This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
In one episode of the Simpsons, Brake My Wife, Please- Homer starts to sing about how he likes walking. Then he says "I can walk from Springfield to alaska"- where it shows a map of the united states with a star in the southern reigon of the country which homer walks from then up to alaska. It looks like, according to the map, that Springfield is in Southern Missouri (Which actually really does exist), Northern Arkansas, or possibly Oklahoma. Also by looking at the map, although unlikley, Sprinfield could be in Kentucky, Tenessee, or Alabama. However Sprinfield, Missouri does have some of the geographical features of the Sprinfield featured in the simpsons. One of that being low lying mountains- which is a prevalent feature of Sprinfield, Missouri. Also you see it having a small town feeling while having semi- high rising buildings. This also runs true with Springfield, Missouri. A problem with the location of Springfield, MO is that it is not by an ocean. However, it is right next to Tablerock Lake, a very large lake in Missouri- which could account for some of the episodes that show a body of water. However in one episode, Homer goes out on "international waters" which, of course, would have to be the in the sea.
Do Nuclear Power Stations have cooling towers? The 'Setting' section of the article claims they don't, but the image right at the top of the page on Nuclear Power clearly shows a steaming cooling tower.Smurrayinchester 18:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
One episode says that they are in kentucky. mrholybrain 12:33, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Is it really appropriate to have an entire section of this article dedicated to the future "flashforwards" as shown in a single episode. It adds nothing to the article except an episode synopisis for this one recent episode. I propose removing this section. Gblaz 19:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Is this really needed? It only clutters up the page and most of the information in it is already available in the concise introductory paragraph of the article. I'll remove it if nobody objects within the next 24 hours. --Kaizersoze 22:31, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Am I the only one that dislikes the way this page reads like a fan site? I'm not a Simpsons hater by any means, in fact I'm an original fan who was a 9-year old TV watcher when they started--but I really disagree with a lot of the glowing characterizations in here that I think are completely out of line with the tone of a professional encyclopedia article. To the extent Wiki is just a repository of fansite splurge I think it needs to be reigned in. 12:55 Shanghai Time 12/17/04
The Simpsons actually do not live in any state. That episode was out of the regular continuity, and in fact the voice over that said "Northern Kentucky" was changed to say "Southerm Missouri" in a rebroadcast of that episode. So I cut " , Kentucky (the identification of which was a long-running joke/mystery until they finally came out and identified the Simpsons as "this Northern Kentucky family" in the "Behind The Laughter" clip show), " from the article
Adam850
I think I have finally found something as to the controversial Scotchtoberfest. Frizzensparks.com has confirmed my beliefs as to its nature. After being invented by the Simpsons writers, some some Scots decided to make it a proper celibration of "all things Scottish" (see the link). It is now an event with ale-brewing and so on among a small number of Scots on "the third Friday of every October" (I think). Maybe we should add it to the article about its real-day values. There is a lot more info about the subject to be found by googling for "Scotchtoberfest" (a lot of them are personal homepages with photos etc of the small celibration).
If anyone wants to discuss it on my talk page or here I encourage them to do so. - Ludraman, 2145, 25-02-04
I was roaming through one of The Simpsons' executive producers, James L. Brooks' IMDB profile and notice that in one of his old shows, Room 222. There is a character named, "Principal Seymour Kaufman." Any relations to Principle Seymour Skinner? -- DraQue Star
Is it the longest running animated programme? how long before it becomes the longest running sitcom or tv show overall?
Concerning Mr. Burns: His mansion is located at the corner of Croesus and Mannon streets. Isn't that MaMMon? I don't want to change if I'm not sure. -- Zoe
I'm planning to promote all the Simpsons article from "subpages" to main articles, as I did with the Middle-earth articles. Any objections? Speak now, before I spill coffee on the nuclear reactor controls... Ed Poor
I object - I don't think they even deserve sub-pages, forget about main articles. Graft 08:23 Jul 25, 2002 (PDT)
This is more of a rant than an objection. If someone two hundred years from now were to judge society through Wikipedia, they would conclude that the most prominent cultural creations of the past 150 years were Tolkien, Heinlein, and the Simpsons. Dickens doesnt rank half as high as them in terms of what is written about him and his work, though he was more prolific and certainly more influential. Why are there more references to Homer Simpson than to Homer the Greek? (And I don't just mean dead white males either: Achebe, Joan Baez, etc. are all in pitiful states.) There is more about Bart Simpson than there is about most presidents. Is Wikipedia an account of the human experience or is it a survey of pop culture c. 2000 AD?
I will probably get flamed for this. I can deal with it. I guess it also means that there is a lot of work left for me to do.Danny
I hate to throw cold water on your proposed flame fest, but actually that was a keen observation. Pop culture does seem to dominate the Recent Changes this week. --Ed Poor
Couldn't these pages (characters in a tv show in general) be moved to a subsection of thier respective shows? For example, "The Simpsons/Marge Simpson"? This may be bad advise...I'm new and haven't got my bearings yet as far as article organization. Rlee0001 09:27 Jul 25, 2002 (PDT)
We used to have subpages (with the "/" character), but the latest thing is:
By the way, welcome to Wikipedia! --Ed Poor
I totally agree with Rlee. These new articles are getting ridiculous. Every frigging character on the Simpsons does not deserve an article!!! So far, Ed, you also asked if there were objections, and already got two. Danny
Good point, Danny. Perhaps we could consolidate 15 or 20 of the minor characters into a single article. A side-effect of promoting the sub-articles is that we can readily see how trivial some of them are. I'm going to stop promoting the various Simpsons/Tina Trivial articles for now. --Ed Poor
Jimbo Wales has already said in previous debates (not sure exactly where right now) that he would be quite happy to see articles for individual fictional characters or even articles for individual episodes (assuming they are long enough to warrant their own article)... --Rebroad 15:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm leaning more toward Ed here. The Wikipedia article namespace should be a single flat namespace, with no inherent "structure" implied by the names, so the slashes have to go. It is a matter of taste, though, whether to make many small articles or to collect several topics into one. Clearly, "Homer Simpson" is as important to American culture as Huck Finn or James Bond, and may have lots of references outside just the series, so he gets an article to himself (and probably Bart as well). But as for the collection of minor ones, I imagine a single "Characters from The Simpsons" article will do just fine; all the old slash articles can point to that one--there's no harm in having a specific title redirect to a more general article that includes its subject. --LDC
Unless otherwise directed, I'm going to continue as before, getting rid of the "slashed" subpages and promoting each article to, for example, Krusty the Clown and Lenny (The Simpsons). I'm primarily interested in moving away from the obsolete subpage system.
If anyone would like to consolidate some minor characters, especially those whose page consists of only, say, 3 lines or less -- please go ahead. I will adjust the REDIRECTs accordingly. --Ed Poor
Here is my take on what's wrong with it. I always pictured Wikipedia to be a vast project, a compendium of human knowledge and experience. It is not a paper encyclopedia so the amount of information it contains can, in theory, be limitless. In that sense, it is an opportunity to take full advantage of the Internet as a valuable source of information about just about everything, and each of us has the chance to make that happen. That being the case, I forgave Wikipedia when I found information lacking. It is a work in progress, and, as such, the gaps will be filled in over time. I still believe this, by the way.
