Archives
June 2006 - July 2006
August 2006 - November 2006
December 2006 - January 2007
February 2007 - Present

I have now rewritten the article for this episode and nominated it for GA. I hope that it might be FA worthy, because I think it is about as good as Pilot (House). --Maitch 14:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, that is very good. You inspired me to do yet another episode page. I agree this could be FA worthy. Gran2 09:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I think it was considerably easier to do that episode compared to Round Springfield and Homerpalooza. I am working on Some Enchanted Evening now. There is a chapter dedicated to The Simpsons Spin-Off Showcase in the book Leaving Springfield. I don't know if you got it, but if do not have it I can take a look at it when you are done. --Maitch 15:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be, I've started work on Homer's Phobia as well, which is good because it won an Emmy, and I finally bought A Complete Guide to Our Favourite Family (took me long enough), and the other book would be helpful, thanks. Homerpalooza has passed its GA now, I really hope Round Springfield does soon, its on hold expired yesterday. Ah well. I'll carry on with these other two for now. Gran2 16:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right Homer's Phobia is done, a large production section and a reception section that prvoed pretty easy to do especially as it won an Emmy. All it needs now is a few more images, I'll get these later, a bit of a check over and I'll nom it for GA. Gran2 20:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Homer's Phobia win some kind of gay awareness award? --Maitch 21:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it out myself. This episode won several awards.

1. Annie Award for Best Individual Achievement: Directing in a TV Production
2. Emmy Award for Outstanding Animated Program (For Programming One Hour or Less)
3. GLAAD Media Award (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, USA) for Outstanding TV - Individual Episode
4. WAC Winner for Best Director for Primetime Series

The information is from SNPP, so we need to find some other reliable sources. --Maitch 21:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. [1]
2. Done already
3. Best I can find is IMDB which isn't that good is it?
4. Just SNPP...

1/3 isn't that bad. Anyone else do better? Gran2 23:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an update, I'm going to start on Last Exit to Springfield and eventually Marge vs. the Monorail Some random guy announced he wanted to work on The Joy of Sect, but I think he probably won't follow through on that. I'm glad Homerpalooza was finally promoted. I've been trying to get it to GA since December and finally it's been promoted. -- Scorpion 21:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations by the way. We now have the know how as to what we need to do in order to produce quality episode articles. I think we can fairly quick produce a bunch of GA's and perhaps a few FA's this way.--Maitch 21:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm guessing we can finally cross off part of "Define two manuals of style for the individual character and episode articles." then? Good work. Gran2 22:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have not actually written the manual yet and I don't think we have got the formula for characters either. If anyone is interested this old page (Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Style guide) was started at the beginning of this project. Perhaps we should update it. --Maitch 22:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last Exit is almost ready for a GA run, but I don't think it would have much of a chance at becoming FA, because there isn't a lot of production info. Homerpalooza might have a shot, but it would need some work. -- Scorpion 23:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated Homer's Phobia, I had to use IMDB for theother awards, but that's better than SNPP. I did find the GLAAD reveiw of the episode though, so I added that. Gran2 09:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also updated the style guide a bit. Gran2 09:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SimpsDVD At first I was stumped because I wanted to include who is in DVD commentaries on episode pages, but I couldn't figure out how without adding a sloppy triia-esque thing. Then I came up with this. It still needs work, but what do you guys think? -- Scorpion 01:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. Natalie 01:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how it works: {{SimpsDVD|participants|season (MUST BE IN NUMBERS)}}

so {{SimpsDVD|[[David Mirkin]], [[Bob Hope]] and [[Marge Simpson]]|5}} would become Template:SimpsDVD

Comments? -- Scorpion 02:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well is it okay to use the images? Regardless I like it, it certainly cures the dvd problem. Gran2 09:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not allowed to use fair use images in templates. --Maitch 15:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Well, I thought the images were a nice little touch, but we can just as easily remove them. -- Scorpion 16:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What section should these templates be put in? --Maitch 17:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wherever it fits/looks good in. I put it in the Cultural Refs section on the Homerpalooza article simply because it was the only place where there was enough room. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scorpion0422 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I've just put it in the external links section, above the wikiquote template. Gran2 17:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons DVD commentaries has been nominated for deletion. Gran2 22:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons#Season DVD's. --Maitch 22:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be nicer if the DVD commentary participants were included in the infobox instead of in a template at the bottom? --Maitch 22:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I gave it a try and you can see the results on the Homerpalooza page. -- Scorpion 14:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer if there is a break between the names, but besides that I think this is the way to go. --Maitch 15:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the ideal length of the synopsis for an episode article? I think we should define how long or short they should be in the style guide. I personally think that Homerpalooza is a bit short. Cape Feare could perhaps be slightly trimmed and 'Round Springfield is very long. I think that any Simpson related synopsis should be shorter than the lenth of Pilot (House), since that is an one-hour show. --Maitch 16:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the length of Homer's Phobia is about right, A Milhouse Divided does the same. Not overlylong, but summarising the plot and having a couple of bits of extra details. Gran2 16:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been evaluating the synopsis length of a few episodes. Pilot (House) is about 4000 characters. Those you mentioned are about 2500-2600 characters. Cape Feare is 2700 characters. Last Exit is 3700 characters. I think the ideal length is about 2600 characters. --Maitch 17:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the length depends on the episode. Homerpalooza doesn't have a lot in terms of main plot, so it has a short synopsis. Last Exit has amuch more involved plot and it has a longer synopsis. There really shouldn't be a set character count. -- Scorpion 17:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the number is only an ideal number and should only be something we should get as close to as possible. I'm not suggesting that anything else but 2600 characters is unacceptable. Last Exit to Springfield is really not that complex. It is all about not getting into too many details. --Maitch 22:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been very long discussions about this lately on WP:WAF. There are a few important things:

1. An overly long or (even worse) scene by scene description is most likely a copyright violation of the original work. Make sure it stays a synopsis/summary.
2. The amount of real world context in the article (ergo that which is not synopsis). That which has made a large impact on the real world, might require a more extensive explanation of the fictional world that created the influence.

I think around the 2000-3000 chars is a proper amount for a synopsis. Don't forget that the episode of House you pointed at is also the Pilot episode and as such "sets the seting". This is one of those things that can require a more extensive summary. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lugnuts has recently decided that guest starring in a single episode of the show constitutes as being part of the cast and has started adding a bunch of guest stars to the cast member category. We can not come to an agreement, so some opinions would be appreciated. Are guest stars regular cast members? -- Scorpion 19:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Dan Castellnetta, Harry Shearer, Hank Azira, Julie Kanver, Yeardley Smith, Nancy Cartwright, Tress McNielle, Pamela Hayden, Russi Taylor, Marcia MG, Karl Weidergott, Maggie Roswell, Phil Hartman, Doris Grau, Marcia Wallace, etc.

Are the main cast.

But: Kelsey Grammar, Jon Lovitz, Albert Brooks, Jan Hooks, etc. should all be included.

