Talk:The Simpsons/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Please exempt the Simpsons episode articles from the "Trivia/Pop Culture sections are discouraged..." Rule

I've looked through some of the articles on individual episodes and noticed that same ol' distracting "Trivia sections are discouraged..." tag on some of them. Folks, one of the things that made the Simpsons great was BECAUSE of their pop culture references and seeing as how there's soon to be 19 seasons worth under its belt, I propose that all the "Trivia Sections are Discouraged" labels be zapped from the episode articles. Now, I'll admit I do have a pro-trivia section bias, but you have to admit that a Pop Culture References section is absoultely ESSENTIAL to give the Simpsons episode articles justice.76.177.160.69 (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections are discouraged, but sourced cultural reference and production sections are allowed. The key word though is sourced. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say most of them are pretty obvious from the episode itself, as long as the viewer is at least aware of whatever person/place/thing the Simpsons are refering to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.160.69 (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Location of Springfield

In the episode "Behind the Laughter," the narrator says, and I quote, "The Simpsons past was forgotten and now the future looks brighter than ever for this "northern Kentucky family."

I've watched it multiple times, but this was the first time I caught "northern Kentucky family." I couldn't believe it, but it's true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.3.98 (talk) 04:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Behind The Laughter is non-canon. The northern Kentucky line was just put in by the writers to confuse viewers, since The Simpsons were meant to be real-life actors in this episode, so they were given a real-life location to come from. In reruns of the episode the line is sometimes changed to "Southern Missouri family". See the episode's article for more. DVD Smith 02:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I removed "Emmy and Peabody Award-winning" from the opening sentence. The opening sentence should simply state who or what the subject of the article is. Winning awards is something The Simpsons has done, but it's not what the show is. A common response to this is "but it's true that they've won awards". Well yes, but it's trying to cast the show in a "positive light" and this kind of phrasing is something you expect from a press release and not an encylopedia. The awards can of course be put later in the lead, but not the opening sentence. Slayer, a recent front page FA had a hidden message in the first sentence saying "Do not add Grammy winning here". Spellcast 12:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Why shouldn't the fact that it has won awards be included in the opening paragraph? It is a fact that I would expect to see in an encyclopedia. If we were talking about some music album, that would be one of the few things that the album is notable for; obviously The Simpsons is notable for many things. bmitchelf•T•F 16:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#POV in first sentence?, consensus shows that it is bias to put awards in opening sentences (unless the award is very groundbreaking in some way). The subject of this article is The Simpsons, not their awards. Don't get me wrong, I love the show, but it's inherently POV to start off the subject with awards. It's usually a piece of verbal fluff that you find in things like magazine articles. Spellcast 04:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The removal is very reasonable, and besides, the award stuff made the lead look a little wordy. However, I must say your basis for the removal of the awards from the lead sentence is based on a limited interpretation of NPOV and a small pool of user opinion (We would agree that "verbal fluff" is a POV, no?) I read into the aforementioned discussion and the "professional encyclopedia" defense is weak simply because Wikipedia is not your grandfather's index of the world, and is renowned for being different; we're not Britannica, we'll never be Britannica, and lets not waste time in trying to be Britannica. I must mention that the listing (or non-listing) of a notable award (components of style) is de facto in this project, not de jure, as the discussion implied. Several (i.e. tens of thousands) articles follow this practice and I see no rational reason to reverse this, withstanding the POV issue. I admit that in certain situations, the award being listed in the first sentence would be contentious, however, in this situation, the fact that The Simpsons has won an Emmy & Peabody has never been a cause for debate. --Jay(Talk) 05:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Production in China & Korea

"Tweening, coloring, and filming occurs at international studios." That's right, the work takes place in Korea, new opportunities in China are currently being checked....91.12.215.149 17:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

celebs

im supprised there is no mention of special appearances by the likes of michael jackson, elizabeth taylor etc. Realist2 23:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Guest stars can be found here. -FeralDruid 23:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Songs Played In Simpson Episodes

Is there a page which lists the the songs played or sung in each episode? I've looked but I cannot find one. This would be a good idea if it is not already created. Thank you Dani948 20:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There used to be, but a deletion discussion led to the deletion of the page. --03:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

GA

I have a question. Why was this article's GA status delisted? I am not sure, but can anyone answer this question. It would be much appreciated. Thanks. Greg Jones II 15:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Springfield what?

Although Matt Groening has said that the Simpsons' Springfield has much in common with Portland, Oregon, will we ever know which state it really is in? In the episode "Behind the Laughter," it is said that the Simpsons are a "northern Kentucky family." The increasingly curious fans will never know if Kentucky is the state in which Springfield resides. It seems that with each episode, the location of Springfield is altered in some way. The newly released movie also provides some confusing "clues" to the position of the town the Simpsons call home. On a hike Bart and Flanders took up a mountain in Springfield, the four states that border Springfield are revealed: Ohio, Nevada, Maine, and Kentucky. This might be a sign from Groening that fans will never know the location of Springfield,________. Wisojo 02:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

DUH! 02:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's "D'oh". After all, I knew the real Homer, and, you sir, are no Homer. (I've wanted to say that for years. Actually, the real Homer as in Groening was as far from the show's Homer as a person could be.)

