Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons/Featured topic Drive/season 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Simpsons (season 9)

The Simpsons (season 9) is now Featured Status. Xihix (talk · contribs) and Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs) and myself have expressed interest in making Season 9 be a Featured Topic, and modeling it after Season 8's successful Featured Topic. Cirt 01:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

The Joy of Sect

  • Here is what I was thinking for The Joy of Sect. Expand the article as much as possible with as many citations to WP:RS secondary sources as possible. Then, either WP:PR or WP:GAC. Then, WP:PR after a successful WP:GA. Then, WP:FAC. Thoughts? Cirt 01:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC).
    • Why not do this for all the articles? Seems like a reasonably good choice. Also, I wouldn't do a peer review before GA. Comparing season eight GA's, it doesn't seem that difficult if you model it well. Though, a peer review before an FA is a must. ✗iℎi✗(talk) 01:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
      • You're going to have a hard time with most episodes getting them to FA status. I think out of all 25 episodes in season 9, 5 might have a chance and they are: The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson, Principal and the Pauper, Joy of Sect, Treehouse of Horror VIII and Trash of the Titans. Of all of them, Principal and the Pauper is our best bet for an FA. For the rest, getting them to GA status is suitable enough, we only had 2 FAs for season 8 when it was promoted. -- Scorpion0422 01:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, I realize this. Also, I'm suggesting we all go out and look for as many online articles and stuff for episodes as we can, so we can come back here and just look for a link. Searching yourself is hard sometimes... ✗iℎi✗(talk) 02:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Yeah, but once someone puts it as a cite in one article, and if we all progress from one article to FA or GA at a time, it will be easy to find. But good idea, we could cite sources in a section here. Cirt 02:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

Model

Okay then, so at a minimum:

  1. Expand the article as much as possible with as many citations to WP:RS secondary sources as possible.
  2. WP:GAC
  3. WP:PR
  4. WP:FAC
  5. WP:FA
  6. Round of Duff beer for everyone.

Cirt 01:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

Good references for The Joy of Sect citations

Please use Wikipedia:Citation templates when putting in citations so we don't have to go back and do it later. Good references are:

  1. Turner, Chris (2005). Planet Simpson: How a Cartoon Masterpiece Defined a Generation. Da Capo Press. pp. Page 269, The First Church of The Simpsons. ISBN ISBN 030681448X. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  2. Shalda, Jeff. (December 29, 2000). "Religion in the Simpsons". Online. The Simpsons Archive. Retrieved 2007-02-10. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  3. Martyn, Warren (2000). I Can't Believe It's a Bigger and Better Updated Unofficial Simpsons Guide. Virgin Books. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  4. Booker, M. Keith (2006). Drawn to Television: Prime-Time Animation from the Flintstones to Family Guy. Greenwood Press. pp. Page 66. ISBN 0275990192. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Cirt 02:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

I've got to go, but if you need refs, take a look at some of the refs used here. The BBC website is the most useable one, but we also always add links to the TV.com, Simpsons.com, SNPP and IMDB pages for episodes. I'll add some other common sources tomorrow. -- Scorpion0422 02:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Found another good source for our episode pages, page 2 has a section about Joy of Sect. [1] Gran2 13:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I used it! Cirt 15:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC).
  • I do not have access to book number four, above, by Booker. I was able to see a quick preview, but I checked and it's not at any of my local libraries. Anyone else have access to it near them? I'd like to see more of Page 66 and see if there is more relevant to this episode in the book. Cirt 15:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

Claimed?

What is this "claimed" ? I thought we were each focusing on working on one episode at a time, together? Cirt 01:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

We do, but only one person needs to listen to the DVD commentary. So, how Gran and I did it was we each picked episodes that we would listen to the DVD commentaries for. The section does not promote ownership, it just lets people know who is working on what. Everyones input is welcome on all pages. -- Scorpion0422 02:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh. I suppose I could go and rent the DVD w/ commentary for The Joy of Sect... Cirt 02:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC).
I could make a transcript of the entire commentary for The Joy of Sect if you wished. ✗iℎi✗(talk) 02:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You don't have to do that. But if you were to, I would be eternally in your debt, aka Chewbacca. Cirt 02:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC).
I think making a transcript would help with my disiphering of the voices problem I have. The only part I hate is when they all talk at the same time... But, I'll see what I can do. ✗iℎi✗(talk) 02:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, thank you. If you are going to do that I will hold off on getting the DVD for now. Cirt 08:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