I've probably missed a few, but my main point is, no one shot guest stars. Gran2 20:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Scorpio is obviously wrong, as per the merging/moving of the cast members CfD result [2] Now look at say, Sam McMurray's page and you'll see him in categories for each show he's guested in. Scorpio is just nitpicking on the terminology over cast member and guest cast member. I don't see how populating The Simpsons cast members category with all guest people is any worse than this [3], or this [4], or this [5], or this [6], or this [7]. I think the whole point of the CfD was that people wanted to retain the categories of guest/cast members and not just have some list. Lugnuts 20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • So what? Just because it happens in those categories means we have to do it! They are NOT main cast members and they should not be listed as main cast members. Hence why they are not here. Make a new category called "guest stars who ahve appeared on The Simpsons" or something.-- Scorpion 20:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what are the odds of the first 5 categories I randomly picked being wrong?! The category for guest stars already existing for those shows and have been renamed/merged! Lugnuts 20:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The category is THE SIMPSONS CAST MEMBERS, not PEOPLE WHO HAVE APPEARED IN THE SIMPSONS. It still doesn't matter what those categories have done. Appearing in one or two (or three) episodes does not a cast member make. -- Scorpion 20:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So all these are wrong too, then: [8], [9], [10], [11], etc, etc? Lugnuts 20:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't care if those ones are wrong or not. This is a SIMPSONS WikiProject, we are deciding what happens with the SIMPSONS ctageory and the people you have been adding are not part of the cast. -- Scorpion 20:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• But the same principal applies across ALL those categories. You can't say "oh it only applies for this one and not those other dozen". Lugnuts 20:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I quote from the closing statement of the CFD: Guest roles do not count, even if they appear more than once. --Maitch 20:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• [12], or this [13], or this [14], or this [15], or this [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] ??? Lugnuts 20:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then they are going against the results of the cfd. -- Scorpion 20:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't you think it's a little odd that all of them are going against the CfD then?! Now if it was just one, then yes... Lugnuts 20:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then it must be because they don't know that they are supposed to. We are supposed to follow the rules, not what others are doing and since it was ruled in the cfd that guest stars are not supposed to be in cast categories, then we won't have guests in cast categories. -- Scorpion 20:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this better? [21]

How long do you reckon before someone goes CfD on it, poindexter? Lugnuts 20:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I never said you should do a category like that. I just said they BELONG in a guest star category as opposed to a CAST MEMBER category. You really are acting like a baby here. -- Scorpion 20:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make a new category called "guest stars who ahve appeared on The Simpsons" or something -- Scorpion 20:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC) reads like make a new category called "guest stars who have appeared on The Simpsons" to me... D'oh! Lugnuts 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Somebody is going to go after the category eventually. Guest stars do not belong in the cast category, that's all. -- Scorpion 21:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Hall of famer Whitey Ford has come out onto the field to try and plead for some sort of saniety." Calm down Lugnuts. This really isn't something to get so worked up about. I think Scorpion is right about the cast member catrgory. The separate guest star one is good (van johnson good) and is the best way to solve the problem. Gran2 22:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The separate guest star one is good (van johnson good) - but is it plaque good?! Seems like last night I was choking on my own rage! Lugnuts 11:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered that another low key Simpsons writer has a page. Allen Glazier wrote 2 episodes and according to IMDB, has done nothing else. I that instead of going for an afd here, maybe we should merge the page with List of writers of The Simpsons, that way anyone searching for him will at least be led to the right area... -- Scorpion 04:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for those curious, I have been some reassessment of articles, and I have changed my criteria. I almost created a special assessment page, but this is a relatively small project, not like WP:albums or books or television and all of the articles have been evaluated.

Many of the articles are listed as , mostly books and video games, but I have decided to make some changes. Here was my criteria before:

• Top: Family, MG, show, blah blah blah
• High: main characters, Sam Simon, James L. Brooks, Al Jean, David Silverman, seasons, important locations, important lists, credits stuff, 6 main cast members
• Mid: Episodes, more important writers & directors, show runners, secondary characters, semi-important locales, a few lists, other cast members
• Low: Directors, writers, other characters, animation studios, in-universe stuff, locations
• None: Video games, one-time writers, guests voicing recurring characters, minor cruftish stuff

But, I have changed the last three to:

• Mid: Episodes, show runners, Swartzwelder, Kirkland, Vitti, secondary and ALL other characters with pages, semi-important locales, a few lists, other cast members
• Low: Everything directly from the shows universe that does not fit mid, high or top and everything that was made because of the show (books, video games, CDs, etc), ALL writers/directors and other crew who were not EPs or mentioned above who have been credited with multiple episodes OR have had a producer credit, also includes producers (Sakai, Sirkot, etc)
• None: one or two time writers, guests voicing recurring characters, phrases not invented by the show.

