# Talk:Simpsoncalifragilisticexpiala(Annoyed Grunt)cious

Can this episode be considered canon, or is it another divergence from reality like the Treehouse of Horror episodes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.212.81.20 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-01 17:32:13

why wouldn't it be canon? Pnkrockr 18:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

At some point in time, you could've sold your children in Mississippi? Hmm.
64.40.54.23 19:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know the real reason Andrews wasn't used. It seems odd to say once they heard an extra do the role they went with her, especially since they already had Andrews for the role, unless it meant saving a huge salary paid to Andrews.
It doesn't make sense someone would say "We can have the original but let's go with an OK substitution," unless it was money
63.26.193.213 (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)eric

Quentin Tarantino did not voice himself in this episode (it was actually Dan Castellaneta). Although apparently, he must have liked the episode, as the making-of documentary on the DVD release of Kill Bill Vol. 2 shows Tarantino wearing a shirt featuring the Simpsons caricature of him and the "breakfast cereal" quote. (Sugar Bear 14:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

I'm a maniac, maniac, that's for sure is a real song - I heard it on the radio recently - but don't know whom it's originally by. Anyone any ideas Martyn Smith 18:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It's called 'Maniac' by Flashdance. It's based on the movie Maniac. Type it into wikipedia and check it out.--Simpsons fan 66 10:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Being a bit of a nitpicker but the song is FROM the movie Flashdance. The artist is Michael Sembello. He also co-wrote "Saturn" which appears on Stevie Wonder's SONGS IN THE KEY OF LIFE album. GBrady (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

When principal Skinner is ringing the bell and saying "Boy for sale", it is, of course, a reference to the book Oliver Twist, or at least to the musical film "Oliver!". 
Also: "Reservoir Cats" has the famous dancing scene from Pulp Fiction.
I think that both should be added to "Cultural references".
85.141.191.211 13:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)PTR

Okay, I gave this article a decent copyedit and am going to go ahead and pass it for GA review. Just a note - this is the third Simpsons episode I've reviewed, and while they are generally well sourced and well organized, they would do with more careful copyediting, especially with regard to sentence structure; maybe another pair of eyes would help before nominating for GA. Chubbles 07:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it really appropriate to pass an article you edited yourself? I thought that wasn't allowed... 

Do we need really need 3 references for "She was sucked into a jet turbine?" Usually we dont put references in the plot. references are mainly for the cultural references section. --123.51.103.64 11:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What? Its a reference for the entire plot.... Gran2 11:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

In The Simpsons episode "Simpsoncalifragilisticexpiala(Annoyed Grunt)cious", the family watches a fictitious scene from The Andy Griffith Show on TV. In the scene, Charles Bronson has replaced Andy as sheriff, drawing its humor from the stark contrast between the brutal nature of Bronson's characters and Andy's mild-mannered persona.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.129.79.43 (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC) 

First of all, I don't think the GA status of an article should limit our general practices as far as contributions are concerned. GA means that the article has been evaluated to be good as of a certain revision. It does not dictate that we should now hold all future contributions to a higher standard. Contributions are normally allowed without an immediate citation, and will continue to be allowed no matter the article's status.

Secondly, I agree that prose are preferable to lists, however removing bullet points alone does not a paragraph make. If you take a list and remove the line breaks and little blue squares, you get a list without line breaks and little blue squares; you don't get a paragraph. Integrating list items with each other to form a cogent paragraph take a lot more effort than that. 
I'm not going to argue about bullet points, its up to a matter of opinion, and I think articles are better without them (and I understand the "prose list" argument, but I still believe prose is better). But to say that material does not need immediant references is in my view wrong. With things like cult refs, not having cites for them, mean's they are often speculation. I mean with Treehouse of Horror VII, saying that the first segment is a reference to Basket Case (as it would seem to be) is completely wrong, as is explained in the commentary. But stub, start, B, GA, A or FA, material that can be considered speculation needs a source. Gran2 20:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
To not have immediate refs for anything is often speculation, yet it's still allowed. I don't see why cultural references should be treated so differently. 
But does that mean its prefered? I'd personally much rather have cited material in The Simpsons related articles, rather than unicted ones that chances are do not actually have a really reliable source to support. If I'd had my way, there wouldn;t be a problem at all because the SNPP episode capsules could be used for them. Although in situations it could be alright I suppose. Thoughts? Gran2 20:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
You're arguing a general point for Wikipedia now and not anything specific about this article. Given the choice between sourced vs. unsourced material, of course everyone would rather have cited material in every single article. But the fact is, for better or worse, uncited material is a part of the article development process. A large percentage of cited contributions start out as uncited contributions. If you come across them, you tag them with {{fact}}, wait a while, and remove if necessary -- that's why we have fact tags and that's why we have date stamps for facts tags. This is just how things work right now, which I'm sure I didn't need to tell you -- but if you have some argument for why this particular article should be treated as an exception to the general practices on Wikipedia then that should really be the focus here. 
Yes I did originally say it was because it was a GA, and I stick by that. But as you disagree with that, then I guess you win, cos I out of points. So you may as well add them back in because I have no ground to revert it... Gran2 20:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Shary Bobbins or Sherry/Cherie Bobbins? "Sherry" and "Cherie" are real names, and rhyme with "Mary" in the US English spoken by the characters in the show, but "Shary" is not a name, as far as I am aware. Does anyone have an authoritative print reference for the name? — Paul G 08:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The Official site, and The Simpsons: A Complete Guide to our Favorite Family. Gran2 08:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, MASEM 05:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

its (doh)cious!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.252.113 (talk) 09:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 

Shouldn't we move the article to that name? After all, it is the official name of the episode, plus it makes more sense than "Simpsoncalifragilisticexpiala(Annoyed Grunt)cious" because "Do'h!" is a popular saying by homer simpson. So shouldn't it be moved? Drifblim3445 (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No, because that's not the official title. The current page name is. Gran2 17:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Bart says "Pop quiz, Hotshot..." and "...what do you do? What do you do?" to Shary Bobbins. Both of these are from the movie Speed. Here's the references, I don't know how to do them on the page:
http://www.tv.com/the-simpsons/simpsoncalifragilisticexpialaannoyed-gruntcious/episode/1451/trivia.html
http://www.snpp.com/episodes/3G03.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.224.30 (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC) 

Here's the dialogue from that scene:
"Krusty: And now, our parody of "Mad About You" entitled "Mad About Shoe."  [Krusty lies in a bed with a giant piece of footwear] Give me a kiss, baby.  No tongue!  [audience members boo and throw things]  Urgh.  You're not going to like our "NYPD Shoe" sketch.  It's pretty much the same thing."
And here's the link to the script:
http://www.snpp.com/episodes/3G03.html
Weedle McHairybug (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)