Talk:The Simpsons/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

The Town of Springfield

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.

One thing that has bothered me about Springfield Missouri is that Springfield is on the Sea. I the [springfield effect] has a better chance of explaining it.

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)

In The Future Section

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)

Television infobox

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)

As I'm purely a stickler for systems and regimentalism, I like it. But I won't take offense if others want its removal. -- THOR 23:50, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I'll remove it then, as I see no point in keeping it. The format of the show, creator, country, debut date, and number of episodes are all mentioned very early in the article. There's also a section just for the cast of the show and an IMDB link at the bottom of the page. Really, the only reason why I don't like it is because it's so redundant and takes up a lot of space. Now if it was a standard thing for all TV series, then I guess it would have to be added, but for now I think it would be best left out. --Kaizersoze 20:51, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Early Comments

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

Well, if you're right, then we should put it back in it's own article, and add that information about the real-world version. - Bulbaboy 01:02, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I don't know - after all it was started by the Simpsons! If we add in about its real values, and keep the redirext running, the best thing is probably to keep it part of the main Simpsons page. - Ludraman, 1705, 26/02/04

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?

  • It won't ever be the longest-running television show. It may outpace shows like Gunsmoke but shows like As the World Turns and Guiding Light have been airing every day since the 1950s. It just won't ever be the longest-running show. Mike H 19:32, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

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

This week, last week, the week before, etc. I am with Graft on this. Take it as an "object." Danny
Definately agree with both Danny and Graft here... I mean is the main content of Wikipedia aimed at beig a representation of our current culture or of the history of our culture (which I'm afraid spans a little more than the last decade or century for that matter... Human history has outlived civilisations, never mind countries or the physical (buildings and the like). Social humans have been around writing their history for thousands of years, never mind before that... and here we are with some of best editted articles being about a cartoon series (granted quite a good one). -- *<:@)
Incidentally the imediate family Simpsons (Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa and Maggie) have twice as many search hits as Johann Gutenburg (inventor of movable type) - ie references to said people...
  • (Homer or Marge or Bart or Lisa or Maggie) and Simpson vs.
  • Johann Gutenberg
Which do you reckon contributed more to society? -- *<:@)
Even Homer Simpson on his own has more references... *sigh* -- *<:@)

Subpages discussion

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:

  • Marge Simpson -- if nobody real has that name
  • Marge (The Simpsons) -- for the character if there's a name conflict.

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

That sounds reasonable to me. Danny
Agree. Ktsquare
Also agree! Thanks guys. Rlee0001 11:21 Jul 25, 2002 (PDT)
All power to you, objection fifthed -- *<:@)

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

Hold on, Ed! So far everyone has voted against all these new pages. Why keep making them? There are no directives from above in Wikipedia. It seems like most people so far agree that all characters except for Homer and possibly Bart can be put on a single page. Danny
Tell ya what: If you will consolidate the minor characters, I will adjust the redirects. Work with me on this, or I'm going back to Middle-earth. I miss the elves. --Ed
Frankly, I don't think this is important enough for me to waste my time with it. And what I say about the Simpsons goes just as much for all elves, gnomes, leprechauns, and other dimensionally-challenged characters in Tolkien's world. Danny
Ed is doing exactly what you want now, Danny. He moved the single line of text from "The Simpsons/Lenny" into the main characters page, and made it link there. I think that's a fine way to do it. He's not creating all the old "/" articles--those are already here. He's just making them redirect to the collective one. He is further suggesting that he'd rather someone else do the rest of them. Can't blame him for that either. --LDC
That's not what I see happening. Danny
I really prefer each character to have their own page. What's wrong with that? Wikpedia is not paper, so there's no minimum size for an article. Besides, I enjoy clicking the links to explore the relationships between the various characters. The hypertext aspect of the content is lost if I have to scan up and down trying to find, say, the creepy boss, or who broke Lisa's saxaphone. Let's gather some more consensus before I start "heavy lifting" again. --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?

Michaelangelo, Donatello, Leonardo and, um, er, don't know the last one (Carravagio?). And I hated those turtles! Still, with any luck the articles there are about the artists, not the turtles! PaulHammond 13:06, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

Of course, since they were named after very famous Italian artists. But, to the point: you're right, Wikipedia lacks several substantial encyclopedia articles. I, like you, hope they will come, and try to help, as do most of the people that edit a page here. But not all of us are knowledgeable on all of these topics, sometimes not even knowledgeable enough for one topic. I don't care about that (though I do know _something_), as I just take some books or website to look things up when I think it deserves editing. But not everybody does, so they edit things they know about. Their jobs (which for many happens to be computer related) or studies, their home city or country. And also the things they see on tv, or the movies they watch, the books they read, etc. That's a reasons there's a lot of "popular culture" around. And that's just fine with me.
And I don't think the fact there's a lot about one topic means the Encyclopedia as a whole is not NPOV. For that matter, baseball would be the most important sport around, and the September 11 attacks the most important event of all time. They're not. And everybody that comes here and realises what the project is and is about will recognise that fact.
About forgetting icons, I think that here, where I live, in the Netherlands, more people will have heard of Homer Simpson than of Huckleberry Finn - and they'll remember him.
Less specific, I don't think we should try to "ban" specific sorts of material from the pedia unless we're pretty sure it isn't encyclopedia material. What I mean: if you "ban" cartoon characters, what more shouldn't be here? Jeronimo 14:30 Jul 25, 2002 (PDT)
I agree that we shouldn't ban anything. I just think more sense and consideration of the goals of the project should be considered when adding information. BTW, I think in America too, Homer is more identifiable than Huck Finn. Personally, I am not happy about that either. Danny
There's an election at Talk:Characters (The Simpsons) that you might like to vote in, Danny and others. I don't promise to abide by the majority, but I guarantee that your votes will influence me enormously. Ed Poor

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

I've been merging some articles. It occurs to me that I should have advertised the discussion about this here as well: see Talk:List of characters from The Simpsons for the details. Martin

"...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)

I found my answer at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/reviews/3234778.stm He appeared on Nov 23, 2003. Kowloonese 20:14, 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)

See [1] for similarities. Rmhermen 19:36, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

The Simpsons Sing the Blues

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)

The Simpsons Sing the Blues violet/riga 11:24, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Phil Hartman

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)

He's there now, eh? Krupo
Odd comment, anon. Nowhere in this article is Phil Hartman mentioned - I really think he needs to be especially when his death caused popular characters to be withdrawn. violet/riga (t) 09:24, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That wasn't anon, I just forgot to sign off. Oops - have no idea why I thought he was already there... Anyway, he's in now! Krupo 22:05, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Which characters had to be withdrawn after his death? sars 22:33, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Obviously the ones which he did the voices for, mainly Troy McClure and the lawyer Lionel Hutz. --Jasper99 11:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Crowds

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)

Not especially. He does seem to take part more often than other characters, but I wouldn't say it's worthy of a mention. Foolish Mortal 15:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Ramones

Anybody knows in which episode The Ramones are appearing?

They featured in episode 1F01, "Rosebud". They played at Mr Burns' birthday party, where he mistook them for the Rolling Stones (Burns: "Have the Rolling Stones killed", Smithers: "But sir, those weren't...", Burns: "Do as I say!") —Rory ☺ 20:43, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

The Politics of "The Simpsons"

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)

voice actors

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

Series History

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)

  • That depends how you define a "true hit". Yes, those series did become hits before The Simpsons, but The Simpsons was a bigger hit than both of them and one of FOX's biggest hits to this day. It's all subjective. Kaizersoze 20:52, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Under the Movies Within the Simpsons subheading

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)

The downfall of the Simpsons

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.

  • It's funny; you call yourself a "huge fan of the Simpsons" yet you seem to really bent upon adding your opinion of how much the show sucks to a public Encyclopedia. That's pretty hypocritical of you. Not to mention that most of those statements are completely false.
  • I am a huge fan of the show, the first eight years, after that I am not a fan. I don't think I'm being hypocritical by saying the later years are not as good as the early years. If you are a fan of the Simpsons do you have to like every single episode- I dont think so. Shows decline as they get older, its a fact. The Simpsons has declined and we all know this, no one though seems to want to admit it. Watch a show from the fourth season and then one from last week and tell me if you think the show is exactly the same in quality. In terms of adding my opinion I don't think it is just my opinion but a large majority of Simpsons fans. That being the case I think it would be appropriate to add a section dealing with this. People reading the Encyclopedia deserve to know all the aspects of the show, even its decline. Also, I just saw a commercial for next week's Simpsons. It has Homer acting like an idiot because of some sort of brain damage and Gary Bussey guest staring. Do you still think my statements about pointless guest apperences and Homer acting like a buffon are 'completely false'??
  • Sign your edits please guys. I second the motion and agree with this sentiment exactly. The show totally sucks today and I rarely laugh once during a new episode; but pop in my season 4 DVD and I'm pissing myself from laughter. It's just a completely different show today and 90% of the brilliance it once had is totally gone now. The 'core seasons' of the show are clearly around seasons 3 to 9 with the peak of genius being somewhere around season 5-6. Look, I even made a graph...I like graphs....:). Seriously though, it will be utterly impossible to have a section titled "downfall of the simpsons". What will have to be done is to frame this in the view of the majority of viewers or something. Something like "many fans of the show percieve that over time after ....blah blah the simpsons blah blah blah...." The claims will need to be backed up with data which may be mined from usenet posts (instances of "that ep. sucked" plotted against season or something?) or from ratings on snpp transcript archives maybe.--Deglr6328 07:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I came here to add the exact same suggestion - there should bv a section on the change in the show (which many view as a negative change. 69.136.234.155
  • Since it's so popular amongst regular viewers of the Simpsons to talk about how much it sucks then just write it. Nobody's stopping you. I personally feel it's a bit redundant. How can anyone expect a show to be fresh and new after 350 episodes? Just the fact that it made it so far, tells that the quality of todays episodes are worth watching compared to its competitors. --Maitch 11:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

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)

This is already covered in Jumping the shark and List of shows that are widely considered to have jumped the shark, where it is much better suited. Otherwise, you are just beng POV. Sonic Mew 14:43, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Longest running

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)

Guiding Light, The Tonight Show and Saturday Night Live have all run for longer. As for sitcoms, I'm not sure. violet/riga (t) 16:20, 31 Mar 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.

Sazae-san is probably the longest running animated TV series, but by no means the longest running TV series in general. There several British programmes such as the soap Coronation Street which have run even longer, and have for some time broadcast more than one episode a week. --Zilog Jones 17:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Update: After consulting the Guinness Book of Records 1998 (sorry, don't have a newer one), NBC's Meet the Press is the longest running show (1947-), Coronation Street has been running since 1960 (twice-weekly, then three times a week since 1989), The Sky at Night has been running since 1957 with the same presenter, and the BBC's Last of the Summer Wine is the longest running comedy (started in 1973, though I think it may have ended now). There's no mention of longest running animated series, but I can't see it being anything else but Sazae-san. --Zilog Jones 17:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Simpsons still rule though. mrholybrain 12:36, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Korean Production of Simpsons Animation

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.

Trivia section getting out of hand

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)

That's a good idea. I think some of the trivia could also be incorporated into other sections of the article (Settings, Characters and Plot; Series History; etc.) --Kaizersoze 20:29, Mar 27, 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)

Coltrane/Coltraine

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)

Setting, characters, and plot

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 ...

It was mentioned on one of the commentaries that his voice is loosely based on some old psychologist whom many considered to have an annoying voice, but I can't remember the name. --Kaizersoze 17:37, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
listen http://users.bigpond.com/n_tait/ae.mp3

External Links

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)

Featured article?

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"

"Moe – Matt Groening's former drug rehab counselor" wait a sec......Matt was in drug rehab?


North Tacoma

I think the passage on NT should stay. There is proof:

About.com

From the BBC itself

Google Search Pacific Coast Highway 13:30, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Kevin Lloyd

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)

Gamefaqs board

Would a external link to the the GameFAQ's board for The Simpsons be worthy?

Similar TV Shows

What exactly is the purpose of the Similar TV Shows section? tregoweth 21:59, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Cosby Vs Simpsons

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)

Cosby was already starting to slip in '88-'89 when Lisa Bonet left and shows like Roseanne were debuting. I figure The Simpsons VS. The Cosby Show was mostly hype. --Jpblo

Syndication

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?

References

Does ANYONE WHO WROTE THIS can tell sources? The FA won't accept a page without references... igordebraga ≠ 22:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Changing Humour in the Simpsons

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.

Longest running animated series

"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.

Removed from Cars section

I've removed this from the Cars section as it didn't really make much sense where it was:

Homer has enjoyed repeated hirings by Mr. Burns, has been fired at least once and has quit several times. In one episode, he is fired, becomes a used car salesman and ends up as an ambulance driver in the space of twenty-two minutes plus commercials.
The show also has a vast array of quirky supporting characters, including co-workers, teachers, family friends, extended relatives, and local celebrities. Many of these characters have developed a vast cult following of their own. For a comprehensive list, see characters from The Simpsons. Some of these, like Itchy and Scratchy, super-violent versions of Tom and Jerry, are fictional even within the Simpsons universe.

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)

"Setting/Where is Springfield" section

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

Character Templates

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)

Cool! Just one thing though: The red box with the text in it is a bit hard to read. Why not have Simpson Yellow instead. Ps. What is up with Homer's eyes!? smurrayinaHauntedHouse...Boo!(User), (Talk) 20:36, 26 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)

Distributor list

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

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.

Deleted links

Can someone explain to me why every "Simpsons" website linked gets deleted? There's no reason. They are valuable resources about the show.

Because Wikipedia is not a link repository (aka Wikipedia is not Google). A handful of links should be (and is) inlcuded. If the user needs information not provided by those links, then they should be capable of launching a Google (etc.) search for it. Otherwise we'll have every Geocities site on here run by 14-year-old webmasters. The JPS 06:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

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

It seems to have been corrected, because the sites listed at the moment are far from 'crap'. There are hundreds of Simpsons sites out there, and it is not unreasonable that someone would attempt to use wikipedia to get more hits. We need to address POV in our selection of external links too (esp. true when you resort to vague descriptions such as "crap"). Selecting the official site and the site run by the newsgroup seems to be pretty safe. The JPS 09:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The external links as they stand right now look pretty good. I don't see much reason to add anything besides what's there, and I don't see any good reason to delete any of the ones that are there, either.--chris.lawson 00:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


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)

List removal

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)

Evergreen Terrace

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.

EA Games

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)

Thanks. Someone also confirmed this to me on my talk page. I just wanted to make sure it was factual before it got buried in other edits. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 07:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Halloween Specials

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)

Debut in Muslim/Arab Countries

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)

POV In Film Section

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)

Thanks for pointing this out. I have changed it to a more NPOV. It previously read:
  • (Matt Groening recently turned down a proposal to make a live action film based on the characters, as this would likely ruin the franchise and anger fans)
It now reads:
  • (Matt Groening recently turned down a proposal to make a live action film based on the characters, feeling that this would have the potential to ruin the franchise and anger fans)
Anyone else is welcome to tweak this if you feel it would make it read better.
EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 23:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Awesome. Is there any source you can point me to that shows this was Groening's reason?Dave 23:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't able to find these exact words, but things very similar (perhaps we can change the sentence to fit with these sources, if we wish). The main article about turning down a full length movie is here. The main quote seems to be:
Matt Groening, the man behind 'The Simpsons' has revealed he's turned down a proposal to make a feature length episode starring real actors. He reckons fans of the show would hate the idea...
He has also said multiple times that a movie (not necessarily just a live-action movie) would potentially "kill" the franchise. On this page it says he feels a poor movie would effect the TV show.
Those are the best ones I found...a good source to see what everyone has said about a Simpsons movie is here.
EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 00:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Who keeps adding a cars section?

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.

Do you think a 'List Of Songs Featured In The Series' would be good idea ?

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)

I think the List of songs featured in The Simpsons is a great idea :-) Fred Bradstadt 19:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

What is a spoiler?

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).

Religious conservatives section

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:

  • Bart's prayer asking God to restore his soul was answered (yes Lisa bought it but He works in mysterious ways lol);
  • when Bart asked for a miracle to get the day off school there was an unseasonable snowstorm;
  • when Marge prayed for the family's wellbeing during the hurricane it blew itself out and the Simpsons lost nothing; and
  • when Homer decided to follow Ned's example and pray, several of his prayers were answered (some of them ridiculous/whimsical): He gave Homer a new taste combination (bacon (or pork rinds?) and fudge); the Simpsons' house needed extensive drywall repair, Homer prayed for a solution and broke his leg at the church, sued the church, and was awarded the deed to the church; and I think there was another one in that episode. {comment:it was bacon}

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':

  • Ned reminded God 'it's me' during a bowling game and the last pin dropped;
  • Ned asked God to save Todd when Maude launched him in a reed basket down a swift river; and
  • there was one where I don't remember the prayer, but I remember God saying 'Okeley-Dokeley' to Ned when Ned thanked Him. {it was after the prayer to save Todd that God said that}

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)

Simpson Episodes Question

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)

Fan Controversy

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)

I disagree, a simple rewording won't be enough to save this disaster of a section. There are too many "Many fans feel ..." and other similarly vague and unverifiable statements to make it worth saving. I say delete the whole section. — EagleOne\Talk 01:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm a former rabid fan of The Simpsons, and I certainly think that The Simpsons have absolutely sucked after the tenth or twelfth season or so—I've since stopped watching the new episodes. However, I'm not notable enough to have my comments included in the articles, and neither are "fans". Then again, it all depends on how you would reword the article. I agree with your rewording the title (eliminate the capitalisation to make it "Public criticism", though), but I'm still going to reserve judgement on the textual content of this article. Given some time, I'll probably work on it as well. --Deathphoenix 13:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Almost all fans I've talked to believe that the "glory days" of the Simpsons lie in the past, especially the first half (i.e.- first 8 seasons) of the show. Many note Phil Hartman's death in 1998 as a turning point. However, I agree that this should be done in some verifiable way. Perhaps we could use these user ratings, noting NONE of the top 50 rated episodes have been since 1997? (N.B.- You will see 5 of this year's episodes on this list, but none of these have actually aired yet, and are only up there by a small number of votes from people who haven't seen the episode yet). Any thoughts or other sources? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 21:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Votes like that can be a bit dubious; perhaps giving the actual viewing figures may work better instead, although even that isn't perfect; Bart Gets an F is the highest rated ever episode of The Simpsons, but no-one could say the show's been going downhill since the start of Season 2. smurrayinchester(User), (Ho Ho Ho!) 21:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I actually have a completely different take on the quality of Simpsons shows. I'm 38 years old, and never watched The Simpsons until about 1999-2000. I don't have any TV reception, so my only access has been through tapes of the show my Dad makes for me (mostly re-runs, plus the new seasons as they come out). Because re-runs aren't broadcast in order (go CBC), I had no idea for the first few years which seasons I was watching (except for the general timestamps reflected by the presence of Doris Grau and Phil Hartman).
I'd heard about how TS had declined in quality over the years, so I assumed - whenever I saw an episode I thought was poorly written or executed - that it was of a later vintage. I was surprised to find, after I became a real fangirl and started reading up on the series, that many of my 'thumbs down' episodes had actually been from earlier seasons, and some of my faves (or just episodes I thought were particularly well-done) were more recent. Furthermore, I've found many episodes that I thought were crap the first time I saw them, grew on me after a few viewings (offhand the Hank Scorpio and Marge vs Big Sugar episodes are the only ones that spring to mind), and I wonder to what degree this 'attachment through repeat exposure' phenomenon applies to earlier seasons.
I do think the show has declined slightly in quality (on the - Season Two I think - DVD the producers admitted to rolling out all their best ideas at once because they didn't think the show was going to last), but I wonder to what degree the prevailing opinions of longtime fans can be attributed to other factors?--Anchoress 22:53, 18 January 2006 (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.

OH man, somebody erased any criticism towards the series, now its just one HUGE extended fandom praise to the simpsons.

Moe = Rich Hall

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.

When he was on Spicks and Specks, Adam Hills introduced him as the mad they based Moe on.--Greasysteve13 05:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone agree this isn't true?

The character Waylon Smithers. Since the debut of the show, the term "Smithers" has become a common eponym for a spineless underling.

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

which couch gag was 46 seconds

does anyone know Johnnysfish 22:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's this one. From the description at The Simpsons Archive:
FABF08, GABF05 The couch scene pans out until it reaches intergalactic space, where the galaxies are replaced with atoms, which pan out until they reach Homer's head and then the couch scene again
--Nick RTalk 22:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it could be:
GABF20 Springfield's couches rise up against their masters. It sounds short, but it took ages (There's a full description of it at The Simpsons couch gags). smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 10:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Arabic

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)

You're right; the Arabic as it now exists is incorrect (it appears to be a go at spelling "simpsons" rather than the actual name of the program as broadcast in Arabic-speaking markets, "Al-Shampshoon." If I knew how to correct it, I would, but I believe it should be spelled aleph-lam-sheen-meem-beh-sheen-wow-noon. I don't believe there was an "s" at the end, but haven't seen it in a couple of months (it was only broadcast during Ramadan on any channel I can get, alas)..... Robertissimo 14:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Change from original vision

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)

Awards?

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)

List of fictional places on The Simpsons

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)

qrank calls

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)

Besides, there is one at Moe Szyslak#Prank calls. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

redirect problem

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)

Debut in Arab/Muslim Countries

Why is it under "Simpsons Publications"? .----Ultrabasurero

Running gags

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)

Spelling of "Xt'tapalatakettle"

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)

This is discussed here: [3]--Greasysteve13 06:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Highest Rated Simpsons Episode

does anyone know what the highest rated simpsons episode is?

Who Shot Mr. Burns? Part Two had the most amount of viewers. --DChiuch 10:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I think I've heard "Bart Gets an F" cited as the most-watched episode, but that statistic might be out of date, or possibly only in comparison to The Cosby Show. --Nick RTalk 14:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Live-action recreation of the Simpsons opening.

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 hasn't actually been shown in Britain yet, just appeared on the internet. Not sure exactly how Sky One are going to use it...perhaps as an intro to a special episode. BillyH 13:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I was just about to come on here and add that info but someone beat me to it. :P I think it may be used as a couch gag but I'm not sure. I'll keep you updated.
What does everyone else think of the live-action opening? I think it is really fantastic. One of the coolest things I have seen ever. The attention to detail is amazing. I urge anyone who hasn't seen it yet (and loves The Simpsons or just the opening sequence) to download it. <3 --Rachel Cakes 02:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I did not like the opener I thought It was kind of "cheesey" if u will.

The Simpsons is an American animated sitcom created by Matt Groening.

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)

True. But this fact does not lessen the beauty of the definition. The attribute "American" refers to "sitcom", not to the "animation". We could also say: The Simpsons is an American South East Asia-animated sitcom. But that would not make so much of a difference in terms of the origin of the Simpsons (which is certainly US American). Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (14042006)

A section on University Thesis

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)

Otto Mang

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)

Featured article candidate

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)

about Homer's car...

"...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)

Section names and "Recurring jokes"

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)

How would you end the simpsons? what do you think the ratings for the series finale will be?

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...

Plots section

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":

  • Scenes that cut from the main action to show what a secondary character, like Krusty or Mr. Burns, is doing at the time.

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:

  • A scene in which one or more Simpsons are watching a TV program, which the viewer watches along with them, or watches them watch it, often to be interrupted.

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.

  • A scene in which Bart makes a prank call to Moe's Tavern.
  • A scene in which Homer is at Moe's Tavern escaping the hassles of work and family to be with his friends.

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)

Failed Good Article nomination

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)

also, theres hardly any criticism... its no secret that the new chapters are of lesser quality than some of the past seassons 7 years ago, yet theres not even a slight comment about it. This whole article is one extended praise to the show.

Feature Film section / The merging of this thread and the The Simpsons Movie thread

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)

Now that the movie has been officially confirmed, does it deserve its own page?. 'The Simpsons movie' currently redirects here, re a request for deletion . One comment in that discussion notes 'This gets its own article as soon as Fox officially announces that the movie's for real. Now it's at the stage where it'll probably happen sooner or later, but nobody knows when', with others agreeing to this proposal. If there's no comments against then I think someone should recreate the movie aritcle; i'll do it within 24 hours if there aren't any objections. Robdurbar 17:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
If you do, take note of this USA TODAY article: [6]. It has the first statements by the creators since the trailer's release. 71.96.218.203 19:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The rationale for merging the two threads was that there is no concrete evidence that any plans for a movie exists. Now that the teaser trailers have been shown during Ice Age: The Meltdown and during the latest Simpsons episode, I think that there is enough "proof" to move it back. Sapientia abhorreo imprudentia
Yeah; it's been done! Robdurbar 09:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Neighbors

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)


Ugly duckling

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)

Huge influence on post–Cold War popular culture?

The following is written in the lead:

"It [The Simpsons] has had a huge influence on post–Cold War popular culture."

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)

Setting

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)

You did a good job in my opion. --Maitch 22:46, 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.

Critisicm

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)

The problem so far has been that people couldn't write something that uses references and doesn't contain weasel words. Yesterday somebody wrote a well referenced text about the negative critical reactions in the lead. We need more of that and less of "The Simpsons totally suck now" or "many consider The Simpsons awful now". The lead is a bit long now so I propose that we make a "Critical reactions" section in which both positive and negative reactions are mentioned. --Maitch 14:26, 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)

Cull the ugly, disgusting herd of episodes.

An article for each episode. Gross and pointless. --162.84.163.5 21:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The same's done with other series like Family Guy and South Park. I personally also think its a bit too much, but obviously lots of people seem to think its worth it. -- jeffthejiff 09:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
300-odd articles dedicated to one cartoon show? That's obscene. Their is even a list for "prank call's" done in the Simpsons? Seriously now.--141.155.136.145 21:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
If it ain't broke don't fix it!--M Johnson (talk • contribs) 00:56, 20 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 agree. After all, WP:NOT paper (that's how we refer to the Internet having unlimited space in Wikipedia-specific terms). --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree also. There are some Simpsons articles that are unnecessary, but episode articles are not one of them. — mæstro t/c, 04:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This is getting beyond a joke

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)

  • Good to know someone agrees! Let's take a look at the lists, shall we?