Springfield, Oregon, has one feature very like that in the Simpson's fictional home town: Teledyne Wa Chang, a nuclear materials handling plant that dumped used radio active materials into an open pond on its property. This pond became a huge issue in the seventies, with the company successfully resisting attempts by government and private groups to get them to clean up their act. The movie producers selection of a New England was a marketing device, so let them bask in their short glory. Those in the know. . . Jaymes ghoti 20:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Actually, a Springfield, Illinois man says in one of the Simpsons episodes' opening act, they showed a sattelite viewing of Springfield and it showed that Springfield was in the exact spot where Springfield, Illinois. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1bullsfan (talk • contribs) 01:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, But the Springfield from the Simpsons can't be Springfield, Illinois. In one episode, they travel from Springfield to "Capital City." As Springfield, Illinois is the capitol of Illinois, if the Simpsons lived in Springfield, Illinois they would not be able to travel to "Capital City" (which I'm assuming is the capital of the state they live in.) On a side note, I recently wrote a lot in this section about where the Simpsons home town can or can't be, and it looks like someone deleted it. Would someone care to tell me why? --AnticScarab3 (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The "What State Springfield is in" question is a running gag in the series. Unofficially, Springfeild is in "New Takoma" according to SNPP. Doc Strange (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

GAC review

Upon reviewing the article based on the criteria set forth at WP:WIAGA, I feel this article is very close to GA. I corrected minor mistakes myself as I read the article. Listed below are those things that need to be addressed before I list the aritcle at WP:GA.

• The second paragraph under "Opening sequence" needs citation.
• The first paragraph under "Influence on television" needs citation.
• In the third paragraph under "Merchandise", "The best known single is "Do the Bartman", which was co-written by Michael Jackson[71] and became an international success." needs citation.

The nomination has been put on hold for no more than seven days while these issues are addressed. Let me know if you have any questions or disagree with any of my recommendations. Regards, Lara♥Love 07:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Done and done. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I added refs to all the things you said, but I'm still not sure exactly what you meant for the TV influence section, although I did ref the South Park point. Gran² 13:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The article has been listed at WP:GA under Media subcategory of the Social Sciences and Society category. Thank you for your hard work. In improving this article, you have improved Wikipedia. Regards, Lara♥Love 17:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone tell me how to do this?

If you look at the page for ANY South Park episode, on the far right there is a list of all the episdoes in that season. This is in the simpsons too, but in the South Park version there are two arrows at the bottom of the list that link to the preivious seasons episodes and the next seasons episodes. I think this should be included in the simpsons pages because it makes navigation extremely easy. You can easily surf the seasons looking for a specific episode, where as in the simpsons you have to go to the "list of episodes" everytime. This is very annoying. I would do it but I don't know how. Can someone tell me exactly how to do it?

I gave it a try, and I couldn't figure out how to do it. It's not really THAT hard to surf seasons, afterall, there is a master list of episodes. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but I just want to bring the simpsons up to speed with south park. it is a better show after all. My main question is wether the change in code to make the arrows has to be done for every single episode. I'm making an accont soon instead of just doing it at school and i want this to be one of my acheivments.--203.27.231.250 00:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There really is no problem with the format as it is, and South Park uses an OLDER style of code. I really disagree with completely changing everything just for something as trivial as "next season". There is a link to the list of episodes, that ought to be enough. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah i suppose it is pretty trivial but it would still be handy. anyway can someone tell me how to do it?--User:203.27.231.250|203.27.231.250]] 04:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Swedish dub?

It is stated in the article that the show has been dubbed into Swedish. However, if that's true (no sources for that) it has never aired on Swedish TV. In the main article about the subject, a swedish dub isn't mentioned. Since the simpson article is protected, could someone please change this minor, yet annoying, error. 81.170.134.178 01:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

According to this, the show airs on ZTV. I don't known if it's dubbed in Swedish, though. Zagalejo 03:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I just copied it from this [1], which is clearly cited. Gran² 06:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Quayle or Bush?

I'm pretty sure it was Dan Quayle who made the comment about The Waltons (not George W. Bush). Laurel Papworth 22:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. There's video of Bush saying it, it's included as an extra in the season 4 DVD. It was also shown at the very beginning of Stark Raving Dad. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

What's the name of the episode in which Homer takes a journey through a desert? The desert has a fake Marge, a talking fox/coyote and I think a giant pyramid. Zeldabalooney2006 05:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

El Viaje Misterioso de Nuestro Jomer (The Mysterious Voyage of Homer). If you have any other general Simpsons questions, feel free to drop me a message at my talk page. These pages are mostly reserved for discussions about the Wikipedia articles themselves. Zagalejo 05:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

is the simpsons rated R+18, R+15, R, MA+18, MA+15, MA, M, PG, or G? i know that it wouldn't be rated R+18, R+15, R, MA+18, MA+15, MA, or M but i just put it there for fun. also it probably wouldn't be rated G because it has some drug referances, sexual referances, some course language E.T.C, E.T.C and yeah —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sylvan wu (talk • contribs) 07:18:56, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

its rated pg on some eps and tv14 on others--Olavid 06:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

On at least one Halloween episode the rating is listed as TV 666, but this is, of course, parody.ROG 19 13:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons at best borders between PG and PG-13, and has been going toward PG-13 in recent years. The show was never meant for children, but for an adult audience like any regular sitcom Doc Strange (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed something weird

I ust noticed something. I watched the old Treehouse of Horror episode "Homer Simpson and the Devil". The donut Flandevil (if you watched it, you understood) gives Homer is exactly like the one in the Simpsons Movie title. But I am not sure in which article trivia I should place it. In the Treehouse of Horror IV article, in the main Simpsons article, or the movie article? I can forget about the movie article because I can`t post anything. So I have two choices left. Where should I place this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gamesrcool (talk • contribs) 22:36, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Preferable nowhere. It is most likely a coincidence, because how many possible designs for a Simpsonized doughnut are there? And the show has a tradition of using pink Doughnuts, like in Stark Raving Dad. If an article is published in which a member of the production staff admits that the similarity is intentional, then it should go into an article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

that dounut is what most simpsons donuts look like, though you bring a good point, I think this episode where that donut design originated--Olavid 06:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Main page update

I think I'm going to request December 17, as it is the day that Simpsons Roasting first aired, although I won't be able to do so until November. I was going to request September 23, but I would like a Simpsons FA to hit the main page on a day that doesn't make it seem like advertising. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Jack Kricfalusi

The creator of Ren and Stimpy doesn't think too much of The Simpsons, as well as South Park and Family Guy. Should that be included? --78.16.24.52 20:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source? If so, then it probably could be included. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The creator of Ren & Stimpy is JOHN Kricfalusi, and on his blog (johnkstuff.blogspot.com) he has criticized the Simpsons, South Park, and Family Guy primarily for having (in his opinion) mostly uninspired and unimaginative animation and a limited number of emotions expressed by the characters in these. However, he has praised the Tracey Ullman shorts. I suppose John K. has what might be called a love-hate relationship with the Simpsons. --JFP 19:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor edit needed - page appears locked

Can someone change the "Setting" section so that it does not read "the show has become intentionally deceptive in regard to Springfield's location". It shoud say intentionally evasive. It has never tried to deceive, but does evade the issue, for example having someone stand in front of a map just as someone points to Springfield, so we can't see where they're pointing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.161.52 (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Color quality

What's up with the relatively low color quality on Simpsons episodes from earlier and even not-much-earlier seasons? Is there any explanation? They seemed to be colored very cheaply even after the series had become wildly successful and presumably the budget was higher, as well as beyond the era in which cartoon quality in general was raised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Simpsons article.

This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." The short answer to your question, though, is that it has nothing to do with money, but with what animation techniques were available at the time and how long they took. I believe the difference you are noticing is the difference between traditional cel animation and digital ink and paint. Natalie 23:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Flintstones

"The Simpsons was the first animated program in prime time since The Flintstones in the 1960s."

This statement is inaccurate. There were quite a few prime-time animated shows between the Flintstones and the Simpsons (such as the Jetsons, The Alvin Show, The Bullwinkle Show, Top Cat, Wait Until Your Father Gets Home, and I think Jonny Quest). However, these shows were nowhere as successful as the Flintstones (and the Simpsons, Family Guy, etc. would be in the future) and they generally only lasted a few seasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Pannozzi (talk • contribs) 20:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of those went off the air while the Flintstones was still running. "Wait Until Your Father Gets Home" is the exception, since it aired in the 70s, but I can't verify that it was a prime time cartoon. (I wasn't born yet.) Do you have a source saying that it was? Zagalejo^^^ 20:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, this site suggests that it was. We would probably need a better source than that, but it's something to look into. Thanks for bringing it up! Zagalejo^^^ 20:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's "Wait Till Your Father Gets Home". And we have an article on it which also says it was a prime-time cartoon. Zagalejo^^^ 20:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, fixed. I found a book source. Zagalejo^^^ 20:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Then there's The Jetsons. Reginmund 23:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• But the Jetson's prime-time run ended three years before the Flintstones' did, and the 80s Jetsons cartoons were shown in late afternoon timeslots, according to my research. Zagalejo^^^ 00:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was still a prime time show. Reginmund 00:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well so what? It was, yes, but what Zagalejo means was that it ended before The Flintstones and before Wait Till Your Father Gets Home, meaning that The Simpsons was the first sucessful prime time animation show since Wait Till Your Father Gets Home. Gran² 06:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Whati think it should say is that the simpsons are the most popular show since the Flinstones 1960. addy-gAddy-g-indahouse 22:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Culturally significant words and phrases from The Simpsons

I'm beginning to wonder if the page is really necessary - the big one is d'oh, and it has its own page. Most of the words there really don't have true proof of cultural significance, they just have "in ____ it was used" with no sources. And for some reason, people seem to think that being mentioned in another Simpsons episode, in a book about The Simpsons or being the title of a little known book or song automatically makes a phrase significant. Recently many "lists of significant words" have been deleted, including a list of Family Guy words and a list of words from the Colbert Report. As such, I think it should be merged here because all of the really significant words are mentioned here, and have sources. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Gran² 18:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. Some of the words aren't that significant, like the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys, but some are, like Kwyjibo (although it lacks any references...). Anyway, a merge would be nice. Xihix 20:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Same here, although Kwyjibo is important, even if it dose not have an article. Maybe the clown one can be mentioned on Coulrophobia? But the others can go. Rhino131 21:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, merging doesn't mean that the information disappears entirely - it just gets moved into a larger article. So the sourced, notable, relevant information in this article just moves to a paragraph in The Simpsons, with links to those words that happen to have their own article. Natalie 23:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think merging might be necessary, but The Simpsons article is rather long; I agree, many don't have any references, and many aren't very well known. Heights 23:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, we already have two short paragraphs (The_Simpsons#Influences_on_language), so I'm guessing that not that much content actually needs to be added. Maybe one or two more sentences, which really won't affect the overall length of the article. Natalie 23:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I'm thinking:

D'oh and Cheese eating surrender monkeys are already mentioned in the article.

There are no sources for Can't sleep clown will eat me, Kwijibo, Meh or Okily dokily so they should not be mentioned here, at least not unless sources are found.

the Overlord meme doesn't seem that relevant, at least not according to the sources given. What are we supposed to say, "it was used in a magazine"? This is an FA, so better wording is needed

Cromulent should be added here, because it has been added to a dictionary, and it's sourced.

Yoink could be added, but I think we need something better than just being the name of a short lived file sharing program.

