- 1 Merging
- 2 Rumor has it....
- 3 The Simpsons Sing the Blues
- 4 Good article delisting
- 5 No problem
- 6 On Bart's Comet
- 7 Ratings
- 8 History of The Simpsons is now a GA
- 9 The Falcon and the D'ohman
- 10 THOH 22
- 11 A barnstar for you!
- 12 A barnstar for you!
- 13 More Simpsons rename
- 14 GA hold
- 15 You think I'm scared of you?
- 16 Guest stars
- 17 Orphaned non-free media (File:Simpsons good night.jpg)
- 18 If there was a "sticking it to the man" Barnstar, I would give you one
- 19 Talkback
- 20 File:Robotic Richard Simmons.png
- 21 Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 January 6#Four more Simpsons images
- 22 Nomination for deletion of Template:Simpsons clip shows
- 23 Nomination of List of The Simpsons writers for deletion
- 24 Your admin status
- Good! By the way, what do you think of merging the recurring animals in List of animals in The Simpsons to List of recurring characters in The Simpsons and then getting rid of the rest? Theleftorium (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Rumor has it....
Thanks for the advice on rumors regarding my discussion on the Simpsons discussion page. I'm new Wikipedia (account-wise, that is) and I wasn't sure about rumors. Thanks.the Simpson(talk) 16:40 27 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk)
Sorry about that. I edited that quite some time ago. The page numbers for all of the Ortved sources are 125-126. All of those old sources were found using Google News. I searched something like "Simpsons Sing the Blues" and set the dates to only 1990. Apparently I just forgot to change the URL by accident. They're likely still up, and with the correct publisher name and whatnot, shouldn't be too hard to find. I'm afraid I don't have the time currently. Thank you for the compliments! --Thardin12 (talk)
Good article delisting
Per discussion page headers for good articles:
(Article name) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Articles that fail Good article criterion can be delisted, period.
- I've emailed you the Newsbank URL and code. With regards to GA improvements, the season 8 and 9 episodes listed are probably the ones in most need. I'll help you out where I can. Gran2 14:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Be careful when you're using Newsbank now, because they have started to include articles from Examiner.com and those are not reliable. Just so you know. :) Theleftorium (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Yep, it's definitely something we need to do. Somebody already listed Girly Edition for GAR and I was expecting that to be the start, but it was just a one-off. So yeah, we really need to try and pre-empt this. Gran2 15:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
On Bart's Comet
When I read the article, an encountered a sentence that was pretty much a duplicate of a sentence just a few lines above, my reaction was that this must have been a mistake by an earlier editor. This is an article about one episode about one TV show episode, of limited size, and completely repeating sentences further down in the lead section is really out of style. --- Egil (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Brilliant work with the ratings. Out of interest, and I'm assuming this will be fairly hard to work out, do you think it is possible to make a definitive top ten highest rated episodes list? Has anything else ever got close to "Bart Gets an F"? Gran2 22:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- I remember you saying somewhere that you wanted to add about the show's music, well Chris Ledesma has written a great history of the show's composer position here, fully clarifying the five different composers. Gran2 09:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I need your input on something. Which do you think is better? The present structuring of Hank Azaria, where his career is recounted in a chronological order, with film and TV mixed up? Or this restructing here, where his TV and film roles are split into separate sections? I prefer to write biographies in the former style, but the latter is far clearer and easier to navigate and understand. Thanks. Gran2 23:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree about not jumping through time. Hmm. I'll ask Left and Scorpion what they think as well, because I can't decide. I think I'll put it up for peer review at some point as well. Thanks. Gran2 16:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah that is a worrying trend. There's been at least ten staff members who have edited their own pages and unfortunately only Bill seems to know how this place actually works. We should probably revert and point him towards WP:AUTOBIO. Gran2 10:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
History of The Simpsons is now a GA
I just passed this article for GA. The improvements you've made to the article have been quite good and addressed my initial concerns. Sorry if I've been a pain in the ass, but I'm kind of nitpicky. If you found the review helpful, please consider reviewing other GANs in need. AstroCog (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The Falcon and the D'ohman
