See the first archive of this page

Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in offline releases of Wikipedia based on their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 1.0 (not yet open) and later versions. Hopefully it will also help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to your Arts WikiProject article table any articles of quality articles|high quality]]. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 06:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that these are our key articles:

• The Simpsons
• Homer Simpson
• Marge Simpson
• Bart Simpson
• Lisa Simpson
• List of The Simpsons episodes

--Maitch 11:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good to me... the only ones I might add to this are D'oh (simply due to it's real world usage, and the fact that it is included in other printed dictionaries), and maybe the List of characters from The Simpsons depending on if we have enough time to clean it up... it would be nice to have a bot generate a worklist, and see if it's any different than our own current project list... - Adolphus79 13:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't include the List of characters from The Simpsons, because I'm still not sure what to with it. Anyway, if we use the new project banner, then we can get them to use the bot. --Maitch 17:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, a useful list. I see you are considering the bot, that's great! You just need create the relevant categories and I think you're ready to go. If you need any help, please contact us. Thanks, Walkerma 06:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great- I've been away for 2 days, and now you have the bot working nicely for you. Let us know if you have any problems, Walkerma 02:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a banner for this project to be placed on the talk pages. Actually, I just stole it and changed the words to The Simpsons instead of gaming. I would like you all to comment on it before it is put to use. The template is called Template:SimpsonWikiProject and an example of use can be seen on Talk:Jimbo Jones. I had trouble finding a good image for it, because we are not allowed to have fair use images in templates. --Maitch 13:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sweet! love it... I was just thinking about writing myself a new welcome template that had project spam in it for the new editors that are contributing to the Simpsons articles... - Adolphus79 13:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So can I start tagging all our Simpsons articles with that now? - Adolphus79 23:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just created the missing categories, so we are good to go. It would be nice if you would also define the class and importance. I added some instructions on Template:SimpsonWikiProject. --Maitch 10:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I looked at it from the other point of view... tag them all & sort them out later... besides, who am I to decide importance level? I'll just tag all the Simpsons talk pages right now, and we can figure out each of their importance when we can see what all we're dealing with... - Adolphus79 11:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess you can do it in whatever order you want to. --Maitch 11:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, do templates and images get the banner also? or just the articles and lists? before I go tagging everything that has anything to do with the Simpsons... - Adolphus79 11:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should start with the articles and lists. Right now images and template doesn't fit in the categories and it might require some additional coding. It would also take quite a while to tag all of our 500 articles (my guess). --Maitch 12:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hehe, ok... well I started with the character pages & lists, as that's what I have saved on my watchlist... I'll keep an eye out for character's whos talk pages are not tagged... should someone go thru and tag the episode articles? - Adolphus79 16:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

ok, first, I'm adding {{talkheader}} with it, for ease of use... secondly, is the Simspons banner doing weird stuff with the edit summary field and submit buttons, or is that just on my end? - Adolphus79 16:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

All episodes done... - Adolphus79 01:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crew members and all the articles in the subcategories are done. --Maitch 21:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok... I think I just got every article in Category:The Simpsons... just bumped my watchlist from 100 to 700 in the process... LOL - Adolphus79 02:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All epsodes have been tagged Mid importance... - Adolphus79 10:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

I decided to sit down and start sorting all of them articles... and was wondering, what are we using for importance ratings?

Here's what I think...

• Top - The Simpsons, articles linked from there, Matt, the Simpson nuclear family, The Movie, etc.
• High - primary character lists, extended Simpsons/Bouviors, a few of the more important episodes, Tracey & Dan, etc.
• Mid - all other episodes, secondary character articles, other cast articles, video games, comics, etc.
• Low - um... everything else? (minor character articles, the off lists, chalkboard & couch gag, etc.)

I went through, and tagged what I thought were the Top importance articles... basically the Simpson nuclear family, and Matt's article... and a couple others that I thought were our 'front' pages... I am going to go thru and blanket tag all the episodes Mid, I suppose we could take a vote to get like our top 3 episodes, and tag them High... - Adolphus79 22:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Episode voting here

First question - what is the official spelling of Krusty the C/Klown? There are numerous examples of both all around wikipedia, and around the internet (I just changed one Clown in the main article to Klown for consistancy with the rest of the article). Snpp.com has transcripts and other materials which use both spellings. It appears that in the Ulman shorts it was Clown, and they changed it to Klown, but I'm not sure if they have been consistant on that...

I believe his stage name is "Krusty the Klown"... I could be wrong though, I am only basing that on the episodes that I can remember off the top of my head right now (one having KKK (Krusty's Comeback Special)), and the regualr usage of the K in everything he did... you may be right though, and the writers themselves may not use K or C consistantly...

Secondly, I think that perhaps the recurring jokes section/article might a bit undefined in terms of what that means. Is Homer strangling Bart a recurring joke? It's a recurring event, but is it a joke? What about the catch phrases... are they recurring jokes? the article on catch phrases has been redirected to wikiquote, but perhaps the info in recurring jokes could be moved to catch phrases with a wikiquote link in that article... TheHYPO 19:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think in the context of this show, any recurring event could be considered a gag or a joke... pretty much the whole show is a joke to begin with, so anyting recurring would be a recurring joke... - Adolphus79 20:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps; but in that ideology, the list of that article could be so insanely huge, it would be less than funny. Bart insults Skinner, Skinner's incompetance annoys Chalmers, Ned annoys Lovejoy, Homer borrows stuff from Ned and doesn't return it, Ned never minds if people trample all over him, Ned's kids enjoy it when something bad happens... I think there's a difference between:

