Talk:The Simpsons/Archive 1

message: In one episode of the Simpsons, Brake My Wife, Please- Homer starts to sing about how he likes walking. Then he says "I can walk from Springfield to alaska"- where it shows a map of the united states with a star in the southern reigon of the country which homer walks from then up to alaska. It looks like, according to the map, that Springfield is in Southern Missouri (Which actually really does exist), Northern Arkansas, or possibly Oklahoma. Also by looking at the map, although unlikley, Sprinfield could be in Kentucky, Tenessee, or Alabama. However Sprinfield, Missouri does have some of the geographical features of the Sprinfield featured in the simpsons. One of that being low lying mountains- which is a prevalent feature of Sprinfield, Missouri. Also you see it having a small town feeling while having semi- high rising buildings. This also runs true with Springfield, Missouri. A problem with the location of Springfield, MO is that it is not by an ocean. However, it is right next to Tablerock Lake, a very large lake in Missouri- which could account for some of the episodes that show a body of water. However in one episode, Homer goes out on "international waters" which, of course, would have to be the in the sea. 
::One thing that has bothered me about Springfield Missouri is that Springfield is on the Sea. I the [springfield effect] has a better chance of explaining it.
Do Nuclear Power Stations have cooling towers? The 'Setting' section of the article claims they don't, but the image right at the top of the page on Nuclear Power clearly shows a steaming cooling tower.Smurrayinchester 18:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Town of Springfield

message: Is it really appropriate to have an entire section of this article dedicated to the future "flashforwards" as shown in a single episode.  It adds nothing to the article except an episode synopisis for this one recent episode.  I propose removing this section. Gblaz 19:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: In The Future Section

message: Maybe I'm just not able to find it but would I be right in thinking that there's no entry for the albums (I think there were two) released by The Simpsons?  Would've thought there'd be mention of it, especially "Do The Bartman" which did so well in the UK.  Also, and I admit I've not looked for them, but what about the computer games? violet/riga 22:23, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The Simpsons Sing the Blues violet/riga 11:24, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Simpsons Sing the Blues 

message: This line - how accurate is it?
Almost any riot, in above crowd reference, is started by Moe Sizlak of Moe's Tavern.
? Krupo 06:08, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
:Not especially. He does seem to take part more often than other characters, but I wouldn't say it's worthy of a mention. Foolish Mortal 15:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crowds 

message: Authority, especially in undeserving hands, is a constant target of the show's often sharp satire. This probably explains the often strong negative reaction to the show from social conservatives.
Is this really true anymore? Earlier in the history of the show it was certaintly derided by some on the Right, but I think this is far less accurate today, given how non-partisan the political satire often is.
--jonathan 22:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Politics of "The Simpsons" 

message: I noticed that the first paragraph in the Settings and Characters sub-heading briefly discusses the shows history.  Maybe that first paragraph should be moved to the Series History sub-heading in order to arrange the article better and shorten it just that little bit.  Jaberwocky6669 19:54, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
----
"The Simpsons was the first true TV series hit for Fox". . . Weren't "Married With Children" and "21 Jump Street" hit shows before the Simpsons got their own series?
24.195.22.186 13:56, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Series History

message: I reckon that all of the trivia section (and subsections) should be moved into Trivia about The Simpsons (or some other name).  I propose to do this in the next couple of days unless there are significant objections. violet/riga (t) 23:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea. I think some of the trivia could also be incorporated into other sections of the article (Settings, Characters and Plot; Series History; etc.) --Kaizersoze 20:29, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
I've moved everything there now - some parts could be reintegrated if it is found appropriate. violet/riga (t) 16:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia section getting out of hand 

message: Was the cat's name Coltrane or Coltraine?
The article says Coltraine, but I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be a reference to John Coltrane. KingTT 01:45, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coltrane/Coltraine 

message: Should a separate page also be created for External Links, say at External Links for The Simpsons? Important links (e.g. TheSimpsons.com and The Simpsons Archive) could be kept on the main page, whilst other, less important links could go on the separate page, linked from the External Links section. --Andrew 21:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Could this page be a featured article? I am reading the page and I think it is comprehensive, has a good image for the main page of the Simpson family and people like - even love - the show. Maybe it can be a featured article. --Blue387 02:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article? 

message: Could someone please verify the information concerning Kevin Lloyd in Lady Bouvier's Lover. There is an annoying vandal obsessed with adding incorrect facts to articles about British soap actors. You may remember the guy from his assertion that Mark Wingett voices Mr Burns!! The JPS 11:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kevin Lloyd]] 

message: Does ANYONE WHO WROTE THIS can tell sources? The FA won't accept a page without references... igordebraga ≠ 22:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I've removed this from the Cars section as it didn't really make much sense where it was:
:Homer has enjoyed repeated hirings by Mr. Burns, has been fired at least once and has quit several times. In one episode, he is fired, becomes a used car salesman and ends up as an ambulance driver in the space of twenty-two minutes plus commercials.
:The show also has a vast array of quirky supporting characters, including co-workers, teachers, family friends, extended relatives, and local celebrities. Many of these characters have developed a vast cult following of their own. For a comprehensive list, see characters from The Simpsons. Some of these, like Itchy and Scratchy, super-violent versions of Tom and Jerry, are fictional even within the Simpsons universe.
Perhaps we can find a more appropriate place for it?--Ramon omar 04:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed from Cars section 

message: Some people may think that my paring down of the "Setting" section was too bold. The fact is that it was a messy eyesore with too much useless, subtrivial information. The sectioned contained a great deal of extremely minor points speculating about the "location" of Springfield that have no place in a general encyclopedia article (much less so close to the top of the article, before even a rough synopsis of the show is given). Anyone interested in the information concerning the state Springfield can find it all, and much more, at the "Where is Springfield?" document linked in the same paragraph. What's more, the conclusion that the section comes to, that Springfield isn't anywhere, renders irrelevant all of the "It's in Kentucky, no wait it's in Missouri, I mean it's really Oregon" nonsense that preceded it.  There is no place for this obsessive clutter in a quality article. Readers who are mostly unfamiliar of the show  should be treated not to a barrage of munitiae, but to a summary that paints a clear picture of the matter, and leaves the details to the linked SNPP docement. Andrew Levine 01:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Setting/Where is Springfield" section 

message: Could a character template be created to be added to the dozens of Simpsons character pages? It could feature a few details such as age, job, etc. Below is a quick template I made for Homer Simpson, made from the Lemony Snicket character template.
The Simpsons character	The Simpsons character
                      	
Homer Jay Simpson     	Homer Jay Simpson
Gender                	Male
Age                   	36 - 39
Job                   	Safety Inspector at the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant
First appearance      	Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire
Major relatives       	Wife Marge, son Bart, daughters Lisa and Maggie and father Abe
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Squidward2602 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool! Just one thing though: The red box with the text in it is a bit hard to read. Why not have Simpson Yellow instead. Ps. What is up with Homer's eyes!? smurrayinaHauntedHouse...Boo!(User), (Talk) 20:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character Templates 

message: Do we really need the list of distributors for the show?  What about this article: List of TV channels that air The Simpsons ?? 32.97.110.142 17:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distributor list 

message: Can someone explain to me why every "Simpsons" website linked gets deleted? There's no reason. They are valuable resources about the show.
:Because Wikipedia is not a link repository (aka Wikipedia is not Google). A handful of links should be (and is) inlcuded. If the user needs information not provided by those links, then they should be capable of launching a Google (etc.) search for it. Otherwise we'll have every Geocities site on here run by 14-year-old webmasters. The JPS 06:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to have been corrected, because the sites listed at the moment are far from 'crap'. There are hundreds of Simpsons sites out there, and it is not unreasonable that someone would attempt to use wikipedia to get more hits. We need to address POV in our selection of external links too (esp. true when you resort to vague descriptions such as "crap"). Selecting the official site and the site run by the newsgroup seems to be pretty safe. The JPS 09:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The external links as they stand right now look pretty good. I don't see much reason to add anything besides what's there, and I don't see any good reason to delete any of the ones that are there, either.--chris.lawson 00:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted links 

message: I have removed several lists from this article and have spun them off into their own articles, trimming the article size from about 61KB to about 47KB. What do you think of this? Remaining tasks are that this article needs to be fact-checked and referenced, with maybe a list at the bottom in small text, before this article could be nominated for featured article status. Toothpaste 23:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: List removal

message: Yeah, I can confirm. This was all over the news about three days ago. A quick search on Google News should turn up plenty.--chris.lawson 06:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Someone also confirmed this to me on my talk page. I just wanted to make sure it was factual before it got buried in other edits. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 07:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  EA Games 

message: Has anyone else noticed that the Holloween specials are getting progressively less violent and more normal?--Vercalos 01:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Halloween Specials

message: This section should read debut in Arab countries.  The Simpsons was broadcast in Pakistan over 8 years ago in English.  Pakistan is a Muslim country, but not an Arab country. Fkh82 01:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Debut in Muslim/Arab Countries

