Talk:HOMR

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cyrillic?[edit]

Is it really appropriate to use a Cyrillic letter to try to imitate a backwards 'R'? - furrykef (Talk at me) 00:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it's supposed to be a Latin 'R', not a Cyrillic 'Ya'. With the Cyrillic leter, the title would be pronunced "Homya". --Arteitle 16:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it would be pronounced "Namya". TLC-Kopf 20:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Cyrillic letter En looks like Latin H, but it's a different character with a different Unicode symbol. Georgia guy 18:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to add that the official Fox web site for The Simpsons gives the title as "HOMR" [1]. The Cyrillic 'Ya' may look like a backwards Latin 'R', but it's a completely different letter in a different alphabet with a different pronunciation. --Arteitle 04:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So? They look similar, and only fruitcake alphabet freaks would care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.69.125 (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that covers about three-quarters of regular Wikipedia contributors. TaintedMustard (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time[edit]

Yes!--220.238.238.21 04:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly do you pronounce the title?

Homer. It's just spelt badly, that's all. HOMER. HOMR. HOMЯ.
How do you make a backwards R?Toonmon2005 23:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
very carefully 66.131.26.142 (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 08:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Possible fix for the R / Я.[edit]

The title uses a backwards "R", but there is no way to do this with text on a computer without a specialized font. A possible way to simulate a backwards R could be to use an image instead of a character like is done at I Hate U, and put {{Template:No unicode character}} up. -- kenb215 02:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the question is, is HOMR right or HOMЯ? 'Cause in the norwegian Wikipedia, we have the title "HOMЯ". NorwegianMarcus 07:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While Homer's stupid because of a crayon lodged near his brain, it's HOMЯ. Then when he gets it removed, it's HOMER. When he has it put back, it becomes HOMЯ again. The R is inverted and the E is omitted only to show his lack of inteliigence in signing his own name. --Rahul 09:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The correct answer is that it is HOMR, but with the R backwards. HOMЯ, despite appearance, does not use a backwards R. As the move debate (above) says, this is the Cyrillic Ya. There is no way to display the title with text, thus the idea of using the no character template. -- kenb215 21:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the invention of an acceptable western/latin symbol for the backwards capital letter R. Perhaps the Cyrills won't mind if we borrow their ya, because we rather need it.

Move proposal... again[edit]

Why was there no move? The official title is HOMЯ. We would still have a permenent redirect from HOMR but this should really be at the episode's official title. Is this anything like the decision between "I, (Annoyed Grunt)-Bot" vs. "I, D'oh-Bot" (the latter being not the official written title of the episode but is the official page for the episode on wikipedia). We always have the redirect option.... Valley2city 22:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The correct title isn't HOMЯ. HOMЯ uses the Cyrillic Ya character, while the real title uses a backwards "R". Currently there is no way to make a backwards letter without an image or specialized font. Because nobody has had a problem with using an image since I brought the idea up, I made one, and put it in the article. -- kenb215 talk 00:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But, how was the image created?? Was it created with a backwards R or by copy-pasting the Cyrillic letter Ya?? Georgia guy 21:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried both methods. The images made either way are identical. -- kenb215 talk 20:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And therefore, as the proper title of the episode, should be the title of the article. Who would know the difference whether it is a russian letter or the backwards r in Toys Я Us? Valley2city 21:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody who could easily tell these characters:
ΑΒСΕΗΙIJΚΜΝΟΡΤΥΧҮΖеһіјοѕυν
apart from these:
ABCEHIIJKMNOPTYXYZehijosuv
would know. Even though the character may look the same, using it as a work-around is, IMO, less acceptable than the image currently used. -- kenb215 talk 15:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um... the only characters I could "easily" tell apart in that were u and υ, and that was precisely because they're the only pair shown that don't look the same. --Random832(tc) 13:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of the characters in the top row are Greek, while all of the ones in the bottom row are Latin. Although they look the same to most people, for anybody using an older browser or almost any accessibility tool they will cause some confusion. -- kenb215 talk 03:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the font — on the page itself, I can also see the difference between v and ν; in the edit box, which uses a monospace font, the single character IJ is naturally half the width of the two characters IJ.
The difference would probably be most visible if one of the characters were missing from the user's default font and substituted from a different font — a font is likely to have all English characters or all Russian characters, but not necessarily both. Naturally, this suggests a third option: write all four characters in Cyrillic (НОМЯ), which would ensure consistency but involve *four* wrong characters.
The difference is probably most important for alternative representations, such as voice or Braille; and for any machine manipulation of the text. These will tend to preserve a plain English explanation but mangle any cleverness with similar-looking characters of very different meanings. --Sabik 15:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I SUGGEST USING THE COPY FUNCTION FOR THE WORD НОМЯ FOR ONLY THE LETTER "Я" AND PASTE IT INTO YOUR DOCUMENT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.124.180 (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Over-Complicating the Matter[edit]

Frankly, I'm utterly mystified by the backwards-R debate I'm seeing here. Cyrillic Ya (Я) is a reversed Latin letter R. Wait a minute...oh my God! H, O, and M are also Cyrillic letters! Come to think of it, so are A, B, C, E, H, I, J, K, P, S, T, X and y. So now what do we do? Change all occurences of those letters in the English Wiki to images?

