Template talk:The Simpsons/Archive 2

Frank Grimes

Shouldn't the Frank Grimes listing under criminals be 'Frank Grimes, Jr.', Grimes Sr. was not a criminal, and should be listed inther the nuke plant if he's on the list... - Adolphus79 22:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

He's not a criminal, I listed him under villains specifically. Its tough because Burns should be there too...and Grimes is only technically in other episodes...technically he's not recurring since you know...the thing with the wires. I'll put him in the power plant section for now.--Kiyosuki 22:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

ah yes, recurring... kk... that works... nice job on the template, keep it up... maybe another section under 'media personalities'? - Adolphus79 22:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanks. I appreaciate it a lot. Its my first template. Oh thanks for putting this on some other pages as well, took a load off. Oh! I forgot Kent Brockman and Troy. Maybe that is a good idea..let me try it and see how it looks.--Kiyosuki 22:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

And Arty in the sky, and I seem to remember a female on the news with Kent Brockman... - Adolphus79 23:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

New template

I made this so that the main Simpsons template wouldn't be overburdened by people inevitably adding characters to the list. The Simpsons has such a diverse cast that I really feel none of these pages should be excluded so I made this separate for the character sections. Now I'll be real lenient with whats added but I do have a few things I insist on and will lightly enforce:

-Individual character articles ONLY. Like...no direct linking to Superintendant Chalmers' section of the Elementary list. If a character is a part of an overall list I recommend putting the whole list in the misc section to avoid clutter and allow people to find individual pages in a far easier manner.

-Do not put this on pages that arn't dedicated to the characters in some way. The Simpsons template is specifically meant for the pages like publications, comics, general information and trivia related things etc. I took off the other characters on the other template but kept the Simpsons themselves for reference sakes...but thats the one exception Whether Maitch chooses to keep the Simpsons themselves on that template or not is up to him, but this template is just for the massive cast. No need to overly clutter...if someone wants to find this via the main pages they can just go to the Simpsons pages and get this template there.

Other than that...its at your discretion (within reason of course), enjoy.--Kiyosuki 22:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It's up to everyone else, but maybe we can make this template 'the big list', with {{The Simpsons}} being changed just to blood relatives or something... - Adolphus79 23:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think its best to keep it at just characters who have their own page. Arnie Pie in the Sky for example, is on the recurring characters list, he doesn't have his own page so thats why I didn't specifically name him here. This is already a big mega list and I think we have almost everyone down. I'm sure we're missing some people though so thats why I wanna keep it to just characters who have their own article, everyone else can be just looked for on the big lists on the bottom. These characters with their own pages are kind of the most sought after anyways. I'll give it some time and see where this goes, but I think its more organized and pleasing to everyone to have a big one dedicated to characters.

And that was Mitch's original plan, to just have the Simpsons main characters on there. Not even the whole family, just the mains. It makes sense, but I added the other characters later since they should be mentioned on something and it just made it too big...so I thought of this alternative idea. This way...if someone goes to Homer's page on {{The Simpsons}}, they can find this one there to lead them to the other character pages. If someone goes to the publications page, the page doesn't have to be cluttered by the character template either. Same thing was done with the simpsons video games some time ago too.--Kiyosuki 23:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me... but I'm still new here... haven't gotten a chance to surf the whole of the Simpsons info on here yet... either way, it's more organized, and that's a good thing... - Adolphus79 23:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

shop owners?

that 'around Springfiled' list is getting kinda big, maybe break off the shop owners (commic book guy, moe, apu, ned, etc.) - Adolphus79 23:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm...I'm not so sure. Around Springfield should be the largest since its the general citizens of Springfield. Its pretty much done for now so I think its best to leave it as is for now. If a lot of people have a problem with it then what'll be done will be done, but I think its best if we don't get too specific with the catagories myself. --Kiyosuki 00:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

ok... I'll leave it alone then... - Adolphus79 00:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually greatly appreaciate your input. I'm not brushing you off or anything, I wish I got this kind of aid and help working on a wiki more often. My one thing is that someone has already separated the faculty of Springfield from the Students. Thats fine in theory but I'm worried about making this template too long. Thats why I'm thinking it'd be best to broaden the catagories as much as possible without going too broad. --Kiyosuki 00:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I did the faculty / students seperate, and am about to add otto mann and lunchlady doris to faculty... if you look at the Category:Simpsons Characters, you can see who has their own pages (we've got almost all of them now). - Adolphus79 00:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

We are almost done. I'm adding Uter, Wendell, and Lewis to students soon. Its just managable now. Man, what a workload.--Kiyosuki 00:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

hehe... I think it turned out pretty nicely... very nice work... - Adolphus79 00:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Added the Bullies to Recurring Villains

I added Dolph, Kearney, and Jimbo to recurring villains instead of students. I know they're supposed to be students but in the show they're depicted on thier own (as truants) doing misdeeds and often getting in the way of one of the "good" kids (as good as you can get on this show anyways) endeavors and then some. I think they fit the bill with villains more than just students myself, what do you think?

Nelson is depicted as a student most of the time, and while he can be a villain and a bully he's also often on Bart/Lisa's side so thats why I put him in students instead.--Kiyosuki 00:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Complete

Its finally done. I can't possibly think of any more character info to link in this template, for now. Thank you Adolphus for the help. --Kiyosuki 01:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

hehe... no prob... nice template... - Adolphus79 01:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Moe & Burns

While Moe & Monty do have criminal tendancies (as do most of Springfieldians), the people in the criminals list tend to make a career of it... - Adolphus79 02:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, is there a Wikiproject: Simpsons? I'd love to join if so, or if not maybe we can start one... get all of these pages cleaned up... - Adolphus79 03:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC) there is... Wikiprojects:The Simpsons... - Adolphus79 03:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Why?

It's really big and unwieldy, I question the need for this Rubber cat 21:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Its not that big. I worried about this at first, but it can't be denied that its so much easier to navigate around these characters now. The cast is very large for this in particular, and its characters very well known that I think it warrents its own template. While this is larger than the usual template...consider that every character with an individual page is within reach on just one template, rather than forcing wiki browsers to look through the massive characters lists for certain character pages.--Kiyosuki 06:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree... linking all of the Simpsons pages together like this helps a lot... both for readers, and editors... - Adolphus79 06:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I rescind my earlier comment Rubber cat 04:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ling, and Frank

I'm wondering, do you think we should take Ling and Frank Grimes off? While they may have their own pages, they're basically one time characters and their parts are pretty minimal. I personally think Ling should be merged with Patty and Selma myself but thats another matter.--Kiyosuki 22:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Frank Grimes, meant for one time character list?

I'm thinking that when this thing with the One-time character page blows over, maybe Frank should be merged into that page to free up space. I'm just not certain whether he is technically a one time character or not. He is technically in two...although only by reference in one. For all intensive purposes, he's a major one timer I think. If a character gets their own page, I really believe it should be justified with at least multiple appearances.

His page has a lot of information, but a lot of that could possibly just be put onto the episode he hails from since its very general trivia about the episode as a whole.--Kiyosuki 12:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

sounds good to me, I have written up a proposal for the recurring Vs. one-time lists, and agree that if a character was only in one episode, they belong on the one-time list... Grimey, and his son, both belong on the one-time list... the proposal is on the the talk page of WikiProject The Simpsons... - Adolphus79 22:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Take out Lenny & Carl's last names?

I think Carl Carlson and Lenny Leonard should just be linked to as "Carl" and "Lenny", as they are better known that way to more casual fans. Does anyone oppose this? Rubber cat 04:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

except for the fact that first names alone could link you to a disambig page... IMHO, it's not hurting anything like this, and it keeps them from being confused for some other person named Carl or Lenny... - Adolphus79 05:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Not if it's linked like this: Lenny Rubber cat 05:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Centering problems

User:Netscott says that the title of the template is not centered. Does anybody else have this problem. It works on my computer in IE, Firefox and Opera. --Maitch 17:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

the media / villians line isn't centered on the template... that's probably what he's talking about... - Adolphus79 02:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've talked with him since and it was a problem in the Safari browser. The problem is fixed now. --Maitch 07:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Template too small

This template is too small. It needs to REALLY impose on the article, to grab the article, smack it around, show it who's boss. While the text of the template is already much larger than the text of any articles, this is simply not enough. Bigger BIGGER BIGGER! --Xyzzyplugh 15:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Recurring Villains?