message: The Simpsons has featured many, many songs over the years that sooner or later I have had to obtain or re-aquire. I find when I re-watch episodes that many of the featured song(s), often just a very short clip a few seconds long, really start to grow on me and I want to hear the whole track. I will start a list here and give it a layout in this order ;
Season number, Episode number, 'Episode name here' - Artist 'song/track name'
Examples ;
Almost any episode featuring the Duff beer mascot "DuffMan" - Yelo 'oh yeah'
Season 7, Episode 24, 'Homerpalooza' - Smashing Pumpkins 'zero'
Season 9, Episode 7, 'The Two Mrs. Nahasapeemapetilons' - Foreigner 'hot blooded'
Season 9, Episode 7, 'The Two Mrs. Nahasapeemapetilons' - The Carpenters '(They Long to Be) Close to You' (an Indian version, played at Apu's wedding) 
Season 10, Episode 10, 'Viva Ned Flanders' - Elvis 'viva las vegas'
Season13, Episode 22, 'Papa's Got a Brand New Badge' - Golden Earring 'radar love'
Season13, Episode 22, 'Papa's Got a Brand New Badge' - A3 (previously known as 'Alabama 3') 'woke up this morning (Theme for The Sopranos)'
Season 14, Episode 10, 'Pray Anything' -  Kiss 'I was made for loving you baby'
Dirk Diggler Jnr 17:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the List of songs featured in The Simpsons is a great idea :-) Fred Bradstadt 19:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do you think a 'List Of Songs Featured In The Series' would be good idea ? 

message: Wikipedians seem to find it challenging to know what should or shouldn't be considered a spoiler when it comes to a long-running TV series.  Perhaps project members might find it interesting to contribute their insights on this subject to Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines#Spoilers...66.167.253.58 07:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a spoiler? 

message: In the section on the burgeoning popularity of the show among religious conservatives, one of the points mentioned is the Flanders' 'pipeline' (my word) to God v/v Him performing miracles for them.
In actual fact, the Simpsons have had the largest share of miracles (specifically in the form of answered prayers) of any family on the show (more than the Flanders'). I always thought the writers were mocking believers who hold to the idea that God rewards piety.
And more importantly, the miracles God performs (or appears to perform) for the Simpsons are often orders of magnitude greater than those He performs for the Flanders' (actually just Ned, IIRC).
From what I can remember:
Simpsons: 
*Bart's prayer asking God to restore his soul was answered (yes Lisa bought it but He works in mysterious ways lol); 
*when Bart asked for a miracle to get the day off school there was an unseasonable snowstorm; 
*when Marge prayed for the family's wellbeing during the hurricane it blew itself out and the Simpsons lost nothing; and 
*when Homer decided to follow Ned's example and pray, several of his prayers were answered (some of them ridiculous/whimsical): He gave Homer a new taste combination (bacon (or pork rinds?) and fudge); the Simpsons' house needed extensive drywall repair, Homer prayed for a solution and broke his leg at the church, sued the church, and was awarded the deed to the church; and I think there was another one in that episode. {comment:it was bacon}
In fact, I haven't seen an episode where a serious prayer by the Simpsons (though they be few and far between lol) wasn't answered.
Flanders': 
*Ned reminded God 'it's me' during a bowling game and the last pin dropped; 
*Ned asked God to save Todd when Maude launched him in a reed basket down a swift river; and 
*there was one where I don't remember the prayer, but I remember God saying 'Okeley-Dokeley' to Ned when Ned thanked Him.  {it was after the prayer to save Todd that God said that}
That statement was made just after the tree was suddenly struck by lightning in the episode A star is Burns.
Flanders said "thanks God" And God replied "Okeley-Dokeley"
On the other hand, Ned's prayer regarding His reasons for taking Maude wasn't answered.
Because I don't know the origin of the observation, I don't feel comfortable changing it.--Anchoress 11:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious conservatives section 

message: The simpson episode articles have two templates. Should we make one official or should we let both be used? --TBC 02:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Simpson Episodes Question

message: Moe Szyslak, the owner of Moe's Tavern (where Homer spends most of his free time), is a borderline sociopath who threatens people with his loaded shotgun, and attempts suicide every Christmas. Based on comedian Rich Hall.
They're definitely similar, but was he really based on him? If the article doesn't give a source for that statement (e.g from one of the writers or voice actors. On a DVD commentary perhaps?), then it should be removed! --Nick RTalk 17:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When he was on Spicks and Specks, Adam Hills introduced him as the mad they based Moe on.--Greasysteve13 05:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moe = Rich Hall

message: :The character Waylon Smithers. Since the debut of the show, the term "Smithers" has become a common eponym for a spineless underling.
I don't know about the spineless, but Smithers has always been a stereotypical "underling" name.  Most famously in Archie comics, where the character Veronica Lodge has had a butler named Smithers since the comic began, in the mid-1940s.
It's weird, but I've noticed when it comes to TV show articles on Wikipedia, a lot of fans come in and attribute these age-old things to their favorite show. --65.175.223.122 21:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone agree this isn't true? 

message: The transliterations offered do not match the Arabic given, at least by my limited understanding of Arabic script.  Is there a source for this that can be checked against? --Kbh3rdtalk 14:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right; the Arabic as it now exists is incorrect (it appears to be a go at spelling "simpsons" rather than the actual name of the program as broadcast in Arabic-speaking markets, "Al-Shampshoon."  If I knew how to correct it, I would, but I believe it should be spelled aleph-lam-sheen-meem-beh-sheen-wow-noon.  I don't believe there was an "s" at the end, but haven't seen it in a couple of months (it was only broadcast during Ramadan on any channel I can get, alas)..... Robertissimo 14:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabic 

message: I've removed this section because it was unverified speculation and not neutral. It also used a lot of weasel words. If anybody wants to add something about how much The Simpsons suck today, then find a credible source to document it with. See also the talk section about "Fan Controversy". --Maitch 12:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change from original vision 

message: It would be useful to add a list of awards won by The Simpsons, I think. I will begin a new article on that topic, unless somebody disagrees. ElTchanggo 02:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards? 

