Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons/Archive 3

message: I've put in an article request for a list of Simpsons characters by Alma Mater.  I figure, there are easily enough characters in the series with affilations to real colleges and universities that such an article could be whipped up.  E.G. Burns at Yale, Sideshow Mel at Cornell, Edna Krababble (sp?) at Bryn Mawr etc...  Or a general Education in The Simpsons article that includes the fake universities, plus Springfield elementry and others --Xtreambar 04:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have no objections, I don't know a great detail on the subject other than Springfield Elementary and other minor one offs. But yeah, if you want to do it yourself, or someone else does, be my guest. Could end up being quite a detailed and good article. Although maybe see what some other people have to say first as well though. Gran2 22:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if Politics and Religion have articles, I think Eduction could have one. There is probably enough material from The Simpsons to have a pretty decent article.. -- Scorpion0422 22:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Alright, I'm going to create a page so that we have something to work with and everyone can add to it from there. It'll be done in about an hour. -- Scorpion0422 22:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Simpsons Alma Maters

message: I think I could do a lot. Trosk 04:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask an administrator. I'm not sure what the policy is on such matters. -- Scorpion0422 04:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is okay. Sysops doesn't have to do everything. --Maitch 12:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would it be OK for me to assess some of the unassessed articles? 

message: I just finished the article, so please take a look and add stuff. It needs a LOT of work, but it has a decent start so any help is greatly appreciated. -- Scorpion0422 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Education in The Simpsons]]

message: Are they allowed on individual episode pages? Someone keeps deleting them from the episode pages and I'm not sure if they should be deleted. --The Dark Side 01:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they are generally frowned upon and a few quotes are allowed, but then you get the whole "which quote is more important than the other?" thing, so most people just clear the entire sections. -- Scorpion0422 01:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes according to the project page, a task is move quotes from articles here to WikiQuote. It seems like the project forgot about that. If you look at many episode articles: huge quotes lists clutter the article. I've removed some, with a note of take it to WikiQuote. The history remains, so just go to that revision and then copy+paste to WikiQuote when needed. RobJ1981 19:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I would recommend, in moving quotes to WikiQuote, is to create individual articles on that Wiki-space (e.g., "Bart the Genius"). That way, there isn't a long list of clutter there. Then, just create a link to the appropriate Wikipedia episode article, and voila, problem solved. [[Briguy52748 21:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already asked this question at Wikiquote. They prefer if we create season articles. They don't like articles for single episodes. --Maitch 22:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  I've deleted a season and a half's worth of quotes - those should be on wikiquote. They are clearly marked in the history for anyone with an account over there who wants to take on the task.  --Charlesknight 19:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're going to the trouble of removing the quotes, isn't it just as easy to copy/paste them on to the wikiquote page for the season involved? It only takes a moment to register an account on wikiquote, if you feel you need to. It seems like double the work to now hope that someone else will dig out the quotes from your history to put them onto wikiquote --Mortice 19:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what i thought.  However, adding them to Wikiqoute is four or three times the work, as you have to check if its there, then move it, and all sorts of stuff.--ANDY+MCI=Andy Mci 19:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikiquote is a seperate (sister) project - all I care about is the standard of articles on Wikipedia and ensuring they complying with policy. Those quotes don't below here, if they never make it to wikiquote - well they were clearly not that important to people to start with.  I'm a "standards" editor rather than someone who had a particular interest in any one subject. I'm spread thin as it is - I'm under no obligation to move them to wikiquote and it would take up time I could spend improving the quality of articles on wikipedia. A user above was using the same approach. Charlesknight 19:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually that's a bit harsh sounding - I'll attempt to move the material I removed over to wikiquote but I think it would be sensible if the project tried to do a bit more clean-up before creating new articles. --Charlesknight 19:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi. Over the past 2 days i've been moving / linking the quotes on the first 3 seasons. The pages that had some quotes on them I moved over to wikiquote (checking that there are no double-ups as well). The format is fairly simple: Just add  into External links on the wiki pages (see any pages in the first 3 seasons). A lot of the quotes need to be formatted according to the wikiquote Formatting of quotes but the ones i've moved so far I have been reformatting like this. If I have time, I'll move/link the quotes for all the episodes. --KillerCommz 09:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah I've done it for a few episodes, if you want to do it for ever episode, this would be a very great help. Gran2 10:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: Is it time to archive this page yet? Seems long to me... Natalie 19:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the first archive was WAY shorter than this page is now. Yes, it is time. Gran2 19:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hell yes.--ANDY+MCI=Andy Mci 19:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay then. Having looked at how to archive a talk page, I have just discovered that there are different possible procedures. Assuming there are no reasons not to, I'll do the cut and paste kind (seems easiest). Natalie 19:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive? 

message: I've been assessing the importance of SImpsons articles, and the staff has been tough, but here's what I've done. Opinions needed.
*High - Brooks, Sam Simon, Al Jean, George Meyer, John Swartzwelder, David Silverman
*Mid - Oakley, Weinstein, Reiss, Scully, Mirkin, Vitti, Conan O'Brian, Greg Daniels, Ian maxtone-Graham, David X. Cohen, Matt Selman, Mark Kirkland, Jim Reardon
*Low - The Rest
NOTE - The ones in italics are the ones I'm not sure about...
The issue:
*Should showrunners be High priority?
*Should the original staffers - Jeff Martin, Kogen, Wollodarsky, etc - be mid priority?
*Should some of the more prolific writers be given mid status? Which ones?
*Where do some of the early directors stand? 
-- Scorpion0422 00:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where should Staff Rank in Importance?