Thoughts? Comments? -- Scorpion 05:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it hurts making an assessment sub page. --Maitch 15:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just stumbled upon this episode. I haven't seen it, i'm not gonna to any time soon. However, if someone in the Lead writes: "one of the most controversial episodes", it might be a good idea to explain WHY. Add links to mediasources that discussed this episode etc etc etc. Instead, I get all kinds of information that I could have gotten from watching the episode, and that I truly don't care about (i would prefer to just watch the episode). And somebody please edit down that HUGE list of quotations. Remember we are writing an Encyclopedia here people, not an episode guide. I hope a Simpsons editor will make this article more useful to me then it is now. Thank you in advance, whoever you might be. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just read on the Television rating system page it also won an Emmy, but I can't seem to digg up any sources that confirm this. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be because it didn't. As for the state of the page, we are slowly working on it, a majority of the early season pages are good. Gran2 14:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It was nominated for a WGA award, but didn't win (the winner was another Simpsons episode). We have been very focused on improving the episode articles these last month. For examples take a look at Homerpalooza or Cape Feare. So far we have been dealing with the early episodes, since there is much more information available on those. The quotes should just be moved to Wikiquote. --Maitch 15:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see that the project has such enthousiastic and GOOD contributors that can give articles such a good overhaul. I hope this article will also see that in the future. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now somebody has decided to nominate the Simpsons Directors and Simpsons Writers categories. I don't see why people waste their time with nominating categories. Wikipedia is supposed to be about articles, not categorizing articles. One line articles like the Chris Clements article or Allen Glazier can go months without being noticed, but even useful categories can be targeted for deletion. You can find the CFDs here. They're the 8th and 9th ones down. -- Scorpion 08:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, I think we need a list of The Simpsons directors. --Maitch 10:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. -- Scorpion 00:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A user has just created this article - probably a fan, given the name. I'm of the opinion that there is nothing to say about Martha Quimby that can't be included in the Mayor Quimby article, but I would like some consensus before redirecting this to Mayor Quimby. Natalie 19:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, nothing that merits its own article, just redirect. The user who started it seems to have an infatuation with the Quimbys, his username for one thing, and that he has already created a Freddie Quimby page today, which has now been deleted. Gran2 19:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that. He has also double listed Krusty on the List of characters page, which is a constant problem (yet another reason to make it alphabetical). I sent him a talk page message about the double listing - maybe I can direct him toward this project so he doesn't waste his time creating pages that are just going to be deleted. Natalie 19:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll nominate it for speedy. It doesn't even seem worthy of having a redirect. -- Scorpion 20:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything in the deletion log for Freddie Quimby (there was a Freddy Quimby a few days ago that was speedied), are you sure there was a page? And, check out this page which that user also created. -- Scorpion 20:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From his talk page "Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia by creating the page Freddy Quimby. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted." So I assume he did. He also removed your speedy tag (I put it back), and said that Lionel Hutz was dead. Gran2 20:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've had to deal with undiscussed merges several times over the past 2 days, so I think we should come up with a criteria for inclusion, so that in merge discussions, one can say "fits guidelines as decided by the Simpsons WikiProject".

Here's what I think: In order to qualify for a page, a character must meet one of these guidelines:

1. Must be central to at least 2 episodes. Under this criteria, Manjula would qualify for a page.
2. Must have made speaking appearances in at least ___ (50?) episodes. Under this criteria, Bumblebee Man and Wiseguy would qualify.
3. For one-timers, must have been extremely central to plot and made an appearance that is referenced in several later episodes or in comic books. Frank Grimes and Hank Scorpio meet this one

Thoughts? -- Scorpion 22:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Although the above category doesn't in fact exist, it is the header under which the discussion is located, so the discussion link will work. --BlueSquadronRaven 05:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the episode pages contain links to Wikiquote, and yet none of them work because it's stored by seasons. So we need to make redirect pages. Unless someone says we shouln't for some reason.--Andy mci 16:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Portal was hideously outdated and I have updated it. Perhaps we as a WikiProject should get into a routine of updating it every now and then.. ie. A new Did you know every week, a new featured episode once a week, etc etc. -- Scorpion 18:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I've noticed that for a while, but not got around to doing anything about it, good job. I'd be up for updating it, as we have pretty much ignored it. Gran2 19:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some IP user has been adding some stuff about a goof involving a blanket. Feeling it was insignificant, I removed it with a bunch of other crufty trivia items. Unfortunately, the IP user has figured out how to undo edits and has undone every edit made to the article and accused me of removing it because I'm jealous that he discovered it first. Unfortunately, he has the upperhand because I have to worry about 3RR violations whereas he does not (he even threatened to report me, which makes me think it's entrapment... Perhaps I'm a little too paranoid). So, I guess the question is: Is the goof worth noting? -- Scorpion 19:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have come to the conclusion that almost no goofs are worth noting, unless they're major plot holes or similar. I definitely think that any and all "sight goofs" (something changing color, moving position, etc) are not worthwhile because they are super cruft. I don't think, however, that just telling the IP what the WikiProject thinks is going to help, so maybe they should be invited to this discussion. Natalie 19:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can read the whole of what they say on the talk page. Perhaps we should entrap them... One of you guys revert his edits and when he undos them, nail him with 3RR and we won't have to worry for 12 hours... -- Scorpion 20:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll undo his recent thing. Invitations to join the discussions usually work, as in my experiances it makes them mysteriously vanish. But as for goofs, they are not needed. The only truly major plot goof I have ever known is the whole farmhouse burning down and magically re-appearing again thing... Gran2 20:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Moe'N'a Lisa, there's a goof about an animation error, and there's a link to a gif to prove it, I've never been sure about that one, so I let it go. -- Scorpion 20:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The UPN vandal just joined the project, he joined under an IP address, with the name Lil' Demeo (talk · contribs), his user page is completely copied, names and all, from AAA! (talk · contribs)'s page. I reverted it, but this is just a reminder of how irritating this guy is. Gran2 20:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking, is there something fundamentally wrong with Cape Feare? It has been on GAC for ages and two Simpsons episodes that were nominated after it have been promoted. --Maitch 20:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just the way things work. People see "Homerpalooza" or "Homer's Phobia" or "Marge vs. the Monorail" and say "Oh boy! The Simpsons". When they see "Cape Feare" they think of the movie. Just wait, some of the articles on that page have been nominated since January. -- Scorpion 20:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least it is first in line now. --Maitch 20:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we rename the "Category:The Simpsons crew members" to something else? -- Scorpion 16:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That category might be deleted as well. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Category:TV crew by series. --Maitch 17:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, then what category should we put crew in if that category is deleted? -- Scorpion 17:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing the point. These people don't want any categories for TV crews. --Maitch 17:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, but the Simpsons crew should be under some sort of Simpsons related category, considering that 95% of the writers and directors with pages have them almost solely because of their involvement with the show. -- Scorpion 17:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to the people who wants it deleted. They prefer lists. --Maitch 20:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i noticed on the "things you can do" section, the main simpsons article needs copyediting. i'd be more than happy to do it, but before i get started, i want to know what exactly needs to be changed and why it's up for copyediting, despite having FA status. please respond. in the meanwhile, i'll print it out and start correcting on paper. --ThrowingStick/Talk 19:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think this is only on the to do list, because it hasn't been removed. I think the prose is okay, although I won't rule out any mistakes. --Maitch 20:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spellling and grammar? I'll get that. --ThrowingStick/Talk 00:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few episodes that violate the naming conventions at WP:NC-TV that say the articles should be the episode title by the showname when they conflict with something else, e.g. Rosebud (The Simpsons). However, these articles all have (The Simpsons episode) at the end, e.g. Rosebud (The Simpsons episode), while they should not have the word episode according to the guideline. I tried moving these pages to the proper name, but that is already being used as a redirect. There are eight pages like this, and I would like an admin to move them to the proper title. You can contact me if you want to know which ones they are. Thanks. bmitchelf•T•F 03:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was decided here that the pages should be moved to (The Simpsons episode). -- Scorpion 03:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why? bmitchelf•T•F 04:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why as well ? A disambiguator is NOT intended to be descriptive. The policy is to add the showname and only add additionally "episode" if the name of the episode is the name of a character or other "show"-element as well. I would very much advice you to read WP:TV-NC again and not go against formal guidelines because you think "it looks better". --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia_talk:WIkiproject_The_Simpsons/Archive2#Disambiguation_used_in_episode_articles for previous discussion. --Maitch 17:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that WP:TV-NC was made after this was decided. I personally don't care what the format is. --Maitch 18:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 11th November we moved all of those episodes to (The Simpsons episode). It's in a talk archive i think--Andy mci 19:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have organized our project page a bit and still think it could a lot less cluttered. While doing this I have thought about what we have managed to do and what remains to be done. All the articles are tagged now and assessments of the quality and importance have been done. Our most important article The Simpsons has been promoted to FA and the article Homer Simpson, which is of top importance, has been promoted to GA. We got five episode GA's, which is probably the best for any show on Wikipedia. So what needs to be done?