Again, this is just what I think, and if sources that prove a words notability can be found, then great, we should add them. However, I think a rule of thumb should be to only add words that have obtained widespread media use (ie. Cheese eating surrender monkeys) or have been added to a dictionary of some sort (other than wiktionary). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've seen references to "Can't sleep clowns will eat me" on the net. I did a quick search on Google and found a song by Alice Coooper with that title. (Can't link to it because the site is blacklisted.) I put this here in case anyone feel encouraged to investigate these words and phreases further. /Jiiimbooh 13:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a section about "can't sleep, clown will eat me" in the page for Lisa's First Word, so I think it could be redirected there. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the merge is complete. What does everyone think? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't care much for the Simpsons but I can't say that I'm thrilled. Words like "embiggen" now point to this article without being used, let alone explained. The article does not even contain a link to the entry in the wiktionary. The reason I checked? The word's use was noted in Nature. Rl 11:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well add it in then if you have a source... The only reason it wasn;t included was because it had no source. Gran² 14:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm also in the process of redirecting most of the other words to the pages for the episodes that contain their first use. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Declining Quality

No doubt despite its steady popularity, the simpsons has somewhat decreased in the quality of episodes from the earlier seasons.Like the article says, now its basically too much emphasis on zany antics of characters, as opposed to deep character driven plots of ealy to mid 90s.

But even South Park, with its noteriety and longevity, has maintained its same level of crude, mature, contraversial style of comedy, even considering its 1992 short film origin.

Have the producers, or anyone on the show ever adressed this issue, or, not to be biased, could the writers simply have gotten lazy per se, in not maintaining the shows early style?. Rodrigue 23:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This might provide some interesting leads. Zagalejo^^^ 02:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia mentioned on show

FYI: Wikipedia was mentioned in the 2007 season episdoe "I Don't Wanna Know Why the Caged Bird Sings". ZueJay (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

So? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of Life

I'm not sure if I can edit the article because it's semi-protected, and I am probably not an authorized user. Maybe someone who is an authorized user could add some information about the Simpsons Mystery of Life board game that was released in 1991. Here is a link to a site with some basic information on the game: http://www.snpp.com/guides/games_mol.html. If you google around, you can also find out some more information about it. Chris Mo 05:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Generally, this article is just supposed to be a general summary about The Simpsons, and I'm not sure if it is necessary to list every board game based on the show. If it is an extremely notable game, then it might be worth noting. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I need approval

I would like to receive some sort of approval so I can post content that I need for my English homework. I plan on posting The Simpsons quotes. They are only selected kinds. I would like to post as soon as possible. Thanks in advance.

Wikieditor752 02:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Wikieditor752

This isn't the place for quotes. Try WikiQuote. And, I hate to burst your bubble, but most schools don't accept Wikipedia as a source. If you need quote sources, try [www.snpp.com this]. I can guarantee you that any quotes you post here will be immediately reverted due to the NONFREE policy. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad source?

The use of the website Associated Content is somewhat controversial as many do not consider it a Reliable source. In fact, there has been a user removing it from all of the other Simpsons pages. I just discovered that we actually use it as a reference (#99) for board games and such. It links to this page. Perhaps we should try and find a better source? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Updating

Ok So I tried to update The Simpsons like relationships but they just keep getting deleted. May I ask why? Also by who? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petty773 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are reverting because addings things like "ex-boyfriend" and "ex-fiance" to the relative section of the infobox are not necessary because 1) They are not relatives and 2) The infobox is supposed to be a brief overview. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

--> But it is also very valueable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petty773 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No it's not, it's trivia and cruft and Wikipedia is not the place for that. Besides, if it really is important, then it's mentioned in the actual article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

--> But I was told this is a place where we as people could add facts to a source if we see it lacks a fact. Now you tell me that certain facts aren't...well up to your standards? I don't mean to come off as cold or sarcastic this is just what I was told and how I feel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.133.107 (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

--> Once again I don't mean to come off as cold I would just appreciate a reply to my question. Please.

Wikipedia is a place for information, but the articles should just be overviews of the subject because Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscrimate information. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

--> I guess I can live with that for now it is still going to irk me when I go on a page and see... non-updated information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.133.107 (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what your talking about. If the relationship is notable, it's mentioned in the page. Besides, boyfriends and girlfriends and fiancees are not relatives and don't belong in the infobox. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

--> What do I have to do to prove to you that they do?

Dubbing?

The Simpsons has never been dubbed into Swedish, I know because I live in Sweden.

That section seems to be based on the information cited here. I don't know if that's true or not... Zagalejo^^^ 19:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe one or two episodes has been dubbed, but it the article makes it sound like all episodes of The Simpsons are dubbed in Sweden, which is false. I have NEVER heard Homer speak Swedish and I watch the show everyday here in Sweden. :P Remove to improve.

So is the show normally aired in English? Zagalejo^^^ 01:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Simpsons always airs in English, like all other tv-shows. But with some translated text-lines.

I switched Swedish to Portugese, because a Portugese version has been included on the DVDs. However, it would be handy to try and find a source for that statement. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

According to an article in a newspaper once, the Simpsons were dubbed in Swedish once. Two or three episode aired, but the people revolted and the TV people scrapped the dub. -- FallenAngelII XX:XX, 2 December 2007 (GMT+1)

Snowball Info

I think it should be included/mentioned somewhere that technically Snowball II is Snowball III in one episode lisa was having some "Cat Trouble" snowball II ended up dying. she got two other cats and when they both died she got a third and it looked like the original, late, snowball II. She called it Snowball III but decided to say it was Snowball II to avoid confusion. I dont know the episodes name sadly. --JordanTuck (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)♫♫

No, that shouldn't be mentioned here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Simpsons Themes

Some of the main recurring themes on the Simpsons include self-deprecation and plot drift, but other than what's in the episodes, I can't find any sources to back me up. Should I put it in the article? --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

They're not really themes though, they're more along the lines of being recurring jokes. Either way, it shouldn't be added to the article without a source. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think plot drift should be mentioned, but I can't find a source either. Plot drift is an orphan. --Maitch (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Reception Section

Frankly, I don't feel like a description of what one internet journalist thinks of each Simpsons episode of this, the 19th season, is interesting, informative or encyclopedic. The "Reception" section should be axed, in my opinion.

The reception section adds notability to the articles, even if the reviews are from one idiot internet reporter. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough I suppose, although it still seems silly to me. Ah well, best to leave these matters to you experienced types. --66.31.169.12 04:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The new gag in the opening sequence

For the 19th season, a new gag started where some of the people Bart passes on the street on his skateboard (Mrs. Lovejoy and Chief Wiggum) say different things from episode to episode. First, my adding it to the article as undone as "unsourced". Then, someone claimed it's not notable enough. How is it notable enough? It's a gag that's probably gonna be recurring for every single time that segment is included in the opening sequence. It's also an extremely late addition, it took 19 years for them to add it. And it only takes up two lines to mention it. -- FallenAngelII XX:XX, 2 December 2007 (GMT+1)

First off, it needs a reliable source, second off, there are tonnes of recurring gags that are not mentioned. Third, it's only been in two episodes. For all we know, its just a late JABF thing. Fourth, it has not (and likely never will) gain the same amount of fame as the chalkboard and couch gags. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Has Tracy Ulman ever been on the show?

if not,id say its 'noteable',being that she let them on her show,if it werent for her/show we wouldnt be discussing that at all....know what i mean main?18:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)18:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)18:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)~

She voiced a character in Bart's Dog Gets an F. But I don't know if there's a good place to mention that in this article. Zagalejo^^^ 22:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC) `

Main page picture

The main page picture doesn't represent this article at all...how horrendous...bad job, wikipedia editors.

Do you have a better idea? It has to be a free image and for some reason the main page director didn't want the Simpsons Hollywood walk of Fame star. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sitll confused by the RIDICULOUS idea of banning fair use images on the main page but not in articles. My suggestion: remove the image altogether. The current image is misleading and inappropriate. --Teggles (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well you see, a couple of paranoid people like to try to ruin it for the rest of us, so that's why fair use images can't be on the main page anymore. As for the image of Matt Groening, he created the series so I don't see why it is so inappropriate. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It is inappropriate because the article is about The Simpsons, not Matt Groening. I can honestly say that when I saw the image, I thought it was about Matt Groening. As for the "paranoid" people, a better term would be "hypocritical". --Teggles (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for an alternative image? - auburnpilot talk 02:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion, which I have already stated, is to use no image. --Teggles (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been swapped for the star. - auburnpilot talk 02:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Shockingly inane image - should have been a shot of the family. Sad mouse (talk) 05:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, get an image of the family RobertsZ (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a creative commons image that could be used: [2] JACOPLANE • 2007-12-17 19:47

That is an interesting suggestion indeed. I'm sure there is some sort of "copyright" on these kinds of sets, I wonder how that transposes to photographs. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That image isn't free use, under the Commons:Licensing rule its a derrivative work, because its an image of 5 copyrighted characters, no matter how you look at it, and its a statue. So its not free-use. Gran² 20:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think it's going to fly. If we couldn't use the picture of the Scooby-Doo parade balloon, we couldn't use this. Zagalejo^^^ 21:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection?

Is this page covered by the cascading protection on the Main Page? It definitely doesn't look like that. We should expect some vandalism for the next 24 hours, shouldn't someone protect this? GlobeGores (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this page was protected for a year up until this morning. Usually they try to leave the TFAs unprotected for the 1 in 600 IPs that won't vandalise the article today. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, why don't we just use the main picture on the Simpsons article (the family portrait) as the pic on the main page?

Honestly it would grab everybody's attention, and no real reason why we sould NOT use it. It's the only logical thing to do. Steinarb999 (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The "real reason" is that a group thought it would be a good idea to ban fair use images (copyrighted images) on the main page, but not in articles. It didn't make any sense at the time and it still doesn't make any sense. --Teggles (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That is the, if not one of the most stpupidest things I've ever heard all weekend. WHen people think of the simpsons they think of, well...The simpsons. Not a ******* star on the walk of fame. We NEED to change it. Steinarb999 (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but unfortunately nothing can be done. Like I said, the few ruin it for the many. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow...Well, oh well. :( Steinarb999 (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Read about the free culture and lobby your government to join the right side. Then perhaps one day we may be able to use a Simpson's picture on the main page without being liable for a giant lawsuit... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. We're using fair use images in articles, which is exactly the same idea. The image is being used to identify the subject at hand. There is no difference. --Teggles (talk) 05:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there actually a legal basis for the decision that an encyclopedia article about a cartoon can't show an image of that cartoon? If so they shouldn't be in the article, if not it is just silly not to use it on the front page. Sad mouse (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

While copyright paranoia is annoying, instead of taking potshots about a symptom of the disease, worry about the causes.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing to say that putting copyrighted images on the main page is any worse than putting them on pages. What I'd be more worried about is giving "public domain", "creative commons" (etc.) tags to photographs of copyrighted objects. This image? This image should not be under the GNU license. It exclusively features a copyrighted item, and it certainly doesn't fall under Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama. --Teggles (talk) 06:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've felt for a long time that no image is the better option in cases like this. Also to follow the logic of the copyright idea. Surly the walk of fame could sue them for using that image. Buc (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The walk of fame is a public, open location. It falls under Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama. Actually, I could be wrong. It's not a building, so it doesn't fall under Freedom of panorama. --Teggles (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

--Hippieslayer (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC) I agree with them they should use the family portrait as the main pic. (hippie slayer)

confusing

'the simpsons is the longest-running american sitcom and longest-running animated program.' Ever? or Currently? Should be clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.180.166 (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Both. (Well, note that the article says it's the longest-running American animated program. There have been longer animated series in Japan.) What would you recommend to make the sentence clearer? Zagalejo^^^ 03:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