message: I have created a new article, List of fictional places on The Simpsons, as a merge target for several articles that border on Simpsons-cruft, such as Bronson, Missouri and Humbleton, Pennsylvania. The list is far from complete at the moment. If another article about a minor location in the Simpsons universe arises, I would recommend merging it with the list as an alternative to putting it up on WP:AFD. Szyslak ( [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 22:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of fictional places on The Simpsons]] 

message: i personaly think it would be cool if we could get a list of all the prank calls Bart did to Moe's Tavern.----68.49.75.128 00:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, there is one at Moe Szyslak#Prank calls. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: qrank calls

message: Why does "bumblebee man" a(a link from a list of John Belushi characters) redirect to here? JeffStickney 14:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirect problem 

message: Would it be a good idea to split the running gags section into its own page (in the style of Running gags in Friends)? The list is getting long, but do we need more Simpsons lists? smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 19:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Running gags 

message: I explained my opinion that the spelling for Xt.... is wrong on the Xt'Tapalatakettle page. After watching Blood Feud and rewinding the part in question a bunch of times, I know for a fact that this spelling is wrong. Burns' version of the name isn't even the same as the version here. It is supposed to be "tapalapa" not "tapalata" as shown. The DVD captioning also spells it as Xtapalapaquetl. I would think the DVD captioning would have more precedence over the non-canon comic books. Any body want to help clear this up on that page? Ultrabasurero 22:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is discussed here: --Greasysteve13 06:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of "Xt'tapalatakettle" 

message: does anyone know what the highest rated simpsons episode is?
:Who Shot Mr. Burns? Part Two had the most amount of viewers. --DChiuch 10:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've heard "Bart Gets an F" cited as the most-watched episode, but that statistic might be out of date, or possibly only in comparison to The Cosby Show. --Nick RTalk 14:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highest Rated Simpsons Episode 

message: How about adding a section on the large occurences of Master's Thesis submitted based on the Simpsons, for such subjects as Philosophy and Theology? Jayteecork 14:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A section on University Thesis

message: I've changed Otto's name to include his last name, which appears to be Mang, as seen on his probationary driver's license.  This can be seen in season 3, disc 4, episode 4 of the DVD version (The Otto Show), at about 21:26 minutes.  koolman2 10:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Otto Mang 

message: Just letting people know, I've nominated The Simpsons as a featured article. Vote for it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Simpsons. --DChiuch 08:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article candidate 

message: "...and the family's two cars, both of which appear to have been manufactured in the early 1980s (Homer's being made from "recycled Soviet tanks", in a "country that no longer exists")." - Is this taken from "Mr. Plow"? I thought he didn't buy that car, he just took it for a test drive? He could hardly fit in it... am I right? Haha.. "Put it in H!" :) --Sammysam 00:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: about Homer's car...

message: I find the two first header names long and overtly complicated, "Production and history of The Simpsons" might as well be named "History", "Setting, characters, and plot of The Simpsons" might be "Storyline" for a shorter description without including the names of the subsections or referring to the article name. 
Also, the recurring jokes are a little too specific for the main article - perhaps it would be better with a seperate article and a  under the "Themes" header, as that also talks about the jokes and quirks in the series. Poulsen 13:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section names and "Recurring jokes" 

message: Some of the 'Plots' section does well to highlight recurring themes, but the bullet-point list at the end of the section is pretty disposable for a feature article. It's true of parts of the entire article, actually; there's a fine line between attention to detail and fanaticism, and occasionally this crosses it.
For instance, in the aforementioned bullet-point list of "several types of scenes that recur often and have become conventions of the show's storytelling style":
* Scenes that cut from the main action to show what a secondary character, like Krusty or Mr. Burns, is doing at the time.
Listmania, anyone? Yes, of course it's a convention of the show's storytelling style; it's a convention of the medium's storytelling style. It's a convention of storytelling itself. I don't think Matt Groening will be issuing a patent on it anytime soon.
The broader point here is that lists of this kind are worthwhile if they point out recurring plot devices - for instance, the first point, about the oft-used and relatively disposable "trip" of the first five minutes that sets the plot in motion. But if you're writing a list like this and you can't think of enough material, you should stop before it gets to this point:
* A scene in which one or more Simpsons are watching a TV program, which the viewer watches along with them, or watches them watch it, often to be interrupted.
Yes, on the Simpsons and many other shows. The point here should be the frequency with which "The Simpsons" uses that device to parody advertisements, news reports and general television programming. I know that as a fan it's hard to resist the temptation to quote examples ("Look at all those feminists!") - but it's not a fan list, it's an encyclopedia entry.
* A scene in which Bart makes a prank call to Moe's Tavern.
* A scene in which Homer is at Moe's Tavern escaping the hassles of work and family to be with his friends.
Entries like these have nothing to do with the show's storytelling style, beyond being scenes that recur. They're not plot devices so much as actual content. 
I don't want to make any changes - I'm a stranger here myself, don't want to tread on anyone's toes - but somebody really needs to go through this page with a steel-tooth comb, 'cos there's a lot of that kind of fluff to be pulled out. Just my opinion, of course :)
203.51.189.23 02:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plots section 