• a running GAG (Moe's phone calls, couch gag, chalkboard gag, itchy and Scratchy Cartoons, Sign/Freeze Frame gags - in which virtually the same occurance happens with a slightly different wording or motif)
• a running THEME of joke (eg: Homer borrows soemthing from Ned and doesn't return it - while this happens a lot, sometimes the show shows him borrowing an item, sometimes Ned asks for it back, sometimes there is just a 'Ned' tag on an item Homer is using, or Homer's incompetence at his job - various examples from the Frank Grimes episode, the episode where he gets a Duck or a Brick to cover for him, the meltdown eeny-meeny episode...)
• a running CATCHPHRASE (mmmm... [x], Excellent, D'oh, Ay Carumba, etc.)... catchphrases could also very easily be listed under the character that typically utters them rather than in the recurring joke section, and it would be more appropriate (and the catchphrases probably ARE listed there for most characters - could have a 'catchphrase' heading as standard for a character article if a character has one). It would be the best place for extended discussion about catchphrases - in the character's own article.
• And there are probably other running SOMETHINGs. most of the running THEME jokes are character traits that could probably also fit into character articles in a 'running jokes' heading. (EG: under Homer, a running joke could be the aforementioned bad work habits, borrowing from flanders, etc.)

I just think that 17 seasons of running jokes is a very difficult article to a) write b) organize and c) maintain with some shread of encyclopedic thoroughness. TheHYPO 21:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome idea... maybe make each of those into a list or something? I know that would help cleanup List of neologisms on The Simpsons a bunch, too... something like

• Recurring character catchphrases from The Simpsons
• Running gags on The Simpsons
• Recurring plot themes on The Simpsons

feel free to edit those page titles if an article already exists... - Adolphus79 23:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I basically created the page, because I didn't want all that stuff in the main article. I know it is hard to define what should be there. A long time ago I had discussion about the television show Friends. In that article they claimed that changing hairstyles was a running gag. People must have a weird sense of humour. They eventually made the page Running gags in Friends, which at least is a bit structured. I don't think it is such a good idea to split it into more articles. Maybe we could rename the title to something more fitting and then structure it after the TheHYPO's suggestion.

On www.thesimpsons.com they spell Krusty as "Krusty the Clown". --Maitch 12:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is all belongs under one umbrella 'recurring things' heading, but the problem with a 17 (going on 19) season show is that there are about 4500 of such things. There are probably well over a hundred 'catch phrases' alone that have been repeated in more than 2 episodes. The article could get longer than The Simpsons article itself. It wasn't as bad in earlier seasons when there were a certain quantity of running gags, but with more recent seasons, they have tended to think any old thing is funny, and thus run such things to death dispite their not really being all that funny. Nevertheless, these many things count as recurring jokes. There are recurring jokes in which they cite the fact itself that it is a recurring joke 'Doesn't something like this happen every week around here?' or something of the like.

Re: Krusty - I believe that due to things like episodes titled Krusty Gets Kancelled, or Krusty's Komedy Klassic, people think it's also Krusty the Klown. I also see on snpp, that TV guide's synopsis for the former episode does use the Klown spelling. Has Klown ever been seen onscreen as canon? It could be a mid-production discontinuity - otherwise, I would say that, if possible, the material on wiki should stick with Clown consistantly, since it's Fox's accepted spelling. Anyone have a set of DVDs handy? The written synopses on those would be pretty official from The Simpsons itself... TheHYPO 16:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's Krusty the Clown on both www.thesimpsons.com and in the DVD booklets. --Natalie 00:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In Insane Clown Poppy, Krusty signs books as K the C- Coasttocoast 03:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, is there a consensus as far as Clown or Klown? It's still very inconsistent within the episode capsules, etc. --Natalie 17:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few proposed improvements to Simpsons stuff that wonder if someone can manage to do with some automated method rather than manually.

• The list on couch gags and chalkboard gags should probably wiki-link the episode codes to the episodes' pages
• I guess it's in the template for episodes or something - in the sidebox for episodes, there exists a note about the couch and chalkboard gags, which link to The Simpsons couch gags and Bart chalkboard gags on The Simpsons respectively. Those are redirects to the actual articles: Couch gag and Chalkboard gag. If nothing else, the template should be adjusted for this; but ideally, all the old episode pages should be altered to the correct links - is there any automation that can do this?

TheHYPO 05:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes, but it has to be done manually.

2. I've fixed this. It was quite simple, because I only had to edit the template.[1].

--Maitch 12:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many Simpsons-related articles are there on WikiPedia? If English WikiPedia has 1.1 million articles, I think there's about 175,000 Simpsons articles, and 250,000 Pokemon articles. But I'm just guessing. Does anyone have exact figures? -- Mikeblas 18:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a joke? you think that 10% of Wikipedia is Simpsons articles and 25% is pokemon? I really don't buy that estimation. maybe divide your estimate by a hundred? TheHYPO 18:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I'm just guessing. I'm probably too big, but even after your adjustment 1,750 seems like a lot of articles on a cartoon show. -- Mikeblas 18:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hehe... that's part of the reason I'm tagging them all with the wikiproject banner... just to get a count... we have 378 episodes articles, and well over 100 character articles, plus lists, plus cast member articles, plus everything else (neologisms, products, locations, etc.)... I'm gonna say we end up with a good 700, if not 1000... - Adolphus79 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! I look forward to seeing what you come up with. -- Mikeblas 18:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are 709 articles in the categories, but some of them are redirects. --Maitch 19:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if I could be a participant. I have done a lot of work on many different Simpsons articles. I am the main maintainer of the List of guest stars on The Simpsons and I am the one who completely revamped. As well, I have added to various different episodes. I apologize if this does not belong here, but I did not know where else to put it. ~Scorpion0422

certainly, there are no requirements for membership other than adding your name to the list... welcome aboard... have fun, and happy editing... - Adolphus79 22:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I sign up?- JustPhil 00:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

read the line above your question... ;) - Adolphus79 00:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the articles section has this text: This is a list of our highest importance articles:. Isn't the list of important Simpsons articles already categorized at Category:The Simpsons articles by importance? Or is that category (and the templates it uses) something that has become vestigal and should be deleted? -- Mikeblas 21:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added that just until we can get everything sorted out... we just now started the project of categorizing them by class and importance... the category is listed above, I just wanted to add a note under the 'articles' saying that we've got 750 articles that we're just now getting under control... sorry for any confusion... feel free to change the wording if you see fit... - Adolphus79 22:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a criteria for quotes in an episode article? I ask because in the article for Two Dozen and One Greyhounds, there's a quote

