Talk:Simpson family

message: Hi, I saw this on the third opinion page, and thought I'd start by giving a quick response to main arguments - these are just my 'off the top of my head' responses.  I notice there are family trees for other fictional families in WP, so I wonder if that demonstrates that it is not necessarily "fancruft" to include such a thing...?  I seriously doubt a reader would be fooled into thinking that the Simpsons are a real family by such an inclusion, but I think there is a problem if a definitive tree doesn't exist - that suggests it runs the risk of WP:OR, so there would need to be a RS.  Having said that, I don't think a tree has to be all inclusive or complete to be justified - it just has to report what the RS says.  I do think it would serve some purpose since, as already mentioned, "it would be a good visual aid".  I understand the concern about it opening the flood gates to additions, but that is where the WP:RS comes into play and ensures that editors don't keep 'growing it' willy nilly.  MissionNPOVible (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worth noting that none of those other articles are GAs. This one is, so you can't really compare them (besides, you should judge these things on a case by case basis). And it is true that there is no up-to-date official family tree. A long time ago (early 90s) they released one in the Uncensored Family Album, but the show has since contradicted that tree numerous times (and the present family tree is not based on it). Also, years of editing Simpsons articles has taught me that policies like WP:RS (or WP:NOR or WP:V) don't stop IPs from doing whatever they want. If an IP thinks the family tree needs Great Aunt Hortense, then they'll add it, policy be damned (proof: check cultural references sections for just about any episode, though the newer ones are the best examples. IPs add whatever they like even if they have no source). -- Scorpion0422 23:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Scorpion.  You're absolutely correct about 'each case on its merit', I was only observing that fictional family trees do exist in WP - which makes it less controversial to have one here (compared to the situation where there are no fictional family trees at all in WP, which would make it considerably more controversial to have one here).  If there is a RS (and I presume the "Uncensored Family Album" is one), then I think that version could be a reasonable inclusion.  WP policy isn't intended to stop IP's or anyone from doing things, they're designed to make sure that only WP-worthy material sticks - and the key to that is WP:RS's.  MissionNPOVible (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a number of objections to including the uncensored family album tree. It would be based on a very minor source, and includes many relatives mentioned in the show(this is roughly what it looks like), so including them would certainly be undue weight. An exact copy also raises copyright concerns. Finally, the family tree is out of date, and has been contradicted by the show many times. -- Scorpion0422 16:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If all the information in the text is correct, then all the information in the tree is correct. There is thus no issue of original research here. Surtsicna (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of WP:OR is that we can't draw any conclusions, only report what is in RS's.  So if we want to include something, it <I>must</I> come from a RS. As for copyright, I would suggest that there is plenty of scope within the notion of 'fair use' to reproduce the information of a tree in the style currently used in the article - you would have a stronger case if an actual image of the tree was being suggested, but I didn't think we were talking about an "exact copy" - I don't know since I haven't seen the source...  Any problems about errors in the tree could be included in a note or introduction to the section - suitably sourced of course.  I don't think WP:WEIGHT really applies since it isn't advancing a particular argument. It would be absolutely relevant if there were competing versions of the family tree - are there others in RS's? MissionNPOVible (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 3O

message: In the episode Much Apu About Nothing, Grandpa says that the Simpsons emigrated from the Old Country to New York, United States. Should this be added to the article? Portillo (talk) 06:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Country 

message: Could we possibly rename the article to something like The Simpsons (family)? There's something about the current naming that seems a little off to me..--Coin945 (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Their last name is "Simpson" not "The Simpsons" or "Simpsons" CTF83! 05:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Simpsons (family)]] 

message: What about Bart's twin brother Hugo who Marge and Homer secretly kept and fed fish to in the attic in a Tree-house of Horror episode?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.166.240.5 (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hugo 

message: Scorpion0422 and I would appreciate a third opinion regarding the above discussion about family trees. Thanks. WilliamF1two (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Mark beat me to it in taking the 3O on this, so I will not opine. But I suggest editors take a look at the ancestry template to be found at :Bear Grylls#Ancestry. And now that I've said my peace (or is it piece?), I can enjoy my nice cold Duff. Cheers!  – S. Rich (talk) 03:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