message: In the 'Characters' section, it states that George Bush and Gerald Ford lived beside the Simpsons. However, they lived across the street. 23:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neighbors 

message: The article doesn't explain how the show turned from the dull Tracey Ullman stuff (how did it get on air?) into something so brilliant. Was it new producers/writers/illustrators? Who made the difference? That writer who sat in the diner smoking ciggies? And why did the standard dip over the last couple of years (2004-05), only to make a partial recovery? eg. the piss-take Cosmic Wars is brilliant, but the 2nd half of that show left me cold. Is it all about the writers?--shtove 01:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ugly duckling 

message: The following is written in the lead: 
:"It [The Simpsons] has had a huge influence on post–Cold War popular culture."
A statement like that needs a citation. I believe that it is more correct to say that it has had an influence on post-Cold War television. --Maitch 17:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huge influence on post–Cold War popular culture? 

message: A few months ago, I worked on improving the section on the Simpons setting, since much of the discussion was repeated at Springfield (The Simpsons) (which I also worked on improving).  My changes were reverted a few days later, as if it was a "blanking."  Well, it was, but with a good purpose, IMO.  There in probably hundreds of examples of location evidence, and I thought it was better to keep them in the Springfield page rather than cluttering up this page. So, I've re-edited this section as I did here, and moved more information to Springfield (The Simpsons).  --Spiffy sperry 22:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You did a good job in my opion. --Maitch 22:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Setting 

message: Shouldn't there be a section devoted to certain critics claiming that the show has "jumped the shark", so to speak. I'm not really that informed about it, but a few people I know say that the argument has become pretty significant. --212.2.170.158 12:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem so far has been that people couldn't write something that uses references and doesn't contain weasel words. Yesterday somebody wrote a well referenced text about the negative critical reactions in the lead. We need more of that and less of "The Simpsons totally suck now" or "many consider The Simpsons awful now". The lead is a bit long now so I propose that we make a "Critical reactions" section in which both positive and negative reactions are mentioned. --Maitch 14:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critisicm 

message: An article for each episode. Gross and pointless. --162.84.163.5 21:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The same's done with other series like Family Guy and South Park. I personally also think its a bit too much, but obviously lots of people seem to think its worth it. -- jeffthejiff 09:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 300-odd articles dedicated to one cartoon show? That's obscene. Their is even a list for "prank call's" done in the Simpsons? Seriously now.--141.155.136.145 21:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it ain't broke don't fix it!--M Johnson (talk • contribs) 00:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree.  After all, WP:NOT paper (that's how we refer to the Internet having unlimited space in Wikipedia-specific terms).  --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree also. There are some Simpsons articles that are unnecessary, but episode articles are not one of them. — mæstro t/c, 04:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cull the ugly, disgusting herd of episodes. 