The Simpsons Forever!: A Complete Guide to Our Favorite Family ...Continued

If any of you need it, I can make a scan of an episode and upload it to imageshack or something, as I know most of you don't own the Forever! book. ✗iℎi✗(talk) 02:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I gladly use it for any episode I do, and to improve Trash of the Titans, maybe you could scan every page so you wouldn't have to keep doing it, everytime everyone moved on to the next episode. Gran2 13:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I grabbed the two for The Joy of Sect. The scans are just fine, actually. Cirt 23:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC).
    • Ooh sorry, yea, it's the 2nd image of the set of the 2 from "The Joy of Sect", that is too small to read. But I can work with the first bit for now. Thanks! Do you know the page numbers for this episode, from the book? I guess I could always just state that it was from this episode's section in the book. Cirt 23:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC).
      • If you're planning to use them, you'll need the page numbers for the sources. But, it's page 26-27. Also, I uploaded the scans on an upload site. Just unrar the file and you'll have all the scans. Link ✗iℎi✗(talk) 01:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson

I found two sources that have this episode in a top list. They are here and here. I'd like to work on this episode, as my favorite thing from the whole show was in this episode (Khlav Kalash). However, the mention about 9/11 that is necessary, and finding good references would seem hard. I have found one good mention from the New York Times, but thats about it. ✗iℎi✗(talk) 18:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's discussed at length on the commentary for the episode. If you need an article that isn't available online, ask user:Zagalejo. He has access to some thingy that lets him browse newspaper and magazine articles, so he might be able to dig up some useable sources. -- Scorpion0422 18:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible season switch?

I know it seems kind of strange to request a season switch at this point, but I was wondering if anyone would be interested in switching to season 4? We already have 5 GAs and an FA for that season, plus a user who doesn't own the season 9 DVDs would be able to help out. Part of the reason for this is also that it will be extremely hard to get some of the episodes in this season promoted. The one that immediately jumps out at me is All Singing, All Dancing. Thoughts? -- Scorpion0422 18:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the drive is going smoothly right now. And, it's not that hard to get any of the episodes to at least GA. I've gotten "This Little Wiggy" to look like a good article with just the the BBC site, the commentary, and the book. ✗iℎi✗(talk) 18:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot to mention, I also don't own Season 4 at the moment. Though, I'd be happy to get the DVD to make Season 4 our next drive after this one. ✗iℎi✗(talk) 19:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't really mind if we change, but its seems a shame to start something and then abandon it (okay I know we did it for season 1, but meh). Even if we can't get any episodes to FA from season 9, then we could always just try and get them all to GA or something. But hell season 4 is good, so I wouldn't mind. Gran2 19:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I would oppose changing at this point, seeing as how I've also now taken on Lisa the Skeptic and The Trouble with Trillions. But if everyone else wants to switch, I am still committed to helping get The Joy of Sect up to WP:FA. And thanks again for everyone's help so far. Cirt 02:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC).

DVD commentary request

  • I will work on expanding these articles with secondary sources, but I would appreciate it if someone else could add information from the DVD commentaries to Lisa the Skeptic and The Trouble with Trillions. Thank you. Cirt 02:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
    • Unless Gran or Xihix beat me to it, I'll give them a listen on Wednesday. -- Scorpion0422 02:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I'm doing the same thing I did with The Joy of Sect, moving all unsourced bits to the talk page, and then moving back info as it gets sourced w/ WP:CIT cites from WP:RS sources. That is, except for the plot summaries, which seem to be okay as is, at least for the moment. Cirt 03:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
        • I'm sorry I never got to the transcript of The Joy of Sect, but I sort of got busy in real life. I'm not that great on writing Productions, but if I get a chance to after writing one for Girly Edition before Scorpion or Gran, I'll go for it. ✗iℎi✗(talk) 17:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Access to source?

User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle

  • I recently received the Triple crown winner's circle from User:Durova for work related to this project, and I wanted to thank you all here for your help. But I also wanted to point you to Durova's subpage - many of you may already qualify, or could get the award if you have two of three of DYK/GA/FA, and just pick up the other one. This would be especially easy if you have some FAs and GAs, but no DYK yet. Just a thought for you all. Cheers! Cirt 12:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC).
    • I've already achieved that (I got Good Night (The Simpsons short) as a DYK a long time ago and King of the Ring (1998) is going to make it tomorrow). I didn't even realize that existed! -- Scorpion0422 13:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Do you want me to notify Durova for you? Cirt 13:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC).
        • Doesn't matter to me. -- Scorpion0422 13:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
          • What are your three, DYK, GA, FA, that you want me to notify her with? Cirt 13:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC).
            • I went ahead and did it. I submitted my first GA/FA achievements. -- Scorpion0422 13:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay. Impressive.  :) Cirt 14:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC).
    • Wow, I need a DYK and then I'll qualify. Gran2 15:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Man, I'm glad I mentioned it to you guys. Gran2, how about you create an article about one of the books on The Simpsons, like from the references of Lisa the Skeptic ? That would be a quick DYK for sure. Cirt 15:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC).
        • Well the guide and Planet Simpson have pages, so I'll create The Gospel According to the Simpsons (with full title) at some point later. Gran2 15:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Cool. 15:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC). Cirt 15:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC).