    • I like your sarcastic and extreme humour. It's just like mine.- Rex Imperator 8:04, March 15, 2007


As it has been noted, the resulting appearance is completely identical. So why not just redirect HOMR to HOMЯ and be done with it?
On a less-ranting note, the current Special Character disclaimer seems to imply that Cyrillic is not supported in Unicode. For someone who stumbled on this article with no knowledge of this debate, it was quite a shockər. -Wikilackey 05:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the Unicode for the Cyrillic letter Ya. The Cyrillic letter Ya looks like a backwards R, but it did not originally imitate the R in shape in any way; just look at the Ya (Cyrillic) article and you will see. Nobody ever calls this "Home-yah", which the spelling you're suggesting reads with a mixture of Latin and Cyrillic characters. Georgia guy 23:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gazoo vs. Ozmodiar[edit]

I noticed that in the quotes section of this article, it was stated that Gazoo says "He's right you know." This can't be, since the name of the Gazoo-like character in The Simpsons is Ozmodiar, which is also stated in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.251.54.194 (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • I just fixed that, completely unaware that this was on the talk page. You generally don't need to ask permission for little fixes like that. Master Deusoma 23:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indesputeable proof of the article's title[edit]

Yes I know this subject has been debated to the pit but I'm actually quite suprised why nobody did this before. I went to thesimpsons.com and found the episode http://thesimpsons.com/episode_guide/1209.htm. The title is "HOMR". NOT HOMЯ and not with the "R" typeset backwards so I suggest we remove the notice about the unicode and quit bickering. 71.109.187.202 22:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parable1991 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

About [edit]

Until recently, the article used File:HOMR.PNG (an image with a backwards R.) Someone changed it to saying not to use this image in an HTML comment, which makes this image orphaned. Any discussion on what to do with it?? Georgia guy 16:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I created the image.) This edit was when the comment was added (by User:AEMoreira042281). It says to see the talk page, despite the fact that the page doesn't particularly support either side. I would just leave the image alone for the time being, as there is no consensus, and probably won't be for a while, if ever. -- kenb215 talk 17:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Episode Guide Book, The Simpsons Beyond Forever!: A Complete Guide to Our Favorite Family ...Still Continued spells it, "HOMЯ".--Steven X 07:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC story[edit]

Would it be helpful to incorprate this story into the article? It is about a medical case that actually resembles to some degree what happens in the episode. Balcer 23:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HOMR = a play on WOPR?[edit]

I always thought the name of this episode was a play on the name of the super-smart government computer in War Games, "WOPR." Yes? No? It would make sense, since Homer becomes super-smart himself. I really have my doubts about it having any relation to CHAЯLY as it mentions in the article. Can anyone back this up with a reference? Taborgate 14:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't see any significant connection between HOMR and WOPR. By contrast, Charly was about a man of low intelligence who undergoes an experimental medical procedure to increase his intelligence. And, like "HOMR", the title "Charly" was his name misspelled (his name was Charlie). The parallels to this episode should speak for themselves. I don't have any reliable sources to back this up, but here are some not-exactly-reliable ones: Simpsons Folder, SNPP.com, TV.com, and TV Tropes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comic[edit]

Am I on drugs, or did Simpsons Comics have an issue with this exact plot probably 4 or 5 years before they made this cartoon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.74.141.146 (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Happiness-intelligence-lisasimpson.jpg[edit]

Image:Happiness-intelligence-lisasimpson.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cultural References[edit]

The Cultural References section is full of tons of unwarranted speculation. Fact tags all around please. 'Cultural References' would also be an awesome name for a band. Lots42 (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded —69.224.222.195 (talk) 06:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blur in pic[edit]

Does this article deserve a better picture? I mean, its pretty blurry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.42.132 (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inspiration for episode[edit]

@User:Jaqen. Regarding your recent edit, I don't see how the Entertainment & Arts section of the BBC can be taken as a reliable source for what the scriptwriter (Al Jean) was thinking about when he wrote the episode. This is especially so considering that the cited article is an obituary for Daniel Keyes and does not include any interview with Jean. I think it best to simply remove the statement from the article. But before I do so, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree totally with your point, even without an interview to Al Jean there would be no need to remove the statement: we could just rewrite in order to clarify that reliable sources have find a similarity between the two works and they consider HOMR to be inspired by Flowers for Algernon. And if BBC wasn't enough there is also Variety calling the episode a "smart parody of “Flowers for Algernon”". Vulture calls it an "homage".
Luckily, this case is simpler because we got an interview in which Al Jean says "I wrote one which won an Emmy, a 'Flowers for Algernon,' that meant a lot to me." It also seems that Jean and others talked about the episode at The Simpsons 25th anniversary panel at the Comic-Con 2014: there are videos of the panel online but I don't have time to watch it right now. --Jaqen (talk) 09:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. The interview with Jean is the perfect source for this kind of statement, so I went ahead and used it in place of the Keyes obituary. I appreciate the extra research you put into this. Thanks again. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HOMR. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural References[edit]

This episode resembles Daniel Keyes novel, Flowers for Algernon, as both feature a mentally retarded protagonist undergoing an intelligence-improving procedure. After the operation, both protagonists begin to form new connections as a result of their heightened intelligence, but also lose other relationships as others begin to resent their newfound knowledge. Finally, in the conclusion of both, the protagonist returns to their initial mental state (albeit through different ways). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambstudent721 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HOMR. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HOMR. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HOMR&oldid=1207633091"