message: I add an opinion to the above. (Sorry for a big lecture but I'd like others' opinions too.) The plethora of articles on "The Simpsons" is now looking larger than the total amount of knowledge we have in Wikipedia on "Mathematics". That's embaressing if we are ever to gain respect as an encyclopedia. Don't get me wrong, I'm as big a Simpsons fan as anyone here, but it comes down to whether this is the place for it. Yes, The Simpsons itself started a new era of nerds on internet boards talking about trivial things from the show, but when Wikipedia was started as a compendium of human knowledge, who decided to transfer that stuff over here??
Wikipedia doesn't have to contain every single fact in history in it; doing for maths what you people have done for The Simpsons would result in articles like "Flavours of coffee enjoyed by algebraists". Clearly there are some things that aren't interesting enough to the general population to warrant a separate page. I guess the problem is that The Simpsons has a style of humour so well received by the types of people that are into technology/computing and the internet that it is a bigger candidate for such discussion than any other franchise. But that doesn't mean Wikipedia should be dragged into it. This project was obviously started with a different goal in mind. Few other things have so much detail in their categories. We should be keeping Wikipedia consistent. More Wikipedians should be making these articles, and less Simpsons board-posters. Perhaps a separate WikiSimpsons should be set up for those people.
In short, overall problem is, category page has way way way too many articles, this page is a total bore and should be restarted, articles like "prank call's done in the Simpsons" (above) are pointless, and most of the articles basically just speculate over "facts" about the characters and setting as if it's a real life place, forgetting that it's just make-believe. PLEASE somebody agree with me, show me this corner of Wikipedia hasn't been completely overrun by people with too much time on their hands... Tilgrieog 12:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is a little over the top, and that systemic bias is a problem throughout WP - I mean, Star Wars has its own WikiProject, for goodness sake... However, I would urge restraint, and ask that you peruse the goals and beliefs of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians (and their WikiProject before making any rash decisions.  Whilst the amount of articles on this topic is an example of imbalance on WP, I can't see them doing any specific harm, either, and I'd emphasise the benefit in favouring merging over outright deletion.  Nuge | talk 00:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Nuge. Furthermore, the best way to counter systematic bias is to create articles in obscure topic areas, not to delete current content. Remember, WP:NOT paper; if a subject is notable, it can have as much information on it as people can contribute. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 00:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually independent on this issue.  I don't think we should get rid of all of these pages (in the case of the list of episodes, this is a concept that is done for many other notable TV shows), since what's the harm?  (And, as EWS23 pointed out, this isn't a paper encyclopedia.)  However, some, such as List of Simpsons Stores & Signs do go a bit too far, as (in the example I gave) The Simpsons has had so many stores and signs in some form or another in its run, it may well be a good candidate for deletion.  In simple terms, we shouldn't delete every list about the show, but we could likely live without lists that could be unmaintainable (and aren't unmaintainable lists good candidates for AfD?).  --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not rabid about documenting every single item of minutae related to The Simpsons, but if for no other reason than that whatever we delete is likely to keep being re-created by enthusiasts, I would be in favour of merging rather than deleting. One topic listed above, though, 'neologisms', I would be in definite favour of keeping; it's evidence of the measurable effect The Simpsons is having on the culture at large, and I think it is notable.--Anchoress 02:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I don't believe in saying that topic A is more important than topic B and therefore we should start deleting pages until topic B has fewer pages than topic A. The best way to counter this problem would be to start working on topic A or to merge several stubs from topic B into one article. I for one wouldn't mind if there were an article for every episode of every TV series if there were a decent amount of real information. "Real" information includes a summary, cast and crew for this specific episode, awards and maybe some stories from the production of the episode. You could make a good article about a single episode, but mostly these articles are not that good. One thing I would like to mention is that Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes, which instead belongs to Wikiquote. We have to move all the quotes over to Wikiquote. When we do that the single episode articles would become very short and it would be possible to merge them into season articles instead. I've seen this done for other TV series. If there is a list that you feel is pretty pointless I would suggest that you nominate it for AfD. --Maitch 15:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well two articles - List of musical groups named after references from The Simpsons and List of Simpsons Stores & Signs - have been listed. Hopefully this will give an indication of the attitude towards these Simpsons articles and we might get an idea on the validity of them all. Robdurbar 16:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also nominated Shøp for deletion. --Maitch 18:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: After looking closer at those that were nominated for deletion, I really don't mind them being removed, as they had little or no context or relevence. However, as Anchoress said above, the one I'd say we should definitely keep is List of neologisms on The Simpsons. The Simpsons has had a notable influence on the English language, and it should be documented. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 21:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify. I do not intend to nominate every list for deletion. Some of them does have value. --Maitch 21:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I think the neologisms could stay; the fictional characters and characters could be merged, as could the celebrities and spoofed celebrities. The list of episodes should stay but the others above could all go. Robdurbar 21:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both List of Homer Simpson's jobs and List of animals in The Simpsons seem to be well developed. They could potentially be merged into Homer Simpson and List of characters from The Simpsons respectively, but that would probably make those pages too large and someone would probably suggest reforking them. I think there's big differences between undeveloped pages like List of Simpsons Stores & Signs and developed ones like List of animals in The Simpsons. Any thoughts? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 21:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Responding to Maitch's post above: Is it appropriate to move quotes by fictional characters to WikiQuotes?--Anchoress 05:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is appropiate. On the Wikiquote main page they mention television shows as one their top categories. Wikiquote already has a page for The Simsons (see Wikiquote:en:The Simpsons) and as you can see there has been transwikied before. --Maitch 10:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the removal of the Simpsonslistcruft. We can't host endless reams of specific trivial information only interesting to die-hard enthusiasts. We could have List of Homer Simpson's jobs ordered chronologically, List of times Marge Simpson let her hair down, List of Simpsons streetlamps... These sorts of things are for a Simpsons wiki, not a general encyclopedia wiki. I know WP is not paper, but its also not an indiscriminate collection of information. We have got to have some sort of cut-off point between what we should and shouldnt keep to maintain some level of organisation and respectability. -- jeffthejiff 16:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is getting beyond a joke 

message: They surely aren't going to do a live action opening for the rest of the series?! Of ALL the things to do.......--M Johnson (talk • contribs) 06:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Opening 

message: I see from the archives this has been brought up before, though in a different context. I was wondering, though, whether the list of sites is a definitive list. Now I have to admit a teeny, tiny bit of personal bias here because I happen to run a simpsons fan site, though with a more speciality orientation than the others listed - essentially it's a fanfiction and fanart archive. You can see it here (though it's still being updated and so is missing a lot of content).
I had considered simply editing in a link to it, but that would be selfish, so I decided to ask if you lot would be willing to consider it. So... yeah.
Archonix 13:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Websites? 