message: I was looking through and I noticed that there is a List of writers of The Simpsons, but no list of directors. I was wondering if anyone thinks that there is a pressing need for one. -- Scorpion0422 05:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm doing this thing that I've typed to you about before (see next section) about list generation using a bot - perhaps Directors would be a good candidate (have to do some de-duplication I guess) --Mortice 18:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So could youmake the bot so it listed every director, plus the episodes they directed? -- Scorpion0422 18:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Do we need a List of Directors?

message: I had this idea yesterday, for a list of all stereotypes in the Simpsons that are seen at one point or another.  So there could be important to minor characters such as Groundskeeper Willie and Cletus under characters, and one time group things such as the school uniforms in Team Homer.  I think this would be a decent article, if worked on.  Does anyone else support?--ANDY+MCI=Andy Mci 18:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it could be fine, but maybe not really priority right now. It seems to me that most (nearly all) of the Simpsons related articles are in horrendous shape - excessively informal tone, too long, too in-universe - and these should be the first order of business. But that's just my opinion. Natalie 18:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, i guess.  Can i make it and work on it slowly, and get help later?--ANDY+MCI=Andy Mci 18:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I'd be willing to help at some point in time. Natalie 18:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, i'll start it now.--ANDY+MCI=Andy Mci 18:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy to help as well, in fact i think i may have started.Davie4264 16:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Stereotypes in the Simpsons

message: The episode capsule The Cartridge Family contains this trivia: "As of this episode, everyone with the surname "Simpson", has fired a gun." No one reads discussions on the capsule pages, so I'm asking this here: when? I don't think Bart shot a gun until Bart the Mother (season 10), and I don't think Lisa or Mona have ever shot a gun. Natalie 02:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless she does in The Cartridge Family, its been a while since I've seen it, I don't she has fired a gun before hand. I'm also certain that Mona hasn't. Bart did in Homer the Vigilante though, so that's right at least. But if its completely proved wrong then edit it to say "except for Lisa and Mona", or just remove the whole thing. Gran2 13:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it most have been Sweet Seymour Skinner's Badasss Song. 
Ned: Gee Homer, it's only because my parents where so hard on me. 
Flashback
Ned: Whoopsidoodle 
Dad: Oh man! Ned spilt ink all over my poems! He's putting us on the train to squaresville Mona. 
It may have been another episode, but that's pretty much the quote. Gran2 07:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query 

message: There's a project afoot to make some (invisible) updates to episode pages which will assist in generating lists of information for other pages, using ListGenBot.
If you would like to help out, there's details of what to do at Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Addling ListGenBot tags to episode pages, and a table there where you can claim interest in editing a particular season. Thanks --Mortice 21:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for assistance - adding tags to episode pages 

message: I've been making some changes to the Season 2 page and I think it will be ready for a run at Featured List. My only concern is that it may not be considered notable enough. Anyway, take a look at the page and make any changes you deem necessary. -- Scorpion0422 21:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Season 2

message: The above proposal is super long, so I'm branching this off. I think we should add show runners to the info gathered by the bot. I've been listening to some of the DVD commentary recently, and the show runners are the same as the executive producers, and seem pretty important. They are also in the infobox (above writers), so I figure they should be listed too. Natalie 00:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I see Mortice has added show runners. Natalie 00:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot List 

message: While people are doing the more detailed-work on Homer, I'd like to start trimming the cruft-tastic lists on the other character pages: Marge, Bart, Lisa, Maggie, Ned, etc. If people know of other characters that are in bad shape, let me know. Natalie 18:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other character pages 

message: The episode capsules are de-volving again (I've been adding the ListGenBot stuff, so I've been reading them). When I'm done with my other ListGenBot season, I'd like to revamp some of the capsules again: remove goofs, work some of the trivia and cultural references into the synopsis, simpler consistency stuff. Two things I was thinking about that may be more controversial: putting more information about the actual episode production (to avoid excessive in-universe-ness), and completely removing song lyriccs. I seem to remember from a previous discussion that these are of questionable copyright status and, to me at least, they seem excessive. 
As far as putting more information about the episode production, I have seasons 4-8 on DVD, which of course have commentary that often discusses the production. I'm not sure where else to find that info, snpp, maybe. If someone has seasons 1-3 and would like to put that info in, that'd be great. And season 9 will be out soon (next week I think), so I can put that info in. Comments and suggestions would be appreciated. Natalie 18:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I know what you mean, some of the page I've been adding ListGenBot to, needed, and still do, serious work. As for Goofs, I agree partially, really just about the word itself. I mean, it is that good is it. Maybe we could change it to "Errors and inconsistances". As for some lyrics, maybe we could do something like the quotes should be with WikiQuote. He recently discover LyricWiki. Maybe we could but all of the songs on there. Although, unless they infringe copyright, I don't mind them on the episode pages. As for info from commentaries, I only have 4-7, although I will have a complete set by the years end! So I can only be a bit of help on that front. Gran2 19:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've basically been clearing every Trivia and most of the goofs sections I've come across. As for production information, with many episodes, there isn't enough info to make a whole section, so I've just been throwing it under the trivia section. -- Scorpion0422 19:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone had any connection with the WikiProject about songs? I seem to remember someone earlier mentioning that they were discussing the copyright implications of song lyrics at some point. I'm ok with having a short trivia and cultural references section, as well as any major goofs (like important unexplained continuity lapses) but a lot of the goofs are really silly, like "Nelson's hair is the wrong color". No one cares. But I would like to integrate most of the trivia and references into the main synopsis. So this is what I will start:
* add a one sentence episode description and what the episode name parodies (if applicable) to the intro
* integrate more important references and trivia into the synopsis
* make section titles and introductions consistent (I think the introductions should all say the exact same thing: "___ is the ___ episode from the ____ season of the Simpsons. The episode explores/deals with/involves/ _____. The title is a parody/pun on/reference to ____."
What I would like help with is adding more production info and trimming down the quotes. A couple of quotes (especially one-liners) seem fine, but some of them are getting to the point that they are recapping the whole episode. Natalie 20:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, taking in what everyone has said, and after listening to the episode's commentary, and copied the quotes on to wikiquote. I have come up with the most likely shape and sections of information: 'Round Springfield. Its not perfect, but its a great improvement on what it was, and could help with the other episode capsules. Gran2 15:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode capsules 