Lisa the Skeptic update

I expanded the article, and added info from (12) good sources, many of which we've seen before :). At this point, if someone else could flesh out the Production section with info from sourced DVD commentary, and if we added maybe about one or two more reviews to the Reception section, then I could write a summary, and it would probably be a good WP:GAC. Cirt 16:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC).

Peer Review, after The Joy of Sect ?
  • What do people think of this article? I was thinking of putting it up for Peer Review, after the FAC for "The Joy of Sect", and seeing what the Peer Review brings. Then, I was thinking this might also be FAC potential. Thoughts? Cirt 01:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC).
    • I put Lisa the Skeptic up for Peer Review, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Lisa the Skeptic/archive1. There is an interesting question already at the Peer Review, unrelated to how to improve the quality of the article: "Do we need FA status for articles about a Simpsons episode?" - I would appreciate thoughts of other participants in this Featured topic Drive, both on how to improve the quality of this article, and on this user's comment. Cirt 03:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

The Trouble with Trillions

  • I am having trouble finding sources for this article. Any help/ideas ? Cirt 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC).
    • Some of them are harder than others. The best thing is to hope that there is good commentary info. -- Scorpion0422 22:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Here's hoping - By the way I set up the subsections in the rest of the article with the model from A Streetcar Named Marge, so the info from the DVD commentary is ready to be plopped in there when available. Cirt 22:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC).
        • If you want, you can leave this article for me. I'm trying to do the articles that have no references other than the three main ones we're using, and I'm not that bad at doing it. ✗iℎi✗(talk) 01:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
          • If you want to, sure. I'm sorry but I think I've done all I can. I will try to help out though. Cirt 01:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC).
            • Ah, you did the plot, thank you. It's the one that usually is the most time consuming for me. ✗iℎi✗(talk) 01:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
              • Nope, that was done when I got there. I just checked to make sure it was accurate, and added sourcing to that section. Cirt 01:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC).
                • Ah. Well, whoever did it, nice job. ✗iℎi✗(talk) 01:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Gospel According to the Simpsons

Does anyone have that book? Because it probably has some good info on Flanders, and I am currently working on his page, so if anyone has the book and would be willing to help, it would be appreciated. -- Scorpion0422 22:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Getting tired?

Seems that some of the articles you guys have chosen to work on, well, there doesn't seem to be any progress on them. I might just come in and start editing them after the one I'm doing right now (Lisa the Simpson). Lisa the Simpson will be the final one I do by myself until I help get all the ones you guys are currently working done to GA. ✗iℎi✗(talk) 01:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily getting tired, I'm just also working on other projects. I'll get around to my other 2 soon. -- Scorpion0422 01:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Yea, I'm also working on other projects, heck, I've got two other FACs ongoing right now other than just The Joy of Sect! Pretty exciting times. But I'd like to help get "Lisa the Skeptic" up to FA, as well. See comment in above subsection. Cirt 01:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

The Joy of Sect, FAC ?

  • Other than the Semi-Automated Peer Review, I have not gotten much of a response at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Joy of Sect/archive1. But I did address all of the points from the Peer Review so far, and there is a checklist there too. I tried to find a middle ground, between the peer review's statement that the lead was too short, and Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs)'s shortened version of the lead. It is about 1/2 as long as my way too long version from before.

Does anyone have any objections or concerns if I go ahead and archive the Peer Review and put this up as a Featured Article candidate, or is there anything else to do on this article? Cirt 03:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC).

You shouldn't pay too much attention to the "needs longer lead" statement. It says that about every article I have ever seen it peer review. I'll get a user that I know is a good copyeditor to take a look at the page and see what he thinks. -- Scorpion0422 03:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Great! Well, in any event, I think this version of the lead is a relatively good middle ground between the two, but as always with The Simpsons articles, I will defer to your FAC experience. Cirt 03:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC).
It's pretty good, but some copyediting wouldn't hurt. Watch out for run-on sentences, improper punctuation, and redundancies. Zagalejo^^^ 04:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Are you the copyeditor friend of Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs) ? Cirt 04:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC).
I guess that's me. If I have time, I'd be happy to do some more thorough work on the article, although I can't promise that I'll get to it soon. Zagalejo^^^ 04:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Any assistance you can offer is more than welcome. The Principal and the Pauper is still available if you want to work on it. -- Scorpion0422 04:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for helping out, much appreciated! Cirt 04:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC).
  • I went through and did a bunch of copyediting, and I feel I'm ready to put it up at WP:FAC. Any objections? Will I see you all over there? Cirt 05:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC).
I've come to a weekend, and I'm going to listen to several commentaries, including Joy of Sect to see if I hear anything about the mass suicide. ✗iℎi✗(talk) 20:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll wait on the FAC til after the weekend. Cirt 21:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC).
  • -- Thank you all so much for all of your help with this article! Cirt (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC).