message: Just heard this on TV on my local channel before the show airs: each Simpsons episode takes 24000 frames, 6-8 months and $1 million to produce. Maybe we can add this type of information if a citation can be found. Shawnc 03:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, if you can find verifiable sources for it. Another thing is that as far as I know is length of an epiosode of The Simpsons not always exactly the same length, so I question the 24000 frames. I've also heard that it should take two years to produce an episode. --Maitch 11:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production cost 

message: There should be a mention about how several portions of an episode are removed to fill in more advertisement time when it is on syndication Buzda 05:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simpsons in syndication 

message: The overseas animation studios infobox on the right in the section "Animation" has numbers for how many episodes a specific studio is responsible for. Does anybody have a source for these numbers? --Maitch 10:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a link:  http://www.freewebs.com/speedyboris/simpsons.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.88.26.100 (talk • contribs) 
Thanks a lot. It makes fact checking way more easy. --Maitch 10:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overseas animation studios 

message: OK... Anyone interested in helping cleanup the Simpsons information, join the WikiProject... if we can all work together, instead of different editors working on different pages, we can get all the Simpsons information on all of Wikipedia organized... - Adolphus79 04:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject: Simpsons 

message: I've archived this page. (It was over 32KB). Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 15:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived

message: I've added this section to the article. It needs expansion though. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 15:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Impact on television

message: I removed a line citing Bart's Nightmare as an exception to the dismal track record of Simpsons games... the article for the game states that it was trashed by critics and bombed commercially. (If this is not the case, my apologies; the Nightmare article should be amended. Maybe The Simpsons: Bart vs. the Space Mutants was the game in question?)
One question, however: why is there a picture of the Simpsons Monopoly edition in the video game section? I didn't see a reference to the board game anywhere in the article. - DynSkeet 15:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video game section 

message: Will we ever find out where Springfield is? The Simpsons forums on tv.com are swamped with "What state do the Simpsons live in?" questions. If in fact Matt Groening based this on a real city, then I have a few clues from the episode "Poppa's Got a Brand New Badge."
1) - Interstate 95 passes through it.
2) - It has a population of around 39,000-40,000 people (can't exactly remember).
and 3) - The elevation of Springfield is in the 1,000 ft. range (also can't remember).
If anyone has more things to add, don't hesitate...
The Runescape Junkie 01:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: good luck with that, for 17 seasons we've been trying to figure out where it is... there's an article here on Wikipedia Springfield (The Simpsons)... here are a few hints, springfield does not really exist, it's puposely not located so that the characters can go wherever they want... it's within a couple hours of beaches, mountains, glaciers, a volcano, jungles, etc... the state abbreviation is NT (which is not a real state)... one theory claims that Springfield is based on Springfield, Oregon (as most of The Simpsons is based on stuff and people and places in Oregon) due to Matt Groening growing up in Oregon... - Adolphus79 02:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is pretty comprehensive, and after not long, I'm pretty sure using clues similar to what you've listed they were able to discount every state. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 04:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that's the point of Springfield, it is impossible to claim one state or the other... done for ease of storyline, so the family can go anywhere they need to for an episodes plot... - Adolphus79 04:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, on "Poppa's Got a Brand New Badge," on the commercial for SpringShield, the area code is 636, and 636 is in Missouri. I know that Springfield isn't really anywhere, just wanted to see what other people thought about it.The Runescape Junkie 16:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thought you might be interested to know that the most likely candidate is the town of Springfield, Oregon.  Although it would be Interstate 5, not 95, in all other respects it is the best match, and also the Springfield nearest and dearest to Groening's heart. --Edwardian Flamebait 02:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still confused as to why people try to tie the clearly fictional city that is intentionally located so as it could not possibly fit any real state into a real state.  TheHYPO 08:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. I'm trying to keep the section short, because everytime you just mention one state, then some fanboy starts adding another state. --Maitch 09:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Dear me, you people, honestly! When are you going to realise that Springfield is 'everytown'. The whole point of it is that it *doesn't* have a location, it *could* be just about anywhere. Every state has any number of 'Springfields', just like here in the UK, there are any number of dead beat towns just the same.
Peopl take this aspect (and many other aspects) of the show far too literally. Springfield is, like so many facets of The Simpsons, a metaphor, an allegory, not a literal place. If you can't see that, you're missing one of the major points of the programme. Martyn Smith 18:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location, location, location... 