text: OK, we're obviously still miles from a consensus so I'm going to list at WP:RFC. Thanks to Mark Marathon and Srich32977 for your contributions. WilliamF1two (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, you really want to win this one, don't you? I notice that you aren't asking Simpsons editors like Theleftorium or ctjf83. What's wrong, afraid they'll agree with me? -- Scorpion0422 21:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I was aiming for a consensus on the subject - as you well know that can't be achieved with just two or three opinions. I had never heard of Theleftorium or ctjf83 until their comments below, so I find your implications of cowardice offensive and puerile. You've got your way, you could at least show a little dignity. WilliamF1two (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Opinion Request

message: Should a family tree similar to the one above be included in the article? WilliamF1two (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment

message: #No (see below). Theleftorium (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Oh god. For years I was able to avoid crap like this, and I'm dragged into one of these. For those who don't feel like reading the previous discussions (including the first, where consensus was to not include a family tree) here is a summary of my arguments (it uses pieces of my previous arguments).
The supporting users never seem to be able to give a good reason for inclusion other than "it's useful" and "why not?" They then bring in comparisons to real life families (which is a stupid comparison) and other fictional families (just because another fictional character article has a family tree doesn't mean they all should).
#wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a fan site. The page (mostly) sticks to real world info. Having a family tree on a fictional family goes against Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) which says you need to present fiction from a real world perspective. Having a family tree means you're treating them as a real family.
#Undue weight. Do we really need to know Bart's relationship to Abe, Jr.?
#The information is already included. The important stuff is in prose form. Yes, some users don't like to read. It doesn't mean we have to muck up a good article with a flowery table.
#There is no definitive family tree (well, one was published in the early 90s, but the show has since contradicted it many times). Any tree would include some degree of assumption and original research. For example, Abbie is never expressly stated to be Homer's sister (strongly hinted, but never stated), so to include her is original research. There are also many uncles and cousins whose exact relations are unknown, but they did play a big enough role in an episode to warrant inclusion in the article. For example, Dr. Simpson.
#It will always be considered incomplete to some segment of the fanbase. If we limit it to major characters only, then it appears that Herb has no mother, Abe has no parents and Marge has no father. A fan will see that and expand it. Don't believe me?  Still don't believe me?  Of course, therein lies the catch-22. If we include the table with every known family member (which would require OR), then the table would definitely be too big and would include extremely minor characters. If we limit it to recurring characters, then it appears incomplete.
And that's what I think. In a general encyclopedia, a family tree on a fictional family comes off as fancruft. And nothing more. -- Scorpion0422 21:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Threaded discussion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Simpson family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080415115528/http://annieawards.org:80/foryourconsideration.html to http://annieawards.org/foryourconsideration.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080514200923/http://www.citynews.ca:80/news/news_22488.aspx to http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_22488.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070529014513/http://www.time.com:80/time/time100/artists/profile/simpson.html to http://www.time.com/time/time100/artists/profile/simpson.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Simpson family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070518233200/http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=fd0da574-316b-4300-80a7-8662f9a096b2&entry=index to http://www.eonline.com/news//article/index.jsp?uuid=fd0da574-316b-4300-80a7-8662f9a096b2&entry=index
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Simpson family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926231021/http://www.metroweekly.com/arts_entertainment/film.php?ak=2879 to http://www.metroweekly.com/arts_entertainment/film.php?ak=2879
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Simpson family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071220140402/http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1565538/20070725/story.jhtml to http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1565538/20070725/story.jhtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080330160256/http://www.emmys.org/awards/awardsearch.php to http://www.emmys.org/awards/awardsearch.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.variety.com/awardcentral_article/VR1117980588.html?nav=news&categoryid=1983&cs=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071220140402/http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1565538/20070725/story.jhtml to http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1565538/20070725/story.jhtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070401200651/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3289/is_n6_v167/ai_20897150 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3289/is_n6_v167/ai_20897150
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060617231040/http://www.snpp.com/episodes/DABF02 to http://www.snpp.com/episodes/DABF02
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140812090512/http://www.snpp.com/other/articles/flash.html to http://www.snpp.com/other/articles/flash.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070510155119/http://www.snpp.com/other/interviews/groening93b.html to http://www.snpp.com/other/interviews/groening93b.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion