Talk:Treehouse of Horror XVII

message: I changed the airdate to "Fall 2006" from "November 2006". While in the past few years, all the Treehouse of Horror episodes have aired in November, it could possibly air in October. If there is any evidence to support this, please change it back. • Rlloyd3 03:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Airdate

message: Is this the last Treehouse of Horror? I mean there's a lot of them but is this the last one?
Wrong. There is another one coming soon.--Rory666 20:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Last Treehouse of Horror?

message: This morning on AOL news, there was a story about The Day the Earth Looked Stupid, and how it might affect the elections. I can't find it now, but it's worth mentioning. The episode apparently has Kang and Kodos talking about forced occupation, and how "Won't they get tired of it after a while?" and make some deadpan joke about Iraq. - A.J. 03:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it can't.  There is a quote (which is stated in the reference I added) that says "This sure is a lot like Iraq will be."  It is sourced, it is factual, and it IS encyclopedic.  Wikipedia is meant to be objective, yes, but the Simpson's aren't.  I suggest if you have a problem with the Simpson's comment, you take it up with them.  The simple fact is that Wikipedia objectively covers a lot of things in mass media, and while it covers them neutrally, it doesn't omit notable things that might offend people.  Your arguments were that it was an attack on the president, and could be any war.  First, it is clear that it refers to Iraq.  Second, that it is a satire (attack), on a notable prime-time show that has been covered in the news, only makes it more encyclopedic.  Thus, I readded the section.  AubreyEllenShomo 18:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearance in News 

message: Well, now that the episode has been leaked on filesharing nets, the question is: Do we write a sypnosis and a complete article or do we pretend like nothing is different? — Mütze 22:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think there's some kind of rule against posting episode synopsises before that episode has been aired to the general public. Not sure though so ask an Administrator. -- Scorpion0422 19:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I did add a bit about "The Day the Earth Looked Stupid" and the Iraq war to the Cultural References section, based on an ABC News article, rather than the leaked episode.  I believe that's permissable, as it okay by WP:V and isn't WP:OR.  Plus, it's clearly relevant and notable.  AubreyEllenShomo 20:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sypnosis?

message: I took out the link to the episode that has not been aired yet because of copyright laws.  I am sure it's in every file sharing program out there but it should not be on here.   Fans should wait for the show or fish it out from another source.  Tofubyrd 05:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  Of course, the link will forever be in the article history.  AubreyEllenShomo 20:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  link 

message: Isn't it worth mentioning in the article that this episode was leaked a week before it aired? Roger 20:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode leak 

message: LOL im watching this at this exact moment! In Oklahoma City it is now excactly Nov. 05 2006 7:24pm and im the watching The Day The Earth Looked Stupid on the part where they are in the mud naked acting like animals.
So?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.137.5 (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Random Comments

message: I've begun cleaning up the Simpsons episodes per the following guidelines and policies: WP:EPISODE, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:WAF.  Allow me to quote from the relevant pages.
  
WP:EPISODE, a guideline, instructs: "*
Content about television episodes must conform to Wikipedia content policies, including but not limited to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.
*Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  
Avoid excessive trivia and quotations.
*Extensive quotation from episodes is a violation of copyright and unlikely to be fair use.
*Here are some ideas for what information to include about a television episode, where possible:
**The plot summary of the episode
**The episode's relevance in ongoing story arcs, if any
**How the episode was received by critics
**The episode's impact on popular culture
**Information on production and broadcasting of the episode
*Elements which are best avoided in any episode article:
**A scene-by-scene synopsis. An overall plot summary is much better; the article should not attempt to be a replacement for watching the show itself, it should be about the show
**Particularly for comedies, no attempt should be made to recreate the humor of the show. This rarely works, and is contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia."
WP:NOT, a policy says: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply:  Plot summaries. 
Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic."
WP:V, a policy, is clear: "The policy:
# 
Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
# Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
# The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."
WP:OR, a policy, states: "
That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article." 
WP:RS, a guideline, reads in part: "Popular culture and fiction
Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included."
WP:WAF, a guideline, tells us: 
"Wikipedia policy on verifiability requires that articles "rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." However, articles written from an in-universe perspective are overly reliant on the fiction itself as a primary source. Lacking as they are in any critical analysis of the subject, these articles may invite original research. In other words, lacking critical analysis from secondary sources, Wikipedia editors and fans of the subject often feel compelled to provide such analysis themselves. Consider this analogy: Would it be acceptable to write an article on flight based solely on watching birds flying? Furthermore, much of this analysis might seem on the surface to be quite sound. For example, assume that an editor creates an article on a starship recently introduced on a science fiction TV show. Using the episodes as reference, he or she writes, "Finn-class starfighters have purple shielding and can fly faster than Mach 3." But how do we really know that all Finn-class starships have purple shielding? What if there are green ones that just have not been introduced yet? And what if later episodes show that Finn-class starships come in slower or faster varieties, too? The editor has made an inference, based on limited fictional information. Framing things from the perspective of our own universe eliminates the problem altogether: "In Episode 37, Commander Kinkaid obtains a Finn-class starfighter with purple shielding. Vice Admiral Hancock calls the ship 'a real space ripper' and says that she can 'make it past Mach 3'."
Please understand that Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia and just not the place to repeat jokes from the episodes or say what product placement you have happened to notice.  If you want to write a deconstruction of the episode's use of narrative and novel juxtaposition of cultural memes, that's fantastic.  Find some reliable 3rd party sources and show us what you've got.  Adding more items to a bulleted list of things you can see when you watch the episode is just not acceptable.  Take a look at the Featured articles, that's some good writing, that is what we're shooting for here.  Cheers. L0b0t 04:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure all of the deleted items violated Wikipedia policy.  Proponents of those items may want to take this opportunity to defend them.Bjones 15:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia, cult. ref. and cruft 

message: I came to this page to see if it would tell me who Norm Crosby is and, for that matter, what was that telethon the Golem was talking about. You see, that is my favorite thing about Wikipedia, its ability to link you from a cultural reference made in a piece of media to the person or entity being referred to. Nowhere else on the internet does one casually go from reading about, say, a Simpsons episode, and be linked to, say, Genghis Khan, Valhalla, or Love Is..., to name but a few of the thousands of Simpsons cultural references that have outstanding Wiki pages themselves. This level of functionality and interconnectivity is unparalleled on the web and is, in my increasingly humble opinion, one of the things that makes Wikipedia so magnificent. It is also why I was so upset when I couldn't find a link to Mr. Crosby, or any information on the telethon on this page. Perhaps no one with knowledge of said telethon had seen this episode or had bothered to enter it on Wiki. If only that were the case. For it seems someone did enlighten us with the information and I was able to learn that he said "Chabad Telethon," and what that is. Here's the problem: I was looking in the page history at a deleted item. Apparently, some individual decided that this information was "cruft" and that it must be deleted. The quote was taken directly from a primary account of this episode and, therefore, was not in violation of Wikipedia standards. I understand that original research is involved when one says "scene X in work 1 is a parody of scene Y in work 2". Even though it seems silly to imply "research" was done to know that Married to the Blob refers to Married to the Mob, or that "The Blob" refers to The Blob, it is understandable that it can be considered original research in some contexts. But direct references made by characters in The Simpsons to other cultural entities requires no such research and and deletion of which is only done because one individual decided arbitrarily that is was unimportant and not Wiki "worthy". While I agree that bulleted lists are aesthetically untidy, content removal is far far worse. We all have our own opinion on what constitutes "cruft", please spare us your heavy-handed one. I must take great exception with the wholesale deletion of relevant cultural information in this or any article. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Sansbras 11:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the policies and guidelines posted above.  It is not a problem with the info but rather the way the info is presented.  ALL edits must conform to an established editorial style with inline citations and a reference section.  Even if the source is the original work, which should be used as a source ONLY if no secondary sources are extant, has to be cited and listed in the references section.  As for your specific info, search for Chabad or Norm Crosby and there you go. Cheers. L0b0t 14:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your reply. Of course I am well aware that I can search for anything (assuming I spell it correctly) on Wikipedia. But one's ability to search for a reference made on The Simpsons does not discount the usefulness of having such a reference listed on the episode page for the following reasons: First, it is not always clear to all what entity is being referred to, especially when one is not already familiar with the entity in question (like the Chabad telethon). Second, linking from one page to another IS the beauty of Wikipedia, as no other source on the web contains such vast information on both the cultural (like The Simpsons) and the academic (like, say, Genghis Khan). To eliminate such links is to devalue Wikipedia. And finally, I am quite familiar with WP:POLICY and am aware that there is room for direct reference to the primary source (in this case, the episode in question) and that a cultural reference explicitly named in said source constituted acceptable use. As someone who finds such references enlightening, I am always disappointed to see these links deleted. I sincerely believe there is "room" in Wikipedia for such a useful and enjoyable tool, and I hope the desire to delete remains secondary to making Wikipedia as useful as possible. Thanks again, Sansbras 21:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I will concede that comparing episodes within a series would constitute original research (i.e. saying this episode explores similar themes as a Futurama episode). But I think you are allowing "summaries" of the segments to expand into retelling every joke while in the meantime you are eliminating useful information such as that on the Chabad Telethon without even bringing it to the discussion page. --Wowaconia 11:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taking a Bullet for Cultural References or: One Man's Cruft is Another Man's Kingdom 

message: Who ever keeps removing the information that the Ink Spots "I Don't Want To Set the World on Fire" from the anachronisms segment, I refer you to this link to The University of Missouri-Kansas City's Miller Nichols Library which lists the copywrite as 1941.  http://www.umkc.edu/lib/spec-col/ww2/1939/idontwant.htm Please stop erasing things without discussing them first.--Wowaconia 10:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ink Spots  

message: There's no quotes in the article! Even in the articles about Simpsons episodes that haven't aired yet there's a "Quotes" section! Riverdanceman
::There should never be a quotes section in a wikipedia article.  All quotes should go to our sister project Wikiquote.  That's where you will find the Simpsons, South Park et al quotes.  Cheers. L0b0t 15:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, please see the relevant policies and guidelines.  Quotes from episodes are copyright violations and rarely fall under the protection of fair use.  Using an article that violates rules to justify violating rules in another article does not hold water. L0b0t 16:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the Quotes? 

message: What's the problem with adding: 
*The title of the thrid segment is reference to the movie The Day the Earth Stood Still and also an episode of Futurama, The Day the Earth Stood Stupid.
Go Futurama! Sp3000 06:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I sincerely doubt that, considering Fallout was released a year after the airdate of this episode ;) Thepineapplehead 15:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Uhh no Thepineapplehead, Fallout 1 is from 1997 ;). So this scene is most likely a reference to Fallout 1, because the Song from the Ink Spots was the first choice for the Fallout 1 developers - but they haven't got the rights. So they took "Maybe", also from the Ink Spots. So yes, it could be a reference. :)--217.235.116.31 (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: Sorry, I though it was the Treehouse of Horror one listed in one of my TV Guide, its incorrect though…it isn’t that episode. RaptorRobot 06:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian Airdate Incorrect 

message: This article does not seem to say the original air date or even the year
----  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.188.139.197 (talk) 07:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No dates 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Treehouse of Horror XVII. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080508163638/http://www.simpsonschannel.com:80/news/monthly-archive-11-2006.html to http://www.simpsonschannel.com/news/monthly-archive-11-2006.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified