes lines on the chalkboard every episode, but they are different things between episodes. I was considering replacing with "writes different lines on the school chalkboard as a punishment", but found it too wordy. casualdejekyll 02:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Graggle

the article should have mention of graggle simspon or atleast a section regarding the impact of the simpsons on internet culture (including graggle) 82.14.229.17 (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Literally came here looking for information about Graggle Simpson. The_stuart (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@The stuart There is, as far as I know, no such thing as Graggle Simpson. It's merely an example of an internet hoax plus some persuasion. Mobius Gerig (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Simpsons/Archive_4&oldid=1124449299"