The problem I think is that so much of the information being filled in is really trivial. In this case, it is the type of information that belongs on a fan page, rather than an encyclopedia. It is frustrating to me (and I assume to several others) to see so much energy expended on this kind of work, when so much else needs to be done. As an example, make a list of what you consider to be the twenty greatest books of all time. Now see how well they do in a Wikipedia search. Pick a few random presidents and do the same thing. Or figure out how much information we offer about countries that does not appear in the CIA World Factbook. What about the sciences, animals, etc.? Some of the articles are great, while are lucky if they have anything more than a little stub.
Don't get me wrong. I am not against contemporary cultural icons either. I first found Wikipedia in the course of a heated argument with a friend over the various properties of red and gold kryptonite. Still, I think that there are so many other cultural icons that are missing. With the Simpsons, all that is missing is the episode guide (and I am NOT saying that it should be added next). For example, a classic American icon is Hiawatha. There is no article about Longfellow here. So is Yogi Bear. Does Booboo merit a separate article? How about "picnic basket"?
Also there is the question of POV. Forget Dickens, Chaucer, or even Toni Morrison. A disinterested observer coming here for the first time would get the impression that the Simpsons is more important than Bugs Bunny, the Honeymooners, Your Show of Shows, etc. Is that accurate, or are all the Simpsons articles merely a reflection of fandom? Do Rachel, Chandler, and Ross each get their own page? How about Sam Malone, Woody, Carla, and Norm Peterson? As for Tolkien vs. Dickens, will every character in the Pickwick Papers get an article too? How about in Huck Finn?
Finally, something about cultural icons. It can certainly be argued that Homer and Bart have risen to the status of contemporary cultural icons. I am still forced to wonder whether anyone will remember them ten years after the show goes off the air. Can you name all the Ninja Turtles?
Raphael, obviously!! And the bad guy was called Shredder (they're the world's most fearsome fighting team... they're heroes, in a half shell, and they're green... when the evil Shredder attacks, those teenage guys don't cut him no slack!!) *continues humming* Yeah that's all I had to say, so? :p - 22:31, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
These are just my thoughts. Feel free to disagree. Danny
Just to add my $.02...
I dearly love the Simpsons, and think it's some of the best television in the short history of television. I certainly think it deserves prominent mention in Wikipedia, and I think Homer Simpson is clearly an important American icon.
I do not think Sideshow Bob is an important American icon. Let's not even mention the acne-scarred teenager.
Okay, Wikipedia isn't paper. But if that's the case, why bother making any recommendations on content? Why is there a guideline against making dictionary entries?
I think it's obvious that there are some things that are appropriate for an encyclopedia and some things that are not. We have the freedom to be freer with our entries than Britannica might be, but I still think we should recognize that, for example, an entry for every single town in the United States might be a tad much. I think, when we create articles, we should consider whether they are, in a sense, worthy of note. There's all sorts of useless knowledge that we could choose to record in the 'Pedia. But I think utility and interest are things we should think about. Ten years from now, when the Simpsons is consigned to reruns on TV Land, I don't think anyone will want to know who Dr. Marvin Monroe is. I think we should be more selective, then, about what goes into Wikipedia and a bit sharper about what are essentially fan pages taking over what should be a very fine encyclopedia. Graft 14:13 Aug 1, 2002 (PDT)
Cut from article:
Merchandise
Actors
Cameos
"...longest running television comedy." Saturday Night Live? substituted "sitcom". DJ Clayworth 17:55, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Did the British Prime Minister really have a cameo appearance in the Simpsons. Which episode, did he play himself? More info please. Kowloonese 19:50, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Are we sure that "The Simpsons" originally appeared Life in Hell? I was pretty sure that The Simpsons were only based on the character designs of the rabbits. (As the 138th episode extravagnza facetiously said: "an old drunk made humans out of his rabbit characters to pay off his gambling debts".) Someone should check up on it. UserGoogol 19:00, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just not able to find it but would I be right in thinking that there's no entry for the albums (I think there were two) released by The Simpsons? Would've thought there'd be mention of it, especially "Do The Bartman" which did so well in the UK. Also, and I admit I've not looked for them, but what about the computer games? violet/riga 22:23, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Being such a high-profile actor and mainstay of The Simpsons surely Phil Hartman should be mentioned somewhere? violet/riga 11:24, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Which characters had to be withdrawn after his death? sars 22:33, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
This line - how accurate is it?
Almost any riot, in above crowd reference, is started by Moe Sizlak of Moe's Tavern.
? Krupo 06:08, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
Anybody knows in which episode The Ramones are appearing?
Authority, especially in undeserving hands, is a constant target of the show's often sharp satire. This probably explains the often strong negative reaction to the show from social conservatives.
Is this really true anymore? Earlier in the history of the show it was certaintly derided by some on the Right, but I think this is far less accurate today, given how non-partisan the political satire often is.
--jonathan 22:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The show has and still does poke fun at politics from both sides of the aisle often even though it no longer is considered "edgy" in part to its now iconic status. Quite frankly, i'm surprised this topic doesn't have its own article yet.
--Karmafist 00:46, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I altered the information on voice actors strikes to put the events in the right context to make it slightly more balanced, and not the "greedy voice actors strike" version of events that was fed to the media by Fox. Hope this is OK. --jamieli 7 Jan 2005
I noticed that the first paragraph in the Settings and Characters sub-heading briefly discusses the shows history. Maybe that first paragraph should be moved to the Series History sub-heading in order to arrange the article better and shorten it just that little bit. Jaberwocky6669 19:54, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
"The Simpsons was the first true TV series hit for Fox". . . Weren't "Married With Children" and "21 Jump Street" hit shows before the Simpsons got their own series? 24.195.22.186 13:56, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm being serious about the school of hard knockers listing, no vandalism, lol! Jaberwocky6669 02:59, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
I've taken "The Christmas That Almost Wasn't (and then Was)" out of the "TV Shows within..." section and moved it to the "Movies within..." section. It was over 2 hours long, was shown on DVD, is never cited as a TV series and is clearly a parody of some of the more hackneyed low-buget movies shown as Christmas specials. terranwannabe 04:31, Mar 12, 2005 (CST)
Being a huge fan of the Simpsons for the first eight years it was on the air I believe a section should be included on the page about its downfall. Most knowing Simpsons fans realize its quality has declined significantly over the past number of years. It's original intelligent humor has been replaced with crude jokes, pointless guest apperences, and Homer acting like a total buffon with no sign of any intelligence whatsoeverIwhich he did have earlier in the series). I believe there is a significant number of true Simpsons fans who agree with me, enough to justify an added section showing how the quality has declined. It will not be biased but a fair representation on what the Simpsons used to be like and what it is like now. I hope Wikipedia allows this section to be placed in the article and kept there.
Find some sites/references that discuss this and then add details to the page. Without such source information we shouldn't be writing original research about opinions and perceptions of the change of the show. violet/riga (t) 11:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Surely the simpsons is the longest running TV show in the world!? Shows like gun smoke may be repeated on a regular basis, but they were also axed many years ago... The first line of the article used to statte that it was the longest runnig animated sitcom in he history of 'US' television history. I changed this however to read 'television history' as there is no animated sitcom (that I have heard of at least) which can top it. If anyone knows of one from anywhare in the world that can feel free to amend it. IU believe that it is the longest running 'sitcom' in television history and maybe even 'show'. Can anyone think of a sitcom that has run for longer than this? I feel I may change it to say 'sitcom in television history' and let people make amends to it if they know otherwise as this seems to be the best way to get things done on wiki.
what about Frasier? didn't that run for longer? sars 16:12, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Well, there are soaps which has existed forever. I would probably call it something like the longest running comedic tv fiction show. Maitch 17:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As far as I know, Sazae-san is the longest running TV-show in the world with over 1500 episodes, and still kicking.