Homer: Marge, you know that batting this lightbulb is the only thing that cheers me up after giving away those million-dollar greyhounds.

(it hits him in the head and breaks. the room goes dark)

Homer: D'oh! AAH! (thud)

Which is neither amusing, memorable, or particularly quotable... It lacks much of its context without seeing the scene, and 'D'oh! AAH! (thud)' is barely even a quote. I'm guessing similar quotes exist in all sorts of episode articles? TheHYPO 05:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

quotes should be listed on WikiQuote, not Wikipedia... at least I think that's the consensus we came up with... - Adolphus79 05:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK - so what should be done about articles with quotes in them? TheHYPO 05:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any consensus on how many quotes, which ones, etc. in each episode capsule? Some of the episode capsules are coming close to quoting half the show... --Natalie 19:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best number would be "zero". Like someone mentioned above, quotations belong in Wikiquote, not here. A lot of Simpsons articles have big pointless lists of random quotes; I'm probably going to go through the articles and remove them, per WP:NOT. Cheers --DarthBinky 23:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should list only the best quotes. Maybe 5 (possibly 10, if they're short enough) per capsule. But, it is ridiculous how many there are in the newer seasons. I recently edited the one for Wettest Stories Ever and I swear that the entire episode must have been quoted there. -- Scorpion0422 23:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But then which one is the best? Who decides? What rationale do we use? --DarthBinky 00:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's just quotes. It really doesn't matter. If you really want to remove them all, then be my guest. But you should leave a few for each episode.

Ugh. I went to start on this little project and, well, pretty much all of the episode articles need some major work. They all have the big random quotes lists, random other lists (like "Goofs"), and, most serious of all, are just big plot summaries- which are pretty much all no-no's, according to WP:NOT. I just don't have the desire to do all of that work. --DarthBinky 20:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A while back a bunch of us standardized all the capsules, so don't touch the goofs. The "random" other lists are: Trivia and Cultural References (and if need be, a special episode-specific section). And, the early seasons have short quote lists. Most of the big quote lists are from 14+. It's the same with the summaries. The later seasons are the worst offenders, so the task isn't as bad as it sounds. -- Scorpion0422 20:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even look at the newer seasons at that point- I started with Season 1 and it was bad. The point is that the policy is that these shouldn't be plot summaries, yet all of them are. The cultural references parts are about the only things that are there that actually should be there. --DarthBinky 21:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've went through some of the episode articles, and removed some quotes. I can accept a short list of quotes, but not a long one. Each Simpsons episode is 20 something minutes, a long list of quotes seems like it's almost a script of the episode. RobJ1981 00:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Re:Vandalism... it seems that once every other day someone vandalizes the main article by deleting, adding their name, or other things. Is there any potential to set it up so that only registered users (with usernames that can be banned for vandalizing, not anon editors) can edit the article? I know there are articles that are closed to certain people, but I'm not sure if there's a general 'no anon' category. I also don't know the application process for it. If anyone does, I think that article might qualify... TheHYPO 05:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although the vandalism is very annoying I don't think that the article is vandalised enough for the semi-protection policy. It is only articles like George W. Bush that gets to be permanently semi-protected. --Maitch 15:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were eight seperate anonymous vandalism posts today (on the 22nd) from four seperate IPs. This is fairly typical of the The Simpsons article. I would argue that if there have to be more than 2 revisions a day, on average for vandalism, that is unnecessary, and grounds for protection. TheHYPO 22:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously a well-discussed subject in wikiSimpsonism, but the List of neologisms on The Simpsons article needs some sort of decisionism. Either it needs to be renamed away from Neologisms (dispite the intro to the article implying 'this is a list of words, not really neologisms', that doesn't really excuse an article that ignores its title). The best examples of actual neologisms in the show include D'oh - something the show invented that basically has a meaning and is now commonly recognized in our world (though one could argue that it's not a 'word', but its' in the dictionary, so I think it qualifies). Other very good examples are Cromulent and embiggen. Actual words, used in the show as actual words, with actual meanings that are used several times by several people (even in only one episode). this is really the only type of thing that qualifies. Then you have a whole mess of one-uses, complete inventions, not-even phrases, misspeaks and and other things - some of which don't even seem like they bear mentioning in any article.

• America's Wang - it's not a word for Florida, it's a description of Florida
• Brain Medicine - it's not a word for anything - it's not even a specific product. If I need something to fix by blindness - that would be 'eye medicine'. Nothing is invented here...
• Can't sleep, clown will eat me - is a quote... not a neologism. None of the words is invented by The Simpsons, even if it's a phrase in pop culture now - if it goes anywhere, it belongs in an article perhaps titled quotes/phrases popularized by the Simpsons or something, along with, perhaps, Ahoy-Hoy - another phrase popularized, but not invented by the Simpsons.
• Champagneola - that's not a new word - that's just embelishing an existing word. If this counds, Everything Flanders says counts.
• Crapulence - as the article says, it's already a real english word.
• Donder-Blitzen - an invented type of Sausage. It's not a new word for something, it's a parody name of something.
• Encyclopedia Self-Destructica - Again, a parody proper name. Nothing to do with neologism.
• Freezer Geezer - A description of a fictional character in a certain situation - not a neologism... etc.

I have to say, that besides Can't sleep, Clown'll Eat Me, none of the above-mentioned terms even bears mentioning anywhere other than perhaps a wikiquote for the appropriate episodes. There are dozens and dozens more words like this on the list. Am I wrong? TheHYPO 06:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if you look at the talk page, I've just started working on it... look at the history, I've just been going thru and deleting one or 2 at a time for the last couple days... the talk page has a pretty good discussion regarding what should be included... I think the ones you listed could be included, compared to some of the entries on there now... if we get rid of the crap, then maybe we can be a little more flexible on the more creative semi-neologisms... - Adolphus79 06:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at the page was pissing me off. So I got a little 'snippy'. I noticed you were editing as I was tonight. this is a link to the differences between the page before tonight and after both of our work. I think it's been significantly cleaned. I too did one at a time with explaination until the last edit, when I started going through cleaning up double-spaces, and decided to start taking out terms at the same time. So there's a number of unlisted changes on the last edit. If you have any dispute on it, by all means, bring it up in the talk page there, here or my own personal one... I pretty much dumped any invented unrealistic product or disease (particularly those that have no definition like lumber lung), I want to get rid of Burns' Grichy words (capdabblers al the other two) but it kind of is a neologism - but since they have no definition, I don't think they qualify. There's still some things I'm debating on... TheHYPO 07:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order to resolve the long standing debate over fair use of screenshots on List of Lost episodes, I am now trying to resolve the issue under the belief that the issue is an opinionated matter and not a matter of policy. Talk:List of Lost episodes#Fair use criteria number 8. I ask that people share their comments, but please try to keep the conversation in this section focused.

One thing that works against us is that the conversation tries to defend too many points at once. Try not to respond to comments about other aspects of the debate, and just take this one step at a time. Basically, respond if you think this is an opinionated matter regarding policy point 8 of WP:FUC or not.

I believe if we can break through on the issue of point 8, the rest will fall into place. -- Ned Scott 08:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took it upon myself (if you hate me, revert me) to merge snuh with the article it originally sourced from; I belive this means that it's [page] should be de-bannered - feel free to do so, cause I wasn't 100% sure. TheHYPO 05:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simpsons Jeopardy! seems to be uncategorized and unlisted in this project. Someone who knows how to take care of that should take a look :) TheHYPO 20:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Maitch 20:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just revamped the List of awards won by The Simpsons and added MOST of the major awards (I'm yet to do the Annie Awards and some others). But, I was wondering where we draw the line with awards. Do we add EVERY award listed on SNPP and IMDB, or do we just put the major awards? As well, take a look at the format I used for some of the awards. I used tables for the emmys because they have won so many and it's better organized. I decided not to use tables for the others because they haven't won/been nominated for enough of them. And if anybody has any trivia to add, feel free to do so. ~Scorpion0422

I have noticed that the entries for individual episodes are really inconsistent - some state how many times the episode has been shown in the US, sometimes cultural references is before trivia and sometimes after, cultural references is sometimes just called references (which is confusing). I would be willing to edit these all (slowly) to a consistent format, but I'd like some consensus on what that format should be. --Natalie 00:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've started working on consistency. Here's the basic format I've been using (In order of where it would be on the page):

• • Synopsis
  • Trivia
  • Cultural References
  • Anything episode specific
  • Awards (If applicable)
  • Goofs
  • Quotes
  • Airdates

I've reworked most of the Season 17 and Season 16 capsules. If anyone would like to help, then by all means please do because it's a HUGE job. ~Scorpion0422

I'm still not entirely sure what the official line is with the airdates. Do we list airdates outside the US? Do we give second, third, fourth airdates? I would suggest the answers would be 'Yes, but only in English-speaking countries' and 'No' (Some old episodes have been shown hundreds and hundreds of times, only the first airdate seems useful) but I'd still like to know what the policy is. I've got a list of UK Simpsons airdates for every episode from mid 1995 onward, and quite a few before that too. BillyH 18:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is to list one date: The date that the episode aired for the first time on Fox. That is the official first-run network and the official first-running of the episode. I know that second runs in 1989 were more important since there was no syndication of the episodes, but since it's 2005, do you think anyone coming to wikipedia is checking on second air dates? I think the first original airdate (I could be wrong, but don't they give the "official" airdate on DVD commentaries? I know DXCohen does on Futurama ones. I have never checked, but I assume those dates to be the firstrun Fox dates. TheHYPO 19:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be fine. I'd just like some consistency, as at the moment there doesn't seem to be any...some articles have international airdates, some don't. BillyH 00:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started working on a style a few months ago (see Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Style guide), but gave up due to being alone with it and instead focussed on the much other work there was to do. I would appreciate if we could collaborate on finishing the style guide. I personally prefer to only show the original air date. --Maitch 10:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with just listing the first airdate, at least in the US. As far as international dates go, I don't care either way. I'll start working on some of the older episode capsules. --Natalie 17:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After several days, I have made it through all of the episode capsules. I have to go back and check about things that are episode specific, but the synopses, trivia, cultural references, awards, goofs, and quotes are in the right order and have the right names. And they all have a table of contents. Now, for my next project (drum roll)...