'The Simpsons is the longest-running sitcom and the longest running animated program in U.S. television history'. The opening paragraphs already mention that it is still currently airing, so there is no need to mention that it is currently the longest-running sitcom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wessmoor (talk • contribs) 03:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What I meant to say is that there is no reason to 'imply', not 'mention' that it is currently the longest running sitcom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wessmoor (talk • contribs) 04:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that I look at it, that sentence is problematic for other reasons. How are we defining "longest-running"? In terms of seasons on the air, or number of episodes? Scooby-Doo has been on-and-off the air for almost 40 years, and it may have more seasons under its belt than the Simpsons. Anyone? Zagalejo^^^ 05:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it might me longest running for consecutive years, but I'm not sure myself.-Wafulz (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Can the term "longest-running" mean anything other than having produced full seasons of new episodes for the greatest number of years? Rangergordon (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In which case Scooby-Doo may hold the title, depending on whether one considers all incarnations as part of the same series. Zagalejo^^^ 02:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude they should edited the main pic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippieslayer (talk • contribs) 01:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?

For a featured article, it doesn't seem to have a NPOV. Conservative groups give the show a lot of criticism. (I found several sources in a short time.) However, the subject is briefly touched on only a couple times in the article, such as George H.W. Bush's Walton's comment and a brief mention about Bart's bad behavior without consequences. Before jumping head first into a new section, are there any comments/concerns about creating such a section? ++Arx Fortis (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, could you give us an outline of some of the specific facts you'd like to add? I think the article already highlights the most important stuff with regards to that topic. It's been a while since I read a newspaper article about conservatives lambasting the show. The early 1990s really was the heyday for that stuff.

Nowadays, people are more likely to complain about the show just because it's not funny. There's much worse material out there for conservatives to chastise.

But maybe I'm just reading the wrong sources. Let's see what you have. Zagalejo^^^ 08:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The practice of gathering quotes from individuals uninvolved in a story simply because you know they will oppose whatever it is you're writing about is, in journalism, known as "false balance." Anti-Hollywood "conservative groups" may criticize the show, but unless they can demonstrate that the writing or animation is flawed or poorly executed, must their quotes be sought automatically for the mere sake of including an anti-Hollywood viewpoint? Rangergordon (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We shouldn't give undue weight to the "conservative" viewpoint just for the sake of appearing neutral. The notable occurrences (like the T-shirt controversy and the George Bush speech) are the only things that are really significant enough to be mentioned in an article like this. Zagalejo^^^ 02:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Show Evolution

How can you have a featured article on the Simpsons that has no information about the show's changes over 19 seasons? Where's the information on the lead character changing from Bart to Homer, etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.158.154 (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence for this show "evolution", as you call it. What, the lead character just changed from Bart to Homer by chance? It was all part of God's plan, an intelligent design if you will. 128.143.78.146 (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, give me a link that proves that the lead character has changed from Bart to Homer. I'm a prity big Simpson fan and I've never heard that before.

As for the show's evolution, try the Production section. Buc (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's a pretty accepted fact from fans that the first few seasons were more Bart-centric, but without a source it should stay out, although I think it might be mentioned in Planet Simpson. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That's totally judgment of fans it might have just been chance. To me they seem about equal. Buc (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What about the show becoming mroe surreal over time? I mean one of the latest episodes includes things like a racoon family exactly matching the simpsons and an army of worms defeating homer. The earlier episodes seem more based in everday situations and problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.139.94 (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

See, while you say "Surreal", i use the more proper term "jumping the shark"; seriously, people use the term surreal so losely these days. And good luck triying to bring in new info to the article, in the long run, wikipedia belongs mostly to those with the time to guard a page, not to those with a valid point of view. Still, its nice to see a criticism section being admited, though this section, as well as other sections in the page, have not been updated in quite a while.--201.215.161.72 (talk) 07:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Professional language

Re: edit dispute over "broadcast" or "air".

I do not wish to create an edit war, so I am mentioning this on the talk page.

I changed uses of "aired" to "was broadcast". The word "air" in this sense is a slang colloquialism - not formal, professional English. Colloquialisms do not belong in properly-written encyclopædia articles - not least in featured articles.

Another editor reverted my edits because s/he disliked the use of the passive voice. In this sense, though, a TV program is an inanimate entity - and can not do anything by itself. An episode can not actively do something: but a television company can broadcast it.

I have, however, now used "broadcast" actively. Perhaps other editors can take note... EuroSong ^talk 23:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Air" may have been slang at one point, but every dictionary I've checked lists it as standard usage. See [3], for example. Do you have a modern dictionary or style guide that says otherwise?

I do agree that the show itself doesn't "air" episodes; I'm just curious why you think the word is a colloquialism. Zagalejo^^^ 00:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• "In times of crisis, the family often turns to God..." This must have been contributed by asomeone who hasn't seen the show. --Wetman (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say that? No, they're not always religious, but there are many moments throughout the show when they pray. Look through some of the examples here. Zagalejo^^^ 08:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Analysis of show by scholars, professors, and TV writers