Isn't that a bit of a harsh label? While they do occasionally play the antagonist, sometimes some of those are depicted as good or neutral. Besides, characters like Mr. Burns, Nelson, and Jimbo have acted villainous at some point, but like the "villains" listed, they are not always bad. They belong more in the Around Springfield section 199.126.137.209 01:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ling Bouvier

Shouldn't she be listed under the family portion of this template? --Endlessdan 14:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

She doesn't have her own page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What happend?

Um...yeah, I don't know if it is just my computer, but the new size is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to big and long and makes the template look really, really, horrible. Can't it be changed back? Anyone else agree? Rhino131 22:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it does look pretty bad. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for changing it. Rhino131 23:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Navbox template conversion

Scorpion0422, why did you revert my conversion of this template to the standard {{navbox}} format? It's extremely widely used and becoming a main standard across Wikipedia, trying to stick with this old hand-crafted non-standard format is going to make this template look increasingly out of date and harder to maintain. Bryan Derksen 19:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it looked terrible. It looked better the old way and I've never had any problem maintaining the template. If you can show me a policy where it says all templates MUST be navbox format, then I won't revert you. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Santa's Little Helper & Snowball

Do they belong under "The Simpsons and relatives?" I certainly understand why they're there, but perhaps "Around Springfield" would be a better place for them? Not that I think the move is absolutely necessary, but I do think it would be technically more accurate. faithless (^speak) 02:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Its not really that they are relatives, but members of the family like Bart, Lisa, and so on. They also live with the The Simpsons. You have a point, but I think that they are better off where they are. Rhino131 17:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. I certainly understand why they're there, and honestly that probably is the best place for them, though I do still feel that it is inaccurate. I think this could be addressed by tweaking the name of the section to Simpson family and relatives. But don't worry, if no one agrees with me I won't push the matter. :) faithless (^speak) 19:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I changed the name, it is more accurate that way. Rhino131 23:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

r

My edit summary didn't go through right.

Sorry about this, here's what I meant to have said.

"Once again no-one is making any sense. Both SLH and SB have appeared in way more episodes than Mona Simpson." Xlaer

Ok, why do you keep changing the order of SLH and SB? Ctjf83 ^talk 18:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The order goes people, then animals. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Still it doesn't make sense. Explain why Marge is before Bart yet Bart has been in more episodes. Xlaer —Preceding comment was added at 00:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that Snowball should be listed before Santa's Little Helper? You've lost me. Does the order really matter that much? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Navbox conversion

I would like to propose that this gets converted to the navbox format, since it then will take up less space on the screen and look a cleaner than the current one. You can compare the two below: --Maitch (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

A big no on this one. Someone tried to change it a while back and it looked absolutely horrible, as does this one. I'm having no trouble using the current way on my computer, and it fits fine. The navbox just looks to weird, the number of spaces in each category are really brought out so its looks imbalanced, and having some words linked and some not on the left makes its look not right, but on the current way it looks fine with that stuff on the top. I would hardly say it looks cleaner. Rhino131 (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it is kind of unfair to say it looks weird with somethings linked and others don't when it just did the exact same thing as the old one. I don't think we need all those links, so I delinked the proposal a bit. Now it looks just like Template:The Simpsons, which I haven't heard anybody complaining about. That one guy found it to be a good idea just shows that I'm not the only one and that we need more inputs. --Maitch (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I'm not asking for it to be kept just because I want it to, I am willing to hear other people out. But the point is that I, personally, feel the navbox does not look right, and I prefer the look of the old one. I see no reason why every template has to be in the navbox style. Some look fine, but like I said before, the balance is off because each section has a different amount of lines, where that did not matter in the old one. The links looked fine when they were at the top at the old one, and now they are on the side, so its not the same thing as the old one. Also, keep in mind that Scorpion0422 agrees with me that its looks bad (he changed it back the first time), so I am not the only one who does not like it. Rhino131 (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support the change. Navbox looks better, and is more standardized and will be much easier to work with in the future. Cirt (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC).

SUPER NINTENDO CHALMERS

Shouldn't Superintendent Chalmers be listed somewhere? --MasterOfTheXP (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This template is only for character that have their own article. Chalmers does not. --Maitch (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)