About 300 episodes are nothing.
Odd that the hundreds of people, 120 to be exact who are animators and technicians, in the Republic of Korea, just south of Seoul, who actually make the Simpsons animation are not mentioned at all. So we've added a reference to this in "Post-Modern Korean Culture" which cites production of this series in Korea.
AKOM does the real work and has for 15 years. And the man behind it is Nelson Shin head of AKOM studios.
Seems fair to credit 120 people behind the scenes and not just the top 10 who get all the publicity, doesn't it? Great website.
Apparently all Korean references were taken out today, which is interesting - why?
POofYS Dated 01:45, 29 March 2005.
I reckon that all of the trivia section (and subsections) should be moved into Trivia about The Simpsons (or some other name). I propose to do this in the next couple of days unless there are significant objections. violet/riga (t) 23:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've moved everything there now - some parts could be reintegrated if it is found appropriate. violet/riga (t) 16:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Was the cat's name Coltrane or Coltraine?
The article says Coltraine, but I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be a reference to John Coltrane. KingTT 01:45, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, its deffinately Coltrane. Bonus Onus 18:55, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
is it a coincidence that Dr Marvin Monroe sounds eerily like Albert_Ellis, the psychologist who pioneered Rational Emotive Therapy? I have an mp3 of an interview he did on Australian radio, which I might have to post part of if nobody believes me ...
Should a separate page also be created for External Links, say at External Links for The Simpsons? Important links (e.g. TheSimpsons.com and The Simpsons Archive) could be kept on the main page, whilst other, less important links could go on the separate page, linked from the External Links section. --Andrew 21:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Could this page be a featured article? I am reading the page and I think it is comprehensive, has a good image for the main page of the Simpson family and people like - even love - the show. Maybe it can be a featured article. --Blue387 02:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Moe – Matt Groening's former drug rehab counselor" wait a sec......Matt was in drug rehab?
I think the passage on NT should stay. There is proof:
Google Search Pacific Coast Highway 13:30, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Could someone please verify the information concerning Kevin Lloyd in Lady Bouvier's Lover. There is an annoying vandal obsessed with adding incorrect facts to articles about British soap actors. You may remember the guy from his assertion that Mark Wingett voices Mr Burns!! The JPS 11:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Would a external link to the the GameFAQ's board for The Simpsons be worthy?
What exactly is the purpose of the Similar TV Shows section? tregoweth 21:59, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
should there be info on the Cosby-Simpsons battle - now as i understand it while the Simps didn't beat Cosby overall until 1991-2, by late 1990 they were already beating Cosby in key demographics - thus fatally crippling Cosby - is that true? PMA 16:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
The last few times I've seen The Simpsons, it had the full opening sequence! Also, does The Simpsons come on anywhere other than Fox?
Does ANYONE WHO WROTE THIS can tell sources? The FA won't accept a page without references... igordebraga ≠ 22:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
In the first 2 seasons of The Simpsons the humour was mainly Character driven. It evolved through the next season and early season4 a continuued untill around the time Mike Scully was showrunner into a humour that is a well-rounded humour with social satire following in the ninth season. And ever since shows such as Family Guy the writers have lowered there humour to that of the above mention show. I feal this is a shame. Luckily the new moive coming out in 2008(?) will be apartley written by veteran writers such as John Schwartzwelder, Al Jean, Mike Riess Bill Oakley, Josh Wienstein and other veterans.
The Simpsons/Archive 1 received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
"It is the longest-running American sitcom and animated program, with 17 seasons and 368 episodes since it debuted on December 17, 1989 on FOX."
Would it be deemed relevant to make a mention of the Japanese animated series "Sazae-san", which has run since 1969? Obviously not as popular world-wide as The Simpsons but it did at its peak get viewed by up to 25% of the Japanese TV audience.
It's of course accurate to say it's the longest running American animated series, maybe people might be interested to know, as long as it has run, it isn't the world's longest running animated series, as I'm guessing most people don't know that.
This is the wikipedia entry but the information can also be verified by the entry in "The Anime Encyclopedia" by by Jonathan Clements and Helen McCarthy.
"Sazae-san animated series In October 1969, Fuji Television started an animated comedy series, which is still on the air today and currently in production (making it Japan's longest running TV anime). It has been broadcast every Sunday from 18:30 till 19:00 and contains three vignettes. The animated series has some characters, like Katsuo's classmates, who don't appear in Hasegawa's original works."
Someone wrote in this article that after the 19th season, the show will end. This has not been confirmed, and I have deleted it.
I've removed this from the Cars section as it didn't really make much sense where it was:
Perhaps we can find a more appropriate place for it?--Ramon omar 04:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
---I think the entire car section belongs in the List of vehicles in The Simpsons article. That kind of information is too specialized to belong in the main Simpsons article. I'm going to move that there for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.29.176 (talk • contribs)
Some people may think that my paring down of the "Setting" section was too bold. The fact is that it was a messy eyesore with too much useless, subtrivial information. The sectioned contained a great deal of extremely minor points speculating about the "location" of Springfield that have no place in a general encyclopedia article (much less so close to the top of the article, before even a rough synopsis of the show is given). Anyone interested in the information concerning the state Springfield can find it all, and much more, at the "Where is Springfield?" document linked in the same paragraph. What's more, the conclusion that the section comes to, that Springfield isn't anywhere, renders irrelevant all of the "It's in Kentucky, no wait it's in Missouri, I mean it's really Oregon" nonsense that preceded it. There is no place for this obsessive clutter in a quality article. Readers who are mostly unfamiliar of the show should be treated not to a barrage of munitiae, but to a summary that paints a clear picture of the matter, and leaves the details to the linked SNPP docement. Andrew Levine 01:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
well there is a city by the name of Springfield,Virginia.
and it is more so like riverdale in archies--Jayanthv86 04:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
The Simpsons is not in Missouri though no one has stated this i just wanted to make sure it was not mistaken. The reason to believe this is in Homer Badman Abe Simpson(Grandpa) states "I'll be deep in the hole until i reconize Missouri as a state. - Ac/dc rox
Could a character template be created to be added to the dozens of Simpsons character pages? It could feature a few details such as age, job, etc. Below is a quick template I made for Homer Simpson, made from the Lemony Snicket character template.
The Simpsons character | |
Homer Jay Simpson | |
---|---|
Gender | Male |
Age | 36 - 39 |
Job | Safety Inspector at the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant |
First appearance | Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire |
Major relatives | Wife Marge, son Bart, daughters Lisa and Maggie and father Abe |
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Squidward2602 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I though we found out in the hippie episode, that Homer's full name was Homer J Simpson, the J not standing for anything.--Dp462090 20:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
In that episode they revealed that the J stands for Jay -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 20:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
You're right. hehe--Dp462090 23:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need the list of distributors for the show? What about this article: List of TV channels that air The Simpsons ?? 32.97.110.142 17:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
The Simpsons (1980)
The Family of four was made Homer, Marge, Bart , Lisa and little baby simipson maggie. They all started on the tracy olman show were matt made it
By The Z Factor
The names of the family came from Matt Greoning's family.