message: So go here if you feel that it meets criteria. -- Scorpion0422 19:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[The Simpsons (season 2)|Season 2]] is a FL candidate

message: A while ago, there was a bit of a dustup at the Mike Scully article, wherein I was in favor of including mention of the distaste many fans seem to display for him, and another editor did not want any such mention.  Eventually, there was a back-and-forth, and the other editor, who is also an administrator, protected the article.   I left it alone with the hope that someone else would weigh in on the talk page, but nothing has happened.  I'm not sure if I'm right or wrong here, but I figure that you guys here at the project should have a chance to weigh in. Croctotheface 10:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having read through it, I see both of your views. I think I'm probably going to side with you. I think having both is the best way, if that can be done. But that aside I personally blame a certain IMG. But that's an entirely different matter. Gran2 20:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mike Scully]] controversy 

message: Hi all, thanks to all who are joining in with the ListGenBot tag updates to episodes.
In order to avoid clogging up this page with updates abou this, I've started a 'Discussion' section at the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Addling ListGenBot tags to episode pages -if you're taking part then please watch the page for updates (if you're not already).
Recent update involves adding a new tag for the 'Runners' listed on some episode pages - see that page for details --Mortice 23:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about adding ListGenBot tags to episodes 

message: Should the images used in this project, such as , have image fair use rationale added? 
I assume the pictures are useable because they're for illustration, but the 'copright' template added to the pic does say a fair use rationale should also be added. More info at Help:Image_page#Fair_use_rationale.
This came up because over on Hank Azaria someone removed the pics of the Simpsons characters that Hank voices, and I figure the pic use justification there is the same as it is here.
So do we need to update the pics pages (anyone recommend boilerplate text to be copied in?) or is it not needed (if so why not) or should we remove all the Simpsons pics (shame!) --Mortice 09:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know whether this will help (I certainly hope it will), but in judging whether use of copyrighted material is "fair use", courts look to four things and take various other policy considerations into account. I've listed those four things below and below them I've outlined my reasoning as to why use of these images is fair use (including case reporter cites for the interested):
*(1) Purpose of Use (Is it commercial or nonprofit?)'
*(2) The Nature of the Copyrighted Work. (Fact or Fiction? Fact tends toward Fair Use)'
*(3) The Amount and Substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.'
*(4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.'
*Courts also look at policy considerations (Is the use productive? Does it promote creative expression as intended by the Copyright Clause of the Constitution?)
*First consideration, the purpose of use: If it's nonprofit and educational, as opposed to commercial, it tends toward fair use. Is Wikipedia nonfprofit and educational? Yes, it is. Is Wikipedia commercial? No, it is not. Therefore, use of this image tends towards fair use.
*Second consideration, the Nature of the copyrighted work: If it's factual it tends to Fair Use, if it's fictional, it does not. Courts have found photographs to be equally factual and fictional for purposes of this factor. See Nunez v. Caribbean International News Corp., 235 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2000). These images are like photographs in that they contain both a creative element (the art itself) but they also represent a fact (what a character looks like). I argue, then, that these images are neutral and therefore favor their fair use.
*Third consideration: Amount and substantiality: The more that is taken from a protected work, the less it will tend toward fair use. However, with photographs, if any less than the whole image is copied then the image will become useless. Courts have found that when this is the case, this factor is of little consequence to fair use analysis. See Nunez, 235 F.3d 18.  Because these images would be useless if we copied anything less than the full image, this factor is of little consequence to a fair use analysis.
*Fourth consideration, effect on the potential market or value of the copyrighted work: Right now, there is no market for these images. The market is for the Simpsons cartoons - not images of the characters. We're not using video clips from the cartoons, we're using still images of characters. In order to find against fair use under this prong of the test, the harm to the market must be more than slight. Here, any harm to the market would be, at most, slight. If anything, I would argue, these images will tend to increase the market for the Simpsons cartoons and therefore benefit the market.
*Also, there are some important copyright considerations to keep in mind: Courts will tend to find fair use of a work if it is productive, that is, if it enhances the benefit that the public derives from the earlier copyrighted work. Here, we are being productive - by including these images along with the encyclopedia entry, we are providing a benefit to the public in the form of a free online encyclopedia.
*Courts also look to the underlying logic of the Copyright Clause of the US Constitution - it is to encourage creative expression. Here, use of these photographs encourages creative expression in that the Wikipedia community is creating an encyclopedia.
Of the four considerations taken into account, Three of them (purpose, market effect, and Nature of the work) support the finding that use of these images on Wikipedia as fair use. The other consideration (amount and substantiality) is of little consequence in this analysis. Thus, the four statutory considerations support a finding this is fair use. Further, the underlying policy considerations of the Copyright Clause and copyright law both support a finding that use of these images on Wikipedia is fair use. Based on these factors, use of these images on Wikipedia is fair use ' takethemud 10:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for that info, I had though their use on the pages were probably fair use due to the 'for illustration purposes'. My concern was about the lack of justification on the picture page, as is requred by the 'copyright' template on most of these pages. So should I paraphrase the above and add it to all the Simpsons picture pages? --Mortice 13:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You're welcome. By illustration purposes I take it you mean critical commentary, discussion, scholarship, research, and teaching (which use on Wikipedia provides). The use of copyrighted works for these purposes meets the threshold for being "fair use". Just because you are using something for scholarship purposes doesn't mean it's automatically fair use. Fair use is a case-by-case analysis. That's where those four factors I discussed come in. I don't know what you have to do to satisfy Wikipedia's standards. If you have to say briefly why it's fair use say: "Use of this picture in Wikipedia is Fair Use. It is being used for critical commentary, discussion, scholarship, research, and teaching. Evaluating its use further using the statutory factors in 17 USC § 107, I find the following: The use here is not-for-profit, which favors fair use; the original work is neither factual nor fictional for fair use analysis and that favors fair use; that a substantial portion of the work was used is inevitable due to its being an image and is therefore of little consequence for fair use analysis; and there is no adverse effect upon a potential market for the protected work, which favors for use. Furthermore, use of this image is productive as it enhances the benefit the work provides to the public, and it encourages creative expression on Wikipedia. Together, these factors support the assertion that use of this image is fair use." takethemud 16:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll add something like that text to some of the pics - would be nice to be 'legitimate' :) --Mortice 17:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use images? 