FAs

I've been talking to some Wikipedians extensively about the whole FAC process and criteria over the past few days, and have come to a conclusion. The articles I got GA'd (the five that are currently up on the GA list), should meet FA criteria. I've read and re-read the criteria, and it all meets it. The main debate we were having was, that it seems people only support an article if it has a ton of references and is really, really long, and that it made some sort of impact. However, we discussed it, and if an article meets the FAC criteria, even if it's a small article with not that many references (but, enough), it should be promoted. Because of this, I am thinking of nominating the five articles I got promoted. It will be more of a test to see how correct the WP:FACR really is, than me actually wanting them to be FA'd. After all, there's nothing to lose, and I'd really like to see how it turns out. But, as far as I know, it seems that some of you have some resources in real life that I don't have. Because of this, I was wondering if any of you could provide information that's not already in the five articles, or just anything really. ✗iℎi✗(talk) 00:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Another great cite for these articles:

A heads up from The Joy of Sect FAC

How about removing the themes section if it fails its FAC? A GA is better than nothing, and we still have several other pages with FA potential. -- Scorpion0422 14:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather not, if at all possible. Virtually every single sentence within the "Themes" section has now been changed to accommodate this individual. Hopefully other people will voice their opinions at the FA as well, with differing views about its present state of quality. Cirt 15:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC).
Hold on... Why would it need to go to the WP:GAR? And why remove the Themes section? This is confusing :( ✗iℎi✗(talk) 21:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Many points have been addressed in the "Themes" section, and this may no longer be the case. Even so, if some individual does decide that he or she wishes to take the article to WP:GAR, after others have stated it is a high quality to potentially be a WP:FA, I think the folks at Good Article Review will at the least confirm its Good Article status. Cirt 23:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, of course it's GA quality. If the articles I wrote up half asleep most of the time are GA quality, then yours surely are. xihix(talk) 00:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! Coming from you, that means a lot. Cirt 00:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Next FAC potentials

  • I archived the Peer Review for Lisa the Skeptic. I feel it is ready for WP:FAC. However, as I have some other FAC stuff pending, and other stuff unrelated to The Simpsons that I want to put up there as noms after that stuff closes, If other people think they have other episodes that are ready for FAC, please nom those before this one. The FAC discussion and subsequent promotion/failure seems to take a while anyways, so we still have a bit of time for that. Thanks. Cirt 05:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC).
The only other FAC other than Lisa the Skeptic I can see is The City of New York Vs. Homer Simpson. I decided to drop my idea of putting up the articles I made to the FAC, as I didn't feel like dealing with a ton of copy editing. If anyone wants to help me with the City of New York or something, tell me soon. xihix(talk) 03:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Probably the best one is The Principal and the Pauper as I'm sure lots of stuff exists for it. And I apologize for having not worked on any episodes as of late, I've been caught up with other projects. -- Scorpion0422 15:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah me to, lack of time due to school work and HP6 have kinda shifted my focus. Although I shall do Das Bus when I have time, and I'll work on the collaborative Principal and Pauper when it starts, as that is probably the other main FA chance. Gran2 15:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. Let me know when you've exhausted FAC potentials in other Season 9 areas, and I'll let you know when I'm done with my other FAC stuff and am ready to put up Lisa the Skeptic on FAC. Cirt 23:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC).
    • Looks like The Principal and the Pauper and The City of New York Vs. Homer Simpson are both not up to GAC status just yet. If you all feel that Lisa the Skeptic is ready, I can put it up for a FAC nom soon, probably within a week I'd imagine, if you want (and if you think it is ready). Cirt (talk) 04:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC).
      • Okay, thankfully my most recent FAC nomination passed successfully, so I'm freed up for another nom. Do you all think there is anything else we can do to improve the article "Lisa the Skeptic" further? Do you think it is ready for FAC? If so, I'll nom it, if not, I'll nom something else unrelated to The Simpsons stuff, and let it stew for a while longer. Cirt (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC).
  • As the FAC for Lisa the Skeptic passed successfully, we could work on some of the above suggestions for FAC potentials. In addition to those, I think that maybe The Last Temptation of Krust might be able to make it. So here are the FAC potentials, in varying states:
  1. The City of New York Vs. Homer Simpson (Xihix) - Not yet GAC.
  2. The Principal and the Pauper (Scorpion) - Not yet GAC.
  3. The Last Temptation of Krust (Cirt) - GAC pending.

Cirt (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC).

Good source?

Is this a good source to use? If it is, I think it would help expanding the reception section of each episode, as the website leaves a fairly good length comment for each episode. xihix(talk) 03:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

  • You might get by with it, but personally I wouldn't use it on articles I was developing or working on. It has an air of self-publishness to it... Cirt 05:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC).

The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson (2)

Ok, I've decided to make this my first Simpsons related Featured Article. As for sources, this is what I have:

I will also be listening to that secret commentary in the Season 9 DVD, to see if there are any mentions (thought, I doubt it). Because I need more sources, I'd be grateful if someone could help. Sources I really need are sources regarding Post-9/11 syndication or feelings. There has to be some, as I'm sure the person who added the information on the article already didn't just pull it out of his rear. Of course, any new sources of information would be great, but try especially hard to help look for that information. If anyone wishes to help, please let me know! xihix(talk) 02:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Good luck to you, that article could use some work. It's gonna be a long road with that one... Cirt (talk) 05:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC).

Special Simpsons edition triple crown offer

Hi, I noticed a couple of people over here have earned triple crowns for your work on the project. So I'll make an offer: if six people qualify for a a triple crown on the basis of WikiProject The Simpsons work, I'll photoshop a special edition Simpsons triple crown and dedicate it to the project: the middle crown will be made out of a donut. Then I'll distribute the new award to each individual who's earned it and to the wikiproject itself. Sounds good? Keep in touch at my user talk. Best regards and keep up the good work, DurovaCharge! 00:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Do all of the articles included in the triple crown content have to be related to The Simpsons - or just some of it as a result of collaboration from this project? Cirt (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
    • I'm going to answer my own question here and decide that the content should all be related to The Simpsons. And on that note, I realize I am just short the DYK, and I'm going to go create a new article. Cirt (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
  • Hmm, I'd qualify if I had a DYK. But, I'm not much of the article making guy... I dunno, I might just do it for this :) xihix(talk) 03:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Wow, a high profile user has taken notice of the accomplishments of our little project and isn't complaining about it... It's about time. -- Scorpion0422 03:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes. It is so cool. Especially after the Wikipedia or Homerpedia discussion. Cirt (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
        • That discussion was ridiculous and pointless. Like they could actually force us to stop working on Simpsons articles. Oh well, having a Simpsons triple crown would be neat, but we're a ways away from that. Seven members have GAs, four of those members also have FAs and only two of them have DYKs... -- Scorpion0422 03:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
          • So really we only need to get two more members to get FAs. The other stuff is not as hard. Either that or perhaps Durova could lighten the requirement from six members with FA/GA/DYK to four or five... Cirt (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
            • Well if we count I Am Not Homer as a Simpsons article (I don't see why we can't), then I'd qualify too. Gran2 07:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
List of contributors
  • I have not checked who has what as far as The Simpsons related GAs and DYKs, but as far as Featured Content (Article, List, Topic, it all counts) :
  1. Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs) - FC/A Streetcar Named Marge GA/Homerpalooza, DYK/Good Night (The Simpsons short)
  2. Gran2 (talk · contribs) - FC/Homer's Phobia, GA/The Simpsons Movie, DYK/I Am Not Homer
  3. Maitch (talk · contribs) - FC/The Simpsons (season 8), GA/Cape Feare, DYK/History of The Simpsons
  4. Xihix (talk · contribs) - FC/The Simpsons (season 9), GA/Lisa the Simpson, DYK/The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer
  5. Cirt (talk · contribs) - FC/The Joy of Sect, GA/Lisa the Skeptic, DYK/The Psychology of The Simpsons

Feel free to list your related FC/GA/DYK content next to your entry, above, so we can keep track. Unless I am missing another editor, I think we have five, and not six. I think it might be prudent for someone to ask Durova (talk · contribs) to consider dropping the requirement for the new Simpsons Crown idea or WikiProject-related Crown idea down to five, from six. Cirt (talk) 07:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC).

  • I added an entry for Featured Content for the five. Feel free to replace with a different entry. Again, I don't know who has what GAs and DYKs yet, so feel free to add that on your own above, I will get to it later probably. Cirt (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
    • Okay, added some of your GAs, above. I've offered to work with Xihix (talk · contribs) on getting a Simpsons related WP:DYK if help is needed. Looks like someone might want to get in touch with Maitch (talk · contribs), and see about suggesting helping with a WP:GA, and a WP:DYK. All in all, not too hard, if we can go with five editors instead of six ... Cirt (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
      • Update: - Maitch (talk · contribs) only needs one WP:DYK for a Triple Crown The Simpsons. Though Cape Feare is now a Featured Article, Maitch also did the bulk of the work to get it to GA status DIFF, and Maitch successfully helped get The Simpsons (season 8) promoted to Featured List status, so that's your FC and GA right there. Added. Cirt (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
        • I just asked Durova, and s/he (ehh, I dunno :P) said that it can be five people instead of six. Also, thanks for helping me, Cirt, but try not to help aside from helping me get sources (Durova said the DYK has to be a one person effort). xihix(talk) 19:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Understood. Tell you what, see if you can find some sources, and I won't do anything yet. If you run into trouble, let me know and I'll try to help out, but I won't contribute content, it will still be up to you to consult the sources if I put them on the talk page and add content and citations yourself. I think I will do a little minor formatting, if that's alright. Cirt (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
            • Category:The Simpsons stubs - If you can't think of a Simpsons related article to create, you could always clean up, source and de-stub any of these, because you'd still qualify for DYK? that way. Gran2 19:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
              • Exactly. By the way, I don't have a Simpsons related WP:DYK myself yet, but I have one pending at T:TDYK. So hopefully I'll have one within five days or so, if the WP:DYK Main Page forces smile upon me. Cirt (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC). Cirt (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC).

Cirt has given me many sources for The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer, and I will proceed try to make it a DYK. Though, I have no idea how the nomination for these things go, but I'll just get to fixing the article for now. xihix(talk) 20:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool, you folks really are close to this. Awesome! Looks like a couple more DYKs and you'll be there. :) Seriously, I'd noticed that a couple of you were triple crown winners already and it seemed like a neat idea to photoshop a donut into a triple crown. The whole idea of the award is to encourage more good editing. And a lot of collaborative editing happens at the project level. So once one project level award exists, other projects will see the example and understand better, and maybe think of this as a cool thing to get. It's almost certain your project will be the first so you'll always have top billing: first come, first served. Cheers! DurovaCharge! 06:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it might be a week or two before we get those other WP:DYKs, we shall see. We'll keep you posted, or you can always check back here. Cirt (talk) 06:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC).
A possible Simpsons project triple crown

How does this look? DurovaCharge! 06:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Oooh, now you're just teasing us! Mmmmmmmm Triple Crown Doooooonuts........ Cirt (talk) 07:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC).
    • teehee :) DurovaCharge! 07:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
      • You could also incorporate free-use related images from Wikimedia Commons, notably one of the two images of The Simpsons Star on the Walk of Fame, or utilize the coloring of the promotional pink donut with sprinkles image they used for the recent movie. Cirt (talk) 07:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC).
        • Though this one does look rather yummy. I think it's time for a donut-wikibreak .. Cirt (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC).
          • Send me links to other pics if you think something else would be better. :) DurovaCharge! 08:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It all sounds very interesting and I do have an idea for a new article, but I don't have the time right now. I am moving tomorrow and I don't expect any time to spare. I also don't have an internet connection. I will have the time again to do some editing some time in the middle of December . --Maitch (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with your move, then. Catch up with me when you can. :) DurovaCharge! 08:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I had some unexpected free time tonight and created History of The Simpsons. It needs a bit more work, but I will deal with that later. Hopefully it will be enough for a DYK. I will move tomorrow. --Maitch 19:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Yay! I'm back from a small Wikibreak (busy in real life, sadly), but I'm ready to work. As for this, though, it's been two days and no response from Durova. Hmm... xihix(talk) 19:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The Last Temptation of Krust

The Last Temptation of Krust - trying to get this one up to WP:GAC status. I don't have the DVD for this. If anyone wants to add some info from DVD commentary and add a Production section, it'd be much appreciated. In the meantime, I will see about getting the DVD, and finding if there are any secondary sources that mention Production info. Also, if anyone else wants to take a crack at expanding the plot section a bit, that'd be appreciated too. Cirt (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC).

I have the .mp3 of the commentary. Would it be illegal to upload it for you? xihix(talk) 15:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to rent the DVD anyway, but just email me. Cirt 15:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC).
I see you don't have email enabled. Don't worry about it, I'll just get the DVD. Cirt 15:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC).
  •  Done - Added production info to the article. For more details on progress/steps towards getting this one to GAC, see Going_forward_towards_GAC. Shouldn't be too much longer. Cirt (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC).

FYI, new list of users

Oh cool. Would anyone mind if I nominated the this topic when the time comes? xihix(talk) 01:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't matter to me, I've already got my one nom (although I've worked on 4). -- Scorpion0422 01:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe Xihix (talk · contribs) and I can co-nom it? Cirt 15:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC).
I don't see a reason why we all couldn't conom it. -- Scorpion0422 17:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

However, I think as of late we've been too focused on awards and such. Awards and accolades are nice, but they are distract people from their tasks. -- Scorpion0422 17:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

A good point, let's get back to what we do best, having fun improving the quality of lots of articles on Wikipedia. Cirt 17:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC).
And on that note, please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lisa the Skeptic. Cirt 17:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC).
 Done -- FAC passed successfully, thanks for all of your help. Cirt (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC).

Featured Topic criteria change

It appears they have encoded the requirement that one third of all the articles in the topic must be featured, so please keep that in mind before you nominate the topic. If you doubt me, go check it out. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think they mean that more for the smaller topics, but seeing that we have 25 articles, we might be excuseable. Besides, whoever changed it did so several months ago and nobody has gone after the season 8 topic, which has 4/26 articles featured. The example they use is 2/3 and 3 of 9, so based on that pattern, it would be 5/25, and we have 3. Looking at the talk page, one user says 4/27. Besides, many of these pages will never be able to reach FA status, so I think that's excuseable. -- Scorpion0422 20:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't there be a Grandfather clause? And even if not, perhaps something like a requirement that all articles in the series be Good Articles, with at least X number being Featured Status, instead of a ratio? Cirt (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC).

Excuse my absence, please

I am sorry for not being able to contribute at all for the two weeks. I have been extremely busy in real life, but my break starts on Wednesday, so I should be able to help again. My goal is to make The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson a FA, and I will hurry up and do so as soon as possible. Again, sorry. xihix(talk) 03:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • No worries, the Featured topic drive is actually proceeding rather nicely. With your expression of wanting to get another article to FA, it looks like we may have a couple more FA potentials, so I'd say it's worth taking our time if that means more FAs. Cirt (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC).
If anyone needs assistance, let me know. I'd be glad to help. Cirt (talk) and I got Lost Our Lisa ready in about 2 hours. I'm sure he would be glad to help too Ctjf83 talk 18:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, GA'ing episodes is no problem for me, I can do those pretty quickly without much thought. Though, making a featured article episode seems a little challenging, but I'm doing it. I will need help with copy edits and such, but I'm sure I'll pull through. xihix(talk) 04:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to help if I could. I've not done a lot of "purposeful editing" (just bits and pieces) before, so I'm not quite sure what to do, I don't want to rush in and ruin someone else's work. Also I'm not too sure where you're up to with all of this. If someone could tell me what I can do, I'd be happy to. Bruiseviolet (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The topic drive is almost complete, but there is a new one coming up soon. This time we are going to improve the main character's articles. Otherwise you can always pick a random episode article and improve that one. --Maitch (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Next Season Drive

I would just like to confirm, is Season 4 the next topic drive? I would like to know in advance so I can start making up money. xihix(talk) 21:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

is the next season discussed anywhere, or did someone just pick a random one? Ctjf83 talk 21:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, season 4 was discussed because then Simpsonsfan66 and Rhino would be able to pitch in because they own those sets (but not season 9), plus we already have an FA there and several GAs, which is a huge help. -- Scorpion0422 02:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
good enough for me...I just figured we should go with a season that the most people have DVDs for Ctjf83 talk 02:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • What about THOH? Some people have brought that up, and it is on its way to having two articles w/ Featured Content (one list and one article), and already has 3 GAs? Cirt (talk) 04:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC).
    • I've thought about that, but there are no DVDs for THOHs X-XVIII, so it would be difficult to get them promoted. -- Scorpion0422 04:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
      • It would certainly be more fun and more of a variety than simply another season. I would pitch in to help with that, but not sure any episodes from season 4 interest me at this point in time. Cirt (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC).
        • What about Homer the Heretic? You seem to enjoy working on episodes with religious content, and a lot of fans consider it the best religious episode. -- Scorpion0422 04:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
          • I agree with scorp...we can't get production stuff for the THOH that aren't on DVD yet Ctjf83 talk 05:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Hrm, Homer the Heretic does look interesting, I think I remember that episode. But at any rate, let's first finish up successfully getting all Season 9 articles to WP:GA status or higher, and talk more about this after that? Cirt (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC).

Well uhh, I found out today that I'll only be able to get season five, six, or seven. So err... Not really sure if I can do season four anymore. xihix(talk) 23:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: I actually might be getting season four. xihix(talk) 04:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I promise I will be back for the next one as long as it is seasons 1 to 7. --Maitch (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Thats good. I just wanted to confirm that I have obtained season five, six, and seven, and will probably get four soon. xihix(talk) 23:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Decision

So what did we decide is going to the be the next season, or are we deciding to go to characters, personally i'd like a season Ctjf83talk 02:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I think from a discussion here and at WP:DOH, the consensus was Simpson family. Cirt (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
    • I personally favor to do episodes, as I feel more comfortable with them. We could do characters, though since I've never done any, I'm not sure how well I could do it. I also see it being hard to do, as there would be so many references to check with before you write a characters. An example would be Lisa, where you'd have to listen to every episode commentary that had a main plot around Lisa. xihix(talk) 02:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
      • There was also WP:DOH discussion that we have enough contributors to do two featured topic drives at the same time, one characters and one episodes - but I personally would rather focus the members' attention on one drive at a time. Cirt (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
        • There's no reason why we couldn't do both. Cirt, Xihix, Ctjf and Simpsonsfan can do episodes, and then myself, Maitch and Gran can work on the Simpson family. -- Scorpion0422 02:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I dunno, I like Scorpion's idea of who does what, cause I feel the same as Xihix for characters...but I don't think we should wait for the FAs, cause i'm getting very anxious to start a new one now Ctjf83talk 02:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • At the very least, we should wait until The Principal and the Pauper is a WP:GA, and then wait until at least one of those three gets to WP:FA, and then nominate this topic for WP:FT, to see it through. Cirt (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
      • Does everyone else think we should wait a bit? This is a perfect example of where IRC chats would work nicely Ctjf83talk 02:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Hehe, true. There's nothing stopping you from working on episode articles in the interim though. I think that people were talking about having the next episode drive be Season 4... Cirt (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
          • Thats fine with me, any season if fine! Ctjf83talk 02:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Yes, see subsection above, it was The Simpsons (season 4) that was going to be the next episode drive before the discussion shifted to character pages. So in the meantime, why don't you pick one of the non-GA Season 4 episodes, and begin to get it up to WP:GAC potential? The more articles that are already WP:GA by the time we officially start the next episode drive, the better. Cirt (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Ok, do you want to start a sub page for season 4 topic drive? Ctjf83talk 03:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Not yet, wait until this drive is over, or we could move it to a season 9 subpage and make season 4 the new drive (since a lot of the work on season 9 is done). -- Scorpion0422 03:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, personally I'd rather wait til this drive is over - nothing is stopping editors from getting season 4 articles up to WP:GA status. Cirt (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

For those who would like to start work on season 4, I started a temporary page here. It can be moved here when work on this drive is finished. -- Scorpion0422 03:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Great! We should note who already did what for the GA/FA stuff. Cirt (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
    • Thank you Scorpion...do you want to list it on the project navigation "thing" Ctjf83talk 03:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if I could have dibs on at least two of these episodes:

The reason I ask is because I don't own the entire season 4 box set, but I found the third disc of the box set at some garage sale for $2, so I decided to get it. Not sure why the entire set wasn't there, but oh well. I'll try to get the entire thing soon, though. For future drives, note that I have season 5, 6, and 7. xihix(talk) 03:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Sure, but Marge vs. the Monorail was finished a while back. -- Scorpion0422 03:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Xihix go here and put your name down on the ones you want Ctjf83talk 03:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Alright. I didn't want to put my name down originally, as I probably won't be able to start until I make some more progress with The City of New York. xihix(talk) 03:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The Principal and the Pauper

Who are these "Multiple people" working on this article? The users should be individually listed next to the entry. Cirt (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

Next drive: Family members?

This has been talked about on the main page WP SIMPSONS talk page, but should we do the Simpson family as our next collaboration instead of season 4? I'm not going to lie, I'm kind of burnt out on episode pages and these days I prefer to work on more challenging ones. Although we would only have to work on six articles, getting all of them to GA (and 2 or 3 to FA) will be very tricky, and would involve listening to many commentaries and combing the net (and books) for useable info. However, if others want to work on season 4, I'm for it, but I probably won't be as involved on that one. -- Scorpion0422 02:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

  • What is the breakdown again, can you list in a subsection below the amount from each topic that is WP:GA or higher? I certainly wouldn't mind working on either one, but yeah, a change would be nice. Cirt (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

All Singing, All Dancing

Let's get this bastard done. I have about thirty minutes, so I'll listen to the commentary, then post it here and others can put in the article. With luck, we'll have it as a GAC within a day and we'll be done with the getting to GA quality portion of this drive. -- Scorpion0422 02:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

  • After that, we should wait a bit more and see just how many of these we think we can get to FA status.  :) Cirt (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC).
    • I just went ahead and did it. It's a tad short though. -- Scorpion0422 03:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, I'll work on it with you to get it up to WP:GAC. Can you do the plot section? I know of a couple sources to expand the Reception section a good deal more. Cirt (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC).
        • I might be able to add a few sentences, but I can't see the plot going beyond two paragraphs. -- Scorpion0422 03:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
          • That's fine. Cirt (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

Hmm, whats left to be done on Principal and All Singing before nomination? They both seem to be pretty much finished. xihix(talk) 04:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

            • I'm waiting for Zagalejo to look over th principal and the Pauper, but basically the plot section needs to be cleaned up, then it will be ready. -- Scorpion0422 05:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The Last Temptation of Krust FAC

I will put this article up at FAC as soon as the FAC finishes for Battlefield Earth (film). Cirt (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Simpsons/Featured_topic_Drive/season_9&oldid=1136047217"