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)

I agree that it is a little over the top, and that systemic bias is a problem throughout WP - I mean, Star Wars has its own WikiProject, for goodness sake... However, I would urge restraint, and ask that you peruse the goals and beliefs of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians (and their WikiProject before making any rash decisions. Whilst the amount of articles on this topic is an example of imbalance on WP, I can't see them doing any specific harm, either, and I'd emphasise the benefit in favouring merging over outright deletion. Nuge | talk 00:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Nuge. Furthermore, the best way to counter systematic bias is to create articles in obscure topic areas, not to delete current content. Remember, WP:NOT paper; if a subject is notable, it can have as much information on it as people can contribute. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 00:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm actually independent on this issue. I don't think we should get rid of all of these pages (in the case of the list of episodes, this is a concept that is done for many other notable TV shows), since what's the harm? (And, as EWS23 pointed out, this isn't a paper encyclopedia.) However, some, such as List of Simpsons Stores & Signs do go a bit too far, as (in the example I gave) The Simpsons has had so many stores and signs in some form or another in its run, it may well be a good candidate for deletion. In simple terms, we shouldn't delete every list about the show, but we could likely live without lists that could be unmaintainable (and aren't unmaintainable lists good candidates for AfD?). --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not rabid about documenting every single item of minutae related to The Simpsons, but if for no other reason than that whatever we delete is likely to keep being re-created by enthusiasts, I would be in favour of merging rather than deleting. One topic listed above, though, 'neologisms', I would be in definite favour of keeping; it's evidence of the measurable effect The Simpsons is having on the culture at large, and I think it is notable.--Anchoress 02:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I don't believe in saying that topic A is more important than topic B and therefore we should start deleting pages until topic B has fewer pages than topic A. The best way to counter this problem would be to start working on topic A or to merge several stubs from topic B into one article. I for one wouldn't mind if there were an article for every episode of every TV series if there were a decent amount of real information. "Real" information includes a summary, cast and crew for this specific episode, awards and maybe some stories from the production of the episode. You could make a good article about a single episode, but mostly these articles are not that good. One thing I would like to mention is that Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes, which instead belongs to Wikiquote. We have to move all the quotes over to Wikiquote. When we do that the single episode articles would become very short and it would be possible to merge them into season articles instead. I've seen this done for other TV series. If there is a list that you feel is pretty pointless I would suggest that you nominate it for AfD. --Maitch 15:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Well two articles - List of musical groups named after references from The Simpsons and List of Simpsons Stores & Signs - have been listed. Hopefully this will give an indication of the attitude towards these Simpsons articles and we might get an idea on the validity of them all. Robdurbar 16:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I've also nominated Shøp for deletion. --Maitch 18:22, 16 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)

After looking closer at those that were nominated for deletion, I really don't mind them being removed, as they had little or no context or relevence. However, as Anchoress said above, the one I'd say we should definitely keep is List of neologisms on The Simpsons. The Simpsons has had a notable influence on the English language, and it should be documented. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 21:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify. I do not intend to nominate every list for deletion. Some of them does have value. --Maitch 21:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the neologisms could stay; the fictional characters and characters could be merged, as could the celebrities and spoofed celebrities. The list of episodes should stay but the others above could all go. Robdurbar 21:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Both List of Homer Simpson's jobs and List of animals in The Simpsons seem to be well developed. They could potentially be merged into Homer Simpson and List of characters from The Simpsons respectively, but that would probably make those pages too large and someone would probably suggest reforking them. I think there's big differences between undeveloped pages like List of Simpsons Stores & Signs and developed ones like List of animals in The Simpsons. Any thoughts? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 21:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Responding to Maitch's post above: Is it appropriate to move quotes by fictional characters to WikiQuotes?--Anchoress 05:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
It is appropiate. On the Wikiquote main page they mention television shows as one their top categories. Wikiquote already has a page for The Simsons (see Wikiquote:en:The Simpsons) and as you can see there has been transwikied before. --Maitch 10:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the removal of the Simpsonslistcruft. We can't host endless reams of specific trivial information only interesting to die-hard enthusiasts. We could have List of Homer Simpson's jobs ordered chronologically, List of times Marge Simpson let her hair down, List of Simpsons streetlamps... These sorts of things are for a Simpsons wiki, not a general encyclopedia wiki. I know WP is not paper, but its also not an indiscriminate collection of information. We have got to have some sort of cut-off point between what we should and shouldnt keep to maintain some level of organisation and respectability. -- jeffthejiff 16:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

New Opening

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)

Websites?

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)

Production cost

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)

Sure, if you can find verifiable sources for it. Another thing is that as far as I know is length of an epiosode of The Simpsons not always exactly the same length, so I question the 24000 frames. I've also heard that it should take two years to produce an episode. --Maitch 11:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Simpsons in syndication

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)


Possible Correction

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.

Overseas animation studios

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)

Here's a link: http://www.freewebs.com/speedyboris/simpsons.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.88.26.100 (talk • contribs)

Thanks a lot. It makes fact checking way more easy. --Maitch 10:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Otto Mang (again)

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 official website says "Otto Mann". I wouldn't pay that much attention to a minor detail that can only be seen in a frozen frame. I could be a drawing error. --Maitch 14:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
D'oh! koolman2

"More adult standard"

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)

I do think the sentence is flawed, but I don't necessarily agree with you either. Last time I checked you are an adult when you are 18 - especially when compare to the pre-teen kids who usually watches morning cartoons.
The pioneering animated shows that tried to make jokes for adults were The Flintstones and The Jetsons, which both were on prime time television. After they were cancelled nobody considering making a new animated show on prime time TV. In the late 1980s The Simpsons came along and started a second wave of these shows. If it wasn't for The Simpsons then there would have been no Family Guy, South Park or King of the Hill.
So what do we do with the sentence? I wouldn't call it pioneering, because I believe that the honour belongs to The Flintstones and The Jetsons. Here is my suggestion of an improvement.
The Simpsons started a second wave of prime time animated shows, which also targeted adult audiences.
What do you think? --Maitch 13:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I think talking about it as "prime time animated shows" work much better as that makes more sense, where it bridges the gap, kids can watch a cartoon at 8, and the show did have more adult tones to it. I hardly would call that a quanifier of 'adult standard' though, but that's fine as it started to bring more adult themes into the show and it definatly did target more "adults"--Kinglink 19:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC).

Wikiproject: Simpsons

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)

Archived

I've archived this page. (It was over 32KB). Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 15:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Impact on television

I've added this section to the article. It needs expansion though. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 15:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Video game section

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)

Location, location, location...

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)

good luck with that, for 17 seasons we've been trying to figure out where it is... there's an article here on Wikipedia Springfield (The Simpsons)... here are a few hints, springfield does not really exist, it's puposely not located so that the characters can go wherever they want... it's within a couple hours of beaches, mountains, glaciers, a volcano, jungles, etc... the state abbreviation is NT (which is not a real state)... one theory claims that Springfield is based on Springfield, Oregon (as most of The Simpsons is based on stuff and people and places in Oregon) due to Matt Groening growing up in Oregon... - Adolphus79 02:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
This is pretty comprehensive, and after not long, I'm pretty sure using clues similar to what you've listed they were able to discount every state. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 04:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that's the point of Springfield, it is impossible to claim one state or the other... done for ease of storyline, so the family can go anywhere they need to for an episodes plot... - Adolphus79 04:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, on "Poppa's Got a Brand New Badge," on the commercial for SpringShield, the area code is 636, and 636 is in Missouri. I know that Springfield isn't really anywhere, just wanted to see what other people thought about it.The Runescape Junkie 16:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Thought you might be interested to know that the most likely candidate is the town of Springfield, Oregon. Although it would be Interstate 5, not 95, in all other respects it is the best match, and also the Springfield nearest and dearest to Groening's heart. --Edwardian Flamebait 02:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm still confused as to why people try to tie the clearly fictional city that is intentionally located so as it could not possibly fit any real state into a real state. TheHYPO 08:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. I'm trying to keep the section short, because everytime you just mention one state, then some fanboy starts adding another state. --Maitch 09:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear me, you people, honestly! When are you going to realise that Springfield is 'everytown'. The whole point of it is that it *doesn't* have a location, it *could* be just about anywhere. Every state has any number of 'Springfields', just like here in the UK, there are any number of dead beat towns just the same.

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)

What is the name of the episode where homer works with the evil guy

I mean the one where homer gets a new job? Jamhaw 18:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)jamhaw

the one when he works for Scorpio? he's worked for a lot of evil people in his lifetime... which evil guy? - Adolphus79 22:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Scorpio I want to see what my favriout episodes article is like Jamhaw 16:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)jamhaw
It's called You Only Move Twice. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 12:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Themes

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

  • Oh yeah Fox iis NOT conservitve in the least it is I wont use the word but you know what I mean.
ugh... more unsigned gibberish... seriously, if you are going to make a statement like that, at least sign your post... The Simpsons is an equal opportunity show, they make fun of everyone... - Adolphus79 22:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That is my point Jamhaw 16:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)jamhaw
  • Oh yeah about the mainstream channels is wrong CBC has had it for years and it is as mainstream as it gets in Canada.
I've deleted the text about race relations. It seemed like original research to me. I've added some lines which explains that any politician are made fun of. --Maitch 16:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Popularity

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)

Fan Sites Section

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)

Hmm, it's been deleted. Never mind then. 69.105.121.201 02:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Lisa's saxophone

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)

At least some of the time it's a bari, but I can't vouch for the fact that it always is. I know other people have different opinions, some people think she's had both, some say it looks like a tenor but plays like a bari, etc. But I know the sound that came out of her sax when she played the intro to Baker Street was bari.--Anchoress 13:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe we should leave the information out then. --Maitch 14:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I went thru the article and looked at all the instances of sax; the only one in question mentions a bari sax; what were you thinking of leaving out? Just the 'bari'? Cuz I think that would be fine. Or is there more info that has been in and out?--Anchoress 14:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I would just write that she plays the saxophone. --Maitch 15:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea.--Anchoress 15:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: Checked SNPP FAQ, found the following (about 1/3 of the way down):
What type of saxophone does Lisa play? The accepted answer is a baritone saxophone, though sometimes the way it is drawn more closely resembles an alto or tenor. The sound of the sax is definitely a baritone, though. The saxophone given to her by Bleeding Gums Murphy is most likely an alto, based on a higher-pitched sound and a simpler mouthpiece.
--Anchoress 15:56, 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)

Overdubbing? Seperate recording

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)

I don't know. It depends on how it is written. It might be valuable information, but if it turns into POV criticising the show, then you better have a reference. --Maitch 10:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Another thing is that is fairly normal for voice actors to do seperate recordings on animated TV shows/films. --Maitch 11:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
This is true, but the fact is that the Simpsons used to do it in groups of at least several actors - such that two could ad lib off each other, and the timing of their lines and responses 'fit'. If you watch some episodes now, you can almost tell that a response has been pieced into a dialogue because it just doesn't 'sound' like someone responding naturally. I'd have to dig up some examples, and that part of it is subjective, but I think it's definately affected the show that they no longer record in groups
Well, you should dig up some references instead of examples. Otherwise it will be considered original research and deleted fast. --Maitch 21:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
definately! I'd love to see any more information that we could get on the cast... we have tons of information about all the different characters... - Adolphus79 03:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I am pretty sure it's been mentioned a few times on the DVD commentaries how the cast 'rarely ever records together due to their schedules' (to paraphrase). I think they've also mentioned in context with that how the ad libs are lost due to that. But I really don't have time to go listen to 7 seasons of commentaries to find it, unfortunately. TheHYPO 04:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

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)

What the hell is POV about "It is the longest-running American sitcom and longest-running American animated program of all time, having aired 378 episodes in 17 seasons since it debuted on December 17, 1989 on Fox and it is still running." --Maitch 20:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that every 'citation needed' is a POV; I think that particular 'fact' is the person implying that they would like a reference that it is indeed the longest running show in the categories listed; But don't ask me - I'm a bad citer.
I'm also curious - what qualifies as a fact that needs citation? technically 90% of the article is uncited fact. Why does one need to cite that merch was banned from schools, but not cite that the ratings weren't hurt. Why does one have to cite that the show was the first Fox show to appear in the top 20, but not cite that it is a fox cartoon that started on the tracey ulman show? etc. I don't know what qualifies as 'so obvious to everyone as to not need a cite, vs. needing citation. Frankly, I think that someone goes through the article, and every fact that they've personally never heard before, they mark as citation so that someone can prove it to them. TheHYPO 20:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Ideally, those should all be cited. Some, apparently, are more in need of citation in the opinion of editors than others. But for a featured article, I'd suggest all those facts be cited. -- Viewdrix 23:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
That is a virtual impossibility. Common sense suggests there have to be facts that are, what is known as common knowledge. Example; Mickey Mouse is a famous Disney Character. This is a fact. I really don't think it needs a citation indicating that he is a) a disney character, or b) famous. It is common knowledge. Similarly, I don't think it needs to be fact checked that there are six main cast members on the Simpsons, that Dan C plays Homer, Abe, and others, That Yardly is the only cast member who regularly plays one character etc.
The main reason, in my opinion, that I don't need to cite anything in that case (would it be appropriate to cite the credits of the TV show in an article about the show itself? and if so, what episode?) is because I can watch the TV show and gain the fact from having watched the show itself. It's like saying 'Moby Dick is a book written by Herman Melville. It was first published in 1851 (p1, Moby Dick, Melville).' There has to be some acceptable common knowledge and/or acceptable use of information as it comes from the primary source, the show. 'Matt Groening, James L. Brooks, and Sam Simon have been executive producers during the entire run' would need to be cited as every episode of the show, or one would have to go find a reliable source website that happens to say the same thing and cite that. I know I'm being exaggerative, but sometimes people take citing a bit too far. TheHYPO 00:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say everything had to be cited, I said the specific facts suggested there should be cited. Maybe not "the first episode aired on the Tracey Ullman Show", but if you're making a good article, it should probably be accompanied by a date, and that would need citing. Furthermore, things obvious from watching the show (many of your examples, or "Bart's shorts are blue", for example) usually don't need citing. But again, the fact that the merchandise was banned, leading to a decline in ratings, could I know that from watching the show itself? No. I recommend you see Red vs Blue for what's a good example of what should be cited. -- Viewdrix 01:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Just fyi, it is accompanied by a date in the origin section, when it is repeated in more depth. I am not implying that nothing needs citing, but as for the person who listed that the entire cast section needs citing, I felt that that was (for most of the statements in that section) unnecessary. Similarly, I didn't think that anything in the 'longest show' sentance really needed to be cited. TheHYPO 16:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