message: I mean the one where homer gets a new job? Jamhaw 18:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the one when he works for Scorpio? he's worked for a lot of evil people in his lifetime... which evil guy? - Adolphus79 22:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It's called You Only Move Twice. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 12:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the name of the episode where homer works with the evil guy

message: The Simpsons have insulted the Republiscans on many occasion but they insulted the democrats when they were in power even more most notably Clintons "while i'm not a very good president" also the reverse steryotype is wrong the Simpsons have few blacks on the show and they have just as many problems as characters with simialer air times Hibbert apparenty does not have good relations with his wife and uses Morhine all the time an interesting thing is that asians are white and Europeans-americans are yellow. Jamhaw 19:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ugh... more unsigned gibberish... seriously, if you are going to make a statement like that, at least sign your post... The Simpsons is an equal opportunity show, they make fun of everyone... - Adolphus79 22:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted the text about race relations. It seemed like original research to me. I've added some lines which explains that any politician are made fun of. --Maitch 16:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Themes

message: The Popularity section is very poor and needs major work to avoid deletion. Is the section about popularity, as in number of viewers or quality? It seems to move from one to the other without distinction. It also has no cites and employs many WP:Weasel words 'many people' etc. Determining the quality of a show is almost very difficult to verify. Ashmoo 02:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Popularity

message: Does anyone else feel that the fan sites section has become a place for people to essentially advertise their Simpsons fansites?  I definitely think that major ones like The Simpsons Archive and NoHomers.net should be there (If they're good enough to have their own article, then they're good enough to be listed here), but most of them seem to be rather obscure sites that I have a feeling were added by the webmasters themselves. 69.105.121.201 05:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, it's been deleted.  Never mind then.  69.105.121.201 02:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fan Sites Section

message: My mistake about the Bartholomew thing - I reverted a vandalism edit but it apparently put that back in because of the version I chose to revert to (as well as the line about the opening sequence). Regardless, I agree that both things should not be there.
--GeneralDuke 19:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem - I kinda figured that's what happened - I also assume that the recurring 'cash register' that seems to be infuriating Mr. Maitch is a similar reversion result TheHYPO 00:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  character listing 

message: I archived this page. I usually leave out the last two subsections of talk pages when I archive. Just in case. Anonymous__Anonymous 16:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Archived

message: The following senctence lacks a citation:
:In that same issue, Bart Simpson was named to the Time 100, the publication's list of the century's 100 most influential people
I need someone to verify this fact. If you go to this page you will need to be a subscriber to TIME magazine to watch the entire article. Can anybody verify that Bart Simpson is on that list? --Maitch 12:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the help. --Maitch 08:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TIME citation

message: Good article, but i think it needs to be copy edited.  Leave a note on my talk page once it has been done.  False Prophet 01:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: she startrs off 7(bart 9) then b day is jacko episode
recently enough she turns nine turbo diary private investigator episode.... Owwmykneecap 03:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She is frequently denoted to be Eight years old. Birthdays are notwithstanding. You might see her as becoming nine in those episodes, but until she is declared nine in a subsequent episode, the frozen timeline of the simpsons stands with her as 8... TheHYPO 05:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lisa is 9 

message: I'd like to add the view to this section that the main reason for the dramatic decline in the quality of the show since around the Series 10 mark is that the show has ceased to be 'character driven' and has become 'plot driven'. The first nine or so series shows plots developed out of the characters behaving in unforced ways which were believable within their established charateristics. Since then the characters have been forced into behaving in a way that fits a pre-perceived plot, or joke (often of very poor quality). This has given the show rings of untruth, and been chiefly responsible for its serious decline in quality in the second half of its life. Martyn Smith 18:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this is already mentioned. --Maitch 21:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Declining quality

message: If there's further vandalism, semiprotection should be requested. Anonymous__Anonymous 09:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It already has been, and denied. They require a significant amount of vandalism before protecting, and that amount is somewhere like at least a dozen times a day. If it becomes more frequent, it can reapply, but right now, it's up to maintainers to keep an eye on it. TheHYPO 17:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that about half of the vandalism is in reality good faith attempts to improve the article. The problem is that people don't consider the flow of the article or that they insert some random trivia. I have started to write notes to the editors within the article; so that the common reverts can be avoided. Feel free to add more of those. --Maitch 20:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cited only actual vandalism (not changing things that shouldn't be changed) when applying. IE: deleting half the article, writing people's name into the article, adding swear words, writing 'is gay', etc. TheHYPO 03:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-Protection?

message: I've trimmed the religion section down to the vital information for the main article, but do we really need it here? I would argue the stuff here under both lifestyle and religion should be moved over to the Simpson Family article (which, if I remember correctly, is in good need of some organization), with maybe a passing mention in this article. If people want to know what the family's religion is or that their car is from the 80's, they can look up the family; it's not a crucial fact for people reading about the show itself. TheHYPO 17:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. I mentioned the episode when Bart and Homer turned Catholic. Anonymous__Anonymous 08:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion