Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons/Archive 1

message: This project doesn't seem that active, but I'll ask here anyway.
Recently people have been adding episode airdates from other countries- Simpsons Christmas Stories and We're on the Road to D'ohwhere have UK airdates, and Bonfire of the Manatees has an Australian airdate. I haven't found any others, though.
Should the episode articles contain US airdates only, or should they all have airdates from other countries? IMDb has a complete listing of all UK Simpsons airdates from mid-1995 onward (and several from 1993-4) added by myself, but finding ones for other countries may be tricky. Plus, what if people start adding French, Spanish, Outer Mongolian airdates - do we allow them, or just ones for English-speaking countries? BillyH 17:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any thoughts on this yet? It's starting to get a bit out of hand now - people are adding multiple airdates for single episodes (The Call of the Simpsons now has four US dates). BillyH 07:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that airdates should be listed as original air date, hence US airdate... you can check TV.com or SNPP.com if you have any question as to the proper date... - Adolphus79 10:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted all the air dates. Wikipedia is not a TV guide. In Denmark where I live they show six episodes every day. It is just not practical and also unencyclopaedic to mention every single air date for every country in the world. --Maitch 19:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: well, I understand that, but could we at least keep the original US airdate? - Adolphus79 21:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't follow. In those three articles are the original US airdates mentioned both in the lead and in the infobox. --Maitch 21:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, it appears those are the original US airdates... and if they are in the infobox, they don't need to be in the text... I was just saying that instead of a long list of airdates, or no airdate at all, we should only have the original US airdate in the infobox for each episode... - Adolphus79 21:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, if you want to, you could add this to Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Style guide, but the lead is getting really short without this and the lead is a summary of the whole article, so it is okay to repeat information. --Maitch 21:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, if we're just going to have the original US date then that's fine with me. There are still episodes with multiple airdates listed, though (the first, maybe, but we shouldn't have the second/third/fourth). Perhaps if it was, say, the first episode ever aired in a certain country (The Call of the Simpsons, There's No Disgrace Like Home) or it was specially notable in that country for breaking ratings records or something (Homer Simpson, This Is Your Wife) then that country's original airdate should be there, but either in the lead or Trivia section, not a seperate section. BillyH 23:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode Airdates

message: Wikipedia doesn't need a Wikiproject for The Simpsons - it has thousands of articles already, and although I'm a massive fan, what's the point? We can live with a few minor edits here and there. What we do not need is a thorough description of the two hairs on Homer Simpson's head, or a list of things Marge Simpson has put in her hair, and although there's always something to do, there's nothing particularly important enough to require a WikiProject, is there? ☺ -- The pathetic APclark Be nice not nasty 17:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia doesn't need a Wikiproject 

message: OK... there's a lot of discussion going on on several character pages, and several lists, about the cleanup needed around here... it seems that a ton of information was added, but now we need to organize all that information... also, if we can make sure to relay all the information back here to the project, we can make sure that we all know what's going on...
here's what I propose:
A:) Remind people on the Simpsons talk pages about this WikiProject... There are several editors I see, that are contributing a lot to the Simpsons articles, that aren't here... we need all the Simpsons geeks in on this... if you see someone working on a page, or talking on a talk page, tell them to come here to the project... this being the Simpsons WikiProject means we are the ones responsible for all the simpsons information on Wikipedia... let's get it all organized and get the Simpsons featured!!!
B:) Sort out the one time Vs. recurring lists... there are a number of recurring characters listed on the one time list, and alot of people missing from both lists... if the character was only ever used on one episode, they go on the one-time list... we also merge all of the one time characters that have their own page into the list... those people do not need their own page, they were only in one page... we're already talking about merging Ling with Patty & Selma... if we can get serious about this, we can even break it down by season, or even episode, if we can get all the Simpsons geeks in on this...
C:) Recurring characters... if a character has been on more than one episode (not just several times in one episode), they go on the recurring list... I figure we can dole out individual pages from here as needed... obviously, the more the person is on, the more we know, and the larger their page is... if they have their own page already, merge any information one the list to their page, and their entry on the list is simply a link to the page... also, we could clean up and merge as neccesary the 'List of simpsons characters'... this page is simply redundant...
D:) Blood relatives of the nuclear family... any character that is actually related by blood to Marge or Homer (or Bart, Lisa, & Maggie)goes on this list... this will cut down on the number of characters listed on the one time and recurring lists...
E:) Family pages... I'd love to see family pages cleaned up... again, we could merge off characters off of the one-time and recurring lists, which helps clean them up... if each of the family has their own page, then the family page just needs to be an intro paragraph, links to each of the family members, then a list of the one-times under that...
F:) Fictional characters list, LGBT list, animals list... I think the LGBT is simply redundant, maybe a category for LBGT characters that have their own pages, and a note on the recurring/family/one-time listings... fictional is simply confusing, there are fictional characters within the simpsons universe, as well as fictional characters from within our universe... maybe just some cleanup... animals list looks fine, but then we need to merge any animals or pets from the other lists to this list...
G:) Episode listing... I really haven't checked this out yet... I use TV.com for my episode to episode info... if someone knows of any cleanup or work needed, please feel free to comment... also, what is the 'list of episodes by theme'? isn't that slightly redundant sitting next to 'list of simpsons episodes'?
OK... so I started to rant, sorry... 
Let's work together to make Wikipedia THE Simpsons database online... if anyone else has any ideas, or comments, please contribute... that's the point of the WikiProject... also, who is the leader of the WikiProject? I apologize if I stepped on any toes, just adding my cheap 2 cents... - Adolphus79 04:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, good luck with cleaning up the lists. If it doesn't get done the lists will probably be nominated for AFD soon. I would advise you to use prettytables (see :Template:Prettytable) for the lists. Especially in Chalkboard gag and Couch gag. --Maitch 21:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already did Chalkboard gag, and I'm currently working on Couch gag... - Adolphus79 21:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: But you didn't use prettytables for both of them, which would make it look better. --Maitch 21:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New project... ? 

message: Can someone add citations to this at the points indicated? Thanks. --Quentin Smith 07:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there are several episodes cited in the article... but feel free to search the episode database to add those citations if you want... - Adolphus79 08:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lisa Simpson#Personality]] 

message: I just noticed this went up for deletion, maybe instead of deleteing, we move it to List of LGBT characters on The Simpsons, and treat it as a basic list, 
* name - episode cite - one sentence (if needed)
shave it down and treat it like the celeb or one-time list... I'm sure the LGBT supporters won't let us simply delete it, and it's not like it's hurting anything... - Adolphus79 03:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the article is in terrible shape and cuts into our recurring and one-time characters division scheme. There may be some ideas on what to do with on the AFD. If people wants to keep it, then it should be heavily edited. I have a back-up plan that doesn't involve turning it into yet another list. --Maitch 07:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: back-up plan? excellent... please do tell! - Adolphus79 02:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it already seems that the consensus has been reached in the AFD I might as well mention my idea. I want to create a direct subarticle to the section Themes in the article The Simpsons. This article should be named Themes in The Simpsons and merge the text from the main article, Politics in The Simpsons, Religion in The Simpsons and some of the content from the LGBT list. I would delete Elton John, Ian McKellen and the possible LGBT characters and maybe move some other text to character profiles somewhere else. --Maitch 11:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LBGT List 

message: in the article for Two Dozen and One Greyhounds, there is a discussion of the See My Vest song. This is all well and good, but after the lyrics, the article contains a list of each of the animals listed and a theoretical discussion about the garments discussed in the song.
I particularly enjoy the section:
:This is a curious entry in the wardrobe, since neither American Robins nor European Robins (two unrelated species) have very much in the way of red feathers; certainly not the colour of Burns' suits. An emormous number of birds would have had to contribute their breast feathers to make one single-breasted and one double-breasted jacket, making these possibly the most expensive garments in the world not to feature sequined precious stones.
Now, I looked and I see that all this content was moved here from an article on the song itself a little while ago; This is all well and good, but the information about the animals seems hardly noteworthy in an article about the episode. The song is a very small part of the episode, and the animals in the song have no particular bearing on the episode. Moreover, it is somewhat pointless to discuss the animals and garments as if the Simpsons is supposed to be realistic. Not only is this an episode of a cartoon that in itself says 'cartoons don't have to be 100% realistic', but this is itself within a song - far more concerned with amusing rhymes than with realism. I would like to suggest that this list is silly, takes the song way too seriously, and needn't even exist in this article. TheHYPO 19:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the song lyrics should stay, but the "animals" and "discrepincies" commentary can be removed... if nothing else, blame it on WP:POV or WP:NOR... - Adolphus79 19:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Song lyrics are copyvio. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Lyrics. --Maitch 19:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't actually have a problem with the lyrics, as the song itself is memorable and a notably memorable scene in the episode - it's just that it really doesn't need to be analyzed since it's not overly relevant to the plot (besides establishing the greyhound coat). But, Maitch is right about lyrics, now that he mentions it. I think I'm going to take out the animals now. It makes especially little sense with the lyrics gone. TheHYPO 20:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greyhounds list 

message: I just noticed that there is a list both on Bart's page, and on Moe's... do we really need it in both places, or can one just link to the other? I personally think it should be on Moe's page (with Moe's Tavern), then just an entry on Bart's page of "prank calls to Moe's Tavern (see here)" or something... - Adolphus79 19:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should just link to :Wikiquote:List of Simpsons Prank Calls. --Maitch 19:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: <S>does a list of names qualify for Wikiquote?</S> eh... shoulda clicked on the link first... yeah... looks good to me... - Adolphus79 20:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prank Calls 

message: I have created a banner for this project to be placed on the talk pages. Actually, I just stole it and changed the words to The Simpsons instead of gaming. I would like you all to comment on it before it is put to use. The template is called Template:SimpsonWikiProject and an example of use can be seen on Talk:Jimbo Jones. I had trouble finding a good image for it, because we are not allowed to have fair use images in templates. --Maitch 13:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sweet! love it... I was just thinking about writing myself a new welcome template that had project spam in it for the new editors that are contributing to the Simpsons articles... - Adolphus79 13:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I just created the missing categories, so we are good to go. It would be nice if you would also define the class and importance. I added some instructions on :Template:SimpsonWikiProject. --Maitch 10:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry, I looked at it from the other point of view... tag them all & sort them out later... besides, who am I to decide importance level?  I'll just tag all the Simpsons talk pages right now, and we can figure out each of their importance when we can see what all we're dealing with... - Adolphus79 11:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I guess you can do it in whatever order you want to. --Maitch 11:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, do templates and images get the banner also? or just the articles and lists? before I go tagging everything that has anything to do with the Simpsons... - Adolphus79 11:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we should start with the articles and lists. Right now images and template doesn't fit in the categories and it might require some additional coding. It would also take quite a while to tag all of our 500 articles (my guess). --Maitch 12:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hehe, ok... well I started with the character pages & lists, as that's what I have saved on my watchlist... I'll keep an eye out for character's whos talk pages are not tagged... should someone go thru and tag the episode articles? - Adolphus79 16:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't worry. I can tag them all fast using AutoWikiBrowser. --Maitch 16:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to do a second pass to add talkheader to avoid mistakes, so I probably won't add it. I have no problems with the banner in IE and Opera. What browser are you using and what page seems to be the problem. Another thing is that I've also tagged redirects, but I will deal with that later. --Maitch 17:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've finished my run with WP:AWB and I have now tagged every page that has been categorised except for those that doesn't have talk pages yet. --Maitch 17:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Crew members and all the articles in the subcategories are done. --Maitch 21:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ok... I think I just got every article in Category:The Simpsons... just bumped my watchlist from 100 to 700 in the process... LOL - Adolphus79 02:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Project banner

message: Hey all I am a huge fan of the simpsons and I read thats all you  need to join this WikiProject so, Here I am!! :) Anything you want me to do just tell me :) Irisheagle 00:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Happy to Join

message: I decided to sit down and start sorting all of them articles... and was wondering, what are we using for importance ratings?  
Here's what I think...
*Top - The Simpsons, articles linked from there, Matt, the Simpson nuclear family, The Movie, etc.
*High - primary character lists, extended Simpsons/Bouviors, a few of the more important episodes, Tracey & Dan, etc.
*Mid - all other episodes, secondary character articles, other cast articles, video games, comics, etc.
*Low - um... everything else? (minor character articles, the off lists, chalkboard & couch gag, etc.)
I went through, and tagged what I thought were the Top importance articles... basically the Simpson nuclear family, and Matt's article... and a couple others that I thought were our 'front' pages... I am going to go thru and blanket tag all the episodes Mid, I suppose we could take a vote to get like our top 3 episodes, and tag them High... - Adolphus79 22:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Article Importance... 

message: How many Simpsons-related articles are there on WikiPedia?  If English WikiPedia has 1.1 million articles, I think there's about 175,000 Simpsons articles, and 250,000 Pokemon articles. But I'm just guessing. Does anyone have exact figures? -- Mikeblas 18:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that a joke? you think that 10% of Wikipedia is Simpsons articles and 25% is pokemon? I really don't buy that estimation. maybe divide your estimate by a hundred? TheHYPO 18:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, I'm just guessing. I'm probably too big, but even after your adjustment 1,750 seems like a lot of articles on a cartoon show. -- Mikeblas 18:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: hehe... that's part of the reason I'm tagging them all with the wikiproject banner... just to get a count... we have 378 episodes articles, and well over 100 character articles, plus lists, plus cast member articles, plus everything else (neologisms, products, locations, etc.)... I'm gonna say we end up with a good 700, if not 1000... - Adolphus79 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome! I look forward to seeing what you come up with. -- Mikeblas 18:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 709 articles in the categories, but some of them are redirects. --Maitch 19:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  article count? 

message: I was wondering if I could be a participant. I have done a lot of work on many different Simpsons articles. I am the main maintainer of the List of guest stars on The Simpsons and I am the one who completely revamped. As well, I have added to various different episodes. I apologize if this does not belong here, but I did not know where else to put it. ~Scorpion0422
:certainly, there are no requirements for membership other than adding your name to the list... welcome aboard... have fun, and happy editing... - Adolphus79 22:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Joining the Project

message: How do I sign up?- JustPhil 00:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: read the line above your question... ;) - Adolphus79 00:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  JustPhil 

message: I see the articles section has this text: This is a list of our highest importance articles:. Isn't the list of important Simpsons articles already categorized at :Category:The Simpsons articles by importance? Or is that category (and the templates it uses) something that has become vestigal and should be deleted? -- Mikeblas 21:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added that just until we can get everything sorted out... we just now started the project of categorizing them by class and importance... the category is listed above, I just wanted to add a note under the 'articles' saying that we've got 750 articles that we're just now getting under control... sorry for any confusion... feel free to change the wording if you see fit... - Adolphus79 22:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  article importance 