Can someone explain to me why every "Simpsons" website linked gets deleted? There's no reason. They are valuable resources about the show.
But due to that, the only link that was freakin' there was the 14 year-old Geocities site. I've seen the better sites, run by people who know what they're doing, and now due to that type of reforming it's just the crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.208.139 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 14 October 2005
The reason it was fine was because I had just removed the Geocities site that showed up. I'm deeming things "crap" because they're crap; I can certainly phrase things in a more adult vocabulary, but crap just cuts so perfectly to the heart of the matter.
If you're going to remove all fan-site links, fine, I guess - but make it a real ban, and check it. Nothing but the Archive and the Official site. There is no site on the internet that is a better resource for "The Simpsons" that is not one of those two sites and is not a fan-site. Period. This includes things like "The Simpsons Wiki", which was started by fans with the same "pov" issues from the same community as those fan sites (just check the thread at nohomers.net to prove this). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.64.150 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 16 October 2005
Fine, so long as it's kept that way.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.208.139 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 18 October 2005
Before checking this talk page, I added a link to Off The Telly's Simpsons articles. Although interesting, the "history of the series" articles are perhaps a bit non-NPOV to have their own links, but it's the history of The Simpsons on the BBC that I was most impressed with and haven't seen anywhere else (as far as I know, there's nothing like it on The Simpsons Archive). Is there a better Wikipedia page that the link could go on (List of TV channels that air The Simpsons, maybe?) or is it really too minor to be included at all?--Nick R 18:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I have removed several lists from this article and have spun them off into their own articles, trimming the article size from about 61KB to about 47KB. What do you think of this? Remaining tasks are that this article needs to be fact-checked and referenced, with maybe a list at the bottom in small text, before this article could be nominated for featured article status. Toothpaste 23:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Since there's a list of Simpsons Episodes, should there be a section with episode information? It seems like it just takes up space when there's a complete page for it. Pnkrockr 17:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
There should be an article on Evergreen Terrace, the street where The Simpsons live. Maybe even an article specifically on their house at 742 Evergreen Terrace.
Yeah, I can confirm. This was all over the news about three days ago. A quick search on Google News should turn up plenty.--chris.lawson 06:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed that the Holloween specials are getting progressively less violent and more normal?--Vercalos 01:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
A few elements in the CG episode(namely the Library and the music paired with it) greatly resembles a couple of elements in Myst.--The dez 10:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
This section should read debut in Arab countries. The Simpsons was broadcast in Pakistan over 8 years ago in English. Pakistan is a Muslim country, but not an Arab country. Fkh82 01:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
There's a claim in the film section that a live-action film would "ruin the franchise." This is clearly POV, but I don't know enough about the subject to contribute anything but removing that. It probably just needs to be rephrased, as it's probably a big part of why the live-action film wasn't made (I mean, look at The Flinstones). I'd love to see what could be done. Dave 22:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
There is a separate article: List of vehicles in The Simpsons, so there is no need for that section. Besides, the information there is not true. None of the Yugos that were sold in the US were sedans or station wagons. I suggest that the main article be locked from editing by anonymous users.
The Simpsons has featured many, many songs over the years that sooner or later I have had to obtain or re-aquire. I find when I re-watch episodes that many of the featured song(s), often just a very short clip a few seconds long, really start to grow on me and I want to hear the whole track. I will start a list here and give it a layout in this order ;
Season number, Episode number, 'Episode name here' - Artist 'song/track name'
Examples ;
Almost any episode featuring the Duff beer mascot "DuffMan" - Yelo 'oh yeah'
Season 7, Episode 24, 'Homerpalooza' - Smashing Pumpkins 'zero'
Season 9, Episode 7, 'The Two Mrs. Nahasapeemapetilons' - Foreigner 'hot blooded'
Season 9, Episode 7, 'The Two Mrs. Nahasapeemapetilons' - The Carpenters '(They Long to Be) Close to You' (an Indian version, played at Apu's wedding) [2]
Season 10, Episode 10, 'Viva Ned Flanders' - Elvis 'viva las vegas'
Season13, Episode 22, 'Papa's Got a Brand New Badge' - Golden Earring 'radar love'
Season13, Episode 22, 'Papa's Got a Brand New Badge' - A3 (previously known as 'Alabama 3') 'woke up this morning (Theme for The Sopranos)'
Season 14, Episode 10, 'Pray Anything' - Kiss 'I was made for loving you baby'
Dirk Diggler Jnr 17:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedians seem to find it challenging to know what should or shouldn't be considered a spoiler when it comes to a long-running TV series. Perhaps project members might find it interesting to contribute their insights on this subject to Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines#Spoilers...66.167.253.58 07:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC).
In the section on the burgeoning popularity of the show among religious conservatives, one of the points mentioned is the Flanders' 'pipeline' (my word) to God v/v Him performing miracles for them.
In actual fact, the Simpsons have had the largest share of miracles (specifically in the form of answered prayers) of any family on the show (more than the Flanders'). I always thought the writers were mocking believers who hold to the idea that God rewards piety.
And more importantly, the miracles God performs (or appears to perform) for the Simpsons are often orders of magnitude greater than those He performs for the Flanders' (actually just Ned, IIRC).
From what I can remember:
Simpsons:
In fact, I haven't seen an episode where a serious prayer by the Simpsons (though they be few and far between lol) wasn't answered.
Flanders':
That statement was made just after the tree was suddenly struck by lightning in the episode A star is Burns. Flanders said "thanks God" And God replied "Okeley-Dokeley"
On the other hand, Ned's prayer regarding His reasons for taking Maude wasn't answered.
Because I don't know the origin of the observation, I don't feel comfortable changing it.--Anchoress 11:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The simpson episode articles have two templates. Should we make one official or should we let both be used? --TBC 02:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
When I read through the entire article the one section that really annoys me is the "Fan Controversy" section. If this article ever wants to become a featured article this section has to be completely rewritten or deleted entirely. It consists of statements like "Some prefer the earliest seasons", "Others prefer seasons 4–7" and "it is believed that season 11". Can anyone verify the facts? It sounds like original research based on internet message boards. If we want to find the most popular seasons why not look at the ratings instead. At least those are verifiable sources. --Maitch 16:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. --Maitch 19:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, most of that section reads like fan speculation/commentary that should definitely be removed. If any of this kind of commentary has been made by a notable person (preferably a film critic), it can be put in. Any "fans", "some", "others", "critics", and "supporters" are not notable enough to be included here, and should definitely be removed. --Deathphoenix 16:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that "Fan Controversy" is not a suitable title, though I do not think this section should be completely deleted. I suggest we rename the section "Public Criticism" and slightly reword the article. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? --TBC 01:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, the section is now deleted by someone, so I don't know how relevant this discussion is. I believed the best way to measure which season was best is with the use of season ratings and not episode ratings. A single episode could suddenly spike because of great lead-in (e.g. the Friends episode The One After the Superbowl being more watched than the finale). It would even be better if we measured their season rank in the Nielsen charts. --Maitch 23:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, it would appear som fanboy will not accept it and now there is no mention of how more and more people are saying how bad it is now. Surely something should be said.
To say a season can be judged for quality by comparing ratings, is like saying a dictator was a great leader because he would get 100% of the vote. Judging a show by ratings simply showes false information, it shows the more popular seasons when people watched, but not the quality. I propose getting a life, and enjoying the simpsons past, present, and future.
This article needs a section on Criticism. The show has certainly changed (which briefly noted in the writing section) and the number of critics (usually former fans) has grown to a point where it's easy to find. There have been several articles, one off the top of my head was this feature in Slate, Who turned America's best TV show into a cartoon?. I'm not advocating a section that says "The Simpsons Suck" or anything like that, but a section should address it's changing fan base and resulting trends. Far lesser things have warranted such sections. Bobak 21:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
New Entry: I agree. Family guy gets a whole page devoted to controversy with fans and the simpsons, with thousands of people seeming to be turning away from this show something must be mentioned. Even a small section will do. But this page is just saying all the good thing, cutting out the bad points and denying that this show has taken a nosedive.
Moe Szyslak, the owner of Moe's Tavern (where Homer spends most of his free time), is a borderline sociopath who threatens people with his loaded shotgun, and attempts suicide every Christmas. Based on comedian Rich Hall.
They're definitely similar, but was he really based on him? If the article doesn't give a source for that statement (e.g from one of the writers or voice actors. On a DVD commentary perhaps?), then it should be removed! --Nick RTalk 17:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
~I do remeber hearing that in the dvd commentary somewhere but I forget exactly who they said it was based off of though, however I do remember them also saying around it that they let Moe go off character more then any other charactor because they figure he is ugly enough it didnt matter, I am pritty sure it was somewhere in season 3 possibly season 4.
I don't know about the spineless, but Smithers has always been a stereotypical "underling" name. Most famously in Archie comics, where the character Veronica Lodge has had a butler named Smithers since the comic began, in the mid-1940s.
It's weird, but I've noticed when it comes to TV show articles on Wikipedia, a lot of fans come in and attribute these age-old things to their favorite show. --65.175.223.122 21:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
A Word from the z factor the simpsons rocks
does anyone know Johnnysfish 22:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The transliterations offered do not match the Arabic given, at least by my limited understanding of Arabic script. Is there a source for this that can be checked against? --Kbh3rdtalk 14:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I've removed this section because it was unverified speculation and not neutral. It also used a lot of weasel words. If anybody wants to add something about how much The Simpsons suck today, then find a credible source to document it with. See also the talk section about "Fan Controversy". --Maitch 12:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
It would be useful to add a list of awards won by The Simpsons, I think. I will begin a new article on that topic, unless somebody disagrees. ElTchanggo 02:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I have created a new article, List of fictional places on The Simpsons, as a merge target for several articles that border on Simpsons-cruft, such as Bronson, Missouri and Humbleton, Pennsylvania. The list is far from complete at the moment. If another article about a minor location in the Simpsons universe arises, I would recommend merging it with the list as an alternative to putting it up on WP:AFD. Szyslak ( [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 22:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
i personaly think it would be cool if we could get a list of all the prank calls Bart did to Moe's Tavern.----68.49.75.128 00:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, but do you have any idea how much time that would take?--Dp462090 01:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Why does "bumblebee man" a(a link from a list of John Belushi characters) redirect to here? JeffStickney 14:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Because in the simpsons there is a character named the bumble bee man Joler 22:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Why is it under "Simpsons Publications"? .----Ultrabasurero
Would it be a good idea to split the running gags section into its own page (in the style of Running gags in Friends)? The list is getting long, but do we need more Simpsons lists? smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 19:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I explained my opinion that the spelling for Xt.... is wrong on the Xt'Tapalatakettle page. After watching Blood Feud and rewinding the part in question a bunch of times, I know for a fact that this spelling is wrong. Burns' version of the name isn't even the same as the version here. It is supposed to be "tapalapa" not "tapalata" as shown. The DVD captioning also spells it as Xtapalapaquetl. I would think the DVD captioning would have more precedence over the non-canon comic books. Any body want to help clear this up on that page? Ultrabasurero 22:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
does anyone know what the highest rated simpsons episode is?
Does anyone have any episode ratings, ANY, i will take anything you have, this would get me out of a hole.
ps if you can please make a link to the site where you got it, if you got it from the internet
There was recently a live-action recreation of the Simpsons opening made to promote the show in Britain. You can read about it [4], and watch it [5]. Please talk about it in the article.
This is one of the best (since shortest and most complete) definitions within an article on popular culture in the Wikipedia that I ever read. Whoever formulated and submitted this line, I just say: thank you. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )
It is animated in South East Asia though —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.36.75.20 (talk • contribs) pschemp | talk 14:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
How about adding a section on the large occurences of Master's Thesis submitted based on the Simpsons, for such subjects as Philosophy and Theology? Jayteecork 14:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I've changed Otto's name to include his last name, which appears to be Mang, as seen on his probationary driver's license. This can be seen in season 3, disc 4, episode 4 of the DVD version (The Otto Show), at about 21:26 minutes. koolman2 10:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Just letting people know, I've nominated The Simpsons as a featured article. Vote for it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Simpsons. --DChiuch 08:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
"...and the family's two cars, both of which appear to have been manufactured in the early 1980s (Homer's being made from "recycled Soviet tanks", in a "country that no longer exists")." - Is this taken from "Mr. Plow"? I thought he didn't buy that car, he just took it for a test drive? He could hardly fit in it... am I right? Haha.. "Put it in H!" :) --Sammysam 00:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, he never had the car that is being described, it must be from Mr. Plow. The point it was trying to make about the timeset is fine, but it is incorrect as stated. I'm too lazy to do anything about it, but someone else should take that out or fix it up. 198.138.40.91 04:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC) no account, just me.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe thata similair comment was also made in the episode "The Great Louse Detective" 69.217.195.50 10:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I find the two first header names long and overtly complicated, "Production and history of The Simpsons" might as well be named "History", "Setting, characters, and plot of The Simpsons" might be "Storyline" for a shorter description without including the names of the subsections or referring to the article name.
Also, the recurring jokes are a little too specific for the main article - perhaps it would be better with a seperate article and a ((seealso)) under the "Themes" header, as that also talks about the jokes and quirks in the series. Poulsen 13:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I think i would end the simpsons on such a weird note and try to suprise everyone in the world and make it the most memorable episode in the history of the show. I also think it ill be in the 70-80 million viewership.
Dave
All I know is, that it probably won't be ending till ATLEAST 2008, when the suposed "movie" is supposed to come out.
Or, the final episode IS the movie...
Some of the 'Plots' section does well to highlight recurring themes, but the bullet-point list at the end of the section is pretty disposable for a feature article. It's true of parts of the entire article, actually; there's a fine line between attention to detail and fanaticism, and occasionally this crosses it.
For instance, in the aforementioned bullet-point list of "several types of scenes that recur often and have become conventions of the show's storytelling style":
Listmania, anyone? Yes, of course it's a convention of the show's storytelling style; it's a convention of the medium's storytelling style. It's a convention of storytelling itself. I don't think Matt Groening will be issuing a patent on it anytime soon.
The broader point here is that lists of this kind are worthwhile if they point out recurring plot devices - for instance, the first point, about the oft-used and relatively disposable "trip" of the first five minutes that sets the plot in motion. But if you're writing a list like this and you can't think of enough material, you should stop before it gets to this point:
Yes, on the Simpsons and many other shows. The point here should be the frequency with which "The Simpsons" uses that device to parody advertisements, news reports and general television programming. I know that as a fan it's hard to resist the temptation to quote examples ("Look at all those feminists!") - but it's not a fan list, it's an encyclopedia entry.
Entries like these have nothing to do with the show's storytelling style, beyond being scenes that recur. They're not plot devices so much as actual content.
I don't want to make any changes - I'm a stranger here myself, don't want to tread on anyone's toes - but somebody really needs to go through this page with a steel-tooth comb, 'cos there's a lot of that kind of fluff to be pulled out. Just my opinion, of course :)
203.51.189.23 02:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but the article is much too unstructured (lengthy rambling, too many asides and departing on a tangent) and still doesnt have enough referencing, especially given the level of POV fanboy claims (e.g. the Simpsons had "a huge influence on post-Cold War pop culture" - does "huge" here mean the Simpsons is comparable to the Internet as 90s cultural phenomenon? if so, where's the supporting reference) and oddball original research (e.g. the sophomorically bizarre (and again unreferenced/unsupported) connection between Flanders and Weber's Protestant Ethic). I'm blackballing the good article nomination. Bwithh 23:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The "Feature Film" section appears twice. One of them should be taken out but I don't know which one to remove. Gohst 09:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
In the 'Characters' section, it states that George Bush and Gerald Ford lived beside the Simpsons. However, they lived across the street. 23:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The article doesn't explain how the show turned from the dull Tracey Ullman stuff (how did it get on air?) into something so brilliant. Was it new producers/writers/illustrators? Who made the difference? That writer who sat in the diner smoking ciggies? And why did the standard dip over the last couple of years (2004-05), only to make a partial recovery? eg. the piss-take Cosmic Wars is brilliant, but the 2nd half of that show left me cold. Is it all about the writers?--shtove 01:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The following is written in the lead:
A statement like that needs a citation. I believe that it is more correct to say that it has had an influence on post-Cold War television. --Maitch 17:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
A few months ago, I worked on improving the section on the Simpons setting, since much of the discussion was repeated at Springfield (The Simpsons) (which I also worked on improving). My changes were reverted a few days later, as if it was a "blanking." Well, it was, but with a good purpose, IMO. There in probably hundreds of examples of location evidence, and I thought it was better to keep them in the Springfield page rather than cluttering up this page. So, I've re-edited this section as I did here, and moved more information to Springfield (The Simpsons). --Spiffy sperry 22:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
On one episode of the Simpsons (I can't remember which one) it is made clear that Springfield is in Ohio.
Shouldn't there be a section devoted to certain critics claiming that the show has "jumped the shark", so to speak. I'm not really that informed about it, but a few people I know say that the argument has become pretty significant. --212.2.170.158 12:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I have previously agreed in the talk page that this article lacks any mention of the criticism the show most certainly has these days. Now I've decided to put my money where my mouth is: I have made a beachhead in the article with a small sub-section under Cultural impact. It is sourced with 3 solid articles, two from reputable media outlets and one direct interview with Harry Shearer. It this gets deleted we know there's something odd afoot. Bobak 18:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
An article for each episode. Gross and pointless. --162.84.163.5 21:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep everything; this is the internet, which means UNLIMITED space. ("Hmmm... I see they have the internet on computers now!" - Homer) Blastfromthepast 01:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I add an opinion to the above. (Sorry for a big lecture but I'd like others' opinions too.) The plethora of articles on "The Simpsons" is now looking larger than the total amount of knowledge we have in Wikipedia on "Mathematics". That's embaressing if we are ever to gain respect as an encyclopedia. Don't get me wrong, I'm as big a Simpsons fan as anyone here, but it comes down to whether this is the place for it. Yes, The Simpsons itself started a new era of nerds on internet boards talking about trivial things from the show, but when Wikipedia was started as a compendium of human knowledge, who decided to transfer that stuff over here??
Wikipedia doesn't have to contain every single fact in history in it; doing for maths what you people have done for The Simpsons would result in articles like "Flavours of coffee enjoyed by algebraists". Clearly there are some things that aren't interesting enough to the general population to warrant a separate page. I guess the problem is that The Simpsons has a style of humour so well received by the types of people that are into technology/computing and the internet that it is a bigger candidate for such discussion than any other franchise. But that doesn't mean Wikipedia should be dragged into it. This project was obviously started with a different goal in mind. Few other things have so much detail in their categories. We should be keeping Wikipedia consistent. More Wikipedians should be making these articles, and less Simpsons board-posters. Perhaps a separate WikiSimpsons should be set up for those people.
In short, overall problem is, category page has way way way too many articles, this page is a total bore and should be restarted, articles like "prank call's done in the Simpsons" (above) are pointless, and most of the articles basically just speculate over "facts" about the characters and setting as if it's a real life place, forgetting that it's just make-believe. PLEASE somebody agree with me, show me this corner of Wikipedia hasn't been completely overrun by people with too much time on their hands... Tilgrieog 12:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The Simpsons catch phrases Delete
List of animals in The Simpsons Delete
List of The Simpsons episodes
List of vehicles in The Simpsons Delete
List of Homer Simpson's jobs Delete
List of characters from The Simpsons
List of fictional characters within The Simpsons
List of musical groups named after references from The Simpsons Delete
List of songs featured in The Simpsons Delete
List of neologisms on The Simpsons Delete
List of TV channels that air The Simpsons Delete
List of celebrities on The Simpsons
List of celebrities who have been parodied on The Simpsons
List of Simpsons Stores & Signs Delete
List of Simpsons Prank Calls Delete
Now that isn't that hard. You can debate a few of these but arguably they are worthless. --141.155.136.145 23:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that one. I think if we let the current three run their course, see the outcomes, then maybe do a group nomination for a few of the others... Robdurbar 21:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
They surely aren't going to do a live action opening for the rest of the series?! Of ALL the things to do.......--M Johnson (talk • contribs) 06:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I see from the archives this has been brought up before, though in a different context. I was wondering, though, whether the list of sites is a definitive list. Now I have to admit a teeny, tiny bit of personal bias here because I happen to run a simpsons fan site, though with a more speciality orientation than the others listed - essentially it's a fanfiction and fanart archive. You can see it here (though it's still being updated and so is missing a lot of content). I had considered simply editing in a link to it, but that would be selfish, so I decided to ask if you lot would be willing to consider it. So... yeah. Archonix 13:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Just heard this on TV on my local channel before the show airs: each Simpsons episode takes 24000 frames, 6-8 months and $1 million to produce. Maybe we can add this type of information if a citation can be found. Shawnc 03:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
There should be a mention about how several portions of an episode are removed to fill in more advertisement time when it is on syndication Buzda 05:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Was the gun store "Bloodbath and Beyond" (not "Blood, Bath, and Beyond")?
No. The joke is that it is a play on the title of the home appliances chain of stores; Bed, Bath and Beyond.
The overseas animation studios infobox on the right in the section "Animation" has numbers for how many episodes a specific studio is responsible for. Does anybody have a source for these numbers? --Maitch 10:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. It makes fact checking way more easy. --Maitch 10:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I added a picture of Otto's driver's license to his article. Otto Mann It seems to me that his last name should be changed to Mang on Wikipedia, but I want to make sure that everyone would tend to agree before I go and move everything around. koolman2 11:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The Simpsons was also one of the pioneering shows that changed the view of cartoons to a more adult standard.
Since when? Is there a real citation or is this opinion? I can accept a larger age group watch this than most cartoons. But then again these are people who grew up with Hana Barbara and Looney Toons, I don't believe the Simpsons truely changed this, especially when consider the other long running prime time cartoon was the Flintstones.
In addition Cartoons are STILL a non adult standard, anime enjoys a older crowd at best, Family guy is hitting well in the 18-25 demographics, but this is hardly "adult", usually called Young adult, and as well these 25 year olds grew up with a constant barage of cartoons. All in all it's hard to pin any of this change on The Simpsons, rather it's on the fact that people tend to get older.--Kinglink 05:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
OK... Anyone interested in helping cleanup the Simpsons information, join the WikiProject... if we can all work together, instead of different editors working on different pages, we can get all the Simpsons information on all of Wikipedia organized... - Adolphus79 04:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I've archived this page. (It was over 32KB). Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 15:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I've added this section to the article. It needs expansion though. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 15:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed a line citing Bart's Nightmare as an exception to the dismal track record of Simpsons games... the article for the game states that it was trashed by critics and bombed commercially. (If this is not the case, my apologies; the Nightmare article should be amended. Maybe The Simpsons: Bart vs. the Space Mutants was the game in question?)
One question, however: why is there a picture of the Simpsons Monopoly edition in the video game section? I didn't see a reference to the board game anywhere in the article. - DynSkeet 15:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Will we ever find out where Springfield is? The Simpsons forums on tv.com are swamped with "What state do the Simpsons live in?" questions. If in fact Matt Groening based this on a real city, then I have a few clues from the episode "Poppa's Got a Brand New Badge."
1) - Interstate 95 passes through it.
2) - It has a population of around 39,000-40,000 people (can't exactly remember).
and 3) - The elevation of Springfield is in the 1,000 ft. range (also can't remember).
If anyone has more things to add, don't hesitate... The Runescape Junkie 01:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Peopl take this aspect (and many other aspects) of the show far too literally. Springfield is, like so many facets of The Simpsons, a metaphor, an allegory, not a literal place. If you can't see that, you're missing one of the major points of the programme. Martyn Smith 18:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I mean the one where homer gets a new job? Jamhaw 18:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)jamhaw
The Simpsons have insulted the Republiscans on many occasion but they insulted the democrats when they were in power even more most notably Clintons "while i'm not a very good president" also the reverse steryotype is wrong the Simpsons have few blacks on the show and they have just as many problems as characters with simialer air times Hibbert apparenty does not have good relations with his wife and uses Morhine all the time an interesting thing is that asians are white and Europeans-americans are yellow. Jamhaw 19:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)jamhaw
The Popularity section is very poor and needs major work to avoid deletion. Is the section about popularity, as in number of viewers or quality? It seems to move from one to the other without distinction. It also has no cites and employs many WP:Weasel words 'many people' etc. Determining the quality of a show is almost very difficult to verify. Ashmoo 02:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The only time I myself have seen the things mentioned in the Popularity section is on internet message boards and the like. Perhaps it should just be deleted, because of course people on internet message boards make up a fairly small percentage of the amount of people who watch The Simpsons, and therefore there may be a huge population of people who believe that the Scully era was the best part of the show. Maybe a mention of Nielsen ratings should be made? I'm pretty sure they have declined, but I'm not sure where the old Simpsons Nielsen ratings can be found.Bluemoose444 04:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else feel that the fan sites section has become a place for people to essentially advertise their Simpsons fansites? I definitely think that major ones like The Simpsons Archive and NoHomers.net should be there (If they're good enough to have their own article, then they're good enough to be listed here), but most of them seem to be rather obscure sites that I have a feeling were added by the webmasters themselves. 69.105.121.201 05:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be an on-going edit war over whether Lisa's saxophone is baritone or tenor. Can anybody tell me which is correct? --Maitch 10:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, maybe we should leave the information out then. --Maitch 14:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I would just write that she plays the saxophone. --Maitch 15:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I put the baritone back in the article. This time I've added a ref. --Maitch 17:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you think there's any value in adding a note on how the practice of overdubbing lines has significantly rising in later seasons where it's very obvious that a line has been changed from the original line by looking at a character's lips? It seems so obvious in many modern episodes.
Also, any thoughts on mentioning how (from what I understand), the cast no longer records together in one room (not even sure how table reads go anymore) due to conflicting schedules. As a result, they usually come in one at a time and read all their lines. It prevents interaction between the cast, ad libbed banter and probably has contributed to the decline of the comedy of the show (though that is an opinion) TheHYPO 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
To many POV statements without Citations. I've put a citation needed on a lot of them, but there probably still are more out there. Fix it, renominate it, and Ill grant it GA status. False Prophet 20:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
My mistake about the Bartholomew thing - I reverted a vandalism edit but it apparently put that back in because of the version I chose to revert to (as well as the line about the opening sequence). Regardless, I agree that both things should not be there. --GeneralDuke 19:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I was going to go ahead and reword some awkward phrasing in the Broadcasting section, but as I worked, I decided that it kinda needs a complete rewrite.
I wiped the 'afterwards' because the episodes are not necessarily broadcast later than the Fox broadcast in other countries. Global in Canada simulcasts with Fox, and sometimes when your lovely president has a speach or football or baseball is on, Global actually ends up preceeding Fox. I'm guessing there are other nations which would contradict the 'afterwards' statement too.
The entire "Episodes are sometimes altered to fit broadcasters' needs." statement seems poorly written. First of all, this seems to have little to do with broadcasting; though there doesn't currently seem to be a better section for it; perhaps it would be a better fit for 'trivia', but there doesn't seem to be trivia on this article (perhaps because it would quickly fill up with crap). IMO, it's not major enough to bother including in the main article - that's why there's a subarticle. And though it's sometimes for broadcasters needs, sometimes it's not - like with the hostages example, and with the dead actor's oscar award. Those aren't for broadcaster's needs as much as sensibile... sense? You get the idea though.
"In foreign countries it might be necessary to adjust the material to suit a foreign country’s culture or humor" - This is similarly not that important, but it's probably more relevant that the former example. If so, probably should be reworded to 'it is sometimes necessary' - it's not a future thing - it's already happened (I assume?).
"The animation in The Simpsons makes the show more frequently dubbed in foreign countries rather than subtitled." Perhaps should be reworded as 'Because it is animated, the show is more frequently...' TheHYPO 00:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I brought this up privately to another user, but I would like to reduce the Character section with the understanding that each of the characters themselves has a sizable page, many with various subsections of their own. With this in mind, I think that the character section in this article is getting bloated with minor facts. (The problem, I would say, stems from the combination of the show's long-running history, the characters' cartoon nature, and the fact that the writers (especially lately) have little regard for changing the characters' personal traits (both gradually and swiftly) - for example - Homer's anger at the world has grown, as has Lisa's activism and (unrealistic) adultness. The entire show has become far more cartoony really in that the characters are really no longer portrayals (in my opinion) of a 'realistic' family. (this is understandable, seeing as how the family has been the same age for some 17 years - you can't play Lisa as a realistic 8-year old for 17 years - she has to grow beyond that age or the show will seem awfully static. Similar with Bart. I mean, if this were any other traditional sitcom, Bay would be 27, Lisa would be 25, and they would likely be the heads of their own families by now!
On to the examples - just the title family for now:
This is already outlined in the origin section - The listing of the title family and their relation to Matt's real family could either be moved to the origin, or replaced in the origin section by the addition of 'immediate' to the phrase 'after his own family'. I don't think the specific list is important, as it is somewhat self-evident. The note about 'Brat' would have to be moved up there too.
The 'themes from his Life In Hell comic strip' doesn't so much have to do with characters as plot or writing.
While true, I don't think that it's unusual for a character to love his wife, and I don't think the donughts or Duff are common enough plot elements for this to be mentionable in the primary Simpsons article. Also, I think the 'Jay' in Homer Simpson is unnecessary in this article, as 'Homer Simpson' is the primary way the character is refered to.
Nor do I think Marge's maiden name is particularly needed here any more than characters' middle names. I've never heard this 'French origin' business before, except that her maiden name happens to be French (did I miss an episode that establishes her origin?). The 'once intellegent and sophisticated seems a bit exaggerated to me.
The Bart item is exactly what all of the outlines should be. One sentence that clearly defines his major traits which are commonly observed in most episodes; Lisa is overwraught with her activism while it could be resolved to something like "She is an activist in many fields", if it is needed at all. The entire thing could probably be resolved to simply "the 8 year old, is the most intelligent member of the family, and is prone to activism in various fields."
Maggie's 'best-knowingness' is a) a somewhat random example - she's probably best known for sucking on a pacifier - as opposed to one act. Either way, it's technically a spoiler, even though, I'm sure most of the world knows it by now, it really isn't needed here. I'd run with "is the non-speaking baby who is usually found sucking on a pacifier.
I usually try to check with the talk page before I make major deletions to content. Thoughts? TheHYPO 08:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I archived this page. I usually leave out the last two subsections of talk pages when I archive. Just in case. Anonymous__Anonymous 16:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The following senctence lacks a citation:
I need someone to verify this fact. If you go to this page you will need to be a subscriber to TIME magazine to watch the entire article. Can anybody verify that Bart Simpson is on that list? --Maitch 12:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Go here: [7]. Bart's on the list. Ultrabasurero 02:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Good article, but i think it needs to be copy edited. Leave a note on my talk page once it has been done. False Prophet 01:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
she startrs off 7(bart 9) then b day is jacko episode
recently enough she turns nine turbo diary private investigator episode.... Owwmykneecap 03:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there any source of the original nielson ratings of all the episodes? I have a hard time believing that the first season was the highest rated season of the show after all the press it got in the second and third seasons, as well as how popular it developed well after that first season... Just wondering of there's a source on season 1 being the best rated season. TheHYPO 02:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Season | Years | Viewers | Place | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1989 - 1990 | 13,354,500 | 28. | [11] |
2 | 1990 - 1991 | < 13,220,200 | < 30. | [12] |
3 | 1991 - 1992 | < 12,065,100 | < 30. | [13] |
4 | 1992 - 1993 | < 12,103,000 | < 30. | [14] |
5 | 1993 - 1994 | < 11,869,200 | < 30. | [15] |
6 | 1994 - 1995 | < 11,161,800 | < 30. | [16] |
7 | 1995 - 1996 | < 10,740,800 | < 30. | [17] |
8 | 1996 - 1997 | < 10,185,000 | < 30. | [18] |
9 | 1997 - 1998 | < 9,016,000 | < 30. | [19] |
10 | 1998 - 1999 | < 8,946,000 | < 30. | [20] |
11 | 1999 - 2000 | ? | 41. | [21] |
12 | 2000 - 2001 | 14,620,000 | 22. | [22] |
13 | 2001 - 2002 | 12,480,000 | ? | [23] |
14 | 2002 - 2003 | 13,450,000 | 21. | [24] |
15 | 2003 - 2004 | ? | ? | |
16 | 2004 - 2005 | 9,684,210 | ? | [25] (added 5% to season 17 result) |
17 | 2005 - 2006 | 9,200,000 | 56. | [26] |
I'd like to add the view to this section that the main reason for the dramatic decline in the quality of the show since around the Series 10 mark is that the show has ceased to be 'character driven' and has become 'plot driven'. The first nine or so series shows plots developed out of the characters behaving in unforced ways which were believable within their established charateristics. Since then the characters have been forced into behaving in a way that fits a pre-perceived plot, or joke (often of very poor quality). This has given the show rings of untruth, and been chiefly responsible for its serious decline in quality in the second half of its life. Martyn Smith 18:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
If there's further vandalism, semiprotection should be requested. Anonymous__Anonymous 09:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I've trimmed the religion section down to the vital information for the main article, but do we really need it here? I would argue the stuff here under both lifestyle and religion should be moved over to the Simpson Family article (which, if I remember correctly, is in good need of some organization), with maybe a passing mention in this article. If people want to know what the family's religion is or that their car is from the 80's, they can look up the family; it's not a crucial fact for people reading about the show itself. TheHYPO 17:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
"A large majority has voted on The Simpsons page that the show never jumped the shark"
Doing a quick spreadsheet-aided check of the page, the results come out as..
Never Jumped - 1592 (59.89), Jumped - 1066 (40.11)
Not to quibble over semantics, but "large majority" could be slightly decieving. Although the "Never Jumped" vote over the last few years has a 3/5ths advantage over the "Jumped" votes.
Then again, the JTS method isn't actually the most accurate method (especially since a lot of "Never Jumped" votes have been cast before the most recent seasons). I'm slightly biased since I think the Simpsons should have been put out of it's misery years ago, but I would imagine that a majority would say that the Simpsons have 'jumped the shark'
If you want to get supertechnical, the "Jumped"/"Never Jumped" vote isn't large enough to make it past cloture. Ha.
--RobbieFal 22:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's do this the Wiki way... Jumped or Not Jumped... vote here... - Adolphus79 03:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think they jumped... and if your talking about quality the show is better now than it's ever been... the humor may have gone down some in the last 10 years, but look at how uptight and PC America has gotten in the last 10 years... you can't make fun of stuff the way you used to anymore... you'll get sued... I love the simpsons as a whole, the characters, their interactions, etc... so what if a couple recent episode's plots sucked, or they didn't make as big a joke of something as they could have... - Adolphus79 23:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I could go on, but I think those are the main points. I'm still not exactly sure what 'jumping the shark' indicates. Does it indicate that the show is out of ideas? that it is desperate for ratings? That it's not worth watching anymore? I think it depends on what you think the phrase means. As for Decline of quality. I think that people use that phrase to define 'I am no longer entertained by watching this show as I used to be'. Sorry this got long. I had two hours of blackout to think ;) TheHYPO 02:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Just a note. Jumptheshark is NOT a scientific site, it's a "bitch" site. It does have some good data on old shows, but they have entries on shows like buffy that refer to 2000. And those votes are still counted today. What this means is that if in 1999 you thought the show was hilarious still and voted as such and did the same once a year for the next three years, then in 2003 you hate the show it jumped the shark in your book. The site does not remove the previous votes. And since it's anonymous it's heavily biased. The general feeling in the community is it's jumped the shark (which means the show has started to go down hill. Not necessarily unwatchable but far past it's glory days.) I'd say leave the jumped the shark line in there, and ignore jumptheshark site as it really has no actual data collection criteria, time period, or way to recind votes it's completely incorrect to even consider it as viable data. Kinglink 18:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)