From "Large Marge"

• Someone tells a story about how that plastic surgeon guy got his name.
• Nancy Cartwright: "That's gonna be on wikipedia tomorrow."
• Everyone laughs
• Al Jean: "By the way, don't believe everything you read on wikipedia. [others laugh] Well people take these commentaries and they go 'everything in it is a fact'. And, you know, it's not. We're just recalling these things from 10 years back and, you know, we have our own prejudices and memories."

This kind of thing has been mentioned in past commentaries. My favourite is when Matt Groening says that Elizabeth Taylor didn't really say F-you to the writers. Of course, Matt himself had said this numerous times over the years.

Anyway, Jean is right, people need to be a bit more careful when it comes to commentaries, especially when it comes to discerning what is and isn't a joke. I've seen a few articles in the past (can't remember which) where they cited things from the commentaries that I'm pretty sure were just said as jokes. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Al, such a joker. No wonder this show is still winning Emmys (or not) with a wit like you in charge... Gran² 14:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, and I'm sure I did that mistake with a few of my first articles. But it's nice to know that they've read some of our work. ;) Theleftorium ^(talk) 14:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I got out of that quote was that 1) they read our articles :-) 2) DVDs should be released faster so that they don't have to sit and recall something they did over ten years ago. --Maitch (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The third thing is that Al can't make up his mind. He complains that wikipedia is unreliable because vandals make up stuff. He complains that wikipedia is unreliable because people source statements to his comments. The show will never get better with Commander Cuckoo-Bananas in charge! -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't listen to Al. He is unreliable. He says so himself. ;) Maitch (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I occasionaly get in this argument with editors, and I suppose I should seek a new consensus.

This argument is regarding the project banner placed on talk pages ({{WikiProject The Simpsons}}) that denotes that a page is part of our project. The talk page of every Simpsons mainspace article includes one of those tags. However, some editors think non-mainspace pages (templates, categories, images, portals, books, etc.) should be tagged too.

There are a few edit-hungry editors out there who are not members of WP:DOH, but seem to think that they should be able to dictate our project scope. We, as a project, had previously decided to limit our scope to just main page articles, and not tag every simple non-mainspace tag. Some projects do do this, and that's fine. We don't. Personally, I don't see the point anyway.

It's one thing to add a tag to our portal, since it is a major part of the project. It's a completely different thing to tag a redirects, images, book pages, minor categories and minor portal pages. These things do not require regular mantainance, so there's really no point in including them in our project.

What do some others think? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. Can someone give me a good reason to tag project pages, books, categories, etc? Because I can't think of one. Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I've got no objections either way but I wouldn't myself go to all that trouble. :P — Cirt (talk) 05:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering if anyone could help me turn Greg Daniels's article into a Good article NoD'ohnuts (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'd want to talk to Gra2, he's the best at working on articles about the writers. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks NoD'ohnuts (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts[reply]

You know the drill. Here are our charts from December 31 of previous years.

This is 2006. For those curious, the 2 Featured quality articles we had at the end of 2006 were The Simpsons and List of The Simpsons episodes, while the GA was Homer Simpson.

The Simpsons articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Class
	FA	2					2
	A		1				1
	GA	1					1
	B	6	26	15	8		55
	Start	2	28	415	64	27	536
	Stub		5	22	84	53	164
	Unassessed
	Total	11	60	452	156	80	759

This is what it looked like on December 31, 2007:

For those curious, these are the GAs & featured content we had at the end of 2007.

The Simpsons articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Quality
	FA	2	9	7	1		19
	A	1	1	1			3
	GA	2	6	59			67
	B	4	17	9	4		34
	Start	1	32	385	69	3	490
	Stub		1	23	108	19	151
	Assessed	10	66	484	182	22	764
	Total	10	66	484	182	22	764

And this is what it looked like on December 31, 2008:

The Simpsons articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Quality
	FA	4	1	10			15
	FL	1	11	1	1		14
	A		2	3			5
	GA	4	8	121	3		136
	B		15	8	5		28
	C		7	10	2		19
	Start		19	319	59	2	399
	Stub		1	25	119	22	167
	List		1	1	2		4
	Assessed	9	65	498	191	24	787
	Total	9	65	498	191	24	787

and this is from December 31, 2009:

The Simpsons articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Quality
	FA	4	3	13	1		21
	FL	1	12	1	1		15
	A		1	3			4
	GA	4	13	195	7		219
	B	1	14	13	6		34
	C		4	28	5		37
	Start		12	243	60	2	317
	Stub		1	21	120	18	160
	List		4	1	2		7
	Assessed	10	64	518	202	20	814
	Total	10	64	518	202	20	814

December 31, 2010:

And, drum roll please... December 31, 2011!