Hi all, I put in a section that summarizes the comments that film studies writer Kristin Thompson has made about "The Simpsons." An editor removed this section. I'd just like to say a few words in defence of having some analysis of the show by scholars and professors. The Wikipedia guide to writing about fiction encourages the inclusion of analysis of the book, show, or film in question by reputable critics. The author I cited, Kristin Thompson has been publishing books and articles about film theory and analysis since the late 1970s. Some of her publications include "Storytelling in the New Hollywood: Understanding Classical Narrative Technique" (Harvard University Press, November 1999); "Breaking the Glass Armor: Neoformalist Film Analysis" (Princeton University Press, August 1988); and, as a co-author with David Bordwell; Film Art: An Introduction (McGraw-Hill College, January 2003); Film History: An Introduction (McGraw-Hill College, August 2002). Nazamo (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between a book or movie and a TV show with over 400 episodes. What do you focus on? It just seems kind of unnecessary because this page is just supposed to be about the general show, and you should leave the analysis to the other more general pages. And originally you had it in the "Influence on television" section, but one others theories is not proof of influence on other shows. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your comments. I agree that the section could be put in a better place. It is my understanding that in our editing, we are to be guided by the various rules and policies set out by Wikipedia. The Wikipedia Manual of Style section on writing about fiction says that:"Examples of useful information typically provided by secondary sources about the original work, or primary and secondary sources about information external to the work:

the author or creator , other key figures of the creation process, e.g. the cinematographer for films or notable translators for novels , the film or software company or publishing house , the design , the development, both before its first appearance and over the course of the narrative real-world factors that have influenced the work or fictional element , for a fictional character in a dramatic production, the actor who portrayed the role and their approach to playing that character , foreign translations , its popularity among the public its sales figures (for commercial offerings), its reception by critics , a critical analysis of the subject , the influence of the work on later creators and their projects" ....The Kristin Thompson comments are in the category above that says "a critical analysis of the subject." She is assessing the overall approach used in the shows, as far as how the storytelling is done. What do you mean when you said that we should "leave the analysis to the other more general pages." Are you suggesting creating a new article such as "Critical analysis of The Simpsons"?Nazamo (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of analysis sections, because usually they focus on the opinions of only one or two authors and are kind of POVish. And no, I'm not suggesting creating such a page. Wikipedia is just supposed to give general information and if people wanted analysis, then they should go buy the book. You wouldn't check Encyclopedia Brittanica for analysis of Shakespeare. If there is a fairly large section devoted to The Simpsons in the book (and not just a couple of pages), then perhaps it could be included with the other books at the bottom of the page. And by the way, the MOS just has EXAMPLES of what could be included, it doesn't say that every one should be. Either way, I'll wait and see what some others think. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Nazamo, would you be interested in improving Religion in The Simpsons and Politics in The Simpsons? Alientraveller (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the analysis is useful; it provides real-world context to the subject, as well as demonstrating real-world impact. As mentioned earlier, analysis is encouraged when it is properly sourced from independent sources. We're the ones who aren't supposed to do it. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The page is already pretty long though, and there is really no need. Besides, a lot of it seems to be theories, not analysis and like I said, unless we include a half dozen other authors opinions, it's pretty much POV because we'd only be shocasing one author who doesn't even specialize in The Simpsons. And I'm suspicious. Neither of you made a single edit until yesterday and suddenly you're both fighting to keep this section in? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, please do not make blatantly unsubstantiated, irresponsible, unfounded accusations about "sockpuppets". Stay on the topic at hand; if you'd have bothered to look at contribution histories before writing that text, you'd never have hit the "SAVE" button. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [4]. --Maniwar (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

BBC reference

Here is a great reference to how the simpsons has impacted the world. [5] Great material. It was left on the Homer the Heretic talk page. All credit to UkPaolo. --Simpsons fan 66 00:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Idea for a new article: Assessment/Critical reception of the Simpsons?

I added a review article, but Scorpion0422 said that the main article would be too large if every positive review was added.

So, do you think a separate article covering the critical reception of the series would work? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just not sure if it's entirely necessary. Yes, it would be nice to have a large reception section, but the article already mentions several times that it's an influential and well received show, so why add in some more reviews? The problem with adding reviews for a television show is that many of the ones you'll find are targetted more towards individual episodes, rather than the series as a whole.

But in answer to your question about a new article, no, I do not think it would work. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

IMO to say that the show is well received is one thing, but it is another to cite reasons for why and how the show works or does not work. Also if there are so many reviews surely we could distinguish which ones are for the show and which ones are for individual episodes (although episode reviews may work if the authors believe that the episodes reflect larger trends within the series). WhisperToMe (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's Wikipedia's function to provide a link list of every good (bad and indifferent) review. Links in an article should be there only to back-up a point or points. The same goes for a section, or article or critical reception. Organise the criticisms by type (positive or negative, or whatever) with citations. That should keep it shorter, and I'm not sure that a seperate article would be necessary Ged UK (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be there so much to provide a link to every review - it would be to show different points and arguments regarding the show. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ratings chart

Currently there is no real section that describes the ratings for each season, unless I have missed it. I think we should put a ratings chart/table under "ratings". I understand that it will be very big, but if we can get sources for each season, I think not only would it look great, but it will also allow people to compare the popularity of seasons. ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 13:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Good luck finding reliable sources. In the mean time you can look at Talk:The Simpsons/ratings. --Maitch (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If, and it's a big if, you can find such ratings, I think the size of it might make it unworkable within this article. It may work as a separate article on it's own though. Ged UK (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand. It's practically impossible finding reliable sources. The table here Talk:The Simpsons/ratings looks good. Maybe we can only include the seasons with reliable sources, and leave out the rest. ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 02:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Age

i was looking at the article and didnt notice any information about the simpsons aging. within the series, it has been a trend that the characters never grow are age...lisa and bart do not age or graduate into the next grades at school, even though halloween passes every year as well as christmas. if someone can find reliable sources for this, is aging notable enough to placed in the article. it may already be mentioned somewhere in the article, i just didnt find it. thoughts?--ChrisisinChrist ^{comments and complaints here!} 20:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's no doubt about it, after all, Bart is 10 and the series is, what pushing 20 now? But of course you're right, we'd need to find some sources. I would have thought that there were some, because characters, especially kids, growing up is a significant plot point in live action serials, and I'd have thought somebody venerable would have written something. I don't have many simpsons books that are likely to contain anything, but I'll have a look through. Ged UK (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well Lisa is 8 and I have no idea how old Maggie is!! Have they ever mentioned this?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.9.227 (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Which State Is The Simpsons Family Located?