- Under the Radar was a lucky punch. I searched for "The Falcon and the D'ohman" and the song "dance of the knights" on Google to add it to the cultural references. It was mentioned in the user's comments on the bottom, but not in the actual review. I don't know why you can't find it otherwise. With Television Blend I was just reading the article you already included as a reference and saw the review as a link. --Maitch (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, rumor was a bad word. I meant that it could be false information and we should wait for confirmation. Only one website has talked to this studio executive. Theleftorium (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, most of the stuff we have written in that section could be false information. Fox leaked a lot of information to put pressure on the actors. This bit of information is from a very reliable source. If it had been from Entertainment Weekly or anything else like that I would not had considered adding it. I think we should add a current news tag. --Maitch (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- ... and now that the story is breaking, multiple news providers are telling the same information (see ). --Maitch (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Just a suggestion, since you're doing all the work, I'd put the first paragraph of "Release" into production, and change the title of release to "reception". The airdate really has nothing to do with the reception which is what the other paragraphs contain. CTJF83 23:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. Thanks for the suggestion. The paragraph may as well be in the production section. The reason why I keep it in the release section for now is because I feel that it flows well with the ratings information. I'm pretty sure I'm going to move text around as more sources become available, so I may do that in the end. --Maitch (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds good. CTJF83 23:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Tireless Contributor Barnstar|
|For all your cromulent contributions to the Simpsons project over the years. Without you, we certainly wouldn't be where we are today! :) Theleftorium (talk) 11:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)|
A barnstar for you!
|The Good Article Barnstar|
|Thanks Maitch for helping to promote "Bart Stops to Smell the Roosevelts" and Treehouse of Horror XXII to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give some a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil © • © 05:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)|
More Simpsons rename
You think I'm scared of you?
Just got back to this the last couple of days (finally done all rowscopes) and hope to complete it in the coming weeks. With references, it is very hard to get credits from Kevin Michael Richardson via a reliable source, though I did stumble upon this site. Is it reliable? Plus what do you propose about the colouring system with recurring actors? – Lemonade51 (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know. People like Kevin Michael Richardson and Maurice LaMarche are just used to do bit parts, so it would be very hard to get a reliable source (ShareTV is not reliable) for the role. I think the only solution is to remove all the people named in List of cast members of The Simpsons and just named them in the lead as a recurring cast.
- The colouring system could be done as you had it before with the role marked in some fashion instead of the name. I don't know if it will look good. Cheers, Maitch (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Simpsons good night.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Simpsons good night.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
If there was a "sticking it to the man" Barnstar, I would give you one
Great job with the responses to the mass image nominations. Now the user will learn one of the negatives to mass nominations - that you have to fight each one individually. -- Scorpion0422 23:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
You'll notice that my initial posts all referred to NFCC#8 and the majority of them explicitly used language from that, but now all of them do and reproduce the entirety of the text. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Template:Simpsons clip shows has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. szyslak (t) 02:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of List of The Simpsons writers for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of The Simpsons writers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons writers until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Your admin status
Hello. I'm a steward. A new policy regarding the removal of "advanced rights" (administrator, bureaucrat, etc.) was adopted by community consensus recently. According to this policy, the stewards are reviewing administrators' activity on wikis with no inactivity policy.
You meet the inactivity criteria (no edits and no log actions for 2 years) on dawiktionary, where you are an administrator. Since dawiktionary does not have its own administrators' rights review process, the global one applies.
If you want to keep your rights, you should inform the community of the wiki about the fact that the stewards have sent you this information about your inactivity. If the community has a discussion about it and then wants you to keep your rights, please contact the stewards at m:Stewards' noticeboard, and link to the discussion of the local community, where they express their wish to continue to maintain the rights, and demonstrate a continued requirement to maintain these rights.
We stewards will evaluate the responses. If there is no response at all after approximately one month, we will proceed to remove your administrative rights. In cases of doubt, we will evaluate the responses and will refer a decision back to the local community for their comment and review. If you have any questions, please contact us on m:Stewards' noticeboard.