Also, a few episode capsules have a slightly different format for the cultural references. Most of them have a * and then a sentence or two explaining the references, but some have the things being referenced in bold followed by the reference. I don't care which one is used, but I'd like to go through and make them consistent. Thoughts? Natalie 23:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

As it turns out, every time we linked to the Michael Price article, it was not the WRITER Michael Price (Unless, of course, he's a billionaire). So, I made a (small)page for him here: Michael Price (Simpsons Writer). (It needs work expanding) If you encounter any unchanged Michael Price links, please change them. Scorpion0422 22:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This project might be a victim of its own success. Some of the articles are getting into very trivial information. Perhaps some of these pages, and some of the more trivial of the proposed new pages, should be moved over to WikiSimpsons? --M@rēino 17:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the episode capsules are lacking table of contents boxes. I thought those were added automatically, so I don't know how to manually add them. Anyone know how? --Natalie 17:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the following episodes are missing the boxes (that I know about): Lisa the Beauty Queen, Marge Gets a Job, Marge vs. the Monorail. --Natalie 17:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just check the script for other pages with tables, then copy and paste. The tables seem to hate me because whenever I add to one, it never shows. Oh, and thanks for helping with standardizing the capsules! -- Scorpion0422 20:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of my personal project of the moment, so if you have suggestions, just post them here or my talk page. I think consistency reflects better on Wikipedia as a whole, since print encyclopedias are generally very consistent with their format. --Natalie 21:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try inserting __TOC__ the place you want the TOC. --Maitch 20:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia places TOC boxes automatically on any article with a certain number of headings (3 I believe). There is a code that prevents TOC from showing and Maitch mentioned the code that auto-adds it. TheHYPO 22:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking through a list of the Writers and Directors and we have pages for MOST of the major ones (I recently created pages for Michael Price, Michael Carrington and Jeff Westbrook) but I was wondering if we should make ones for the minor writers and directors. I almost made a page for Alan Grazier, but I looked him up on IMDB and his only credits are 2 episodes of The Simpsons. So, should we make pages for ALL writers and directors or just the important ones? -- Scorpion0422 20:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should only create articles if we got something to tell about that person. --Maitch 20:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if the article is only going to say that such and such wrote one episode of the Simpsons, it's probably unnecessary. --Natalie 00:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a template for Simpsons episode capsules? If not, would someone be willing to make one? Since the show has been renewed for the 19th (or 20th?) season, we're probably going to need it. --Natalie 03:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the capsule format? See above. -- Scorpion0422 19:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking for along the lines of a template for episode capsules in general, that would have the headings and such already there. I've seen some episode capsules of other shows that have empty categories. That lead me to think maybe there was a template or some such thing that the creator was using. --Natalie 03:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the infobox for "My Big Fat Geek Wedding" there's a list of the episodes in season 1, even though this episode is in season 15. I looked at other season 15 episode capsules, and they do not have this problem. I looked at the template in the edit box and it looks fine, so I'm stumped. So if you know why this is happening, please fix it when you have a minute. Natalie 22:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be fixed [2] --Mikli 11:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any chance to create the two following lists:

• List of references to Germany made by The Simpsons
• List of references to the internet on The Simpsons

--Mikli 11:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at the list of Cars article mentioned above and I have to say, I think this is going wikioverboard. This isn't a Simpwiki - and someone definately should consider a simpwiki for 17 years of content to catalogue, but Wikipedia is a general knowledge source, and I really don't think there is a massive public interest in a list of cars on the simpsons. Noone but the most specialized interest person is going to goto that list, and I think similar of the proposed lists above. I personally think it's too trivial a topic for wikipedia content. TheHYPO 11:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please create this over at http://simpsons.wikia.com, we should try to limit these kinds of list on Wikipedia. --Maitch 12:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recently made a page for Richard Sakai (which needs expanding) and I actually found an image of him. The page with the image has one of those annoying no right click thingies. Normally I could get the image no problem, but I have a new computer with none of the right programs. So, if anyone could please get this image and put it in the Richard Sakai page, it would be greatly appreciated.

here's the image: here

The image is copyrighted and therefore can not be used for the article. --Maitch 16:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if I should create a new Simpsons category, something along the lines of "Simpsons Guest Stars" or "Simpsons Voice Actors", or a better name. Basically, the catergory would include every guest star, regular cast member, irregular star, etc. So, is there a need for it? And what should it be called? -- Scorpion0422 01:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We already got Category:Simpsons cast members. --Maitch 12:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone moderating this list? I think it needs a criteria like the Neologism list has. IE: I think the list has two options - Either make it a complete bulleted list - no explainations. Just point form bullets in true list form. Or else, limit the article to recurring products or brands. If every throwaway product is going to get an entry on the list, the article is going to get massive and unbearable (basically, useless). TheHYPO 04:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a new user has been expanding it these last few days. Maybe it would be a good idea to discuss it with him. I think the best solution would be to only mention recurring products or brands. --Maitch 07:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped him a line and deleted a few items from the list - in particular, realworld items like "english muffins", generic products with a store name like "splitsville ice cream sundaes" (sundaes eaten at Splitsville ice cream), and a few other non-products. I still think that one-time references shouldn't be included but I'm not going to delete them straight up yet. TheHYPO 21:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can i join? I really like the simpsons,and I edit stuff a lot.

Hi! I would like to be a member of this WikiProject.

You are one already. Just put the Simpsons Wikiproject on your name and your AOK.

I don't know how to merge or redirect, so could someone do this for me? These need to be merged (or redirect the GBA page to the regular Road Rage page): The Simpsons Road Rage (GBA) and The Simpsons Road Rage. The GBA version is the SAME game: there is no need for a seperate page for it. The Simpsons games box will also needed to be updated: since it lists both Road Rage games. Why in the world was the same game allowed on the Simpsons games box in the first place?! Multiple versions of games don't get seperate pages, but somehow Road Rage got away with it for a while. RobJ1981 00:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do they really need pages of their own? If a page doesn't exist already: I think a page for one time characters should be made. I think it's just useless that one time (or even a few appearances) characters have pages, when they could easily be merged all into one page. Remember people: this isn't a Simpsons Wiki. Page after page of one time characters is fancruft to me. I'm a big Simpsons fan, but I know Wikipedia doesn't need an article for every character ever in the Simpsons. RobJ1981 20:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please post examples of such one-time characters having pages. I personally don't see any major reason for even a list of one-off characters. Besides the Simpsons universe and fandom, I don't think most of those characters have any significance to "real life" and would need a lot of convincing to see it other than fan info. TheHYPO 02:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some Mindy Simmons, The Mexican Fighting Tree, Frank Grimes and Xt'Tapalatakettle. I'm thinking of just redirecting all of those to: List of one-time characters from The Simpsons and making a short description (if they aren't listed already). With the two objects, it will just be a redirect obviously. RobJ1981 00:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I have no reason to think anyone would ever need to "look up" Mindy Simmons (nothing can't be derrived from the article on her episode. Any notes like "She appears in another episode dispite being fired" can be a trivia on the episode. Fighting Tree is pointless as a throwaway Joke. Grimes also is mainly as his own episode. There needn't be articles for them, nor even need there be a list. There would be thousands of one-time characters. A list is somewhat pointless and fancrufty imo. Oops, I forgot my other point. I don't think "The Head" belongs in the same category though. It isn't a character, it's an object, and it has somewhat come to be a staple on the show (for a good portion of its history it was seen every time there was a basement scene - which btw is a unique continuity aspect that is rare on the show. Most other items would simply never appear again. I think it's a valid mention somewhere. I don't think the article bears instant deletion to some list. TheHYPO 00:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not endorse these articles, I do think that people actually look them up. I mean, if people are creating these articles then at least the creator think that they are useful. I personally think that every one off character/object/misc. should be merged with the corresponding episode article. The important thing is that we don't just delete the articles, but that they are being redirected, so that there won't be another guy creating the same article. --Maitch 10:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone creates an article doesn't mean it's not pure "fancruft", as it were. On a Simpsons Wiki? Certainly applicable, but on wikipedia... Anyhoo, I think the list of one-shot characters that exists is itself pretty fancrufty and would be infinitiely long if someone actually went around and catalogued all characters who appear in one episode. TheHYPO 15:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misunderstood me. When I say "merged" I of course mean that the fan cruft should be deleted. Sometimes this would be to simply replace the whole article with a redirection. --Maitch 15:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a merge debate over Frank Grimes and it was decided that he was an important enough character. The Mexican Fighting Tree and the Olmec Head should be merged. And I Mindy Simmons should be merged. The list REALLY needs cleaning up though. In the secondary characters page, there are several one-timers (and vice versa). Same with the animals page. I think Santa's Little Helper and Snowball II are important enough to the show that they deserve their own page. (Heck, SLH has had more episodes about him than Maggie!) -- Scorpion0422 18:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.

The plugin has two main modes of operation:

• Tagging talk pages, great for high-speed tagging
• Assessments mode, for reviewing articles (pictured)

As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.

For more information see:

• About the plugin
• About support for "generic" WikiProject templates
• User guide
• About AWB (AutoWikiBrowser)

Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. --Kingboyk 14:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up you guys. I'm not usually a part of this project, but I noticed that some episodes have been extremely vandalized lately...by whats probably a bunch of disgruntled fans. They tend to be the least liked episodes. The Prinicpal and the Pauper for instance is actually gone! It was completely deleted!

Keep a look out for that. They may be episodes that suck by many opinions but thats bias that has no place on this website.--68.233.141.149 13:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not gone. You have just misspelled it. The correct link is The Principal and the Pauper. --Maitch 14:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I know, I haven't posted here in a while)Not exactly. Its really weird, but when I pulled up this page I got this.

http://img468.imageshack.us/img468/8677/patpkx7.jpg

I spelled it correctly as you can see, followed every link to it and even did a search and followed those links and I always got this. But then I logged in, and I got the page like normal. This never happened with any other episode and I even tried this on two separate computers and the same thing happened. If I checked edit this page I still saw all the scripting, its just the page itself wouldn't show until I logged in. What do you make of that? It looks like some kind of really bizzare scripting thing. Does that have to do with the so called delay in updating the database? Because I've never seen anything like that before. It was just this episode from what I could tell, all the others worked fine logged in or not. I even cleared the cookies and temp internet files on my computer and it still happened. It doesn't happen now whether I'm logged in or not but I'm genuinly curious as to what that was. --Kiyosuki 19:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed several episode pages have too much trivia and quotes. Some trivia is fine I suppose, but when it's huge... it's just out of hand. Either put the trivia in the article somehow (without a trivia section, or a similar section), or just delete the information. I'm a Simpsons fan as much as the next person, but pages don't need huge trivia lists for a 20-something minute episode. As for quotes: they shouldn't be long either. Just add them to WikiQuotes (if they are that important), then post the Wikiquotes tag on the episode article.RobJ1981 17:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the colors of the main page. Actually I don't like using colors at all,but if most people like them, at least we should use "Simpsons colors" and not randomly choosen colors.--201 19:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to more simpson-like colors. The Templates box was making the article too wide.

WikiProject The Simpsons

Shortcut	WP:SIMP WP:SIMPSON WP:SIMPSONS
Portal	The Simpsons
Wikimedia Commons	The Simpsosns
Parent project(s)	Television
Project banner template	{{SimpsonWikiProject}}
Userbox	{{User WikiProject The Simpsons}}

Does anyone think there should be a list of catchphrases of Simpsons character?
E.g. Bart: Eat my Shorts; Homer: D'oh!; Marge: Mmmmm; Burns: Excellent
Taipan198 13:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was. It was moved to Wikiquote where it belongs. --Maitch 13:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Trivia: way too much of this is going on in articles (Treehouse of Horror articles are good examples). Stop with the fancruft already, each Simpsons episode is 20 something minutes... there doesn't need to be half a page of trivia. Put the important things in the article, and leave out the little things. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan's guide to every little note.
• Quotes: way too long. Put quotes on WikiQuote, don't make long lists on episode pages.
• Cultural references: way too long as well.

I think people are being way too crufty when it comes to articles: fancruft, quotecruft, triviacruft, etc. It's fine to be a fan, but don't let your personal favorites influence what you post for the article. Episode articles don't need every little detail: post it on a Simpsons wiki or a fansite of some sort, not here. RobJ1981 20:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The trivia problem continues. Wikipedia isn't a guide to trivia. WP:TRIVIA and Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles clearly explain the role of trivia on Wikipedia. Hopefully the problem is fixed. I would think the Simpsons project would care about something like this. RobJ1981 01:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would be surprised how hard it is to fight trivia. There are only a few decent Simpson editors on Wikipedia and they are up against thousands of people adding trivia every single day. --Maitch 13:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a suggestion: How about instead of deleting entire sections or adding that tag, why don't you go through the Trivia yourselves. That Lobot guy obviously knows very little about The Simpsons. However, if you add the tags, I'll edit the trivia down to a "reasonable" amount. -- Scorpion0422 13:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to help edit the trivia down, but what would a reasonable amount be? Obviously the completely irrelevant stuff (i.e. "This episode has a minor similarity to the November 1976 issue of the National Lampoon" in Two Cars in Every Garage and Three Eyes on Every Fish) should go. I also think the goofs should go, unless they're major. Natalie 20:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SCTV's Angus Crock Vs Groundskeeper Willy. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2090-1835981,00.html

He's similar and his voice may be based on him, but Willy is not based on him. Listen to the DVD Commentary for Principal Charming. The commentators say that despite all the fan debate on who the character is based on, he was not originally written as being Scottish. He was just a generic angry janitor who was turned Scottish because of the voice Dan Castellaneta used. -- Scorpion0422 22:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
• User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
• User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
• User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 23:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I decided that Snowball II (and the other cats) are important enough to have their own page, so I created a new one called Snowball (The Simpsons) (for lack of a better title). All of the Snowball pages redirect there, so I don't think there will be too much confusion over the title. If anyone has a better name, feel free to change it. The Swedish Wiki calls the Snowball page "Snowball I-V", but I thought that was too confusing. I considered calling the page "The Simpsons Cats", but decided the current title is better.

Hi, i'm a member of Wikiproject the Simpsons, but i cant really do much. I cant really be bothered adopting articles and researching for stuff, and all i have done is minor edits to things that i see are wrong or could be slightly improved. can anyone tell me what i should do to help?--Don't click this. 14:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to bring to the memebers of this WikiProject attention some inconsistency I have found in relation of the disambiguation used in episode articles. Currently we have:

• Some Enchanted Evening (The Simpsons episode)
• Old Money (The Simpsons episode)
• The Front (The Simpsons episode)
• Rosebud (The Simpsons episode)
• Fear of Flying (The Simpsons episode)
• Radioactive Man (The Simpsons episode)
• King of the Hill (The Simpsons episode)
• Sleeping with the Enemy (The Simpsons episode)
• Fat Man and Little Boy (The Simpsons episode)

I feel that the correct to term to use is "The Simpsons episode" rather than just "The Simpsons" because "episode" specifies exactly what it is, rather than just saying it is somehow associated with The Simpsons. This with also bring it in line with other articles. For instance Basketball (The Office episode) and The End (The Beatles song). -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. Natalie 04:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we should mvoe all those--veon 08:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope that someone makes a bot that can fix redirects some day...--veon 09:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do i find a list of articles linking to something?--veon 10:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK it looks like we are in agreement, I will move those articles now. Veon, in relation to your query, on the left hand side of the page just under the search bar you will see the link "What links here". -- Ianblair23 (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the links to Some enchanted evening and old money, but the rest may take a long time.--Veon 17:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been dabbling for a while with List of songs featured in The Simpsons, and was wondering if it would be appropriate to start a list of movies references on The Simpsons. I thought, these are already on the episode pages, so could be copied to a single page.

But then I got to thinking - what's really 'encyclopedic' about doing that. What, in fact, is encyclopedic about List of songs featured in The Simpsons, it doesn't discuss the issue at all, it's just a list. And the same can be said of List of neologisms on The Simpsons about which a lot has been written.

Fancruft aside, do these list pages go towards helping the whole WikiProject become more encyclopedic and closer to 'Featured' status? Would anyone flipping through an encyclopedia find benefit from these lists?

I think the alternative is to merge them into individual episode articles and delete them as individual pages, and I expect there are other 'list' pages that would benefit from the same treatment (not, however, List of one-time characters from The Simpsons and similar, which are much better organised pages). I notice that the pages I'm suggesting ditching aren't included on the template {{Simpsons characters}} which says something about their status.