message: PS: Re:Vandalism... it seems that once every other day someone vandalizes the main article by deleting, adding their name, or other things. Is there any potential to set it up so that only registered users (with usernames that can be banned for vandalizing, not anon editors) can edit the article? I know there are articles that are closed to certain people, but I'm not sure if there's a general 'no anon' category. I also don't know the application process for it. If anyone does, I think that article might qualify... TheHYPO 05:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the vandalism is very annoying I don't think that the article is vandalised enough for the semi-protection policy. It is only articles like George W. Bush that gets to be permanently semi-protected. --Maitch 15:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were eight seperate anonymous vandalism posts today (on the 22nd) from four seperate IPs. This is fairly typical of the The Simpsons article. I would argue that if there have to be more than 2 revisions a day, on average for vandalism, that is unnecessary, and grounds for protection. TheHYPO 22:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: This is obviously a well-discussed subject in wikiSimpsonism, but the List of neologisms on The Simpsons article needs some sort of decisionism. Either it needs to be renamed away from Neologisms (dispite the intro to the article implying 'this is a list of words, not really neologisms', that doesn't really excuse an article that ignores its title). The best examples of actual neologisms in the show include D'oh - something the show invented that basically has a meaning and is now commonly recognized in our world (though one could argue that it's not a 'word', but its' in the dictionary, so I think it qualifies). Other very good examples are Cromulent and embiggen. Actual words, used in the show as actual words, with actual meanings that are used several times by several people (even in only one episode). this is really the only type of thing that qualifies. Then you have a whole mess of one-uses, complete inventions, not-even phrases, misspeaks and and other things - some of which don't even seem like they bear mentioning in any article.
*America's Wang - it's not a word for Florida, it's a description of Florida
*Brain Medicine - it's not a word for anything - it's not even a specific product. If I need something to fix by blindness - that would be 'eye medicine'. Nothing is invented here...
*Can't sleep, clown will eat me - is a quote... not a neologism. None of the words is invented by The Simpsons, even if it's a phrase in pop culture now - if it goes anywhere, it belongs in an article perhaps titled quotes/phrases popularized by the Simpsons or something, along with, perhaps, Ahoy-Hoy - another phrase popularized, but not invented by the Simpsons.
*Champagneola - that's not a new word - that's just embelishing an existing word. If this counds, Everything Flanders says counts.
*Crapulence - as the article says, it's already a real english word.
*Donder-Blitzen - an invented type of Sausage. It's not a new word for something, it's a parody name of something. 
*Encyclopedia Self-Destructica - Again, a parody proper name. Nothing to do with neologism.
*Freezer Geezer - A description of a fictional character in a certain situation - not a neologism... etc.
I have to say, that besides Can't sleep, Clown'll Eat Me, none of the above-mentioned terms even bears mentioning anywhere other than perhaps a wikiquote for the appropriate episodes. There are dozens and dozens more words like this on the list. Am I wrong? TheHYPO 06:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: if you look at the talk page, I've just started working on it... look at the history, I've just been going thru and deleting one or 2 at a time for the last couple days... the talk page has a pretty good discussion regarding what should be included... I think the ones you listed could be included, compared to some of the entries on there now... if we get rid of the crap, then maybe we can be a little more flexible on the more creative semi-neologisms... - Adolphus79 06:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just looking at the page was pissing me off. So I got a little 'snippy'. I noticed you were editing as I was tonight. this is a link to the differences between the page before tonight and after both of our work. I think it's been significantly cleaned. I too did one at a time with explaination until the last edit, when I started going through cleaning up double-spaces, and decided to start taking out terms at the same time. So there's a number of unlisted changes on the last edit. If you have any dispute on it, by all means, bring it up in the talk page there, here or my own personal one... I pretty much dumped any invented unrealistic product or disease (particularly those that have no definition like lumber lung), I want to get rid of Burns' Grichy words (capdabblers al the other two) but it kind of is a neologism - but since they have no definition, I don't think they qualify. There's still some things I'm debating on...  TheHYPO 07:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neologisms 

message: In order to resolve the long standing debate over fair use of screenshots on List of Lost episodes, I am now trying to resolve the issue under the belief that the issue is an opinionated matter and not a matter of policy. Talk:List of Lost episodes#Fair use criteria number 8.  I ask that people share their comments, but please try to keep the conversation in this section focused.
One thing that works against us is that the conversation tries to defend too many points at once. Try not to respond to comments about other aspects of the debate, and just take this one step at a time. Basically, respond if you think this is an opinionated matter regarding policy point 8 of WP:FUC or not.
I believe if we can break through on the issue of point 8, the rest will fall into place. -- Ned Scott 08:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshots as fair use 

message: Simpsons Jeopardy! seems to be uncategorized and unlisted in this project. Someone who knows how to take care of that should take a look :) TheHYPO 20:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Maitch 20:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeopardy? 

message: I am going to join The Simpsons WikiProject and I was wondering what I can do to help. I am a fan of the Simpsons so I think this project will be just fine for me. If you want, you can post suggestions on my talk page. Thanks! --Tuspm(C | @) 15:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would like to be a member -- How can I help?