I believe the rule is that inline citations should only be used when appropriate and not for every single sentence. The article does also cite books. I've seen featured articles with fewer citations, but I will try and work with your suggestions. --Maitch 20:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeh I think the citations should be used for specific or controversial facts that cannot easily be verified quickly. eg it's pretty much common knowledge it started on the Tracy Ulman show, or the main characters are Homer, Bart, etc and you could probably find that within 20 seconds anywhere on the 'net, but the fact that the ratings "weren't hurt" after some incident should be backed up with an article or ratings figures... AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 00:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

character listing

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)

No problem - I kinda figured that's what happened - I also assume that the recurring 'cash register' that seems to be infuriating Mr. Maitch is a similar reversion result TheHYPO 00:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Broadcasting

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)

Go ahead with the changes, but remember that the section should be a summary of the article. I personally don't find it trivial to mention broadcast ambiguities and it is kept really short. Moving it to a trivia section would be the "worst idea ever".
"Episodes are sometimes altered to fit broadcasters' needs." could become "Episodes are sometimes altered for various reasons". --Maitch 07:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Main family

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:

The main characters were originally created by Matt Groening as part of a series of original animated segments for The Tracey Ullman Show...

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.

He has an outright love for Marge and for doughnuts and is often seen drinking Duff brand beer.

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 totally agree with what you are saying, but I would just mention the characters stay the same age. In the family lifestyle section I would replace the "upper lower middle class" quote with something more useful. Someone added to the to-do list that we should mention the family's religion. --Maitch 13:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I dispute this; the characters do not stay the same age. Lisa was 7 and Bart was 9 when the show began. Lisa's 8th birthday is in the Michael Jackson episode, Bart's 10th is in the one where he gets the label maker. Marge had a birthday in the first season (the bowling ball), but, honestly, I don't know if they said exactly how old she was. Now, since then, references have been made to birthdays which do not appear to have aged the kids (Lisa's had two, Maggie's had one, and Bart had one in a Halloween episode which probably wouldn't count), and Homer's birthday has been referred to at least twice without apparently aging him ... but to say the characters "stay the same age" does not seem true.


First of all, please show me any quote in an episode that says either of them was 7 and 9. Secondly, even if that is true, those were both first season episodes. Before the show was truely settled. Homer's age has changed, by reading licences and forms, but that doesn't mean he's aged, it just means the writers changed their minds as to what his age is. Even if you claim that they went from 7 and 9 to 8 and 10, their physical ages have not changed. They are exactly as big as they were in the first episode. But the long and short of this is, does it really need to be mentioned here? I think it would belong in the family article if anywhere. But my view is - show me a cartoon where the characters DO age, and I'd say that's an important note in THOSE cartoons. Characters rarely age in cartoons. In neither hanna barbera predecessor (Filtstones, Jetsons) did the kids ever grow (outside episodes where the kids were grown up, which the simpsons too have had), nor on Scooby Doo has anyone ever aged. I'm trying to think of any cartoon in which the characters HAVE aged... Reboot? And that cartoon isn't even in a real-time frame (at least not human time) TheHYPO 18:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Page Archived

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)

TIME citation

The following senctence lacks a citation:

In that same issue, Bart Simpson was named to the Time 100, the publication's list of the century's 100 most influential people

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)

Thanks for the help. --Maitch 08:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold

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)

Lisa is 9

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)

She is frequently denoted to be Eight years old. Birthdays are notwithstanding. You might see her as becoming nine in those episodes, but until she is declared nine in a subsequent episode, the frozen timeline of the simpsons stands with her as 8... TheHYPO 05:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ratings?

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)

If you look at [8] from '89 to '99 then you will see that the only season to appear in the top 30 was the first. Remember that this is the season average and that the highest rated episode is a completely different thing. It should probably be noted, but I don't know how to do for multiple pages. --Maitch 05:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the site, though I have to say that I'm extremely surprised since the first season was so (relatively) unfunny, and the big media hype, it's pseudo killing of the Cosby Show and it's carrying of Fox Sunday nights (and becoming huge in pop culture) all occurred through the second-fifth seasons or later. I know that that's season average, but still. That's almost MORE surprising, that the first season was the most consistant one... I'd love to see the actual episode by episode numbers, and I wonder if that count is including weeks with rerun episodes, and whether that's a fair count - since I'm guessing the first season of the simpsons didn't have many rerun episodes since it was a first run half-season. I was also surprised that it was so hard to find ratings for such a popular show. Snpp doesn't seem to have ratings. One article quotes entertainment weekly listing the simpsons as having a 30+ ratings points in one season. Not sure how that fits into this... I'd love to investigate ratings more thoroughly. TheHYPO 07:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I was also surprised. I think The Simpsons is one of those shows that occasionally does very well, but is not all that impressive on average. Even in the 17th season there was an episode with over 20 million viewers.
The problem is that the company that makes the ratings is very protective about their ratings, so every websites that offers comprehensive listings of ratings gets shut down. I remember www.thefutoncritic.com had an excellent ratings section, but it got closed because of a lawsuit threat. If you look at [9] you can see the ratings for some single episodes. On that webpage you can also see that The Simpsons was the number one show on certain weeks. --Maitch 07:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Newer shows, like Lost have their weekly ratings catalogued on places like TV.com, but since there was nothing like that in 1992, noone likely made records. I would still like to know what 'season average represents'. Because it most likely includes rerun weeks which would do really bad ratingswise (especially once the show went syndicated and especially now with ther internet). The first season, I suspect, would have lacked these rerun weeks. Either way, as mentioned, surprising that the Cosby show is number one in 1989 (and many years before it), and though it loses #1, it remains in the top30 in 90, and 91 until it was cancelled - supposedly by the competition of The Simpsons, which didn't get back into the top30 according to that site. Why would they cancel a top30 show just because it's no longer #1 on the season? this site supposedly has ratings but only from seasons 7 and on; not the seasons I'm interested in reading about! ;) TheHYPO 08:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know the season average is without reruns. I've checked the website against another list of the number one shows and it was the same result.
I can offer a possible explanation for the cancellation of the Cosby Show. A live-action show becomes more and more expensive for each season. During the last season of Friends the actors were paid 6 million in total per episode and then you have to add production costs. If you compare that to the fact that an episode of The Simpsons cost 1 to 1.5 million per episode in total, then you have a larger profit margin. You should also add the fact that they probably earn billions on merchandising. The Simpsons was the highest rated show on Fox at the time. The next hit was the X-files. NBC had bigger competition and needs to have the number one show. --Maitch 09:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I just did some more research and it seems that the first season is definitely not the most viewed season. During the 2002-03 season it had an average of 14.31 million viewers and finished in 19th place (see [10]). I will try and do some more research before I change the article. --Maitch 14:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
For now, you can just drop the 'most viewed' part - just having a comparisson between season 1 and a recent season... to demonstrate the non-dropoff that is the point of that statement... TheHYPO 16:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I really find this fascinating. On one hand we have many people criticising the show for declining quality and on the other it shows that the highest rated season is after season 10. I tried to dig up some more material using the wayback machine, but the results were limited. The numbers I mentioned before were not for the final season, but I have found the correct numbers. I publish my findings below in hope of there would be another kind editor that would update it with more numbers and sources. --Maitch 08:54, 26 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]


It may not equate, but when a popular show loses a lot of it's viewership (or retains it) it can be seen as an indication of the quality of the show (relative to itself, in the eyes of the viewers). Note that noone is comparing the quality of Simpsons to other tv shows based on ratings. simply to itself. If a show is improving in quality, yet its fans stop watching, that would be counterintuitive, would it not? TheHYPO 19:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The article doesn't claim that the popularity equates quality, but it does put the criticism in perspective. If you go by the fans of the earlier seasons then The Simpsons is the worst show on television. Yet it doesn't seem that the show has lost an audience. This clearly must mean that somebody actually still likes it. I believe that The Simpsons has been successful in building a new audience, which also would be necessary for a show that has lasted 17 seasons. --Maitch 20:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Declining quality

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)

Actually, this is already mentioned. --Maitch 21:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Protection?

If there's further vandalism, semiprotection should be requested. Anonymous__Anonymous 09:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It already has been, and denied. They require a significant amount of vandalism before protecting, and that amount is somewhere like at least a dozen times a day. If it becomes more frequent, it can reapply, but right now, it's up to maintainers to keep an eye on it. TheHYPO 17:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems that about half of the vandalism is in reality good faith attempts to improve the article. The problem is that people don't consider the flow of the article or that they insert some random trivia. I have started to write notes to the editors within the article; so that the common reverts can be avoided. Feel free to add more of those. --Maitch 20:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I cited only actual vandalism (not changing things that shouldn't be changed) when applying. IE: deleting half the article, writing people's name into the article, adding swear words, writing 'is gay', etc. TheHYPO 03:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Religion

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)

I agree with you. I mentioned the episode when Bart and Homer turned Catholic. Anonymous__Anonymous 08:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Jumping the Shark

"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)


As has been mentioned, an anonymous website that is voluntary to goto is not the most scientific measure of opinion. But the important observation isn't the advantage 'never jumped' has over 'jumped'; IMO, it's the fact that around 40% of the people visiting the site think the show HAS jumped. That's a significant number of people. Either way though, not scientific... TheHYPO 03:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
not very significant, but in my opinion, by jesus has it jumped Owwmykneecap 03:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's do this the Wiki way... Jumped or Not Jumped... vote here... - Adolphus79 03:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the word "large" from the text. The fact that 2658 people has voted makes it more reliable than most statistics. Usually the only require a thousand people to represent a country. The article doesn't say that this is the truth, it just says the answer could be found there. I will not take part in the newly constructed poll, since we can't use it for the article, because that would be original research. --Maitch 06:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I would like to add that of all the shows you can vote for on the website, The Simpsons is featured as one of them with the largest majority for "never jumped" (see [27]). --Maitch 06:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Can I point out that a good deal of fans who DO think the show lost it's humour, decided this a long time ago... maybe 6-9 years ago for many people (a lot in the Mike Scully era). As such, it would be unlikely (or less likely) for them to actively seek out a poll on whether a show they have not liked for 8 years has jumped the shark. It is far more likely for current fans to support a show they like by actively visiting the page and voting. The only true poll that would be objective would be a random sampling of people. who have ever watched the show... which is not particularly feasable. TheHYPO 22:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
PS: I would like to add that you may think 40% of the people thinking the show has jumped isn't that big a number, but when you factor in that the people voting are most likely people who at one time or another watched the show as fans, not people who never really watched the show, it's pretty significant that nearly half of those votes say the show has jumped. When you also factor in that the show is SEVENTEEN seasons old, and that there are most likely people out there watching the show now who weren't even BORN when the show premiered (and lots of others who were too young to watch tv then, and only started watching the show in the 8th, 9th, 10th season or beyond, their opinion of it never jumping does not necessarily indicate a preception that the quality hasn't dropped. They simply don't have a frame of reference to the quality it once was.... TheHYPO 22:19, 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 had a whole reply going and then the power died in the neighbourhood. Boo. Anyhoo; let's try again. I don't think PC uptight America has ANYTHING to do with the Simpsons, nor do legal issues. Look at Family Guy. Fox has good lawyers. I've met Family Guy's. Simpsons never really have relied upon parody or mockery of people or products or other shows or anything (and if they do now, they never used to). I don't think the Simpsons is 'tamer' now than before either, Re: PC America. They used to be prevented from using the word Ass and had to negotiate to use it way back when. I think there are a number of factors for the (percieved, or actual) decline of quality, which may not be 'quality' as much as it is 'abandoning it's original principles' in the comedy and storytelling and character areas.
  • The so-called plot-drift in the article, in which the episode's plot has nothing to do with the entire first act. The example I always use is the Babysitter Sexual Harrassment episode. This was one of the first episodes to use the 'random' first act piece where characters go somewhere or do something that has nothing to do with the actual plot. In that episode the goto the Candy Convention (a rather surreal piece in itself). The difference between 10 years ago and today is that, before they goto the convention, they introduce the convention idea while at home, introduce the babysitter (and her feminism), and then the gummy Venus from the convention becomes a main factor in the plot. If this was an episode today, they would start the show at the convention, introduce the babysitter after that, and he'd 'grab her ass' becase there was a dollar on it or something totally unrelated to the convention. The plot would be built completely at the end of the first act.
  • The so-called non-aging which really isn't. The characters never physically age, this is true. But you can't have 17 years worth of adventures and realistically not age mentally. imagine Bart going to grandpa for help with a bully today after 17 years. It would make him seem so naive and stupid... (because in our eyes, though he's 10, he's also had a 27-year old's worth of life experience). This is especially true of the kids. It was almost comedic in the episode where Marge doesn't want Lisa to take the bus. If you think of her as 8 years old, this is true, but she's virtually grown into a 15 year old teen at least in perception and maturity by that time (and even moreso now) and it seems almost beyond realism to treat her as 8.
  • Homer has somewhat lost his boyish innocence. Now he's just wild and loud, and abnoxious, and angry kinda like Peter Griffin. Marge has lost her quiet 'rock of the family'ness, and while she used to get realistic housewife-y plots (have an affair, get a job because she's bored), now she has off the wall plots (accidently gets breast implants?). Not necessarily a faultable one - there are only so many things to do. Can you think of 300 interesting different things that have happened to your family?
  • Actors are running out of voices. You used to have more players doing voices for the simpsons - Hartman would show up, Doris Grau, Lovitz, and others would show up. Now virtually every male is Hank, Harry or Dan C, and it's noticable that they are running out of unique voices.
  • Actors no longer (or rarely) record together and therefore you lose a) spontinaity and b) realistic reaction. The actors used to ad lib all the time (like they do on Family Guy now); I once saw Harry and Dan on Conan a few years ago and Conan asked them to ad lib a scene and it was pretty funny.

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Simpsons/Archive_1&oldid=1147986172"