But this would be a big change, so I think needs some discussion and agreement. Other projects must have gone through the same phases? So what are your thoughts? --Mortice 16:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that these are useful articles on the simpsons, and should not be deleted.--Veon 16:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I find lists like that useful for finding specific facts or satisfying curiosity. George C 17:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists have a place on Wikipedia, but caution is important to make sure people don't go overboard. My understanding of the discussion about List of neologisms on The Simpsons is that the problem is not with the existence of the list, but rather with the definition of neologism and the fancrust-y entries on the list. I think lists are best if they function somewhat like an index or similar. I know categories can serve this function, but not every reader (especially newer readers) even know categories exist, much less how to use them. Natalie 19:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you're right about the neologism page issue, the problem there is that it's a receptical for whatever junk people throw into it (I've proposed a restructuring there as well). I guess the list of songs is just an index - it would be nice if we could just use categories and have done with it (guess the cagegories would be 'songs used on simpsons' and 'songs used in episode **' on the song page, then import the cats list into the episode page, if that can be done - only for songs with pages)... I might muse on an alternative approach that achieves a list page but by a more organsied mechanism...

Here's an update on my proposal, using categories to better manage the list of songs:

• To any song featured in an episode, we'd add it into a category relating to the episode - for instance, on the page for Rock the Casbah we would add the category[[Category:Songs on the Simpsons episode 'Natural Born Kissers']]
• To any song known to be on an episode but we're not sure which, we would add

[[Category:Songs on episodes of The Simpsons]] until that's corrected to the right episode

• All these categories [[Category:Songs on the Simpsons episode 'episodename']] would be added to the category [[Category:Songs on episodes of The Simpsons]]
• Each episode page would have added a line such as "For a list of songs, please see

[[:Category:Songs on the Simpsons episode 'Natural Born Kissers']]"

• The page List of songs featured in The Simpsons would be replaced by some introductory paragraphs and the line "For a list of songs, please see

[[:Category:Songs on episodes of The Simpsons]]". I suspect we'd have to keep the 'original songs' section and not sure about the 'parody songs' section

Pro's:

• When a new song is added, it will be added to the episode page and List of songs featured in The Simpsons automatically
• The list will get a consistent format, automatic alphabetic ordering etc

Con's:

• Not sure what we do about songs that have no page, although that's less than 10% of the ones listed on List of songs featured in The Simpsons
• It would reduce but not remove the list on List of songs featured in The Simpsons
• For non-wikipedia-regulars, the category page is a little less aesthetic than a customised list of pages
• Some of the songs on the page currently have comments such as who sings them, not sure we'd be able to retain those - could also consider a 'songs sung by bart' type category too, tho most of the songs listed are background

Is it worth the effort? --Mortice 23:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Simpson's Guide to Life

I expanded on the page. theres alot more info there now. i'm sure it could use some editting since i don't do too much editing on wikipedia. feel free to. i made a good base for further editing

Good job--Veon 17:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proposing changing the way we manage lists of songs in episodes. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Proposal for managing song lists on Simpons episodes which has a full explanation of the proposal. Please leave comments there --Mortice 22:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to decide shich character should get an article and who shouldn't. I have no problem with minor characters having articles, but if Lucius Sweet has his own, so should Dredrick Tatum. Here's how I see it:

Yes = Deserves own article, No = does not.

• Lucius Sweet - No (only made 1 minor appearance and a cameo)
• Duffman - Yes
• Tatum - Yes
• Artie Ziff - No
• Wiseguy - If Squeaky Voice Teen has his own, so should Wiseguy
• Superintendant Chalmers - Yes
• Roger Meyers Jr - Yes
• Roger Meyers Sr - No
• Mexican Fighting Tree - No
• Frank Grimes - Yes (extremely important character)
• Hank Scorpio - Yes ("" "")
• Aristotle Amadopolis - No
• Everyone in One-Timers - Perfect (the only character (apart from the ones mentioned above) who *may deserve their own article is Lindsey Naigle)
• Mindy Simmons - No
• Cecil Terwilliger - No
• Fat Tony - Yes
• Clancy Bouvier - No

Thats my opinion on some of the more debated people. Thoughts? Comments?

This seems good. I think the general rule should be that if you can't say more than a paragraph about the character, that info should go on List of characters from the Simpsons (which needs its own cleanup), not its own article. Natalie 15:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree, except the thing about that is that somne of the characters who made EXTREMELY brief appearances have several paragraphs in the one-timers section (Aunt Gladys). And, unless they are only mentioned, I think they either belong in one-timers or recurring. THe general list should just be a list, it shouldn't have stuff about some characters and nothing about others. -- Scorpion0422 15:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. Then again, the Aunt Gladys entry is basically a recap of the episode (and the last full paragraph is not about her at all). But you're right that the short descriptions should go in recurring or one-time. Natalie 15:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artie ziff should get a page because he's a recurring character who stars in every episode he appears basically. he plays the same role as sideshow bob basically, but hasn't appeared nearly as frequently. plus there's lots of info we've learned about him . Burnqq 03:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Branching off the above discussion, the list of characters from the Simpsons needs help. I agree with the above comment that the list should just be the name, and maybe a few-word description (i.e. Lenny: co-worker of Homer). Also, various people are listed repeatedly. I want to start cleaning up this list, but would like others opinions before I go on a mad deleting spree. Natalie 15:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, two "family members" from non-canon episodes (Treehouse of Horror) are listed in the family. This seems wrong to me. There should at least be something noted that these are non-canon, but I think they should just go to some other part of the list. Natalie 15:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, each character should have a short sentence about them, but some have a smnall paragraph. The list should just be a list with short descriptions. All descriptions should go in the one-timers or recurring pages. Asd for Hugo and the other family member, just add that they are non-canon. -- Scorpion0422 15:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

This image preference between offcial artworks and screencaptures. Ok so obviously you would say official artworks, like on Homer's page, when it great. But what I mean is on pages like Lionel Hutz, where the 'offical artwork' isn't that good and is inaccurate. So what do we do? A simple google search provides some other offcial looking artworks, and there are plenty of screencaps you can get yourself. So would that be better than what is there? Gran2 17:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]