Archives
June 2006 - July 2006
August 2006 - November 2006
December 2006 - Present

Now that Homerpalooza has been nominated for as a GA candidate, I've decided to list all of the episode pages, that are... well the best. These are obviously the ones that should be still improved so that they can become GA and FA standard, as well as providing some sort of definitive guidelines for all episode pages.

So, scanning down the B-class Simpsons articles category I see:

• Bart the General
• Deep Space Homer
• Homer's Enemy
• Homerpalooza (former GA nom)
• Krusty Gets Busted (former GA nom)
• Last Exit to Springfield
• Life on the Fast Lane
• Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire
• The Crepes of Wrath
• Who Shot Mr. Burns?
• 'Round Springfield

Any others that should be included? And which is closest to a nomination? Gran2 10:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I nominated Homerpalooza is because I thought we needed some precedent in terms of episode pages. If it makes GA status, then we have something to go on and we can model all pages after it. Also, the reason I picked it is because I had just listened to the DVD commentary and thus I had some good info and sources for the article. Sourcing is EXTREMELY important, and several of those articles have statements that can't be backed up by SNPP or DVD commentary. I don't know if it will be promoted, it may not be considered notable enough, but I figured I'd try it. -- Scorpion 17:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homerpalooza has failed its GA. Apparently the lead wasn't long enough, and the synopsis missed the point, or something like that. I think it was fine, but what do I know?! Anyway, any ideas to which page to try next? I personally feel that 'Round Springfield, Last Exit to Springfield, Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire, and Who Shot Mr. Burns, and of course Homerpalooza are the closest. Gran2 17:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm going to continue working on Homerpalooza. I don't get why he failed it immeidately and didn't put it on hold and give some time to fix it. He only had minor, easily fixable complaints. The same guy assessed the Homer article and he was very helpful in helping me fix it.

As for the next page, Who Shot Mr. Burns will be tricky because it nees a tonne of sources (plus, I believe the article should be split back up into two pages). I think Last Exit or Simpsons Roasting should be next. Take your pick, and I'll try to help by relistening to the DVD commentaries and adding what I can. -- Scorpion 18:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpion, you mentioned briefly that Who Shot Mr. Burns should be split back up into two pages. I think this should be considered a lot, as it should be better. Clues would go on part 1's page and suspects and ways to figure it out would go on the part 2's page.--Andy mci 20:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to carry on with Round Springfield and Last Exit, as they are the ones i've been working on the most, and I'll take a look at Simpsons Roasting. I've got a complete set of season DVDs now, in England at least (so no season 9). And I finally got Power DVD on my laptop, so I can get more pictures. Gran2 18:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use VLC snap to capture images. It's free and it's very easy to get DVD images (although they have a black line down the left side). 'Round Springfield is actually my least favourite episode, but I'll help out with Last Exit. Don't forget that EW and the author of Planet Simpsons said that episode was their favourite, although the writing staff seem indifferent to it... In Synopsis terms, I think shorter ones are more preferred (a la Homerpalooza), so you may need to do some shortening. -- Scorpion 18:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I need to listen to the commentary again, I can't remember anything the say in it.Gran2 18:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Go for it. No objections here. -- Scorpion 14:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've added and edited what I can, if anyone else can improve, please do. Shealer 14:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've been considering creating a new user box for Simpsons fans, but I can't figure out what slogan to put on it. Here's what I'm thinking:

• This Uswer Embiggens Wikipedia with his/her cromulent editing
• This user is gay for Moleman (Frontrunner, but I don't know if its allowed)
• This user can see your doodle (Meh, and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be allowed)
• This user welcomes our New Insect Overlords
• This user calls the Big One Bitey

Suggestions? -- Scorpion 16:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're all good! I mean you could have countless ones, like "This user lives in the clerk building" and "This user is a cheese eating surrender monkey".