message: :I don't know whether this will help (I certainly hope it will), but in judging whether use of copyrighted material is "fair use", courts look to four things and take various other policy considerations into account. I've listed those four things below and below them I've outlined my reasoning as to why use of these images is fair use (including case reporter cites for the interested):
*(1) Purpose of Use (Is it commercial or nonprofit?)'
*(2) The Nature of the Copyrighted Work. (Fact or Fiction? Fact tends toward Fair Use)'
*(3) The Amount and Substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.'
*(4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.'
*Courts also look at policy considerations (Is the use productive? Does it promote creative expression as intended by the Copyright Clause of the Constitution?)
*First consideration, the purpose of use: If it's nonprofit and educational, as opposed to commercial, it tends toward fair use. Is Wikipedia nonfprofit and educational? Yes, it is. Is Wikipedia commercial? No, it is not. Therefore, use of this image tends towards fair use.
*Second consideration, the Nature of the copyrighted work: If it's factual it tends to Fair Use, if it's fictional, it does not. Courts have found photographs to be equally factual and fictional for purposes of this factor. See Nunez v. Caribbean International News Corp., 235 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2000). These images are like photographs in that they contain both a creative element (the art itself) but they also represent a fact (what a character looks like). I argue, then, that these images are neutral and therefore favor their fair use.
*Third consideration: Amount and substantiality: The more that is taken from a protected work, the less it will tend toward fair use. However, with photographs, if any less than the whole image is copied then the image will become useless. Courts have found that when this is the case, this factor is of little consequence to fair use analysis. See Nunez, 235 F.3d 18.  Because these images would be useless if we copied anything less than the full image, this factor is of little consequence to a fair use analysis.
*Fourth consideration, effect on the potential market or value of the copyrighted work: Right now, there is no market for these images. The market is for the Simpsons cartoons - not images of the characters. We're not using video clips from the cartoons, we're using still images of characters. In order to find against fair use under this prong of the test, the harm to the market must be more than slight. Here, any harm to the market would be, at most, slight. If anything, I would argue, these images will tend to increase the market for the Simpsons cartoons and therefore benefit the market.
*Also, there are some important copyright considerations to keep in mind: Courts will tend to find fair use of a work if it is productive, that is, if it enhances the benefit that the public derives from the earlier copyrighted work. Here, we are being productive - by including these images along with the encyclopedia entry, we are providing a benefit to the public in the form of a free online encyclopedia.
*Courts also look to the underlying logic of the Copyright Clause of the US Constitution - it is to encourage creative expression. Here, use of these photographs encourages creative expression in that the Wikipedia community is creating an encyclopedia.
Of the four considerations taken into account, Three of them (purpose, market effect, and Nature of the work) support the finding that use of these images on Wikipedia as fair use. The other consideration (amount and substantiality) is of little consequence in this analysis. Thus, the four statutory considerations support a finding this is fair use. Further, the underlying policy considerations of the Copyright Clause and copyright law both support a finding that use of these images on Wikipedia is fair use. Based on these factors, use of these images on Wikipedia is fair use ' takethemud 10:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that info, I had though their use on the pages were probably fair use due to the 'for illustration purposes'. My concern was about the lack of justification on the picture page, as is requred by the 'copyright' template on most of these pages. So should I paraphrase the above and add it to all the Simpsons picture pages? --Mortice 13:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You're welcome. By illustration purposes I take it you mean critical commentary, discussion, scholarship, research, and teaching (which use on Wikipedia provides). The use of copyrighted works for these purposes meets the threshold for being "fair use". Just because you are using something for scholarship purposes doesn't mean it's automatically fair use. Fair use is a case-by-case analysis. That's where those four factors I discussed come in. I don't know what you have to do to satisfy Wikipedia's standards. If you have to say briefly why it's fair use say: "Use of this picture in Wikipedia is Fair Use. It is being used for critical commentary, discussion, scholarship, research, and teaching. Evaluating its use further using the statutory factors in 17 USC § 107, I find the following: The use here is not-for-profit, which favors fair use; the original work is neither factual nor fictional for fair use analysis and that favors fair use; that a substantial portion of the work was used is inevitable due to its being an image and is therefore of little consequence for fair use analysis; and there is no adverse effect upon a potential market for the protected work, which favors for use. Furthermore, use of this image is productive as it enhances the benefit the work provides to the public, and it encourages creative expression on Wikipedia. Together, these factors support the assertion that use of this image is fair use." takethemud 16:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll add something like that text to some of the pics - would be nice to be 'legitimate' :) --Mortice 17:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why it is Fair Use

message: Many of the Simpsons articles have miscellaneous facts and trivia sections. I noticed on the Homer page, a trivia section was removed when the page was edited to bring it up to date and make it a "Good Article." This is good because it streamlined the Homer article and made it "more encyclopediac." But, in the process, Wikipedia lost information about Homer that could have been included on another page dedicated solely to listing miscellaneous facts about him (his email address, social security number, etc.) The main Homer article could have linked to this List page. This would have preserved the information about Homer that had been included on his page and it would have also allowed the article to be revised.
If you look at the Mr. Burns page, you'll see there are long lists on that page: (1) References to his old age; (2) Organizations he belongs to; (3) References to his health; (4) References to his state of mind; (5) Real Life & Fictional Models for his character; (6) List of Episodes starring Mr. Burns. This says nothing of the hodgepodge of miscellaneous facts in the biography section of his article (social security number, telephone number, his vulture collection, etc.)
Clearly, the article is unwieldy and needs to be edited. But in the process of editing it, I think it'd be a mistake to delete this information in an effort to "streamline" the article or to make the entry "more encyclopediac."
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said: "It would be dangerous for persons trained only to the law to constitute themselves final judges of the worth of illustrations, outside of the narrowest and most obvious limits. . . If they command the interest of any public, they have value and the taste of any public is not to be greeted with contempt." (paraphrased)
Much as Mr Holmes urged the judiciary to act with restraint when judging the value of artistic works, Wikipedia editors should also act with restraint when judging whether something should be excluded from Wikipedia's pages. If something is included on Wikipedia, it's safe to say that at least one person finds something notable enough to be included. And if one person finds it notable enough to add it to Wikipedia, how many more readers who go uncounted find that same bit of knowledge to be interesting and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia? I dare say that many do. And if many find something worthy of inclusion, why should it be excluded from Wikipedia because others disagree? By deleting information some deem to be irrelevant, we are taking information away from those who believe it to be relevant. 
Outside of the "narrowest and obviously limits" of relevance (vandalism, falsities, and the like) would it not be wise to opt to include information about Mr. Burns and the other Simpson characters in Wikipedia and not destroy its content? Is it not preferable to organize seemingly erroneous information (through redirects, new articles, lists, etc.) and give it a rightful place among the other articles of Wikipedia, rather than to delete it and deprive the world of the benefit of having the information at its disposal?
I do think so, and that is why I am in favor of creating lists about Simspsons character like Mr. Burns, where all of the information contained in those lists could be included? Then, the main article could be whittled down, links to the list page(s) included in the article, and then no information would be lost in the process. takethemud 10:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Homer had no trivia section when I started on it. Anyway, I like trivia sections. I've been battling this one guy in almost every episode page because he tries to remove the sections. But, those are episode pages where the trivia can't be worked into the synopsis. It can be in character pages. If something is important enough, then we can find room for it, but all of the main characters have been in 380+ episodes, so what makes one piece of trivia more important than another? This doesn't mean that we should go and clear the trivia for all characters RIGHT NOW, but unfortunately, if we want a page upgraded to GA, it needs to lose the trivia section, because apparantly, it is policy. And I looked at the Burns article, and sections can be created for all those bulleted list sections. -- Scorpion 16:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely, lots of people passing throughonly read these sections. And in episode pages they are ncessities, providing ALOT more information. So yes, I certainly agree. Gran2 17:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On SNPP, they have a character file on all the main characters, which lists various trivia. Perhaps we could link to the appropriate character file in the external links. That would provide a place for people to find the trivia, without cluttering up the character article. As far as the episode capsules, trivia and cultural references definitely have their place, but on some of the episode capsules its getting a bit ridiculous. Natalie 18:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like trivia sections. Trivia is unorganised facts. I would prefer if people worked these facts into the article rather than listing them disjointed at the bottom of the article. Whatever people says we still have to remember that this is an encyclopedia.--Maitch 13:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If facts can't be worked into the article then they are not worth keeping. --Maitch 14:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm usually more inclusionist than not, in the case of the characters I agree with Maitch. An episode capsule usually only has a few bits of trivia and maybe a half dozen cultural references. The characters, however, having been the subject of nearly 400 episodes, have pages and pages of random trivia. It's too hard to figure out what to include. Is Homer's email address more worthy of inclusion than the fact that he once grew four hairs on the top of his head? Is it more important to know that Marge was a cop in one episode or that she went to jail in one episode? It could easily end up being longer than any other the other Simpsons lists, and I just don't see it being that helpful. Natalie 15:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This point is quite salient.  There must be a threshold for inclusion.  If a certain piece of trivia does not assert its notability compared to any indiscriminate fact about a character, then such an item should not be included in the encyclopedia. Croctotheface 22:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Plea for Why we NEED Miscellaneous Facts & Trivia Sections 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Alright, so I went through the Mr. Burns article and tried to clean up the "State of Mind" section by making it into a few paragraphs. I'm hesitant to cut the content out of the article and replace it with what I've made up without first getting input about it from others. So, maybe interested persons will take a look at these paragraphs, edit them as they see fit, and when they are acceptable, we can replace the State of Mind section with an edited version of this (minus the bullet points which are there only to differentiate the entry from the rest of this talk page):
*Mr Burns commonly uses phrases and expressions that have fallen out of common use, including score (meaning 20 years), twain (meaning two), post-haste (meaning quickly), petroleum distillate (meaning gasoline), gay (meaning jolly), dean (meaning principal), fourth form (meaning fourth grade), ahoy-hoy (meaning hello), jumping box and picto-cube (both meaning television), dictabelt (meaning tape recorder), and the New York Nine (meaning New York Yankees).
*Mr Burns also displays mannerisms which are considered outdated, such as writing with a quill pen, driving a Stutz Bearcat while wearing a Victorian motorists' outfit which includes hat, driving gloves, and goggles, carrying a mace for self defense, driving without regard to traffic laws in the manner of early 20th century motorists, and using an antique view camera to take photographs.
*Mr Burns seems unaware of 20th century political and social developments, such as Fidel Castro replacing Fulgencio Batista as the President of Cuba, Siam changing its name to Thailand, the Belgian Congo changing its name to the Congo-Kinshasa, Prussia being absorbed into the German Empire, India gaining its independence from the British Empire, New Mexico entering the United States, Idlewild Airport changing its name to JFK Airport, the disbanding of the Negro Leagues, the desegregation of the Major Leagues, Joe DiMaggio no longer being a rookie, the extinction of the dodo bird, the discrediting of phrenology, the demolition of the Polo Grounds, the ceasing of publication of Collier's Weekly, believing tires need to be revulcanized, thinking cars are still operated by levers, believing mail may still be delivered by autogyro, and the occurrence of the 1939 World's Fair.
*Mr Burns commonly refers to deceased persons as if they were alive, including Sir Donald Bradman, Stewie Dempster, Vic Richardson, Al Jolson, Tallulah Bankhead, Louise Brooks, Honus Wagner, Cap Anson, and Mordecai Brown.
*Mr Burns believes some social institutions and inventions are novel or nonexistent, such as musicals about "the common cat" and "the King of Siam", the Packard automobile, the Fire Department, ice cream, vending machines, recycling, strip clubs, the DuMont, the stereopticon, the Crimean War, the word"into", silent films like the 1929 Lulu, and the synonymity of ketchup and catsup.
what does everybody think? takethemud 17:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr. Burns 

message: I feel that the "The Rest Of The Book" section could do with a bit of expansion. I'm willing to do it, but any disagreements or ideas?
Shealer 13:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. No objections here. -- Scorpion 14:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the book too and I tihnk it needs more than just a list of chapters to take up half the page. Cheers to 2007! User:Sp3000 23:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bart Simpsons Guide to Life 

message: I was recently watching Season 9 on DVD, and I got 2 ideas for new articles. We already have four "theme" articles that are devoted to four common themes: religion, politics, education and travel. Well, perhaps we should make pages for sports and the environment because there have been many episodes about both topics, The Simpsons has won several Environmental media awards, and dozens of athletes have guest starred so we could probably make good ideas for both. And, I think they are more common episode themes than education or travel. So, what do others think? -- Scorpion 01:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problem. Sport certainly seems like a good idea for an article. Gran2 07:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget the Springfield Meltdowns! --The Dark Side 02:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New article ideas

message: You guys, there's a LOT of stuff in these articles that needs to be cleaned up regarding some of the gags and how "literal" they are in relation to the show. We have a lot of "facts" listed about characters that were mentioned once as a passing gag in a single episode, then never mentioned again....but its listed as though it were concrete...Heres a quote from the Mrage Simpson profile page: She manages to feed her entire family with only twelve dollars a week. (She pads Homer's food with sawdust). She also prepares various commemorative hams, including an emergency ham, a condolence ham, an earthquake ham and a celebration ham." These are not necessarily solid fact regarding Marge, as character, as say, "Marge is a housewife who spends most of her time caring for Maggie."...I think some of the real absurd ones need to be removed...theres been a huge fight about this on some of the Metalocalypse "back pages", yet it doesnt seem to be addressed here...Thesetrixaintforkids
:I couldn't agree more. --Maitch 17:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding content

message: I'm considering making an article for Barnacle Bay, which is from The Wife Aquatic. Yes, it is a one time thing, but it was central to the episode and there are several locations that serve more as backgrounds that pages. Thoughts? Complaints? -- Scorpion 16:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is plenty of space left in "The Wife Aquatic" article. Write a section in that article and redirect Barnacle Bay. --Maitch 17:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree with Maitch. If Barnacle Bay shows up again, it will be easy enough to split the article. Natalie 16:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I wasn't sure about it, that's why I asked. -- Scorpion 16:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Natalie 06:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Barnacle Bay

message: Some of the more recent epsiode capsules have broadcast information. I know a few months ago it was generally agreed that this information is extraneous, but I want to make sure that everyone is still in agreement. Natalie 01:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Ratings maybe... In fact if ratings are listed, and cited they should be kept, to be used in a "recption" or "reaction" section. But the broadcast info should go. Gran2 07:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broadcast info 

message: Should Dolph have his own page, or should it be merged with the Springfield Elementary School Students page? I think Jimbo and Kearney are different and individually notable enough to warrant their own pages, but Dolph is very rarely seen alone, so perhaps he should be merged. He's certainly less developed that Uter or Sherri & Terri. On a related note, do Sherri & Terri deserve their own page (I merged them with SESS a while back)? Thoughts? -- Scorpion 19:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are all kind of iffy... I guess I don't really care either way, if others have strong feelings about it. Natalie 20:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to merge Dolph with the students page because there's really not a lot of content there except for POV and quotes - if anyone disagrees with this, then feel free to revert it. And just as an update, I tried Couples for SD, it failed (apparantly there was a source... I didn't see one), I tried to redirect it... Some administrator reverted my edits. So, now it's up for afd. -- Scorpion 13:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dolph

message: I've spent the morning correcting redirects (ie. Many link to episode pages, the main character list) and you'd be amazed at some of the characters that at one point had pages (Sid (The Simpsons)). I think we should finally decide who is notable enough to have a page and who isn't, because the recurring page is getting very crowded. First, I merged some character pages:
Birch Barlow, Aristotle Amadopolis and Lucius Sweet are now in the one-times page.
The Leader (The Simpsons) is now in the Movementarianism page. 
Now the only one-timers who do have pages are Frank Grimes and Hank Scorpio.
Now, there are 35 characters on the recurring page and we could probably easily make it 100 if we had every minor character. My thoughts:
*Wiseguy - If the Squeaky Voiced teen has a page, then so should he
*Manjula Nahasapeemapetilon - She's not a common character, but she has been central to several episodes
*Lindsey Naegle - I think she's notable enough to warrant a page.
*Drederick Tatum
Thoughts? Is there anyone that does or doesn't need their own page? -- Scorpion 15:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd add Eddie and Lou for there own page, in the same manner as Patty and Selma, plus anyone who gets to long, and maybe Judge Snyder and Jacques, whose is actually on one time. And Miss Hoover should probably have her own. Gran2 15:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe Eddie & Lou or Jaques, but not Judge Snyder. And, Miss Hoover used to have a page, but I merged her. There wasn't a lot to her page. And, the one-timers page is getting big too... -- Scorpion 15:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that the characters list is getting a little ridiculous, but I think having a general list of characters who have had speaking parts is somewhat important and it should be kept seperate from the recurring list. -- Scorpion 16:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I take it that you prefer the first solution. --Maitch 16:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think the lists are getting pretty cluttered, but there's not a lot else we can do. I guess I do go with Number 1, because I think having a general no-descriptions list is important. A general character list would end up being cluttered and very long as well. What I'm more after is setting a standard for characters having individual pages. -- Scorpion 16:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we should probably follow Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). --Maitch 17:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whichever of the two ways we decide to do character lists, clutter is going to be a problem. The show has been running for 18 years with hundreds of guest stars, and there are many fans out there. I have been watching List of characters from the Simpsons to prevent double listing and excessive trivia, and it's definitely a problem. Personally, I think we should list characters alphabetically by last name, so people won't be so inspired to add a character because they think he/she's not on the list. If we do list people alphabetically, we should do a list of recurring characters and a list of one time characters. If not, I think we should keep the one long list, and then have a list of recurring characters. Natalie 03:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think (after some discussions) that most people like the List of characters from the Simpsons to be one giant list, so I think you're right that it is better to list people alphabetically like the List of Shakespearean characters. But I still think that it is a good thing to limit the list to characters with a speaking part. Perhaps if we get this list under control the rest will be easier. --Maitch 14:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Characters

message: I'm making a page for the book and I had started it, but I can't continue it tonight and saved my progress here and I'll eventually move it to it's own mainspace page. If anyone would like to add to what little I have so far, please feel free to do so. I don't have any experience writing book pages, but basically what I'm going to do with the page is list what the book is about and give brief summaries on what each chapter is about. -- Scorpion 02:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Planet Simpson

message: Started a page on the Simpsons action figure line from Playmates - not sure why it's been flagged, I know I only have limited access from work so my pages are always a little rough ... can you review and give me comments?
World of Simpsons
It seems to be an important part of the Simpsons legacy - no other seroes has ever launched a 5-year succesful line so late in its run (the 11th season) plus very few other lines outside of starwars and maybe star trek have even ranged as deep as the Simpsons line - over 200 characters from the series ...
I apologize I did not join or ask you to review first. I was unaware of your project to corral all of the Simpsons info. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jbelkin800 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, your article is a little rough, but that is probably because you're not so familiar with the Manual of Style. People are pretty quick to tag new articles, so I wouldn't pay much attention to it. I am sure that it will not be deleted. I just need to know if you by any change copied the text from somewhere else. Wikipedia can not have copied material. --Maitch 14:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've been doing some aditional work on the page in my spare time.  I think it is looking better, but I would like to here from other wikipedians for things I should add.  I'm not done yet on the pictures of the series, but I don't really have enough time right at the moment to upload pictures.  I will reccomend a site to go to for pictures, if someone else wants to upload them.  , click on the WOS figures link and then you will be redirected to photos of the figures.  They are great promo pics and that is where I have been getting mine!  So, tell me what you think and feel free to give me some ideas!  Thanks!!! Supergeeky1 11:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with WOS page? 

message: Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 14:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While were on the subject of CFD, is there a need for this category: Category:Jewish Simpsons characters? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scorpion0422 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oy vey, no!  Natalie 19:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So... Should we nominate it for CFD? -- Scorpion 01:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think so. Natalie 01:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And, I'd like to say that it's unfair to mass nominate the Simpsons cast category with a bunch of useless cast categories for less notable TV shows and films. -- Scorpion 02:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To respond to that, albeit a bit late, no it's not. You see, the Simpsons having something in wikipedia makes other shows wanting to have the same things. It's a precedent. The idea of these recent CFD's on categorization per performance is that it's getting annoyinginly obtrusive on some of the more notable persons with articles. As such the idea is that wikipedia is better served with "Lists of <people> by <performance>"-articles instead. To further see why this is not a useful way of categorization, envision that one of these people would introduce themselves. He would say: "Hi, my name is ... i'm a television producer" or sometimes: "Hi, my name is ... i'm a television producer on The Simpsons" (because that's his current work). He would not say: ""Hi, my name is ... i'm a television producer of The Simpsons, Alias, Lost, Knight Rider, and i wrote episodes on almost all those series as well." By tackling important series as The Simpsons, the community is setting precedents that will allow them to fully deal with what apparently at the moment many see as an important problem. It's the way wikipedia works, and I think it's good. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFD notice 

message: While Bart and Homer have been cleaned up, Marge, Lisa, Maggie, Mr. Burns, and essentially all the other character pages are still super cruft-y. Slash and burn? Natalie 22:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not throw caution to the wind and "slash and burn" these other character articles. When it comes to minor characters, like Mr Burns, it will be different than editing an article about Homer or Bart. With supporting characters like Mr Burns, Ned Flanders, Reverend Lovejoy, and many, many others, there is a section on their page devoted to episodes in which they play a substantial role in driving the plot. Editors of the Simpsons pages will eventually have to decide whether these sections will remain in the article or whether they will go the way of the "Miscellaneous Trivia" sections and be banished to the land of wind and ghosts. Certainly, other issues will arise with minor characters that didn't arise with Homer and Bart... so let's not make huge, sweeping edits, delete massive amounts of information, etc, until there is some consensus on how to format and style the minor character articles. --takethemud 04:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: On a related note, I've cleaned up the Mr Burns article quite a bit. I did not take much content out, but I reformatted the entire article. The information is all listed where it should be and is much more concise now than it was before. In comparing it to the Bart Simpson article, the Mr Burns article actually seems a bit more readable... --takethemud 05:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the trivia section from Marge Simpson and moved the few things that are actually worth mentioning to another place in the article. --Maitch 17:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have also removed a lot of trivia from Lisa Simpson. I wish that this project could get to a point where we don't have to do damage control all the time. --Maitch 17:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so were clear, we're getting rid of quotes sections, "episodes character is featured in" sections (although I'm going to leave some in for some of the secondaries for thye time being), trivia sections and most other cruty list stuff? -- Scorpion 17:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds about right. --Maitch 17:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do some secondary characters. Many pages are huges messes, such as the Flanders page (I removed 10,000+ characters and it's still a mess) -- Scorpion 18:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a minor note, I left the allusions to Smithers sexuality section intact on the Smithers page. I figured it could be made into a decent section later, and eventually I'll clean it up and just leave the more notable references. I also left the list of Troy McClures films. -- Scorpion 18:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Another question: Some pages have links to character files at Last Exit to Springfield. It's a reputable site, but is it link cruft? -- Scorpion 18:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as Flanders goes, the crufty lists are gone but the article has tons of uncited statements, like "He is a devout Christian, and is often used to satirize Christian fundamentalism, as well as the cloying "niceness" of doggedly upbeat born-again evangelicals" and "one episode of Itchy & Scratchy was enough to more or less permanently scar Rod and Todd". I'm going to bop around the internet to find some actual sources about Ned, which shouldn't be too hard, since Christians love him. I'll post links here. Natalie 20:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps I missed the discussion, but why are we getting rid of the sections which list the episodes that characters are featured in? For secondary characters who don't drive every episode (as the Simpson family always does) but only drive the plot of a handful of episodes (like, say, Apu or Flanders), this is a useful category. I don't see it being akin to a list of miscellaneous trivia or quotes. What say you all? --takethemud 02:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so far, we're leaving the episodes that secondary characters are featured in, and just removing it for the main family. Natalie 03:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have been clearing most episode info sections, mainly because I just saw them as cluttering cruft. Plus,the episode listing for some were ridiculous, ie. Carl had Mountain of Madness and Homer's Enemy as episodes he was central in. If you wish to readd them for some characters, go ahead, but we should probably try to reach some consensus on them. -- Scorpion 03:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those removals make sense, since Mountain of Madness isn't about Carl, but perhaps if there was one episode that focused on Carl the information could be included. Most of the time, maybe even all the time, this info could be worked into the article as prose. For exampe: Carl Carlson is a character of the animated series the Simpsons, voiced by some guy... Carl is featured in the episode "Some Episode About Carl". There are only a few secondary characters that have been the features of more than one episode (Skinner, Apu, Flanders), but these characters still have less than 10 episodes, so prose could still work. Natalie 04:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats what I was thinking, because most of their major episode appearances are noted in the main article, so whats the need for a section. Perhaps we should consider categories. Maybe we could have a "Category: Simpsons episodes featuring Homer Simpson" and add it to each ep in which he plays a large role.  Although, said categories would probably be deleted, but it may be worth considering. -- Scorpion 04:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. I think a consensus can be reached on the secondary characters. And for the Simpsons family, including them by way of a separate list might be good, seeing as at least one of them features in every episode. --takethemud 12:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character pages 

message: The first small bits of information have already been starting to come out and I've had to prevent a user from creating a Season 19 page. I've got the potential page on watch and I'll nominate any attempts to create a page for Speedy delete. But, when should we allow one to be made? I think it should be when the first Season 19 episode (which would probably be THOH18) is confirmed, either through interviews or the copyright database. Thoughts? -- Scorpion 03:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say not yet, unless there is more than a paragraph's worth of verifiable information. Natalie 04:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, if all we got are titles and air dates, then we don't need a season 19 article, because that information could be in the list of episodes. We should therefore wait for information like confirmed guest stars and plots. --Maitch 20:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Season 19

message: The politics in the Simpsons article is up for afd here, but perhaps we need to come up with a consesus on theme articles in general. There are currently 5 theme articles: politics, religion, education, media and travel (and I'm working on Environment and Sports theme pages) and I think it doesn't hurt to have them. They contain important information so that you don't need to clog up the main Simpsons page with it. But, they have as of late become cluttered and filled with POV and OR, but they shouldn't be that hard to clean up. Thoughts? Opinions? -- Scorpion 05:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, these pages lack the out-of-universe perspective that so many Simpson articles doesn't have. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to make a summary of everything that happened on The Simpsons. I don't think that you should create more of these unless you have sources other than primary sources. --Maitch 20:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Theme articles