1. Move the quotes to WikiQuote as well as damage control for out-of-control episode articles.
2. Get every single of our core articles at least up to GA.
3. Organize character lists.

I think these are our main goals right now. Thoughts? --Maitch 14:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should see the Pokemon WikiProject, they have 3 FAs and 20 GAs. I almost wish we could just start over with most of the pages, because so many random users just keep adding random non-notable facts that most of the character and episode pages are just big messes. The goals seem pretty good, If I was smart, I would have removed every quotes section while I was adding the DVD commentary info to 200 episode pages a while back. I'll use AWB and remove as many as I can because I have VERY slow internet and AWB speeds things up considerably. -- Scorpion 19:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The graph says 2 FAs and 19 GAs, but anyway I get the point. I think we could get some ideas for turning our own character pages into FAs from the Pokemon project. Besides deleting the quotes we also need to setup a link to WikiQuote and a corresponding section to the episode. This is a lot of work. --Maitch 20:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They must have lost an FA... Anyway, I have removed eery quotes section I could find. Although, it is possible that I missed some. As for the PCP, most of their GAs are Pokemon articles, so I think they just picked a format and every article that gets changed to that format is nomed for GA, it's what we've been doing with the episode articles. -- Scorpion 20:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, if we wanted to, we could turn every episode released on DVDs into GAs - well, at least you and Gran could, I would still be stuck with my Cape Feare GAC :-) --Maitch 21:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, Homer's Enemy is now a GAC. Input on the article is welcome. And I've been trying to get Cape Feare reviewed. I've been reviewing several GACs myself, and I've always been leaving a message asking if people could return the favour and review the article, but so far there have been no takers. -- Scorpion 23:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Cape Feare has finally been promoted. Homer's Enemy needs an end spoiler tag and I'm a bit disappointed that there is not more material. The books Planet Simpson and Leaving Springfield had a chapter each on this episode. I think it could be one of those episodes that could be turned into a FA, but anyway I'm sure that it will pass GAC in its current state. --Maitch 14:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was originally quite longer, but it ended up sounding more like an analysis than anything. If anyone has anything to add, feel free to do so. -- Scorpion 16:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a new category for the Simpsons in which we would put all real life products in. Then we could put the albums, publications, and video games subcategories in it as well as the DVD articles. I am unsure of what to call it. "The Simpsons media" or "The Simpsons products" are the frontrunners. -- Scorpion 19:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons merchandise? maybe. If not then I think products is best. Gran2 21:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a collaboration of the week, likle other projects. The Pokemon project does that and they have dozens of GAs. Naturally, I think our first collaboration should be Bart Simpson. The article really needs some sources and some more back info on the character.

I personally will also be trying to get Deep Space Homer and Simpsons Roasting up to GA status. On a side note, perhaps we should a "what users are working on section" so that people will know and can help out if they wish. -- Scorpion 20:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, definitly a good idea, this should help us get a few more GAs at least. Gran2 21:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a collaboration would be great as I don't want to take on a big project like that alone. Bart Simpson is the obvious choice. I think the time limit should be greater than a week. --Maitch 20:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I changed my mind. I think the main family character pages needs a lot of work fast and the best way to do would be with a short collaboration. So I propose that we make next week Bart's week and then do Lisa the following week, followed by Marge and then Maggie. If the articles are not good enough we can go through the cycle once more until they all are GA. --Maitch 17:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with having favourite quotes in articles? Simply south 21:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because its against policy, they belong on wikiquote. Gran2 22:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been open for 4 months and 15 users have voted, so I figured now is as good a time as any to close it and tally the results. But, there really wasn't a clear consensus, only a handful of episodes received more than 1 vote. As a result I think we should do a second round where every episode that received a vote in the previous round is represented and we pick [b]five[/b] episodes as opposed to three. Then, the results won't end up being the same. The new voting thread can be found here. Hopefully, enough people will vote so that this round doesn't also take four months. -- Scorpion 07:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Bart Simpson to be the ACID collaboration because I figured that it certainly wouldn't hurt to get some outside help. It may take a while before it goes through though. -- Scorpion 19:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been fixing up the article and I nominated it for GA status, but the article could be a lot more than it is. So, if people know of any interviews or stuff that have good info for the page, please feel free to add it. -- Scorpion 00:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of the top of my head I remember them saying in the DVD commentary that they got a lot of letters, which applauded them for highlighting the issue of abandoned race dogs. This could go in the reception section, which is a bit thin. I can't remember much more material. Are we going for FA with this article? If so I could do some research, but I don't have all that much time to spare. --Maitch 17:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could, but I was thinking Homer's Enemy would also be a good one. -- Scorpion 18:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally am going to nominate Homer's Phobia, provding Cape Feare passes. And either this and/or Homer's Enemy would be good. Gran2 18:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homer's Phobia is probably the article most likely to become a FA. The reason I asked about Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire becoming was that it is an important episode, but we may not have enough material for it. --Maitch 18:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could eventually try for an FA for it as there are so many old interviews out there that we probably would be able to put something good together for the page. -- Scorpion 20:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's great that we're working so hard on the episode pages, but I think for the time being, we should start focusing on the family members. I recently did a mass cleaning of the Maggie Simpson page but it still has a long way to go. -- Scorpion 20:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are we going to collaborate on Bart Simpson next week? --Maitch 20:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually thinking that we should work on Marge, Lisa or Matt Groening. I submitted it to be the collaboartion on the week and I wanted to wait and see if that went anywhere before working on it. -- Scorpion 01:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently read this article and finds it pretty good. I think that if we spend just a little bit of time on it, it could become a GA. --Maitch 18:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'll see what I can do. -- Scorpion 20:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a page for the Ullman short "Good Night" because I figured that it is individually notable since it marks the Simpsons debut on network television. It needs work though. -- Scorpion 19:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really needed? All you did was copying information from The Simpsons shorts. I don't think it needs to be a separate article. --Maitch 19:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I copied info for the time being, but I'm going to work on it. I figured being the first appearance of the family is pretty notable. I wasn't sure about it either because 1) it opens the possibility that people will create pages for the other Ullman shorts and 2) a lot of the info would be copied. Give me a few days to work on it, then we'll see. BTW, check out this page, which was created so that Simpsons Roasting wouldn't have any red links (thats what the edit summary says). I've asked the creator to nom it for speedy. -- Scorpion 20:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A while back I worked on The Simpsons shorts. The goal was to bring to the standards of a featured list, but I got bored. Anyway, I don't believe there is anymore to say. --Maitch 20:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually looked at this page while it was being vandalized. refresh and something weird comes up. i reverted it all.--Andy mci 09:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]