So in other, I say do them all. Gran2 17:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the last two, but the very last is the best. I think the first one is not very good because a lot of people don't realise embiggens and cromulent are neologisms. I don't really think i would want to put a userbox on my page saying i'm gay for an old shrivelled up guy. So go Bitey!--Andy mci 17:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could try several, but Wikipedia has a policy about no fair use images being used in those userboxes, so most of them would have text as the "image" part. And, I've changed my mind and I think Insect Overlords is the best, any other suggestions? Maybe we can find a non-fair use picture of an Opossum and use the Bitey one as well... -- Scorpion 19:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do people think of this:

-- Scorpion 14:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its on my page. Good job. Gran2 22:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about "this user is a kwyjibo"? --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 21:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's another new one. Using pink reeks of typecasting, but I think it looks not bad. What do others think?

Here's my less than perfect stab at one, i couldn't believe this wasn't alreday a userbox. It will probably turn out that there is and I've missed it.... Ah well, feel free to edit the colour scheme. And as for the "gay for moleman", although I'm not crazy about the subject matter... It does look pretty good. Gran2 20:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I see no problem. Sport certainly seems like a good idea for an article. Gran2 07:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the Springfield Meltdowns! --The Dark Side 02:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yeah, I wasn't sure about it, that's why I asked. -- Scorpion 16:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Natalie 06:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Do we really need family pages for The Vanhoutens, Wiggums and Flanderses? The pages basically duplicate information from individual articles and the various families have their own sections in the list of characters. I can understand there being one for the Simpson family (because there are a tonne of family members) and maybe even the Bouvier family, although it needs a MAJOR cleanup. So, should we merge those pages, nominate them for afd or leave them? And while we're at it, is this page really necessary? -- Scorpion 16:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couples could be improved, but may need to be moved to a better name. Van Houten can go. Which probably means the Flanders and Wiggum ones can as well. Gran2 16:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, afd would be too big of a headache (and really unnecessary) because the afd page has been filled with inclusionists as of late, so should we just do a merge then? -- Scorpion

I didn't even know that couple's page existed, but I think it should go. The families' pages are kind of iffy - if there's a possibility that the page can say more that the short entry in the character lists, then the page could theoretically be useful. But so far, it seems like there's a whole lot of duplicate information. Merge would probably be best, since the old article name should redirect anyway, and it would avoid problems with the crufty types.Natalie 16:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couples is up for a Speedy Delete, the other familes were merged, and I added a cleanup and expand template on the Bouvier page. -- Scorpion 16:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having actually read couples all the way through, that really can go, speedy (as you have). But the families, merge for now at least. Gran2 16:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if the Simpson and Bouvier family pages should be merged, because there is some duplicate information, and the Bouvier page could use a facelift. -- Scorpion 16:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

As always I prefer one-time things to be in the episode article. That's why I propose that Movementarianism is merged into "The Joy of Life". --Maitch 15:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't you mean The Joy of Sect? I'd have no problem with it. I just thought it was a well written article. -- Scorpion 15:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was about to correct it, but you beat me to it. If it is well written, then it will still be well written in the episode article. --Maitch 16:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, I'll merge it. And what do you think about reucrring character pages? Are there any that don't that do deserve one and any that don't that do? UPDATE: I actually merged it to Religion in The Simpsons - I figured it could use more content. -- Scorpion 16:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't like the character lists, because it is not clear who goes into what list. I've been trying a couple of time to set up inclusion criterias, but people doesn't like that. The way I see there are two possible ways of doing the lists:

1:

• List of characters from The Simpsons: A complete list of every character mentioned on the show (even minor one-time characters) with one sentence of information about the character.
• List of recurring characters from The Simpsons: Every character who has had a speaking part for at least two episodes.
• List of one-time characters from The Simpsons: Every character who has had a speaking part in one episode.

2:

• List of characters from The Simpsons: Every character who has had a speaking part for at least two episodes.
• List of recurring characters from The Simpsons: Redirected to List of characters from The Simpsons.
• List of one-time characters from The Simpsons: Every character who has had a speaking part in one episode.

I like the second solution best, because it doesn't clutter the main list with stuff like Unnamed "cousins", related to the Simpsons because their dog is the brother of Santa's Little Helper --Maitch 16:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

So I take it that you prefer the first solution. --Maitch 16:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, we should probably follow Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). --Maitch 17:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

Oy vey, no! Natalie 19:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So... Should we nominate it for CFD? -- Scorpion 01:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think so. Natalie 01:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sounds about right. --Maitch 17:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• From Principal Charming, one of the most under-rated Simpsons episodes:

• Also, it certainly wouldn't hurt to have boxes that are Lisa, Marge and Maggie oriented. Then we'll have userboxes for all 5 family members. Any suggestions? -- Scorpion 20:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Fr4zer has done some mediocre ones for Superintendet Chalmers and Moe. But as the other guys well...

• SUCK | This user shot Mr. Burns.
• LISA | If anyone wants this user, they'll be in their room. What kind of userbox is that?

No idea for Marge though. Gran2 21:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a sub page for userboxes, so now we don't have to worry about cluttering the main WikiProject page. One idea I had for Maggie is:

• MS | This user attended the Ayn Rand School for Tots. -- Scorpion 19:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I say not yet, unless there is more than a paragraph's worth of verifiable information. Natalie 04:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This wouldn't work for most of the secondary characters because they haven't been in enough episodes, But why not make categories to keep track of character-centric episodes. ie. "category:The Simpsons episodes featuring Homer Simpson" and then include a link to that category from the Homer page.

• Pros
  • It would be an easy way to list Homer episodes without making a crufty list
  • It wouldn't count as category cruft if we only use it for major characters (family, Flanders, Burns, Moe, a few others)
• Cons
  • It would hard to keep track of what episodes are added
  • Some may target the categories for cfd

Thoughts? Opinions? Complaints? -- Scorpion 17:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually thinking yesterday, about suggesting a list similar in style to the guest star list, listed each episode, with the character(s) it was mainly centred around, even including the sub-plot. But this could be impractically, and cruftastic, but it would elimate the need from the "episodes about character" sections in any of the articles. The category idea, could work though. Gran2 18:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A list would basically just be called cruft, but categories are more practical. If we do it, we should limit it to characters who have featured prominently in 10-15 episodes. -- Scorpion 18:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping it the way it was in many articles is the best way to do it. It's easy for people to find if they are interested in the subject - consider, reading about Mr Burns and then learning the episodes he is in. It's better than making separate lists for each character, too. There are many characters who may have driven the plots of only a few episodes, like Apu, for instance. By keeping the "Episodes Featuring" section in the article, we can keep all the content but not have to make a list of a few episodes. --takethemud 19:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As already established, such lists are considered cruft and they clutter the pages and they are frowned upon by Wikipedia. Using ctaegories, you can have a direct link right to the category from the character page and it eliminates page cruft, and there is no need to make a list cruft page. -- Scorpion 19:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea for any characters that have been featured in a lot of episodes - I'd even say 5 could be considered a lot for everyone other than the main family. And for those who've been featured in a few episodes, this information can be written in prose in the introduction to the character. Natalie 21:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this is a good idea. --Maitch 21:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it, it would be good for the episode capsules, as a majority of them do only have one category, so yeah, good idea. Gran2 21:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I'll start on categorizing tomorrow. I think takethemud has gotten started already. -- Scorpion 02:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small nitpicky detail, should the categories be called:

"The Simpsons episodes featuring ______"

"Episodes of The Simpsons featuring ______" -- Scorpion 02:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't care either way, as long as it's consistent. Natalie 02:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the characters I'm going to create categories for: Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa, Maggie, Grampa, Patty & Selma, Burns, Moe, Flanders, Apu, Skinner, Krabapel, Sideshow Bob, Milhouse, Nelson, Santa's Little Helper, Krusty others?

Debatable characters: Barney, Fat Tony, Smithers, Ralph, Itchy & Scratchy (there are 5 or 6), others? -- Scorpion 02:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also, for those creating categories, please use full names: Homer Simpson, Ned Flanders, etc. Using plain Krusty should be fine. Basically go by what the official page names are. -- Scorpion 02:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The Mr. Burns category has been nominated for cfd. Assistance is keeping it is appreciated. -- Scorpion 14:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This information would be far more comprehensive if you used a list rather than a category. For instance, you could create a table listing all episodes (of a season, if it gets too long otherwise) and add columns for each character, and a checkmark if it appears in there (or total minutes of air time, if you really want). >Radiant< 15:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's still list cruft no matter which way you look at it. What policies are these categories breaking? -- Scorpion 15:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would it be listcruft and not categorycruft? I don't care if somebody calls something "cruft", I care that the information is organized and accessible. A table such as the below lets me find episodes containing Bart but not Homer easily. It lets me see things by season. It lets me count which character occurs more often, or has more "focused" episodes. That's why it's more comprehensive than a category. >Radiant< 15:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons/Idea for details. >Radiant< 15:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already explained why that wouldn't work. Why are you so against these categories? -- Scorpion 15:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why wouldn't it work? Yes, it'd be a big list, but that's not a problem. We have plenty more big lists. It's also sortable, both by alphabet and by character, and can include highlights, illustrations, and total airtime if people want to add that. What policies is that list breaking? >Radiant< 15:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because its list cruft and article clutter. What rules would these categories be breaking? -- Scorpion 16:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suppose the lists should be in a separate article, since they can be rather long. Why would it be listcruft, and why should that matter? Wikipedia has a lot of articles that some people consider "cruft". What rules would cruft be breaking? >Radiant< 16:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am amazed at how many people came out of nowhere to vote delete in the categories cfd. More people voted delete in that one than have voted delete in the past 5 cfds on that page. I never really got why people get so head up over categories and insist the "useless" ones get immediately deleted. The irony is that most non-Wikipedian users never see them and thus categories in general are wasteful, and yet, when we come up with a practical way to use them, it's "Over categorization" even though there is only one existing Simpsons ep category. I also enjoyed the irony that Takethemud turned on the categories and voted delete when the idea for them sprung from his whining about me deleting cruft filled lists from character pages. So, what do we do about episode lists? I really don't think lists are needed that much, they are clutter and subject to tonnes of useless edits, so I think we should just leave character pages without episode lists and have links to the character eps lists at SNPP. -- Scorpion 21:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say we leave them in the articles. I disagree they are "cruft", "clutter", or subject to useless edits. The list on the Mr Burns page, for example, is remarkably stable and in the recent past has undergone very few edits. They take up room, that is true, but it is not extraneous information, and I would argue is extremely relevant to articles about these characters. Further, I take exception to you characterizing my discussion with you as "whining", which I consider to be a personal attack upon me. I was under the impression we engaged in a civil discourse about how to best maintain the information in Wikipedia. Given your recent sweeping deletions of that information from every article, without placing it elsewhere on Wikipedia, I felt that creating categories was the only way to preserve the content while appeasing you and drawing your slash and burn campaign to a close. Otherwise, I felt your edits would remove important information from Wikipedia that may be able to be incorporated elsewhere in the project. Thus, I created the category, even though I personally felt the list was best left in the articles. When it came up for deletion, I expressed myself through a vote as I am entitled to do. In the meantime, I am in favor of restoring for each character the list of episodes in which they play a substantial role in driving the plot and leaving the content in the articles until a consensus is reached, through discussion, about what to do with the information. My vote is to leave it in the article, and if that is not met with agreement by other editors, to create a separate page, listing each character and the episodes in which they star. --takethemud 21:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly like the look of the lists, and I think they break up the flow of the article. But having looked at a few of the character pages, I think there are only a few characters with this problem (Burns, Flanders, Grandpa). Obviously, one could argue that every Simpsons episodes is about the main family, and most of the secondary characters have had less than a dozen episodes about them or heavily involving them. So, any kind of category or list is completely unnecessary for the main family (because they're in all the episodes) or most of the secondary characters (can be put in prose). Given that, I'm okay with keeping the lists in a few select articles - those characters outside the main family (Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa, and Maggie) that have starred in more than 10 episodes. But I liked the categories idea better. Perhaps we can put this up for deletion review at some point soon.Natalie 23:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the main family should not have the episode lists for the reasons you stated, Natalie. So, your proposal would be for certain characters (Burns, Moe, Flanders, etc.) have the list, and for others with only a few episodes under their belt, include the episodes in the introductory paragraph? If so, I agree, except that I'd propose we lower the bar to, say, 3 episodes or less goes in the intro paragraph, more than that in a list. Otherwise, the intro paragraph may get to be a bit too long... --takethemud 23:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I remember, the ideal length for introductory sections is 2-3 paragraphs, so even a prose list of more than three episodes wouldn't be too much trouble as far as length goes. But as far as I know, Simpsons characters seem to be either featured in one or two episodes, or 50+ episodes. It's a pretty big drop-off. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Natalie Erin (talk • contribs) 00:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Wow - that bot is fast. Natalie 00:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Character lists are not needed. Most characters from most other shows don't have lists, I don't see why Simpsons characters should be any different. If you really insist that there be a list, then link to an eps list from The Simpsons Archive. -- Scorpion 02:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpion, do you have any interest in getting deletion review on the categories? If the general consensus is that these categories are never going to fly, than I wonder if there's any interest in knowing this information at all. Natalie 04:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's really no point. It was worth a try, but its obvious that people are against the category idea. -- Scorpion 04:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'm reading that as little interest in even knowing what episodes a character was featured in. Perhaps in that case, there will also be little tolerance for lists. Natalie 04:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about that is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a fan site. We can link to a page, but I think that Wikipedia should be limited to character information and having a list really doesn't add much. -- Scorpion 04:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Natalie 05:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to notify people that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recurring jokes in The Simpsons‎ is up for deletion. --Maitch 13:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far so good. Six keeps to one delete. --The Dark Side 03:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should come to a final decision on such lists, because after our failed experiment with categories, we've sorta just gone in opposite directions on the issue. I think we should put it to a vote, and although there are only 5 or 6 members of the project who frequently post here, I'll post messages on the talk pages of active members and get more opinions.

The question: Do character articles need "episodes featuring this character lists". Vote Support if you feel that articles should have episode lists, and oppose if you feel they do not. -- Scorpion 05:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Small characters can/will have important episodes in their body text (and probably shouldn't have articles if they are so small as to have only a handful of appearances), and for large characters it would be virutally impossible to police such a list and define what 'featured' means. What potential usefulness would such a list be anyway? Major storyline issues in a character's history should be referenced by episode in the character's article body already anyway. TheHYPO 05:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - It will take up too much space. --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 06:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - As said, it can be in the text if it was an important episode for the character, so the lists arn't that important. I mean Roger Meyers page listed Trash of the Titans as his "notable appearances", kindly telling us that it was (non-speaking), thus proving it wasn't that important. So I say no. Gran2 07:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - I don't think that character articles should have list as a rule, but do think that such lists can be valuable in certain situations, e.g. in cases of minor characters who are only featured occasionally. Ideally, all important episodes would be mentioned in the course of the article, but in practice it often doesn't work out that way. _si»abhorreo»^T 08:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - As I've written elsewhere (incl. on this page), I believe this is useful information and should be included on the character pages in a separate section, especially for those characters with 4-5 or more episodes under their belt. For characters with less than 4-5 episodes, I say keep the list in the body of the article. Alternatively, I'd say we should list the episodes in which they star in the "See also" section. Lastly, considering their unique role in the series, I'd say there should be an exception for Kang and Kodos. --takethemud 14:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many Simpsons characters have a section in their article devoted to "Video Game Appearances". These sections usually have the name of the videogame and then a few sentences about what role the character plays in the video game.

Question: Should character articles include a section devoted to discussing their appearances in Simpsons video games? If so, please write Support and briefly discuss your reasoning; If not, please write Oppose and briefly discuss your reasoning. Any ideas for what to do with these sections (e.g., delete wholly, moved name of game to see also section, etc) are welcome.... --takethemud 14:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]