Here are our gains from the past six years.

The Simpsons articles		Year
		2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
Quality
	FA	2	9 (+7)	15 (+6)	21 (+6)	21 (-)	22 (+1)
	FL	1	10 (+9)	14 (+4)	15 (+1)	15 (-)	17 (+2)
	A	1	3 (+2)	5 (+2)	4 (-1)	4 (-)	0 (-4)
	GA	1	67 (+66)	136 (+70)	219 (+83)	239 (+20)	315 (+76)
	B	55	34 (-21)	28 (-6)	34 (+6)	59 (+25)	69 (+10)
	C	-	-	19	37 (+18)	56 (+19)	92 (+36)
	Start	536	490 (-46)	399 (-91)	317 (-82)	289 (-28)	205 (-84)
	Stub	164	151 (-13)	167 (+16)	160 (-7)	138 (-22)	96 (-42)
	List	0	0	4 (+4)	7 (+3)	9 (+2)	12 (+3)
	Total	759	764 (+5)	787 (+23)	814 (+27)	830 (+16)	828 (-2)

It was another good year for WP:DOH, although our overall article count actually went down... I'm not sure why, but it could be because we merged a bunch of character pages. Still, we gained an FA, 2 FLs and 76 GAs. We also eliminated 42 stubs. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We also removed the foreign voice actors from the project so that should explain why the article count has dropped. Looks like it's been a pretty good year! Nice work everyone! Theleftorium ^(talk) 20:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, we also had the second best year in terms of GAs (after 2009), which is great. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great work all! Let's keep it going for 2012! BTW, what was last years FA? CTJF83 21:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Must have been Stark Raving Dad. Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, ok, thanks, CTJF83 21:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A very good year all around, well done everybody. Still not entirely sure why David Mirkin failed. Ah well. Do we have any targets for this year? Gran² 22:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Season 13 should be complete soon (Blame It on Lisa just needs to be passed), and all the season 23 episodes that have aired so far are GAs so that season has a chance at becoming a GT as well. Other than that I don't know. Theleftorium ^(talk) 22:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think one goal could be to improve the remaining major characters whose articles aren't yet at GA. The big ones are Mr. Burns, Moe, Grampa and Apu. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can assist on those, least copy editing...plus I'm gonna get Three Gays of the Condo to GA CTJF83 06:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A very good year indeed. Nice work everyone! The assessment table is looking really good now. It won't be long before half of our articles are either featured or good. One of my goals for 2012 is to work on the links on the main template {{The Simpsons}}. It is more difficult, but more readers read those articles than the episode articles. --Maitch (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, all 'round. ;) — Cirt (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 5#Template:The Simpsons episode count. Dough4872 00:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, should the pages A Star Is Burns, A Star Is Born Again, and Today I Am a Clown capitalize "is" and "am"? |Randomno| WP 19:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, bud. That is the exact way n which IMDB and other sites (sites that are refer ed to) write the names of the episodes. So, let it be that way.Aditya San. (talk) 06:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, those aren't the best sources, can we get better reliable secondary sources for those spellings? Or better yet, the official websites of the production groups involved? — Cirt (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is something wrong when it comes to the question of which is the least viewed episode of The Simpsons series. The page on Four Great Women and a Manicure says that the it is the second least viewed episode of the series, with the first being Million Dollar Maybe. But the page of Million Dollar Maybe says that the least viewed episode is actually The Great Simpsina. Why is there this contradiction? Please resolve it! Aditya San. (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably because nobody updated the page for Four...Whatever, after it got pushed down to third worst. Gran² 15:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 28, 2012

FYI, I don't really maintain this article anymore so it'd be appreciated if folks from this project could keep an eye on it for vandalism, etc. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • No problem! Gran² 08:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will do! :) Theleftorium ^(talk) 15:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This wikiproject may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snowball (The Simpsons). Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated List of The Simpsons episodes for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBrandley (talk • contribs) 16:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a first stab at an episode template with {{The Simpsons episodes}}. The alternate format that I contemplated is like the one I used for {{Mad Men episodes}}, which is generally best for series that have some seasons where most of the articles are not created. Because there are so many episodes/seasons for The Simpsons, we might want to go with the latter format which just displays one season of episodes, but I am giving the current format its chance. I will await feedback before deploying or changing to the single-season episode display format.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]