Reason why i ask is becuase on Episode 4 of Season 10 "Tree House of Horrer IX" At about 15:00 Minutes in the show, Maggie is telepathicly calling out to her alien parent & the call zooms out of the house,town,country then world which the state of Louisiana or mississippi is located under so i was just wondering do we know which state they are in and if so this should be posted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.136.132 (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the movie, Springfield's state borders Ohio, Nevada, Maine and Kentucky – which means that Springfield can't possibly correspond to any real-world location. Zagalejo^^^ 04:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the creators have ever said for sure. Burner0718 04:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

We have an article that covers this in some detail. See Springfield's state for your reading pleasure. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Burner0718 06:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw an episode just last night which stated they where a north kentucky faimly, i looked this up on google maps and there is acualy a springfeild kentuky, im going to add a few thing to that eventualy but unfortuneitly the picture is not good enough to use Englishmanjacob (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The reference to the Simpsons living in Kentucky is a one-off written to reference the confusion as to where they live. It is not a definite answer. Gran² 17:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternate universe + character age

There are some notes on the episode commentary for Lisa's First Word that describe the continuity with age problems. Matt G also states that originally The Simpsons was going to be set in "an alternate universe where nothing was exactly the same as ours, including presidents and famous people, it was all gonna be a completely fictitious world. ...And they lived in some kind of vague 50's, 60's world taken from sitcoms. But that was abandoned very early on. It was kept in the Tracy Ulman shorts but then it fell apart." Just an interesting note that I think should be looked into. --Simpsons fan 66 00:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the quote? Ged UK (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

He said, the commentary for Lisa's First Word. Anyway, if you can find a place for it, I think it would be a great inclusion. Gran² 08:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

New image

i would like to add the image: Simpsons-cast.jpg i think it is better that the current image in the character section because is shows more characters. does anyone agree or disagreeFW07 (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It may show more characters, but more than half of them are one-timers, as well, it is a poorly cropped image from a poster. The other image is an official promo image, shows mostly main recurring characters and is much neater, it also has proper licensing information, so it is better. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it's not clear, has no source, incorrect license, shows fewer important recurring characters, is too big, has no fair use ratonale. Gran² 13:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

 Declined I disagree. No information, too big, too many characters. The old one is better: it shows the principal characters - The Simpsons. Jimmy James Lavoie (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

 Note: By the way, you should not replace the image and wait for the decision here... As I didn't see any "YES", you MUST wait and avoid doing edit wars. Jimmy James Lavoie (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect + addition

"The Simpsons Movie, a feature-length film, was released in theaters worldwide on July 26 and July 27, 2007"

Wish it was (living in Japan) it was released worldwide on these dates: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0462538/releaseinfo

In Japan they also replaced the original Japanese voice dubbers with other celebrities causing angering long time fans of the show in Japan: http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=2698 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djsilver (talk • contribs) 04:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of declining quality

Why is a section about criticism 2/3 praise and apologism? Controversy over the perception of decline in quality of show is a major issue for fans (and ex-fans) and should be elaborated on - and maybe the praise moved to a different section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.173.68 (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, because if people have questioned the perception that the show now "sucks", it belongs in the same section, as a form of rebuttal. Indeed, the section could even use a line from one of the positive reviews I've seen of the latest season. Lapsed fan, Steve ^{T • C} 08:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

List of recurring characters from The Simpsons

why not link to List of recurring characters from The Simpsons? it could fit in this line: Hank Azaria voices recurring characters such as... 75.118.48.215 (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Listing Series

Could someone list the series of the simpsons, especially the date when they were aired? It would be great of such information could be either put into the page, or a link to it (with a prominent notice) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.103.172 (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a link on the infobox on the right hand side, somewhere under the cast list, next to the total number of episodes. It's a fairly standard place to find a link to episodes on most TV show pages. Ged UK (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Voice actors <- duplicate paragraphs

Under this section there are two separate paragraphs that both address voice actor pay disputes.

202.89.185.197 (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

From "Influences on Language"

In this section, someone wrote, "The first listed usage [of Do'h!] comes not from The Simpsons, but from a 1945 BBC radio script in which the writers spelled the word 'dooh'." However, that fact is not mentioned anywhere in the cited source. Is there a missing footnote or something? Zagalejo^^^ 20:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It was actually from Jim Finlayson in some of the old Laurel and Hardy films which I found on a different page on the same source Doc Strange (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Dan Castellanata has often clairified this in interviews. "Annoyed grunt" was what was written on his scripts, so he copied Finlayson's "Doooooooooooh!", but Matt told him this took too much time, so he shortened it to 'D'oh!".

This has been reflected in episode titles as an 'in joke'; for example, "Supercalifragilisticexpiali<Annoyed grunt>cious" DanTheShrew (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't there any mention of once popular (but now outdated) phrases like "Don't have a cow, man"? WJS 9:34, May 28, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.249.251 (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Because The Simpsons didn't invent it. --Maitch (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

However, the article does mention the generic interjections "excellent", "Woohoo!" and "HA-ha!", none of which originated with The Simpsons, either. B7T (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

But they definitely "influenced" our language with it. Under the category, they specify that "D'oh" wasn't invented by Simpsons producers either. What about Apu's contraversial "Thank you come again!"? They're all phrases that were made very popular by the Simpsons, but can't be credited by the producers. They didn't "invent" these phrases. WJS, 3:18PM, May 28, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.249.251 (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

New word to add
Another word offered up by The Simpsons is "embiggen". Originally used in the 1996 episode Lisa the Iconoclast, it has now been found in physics! From a String Theory paper titled Gauge/gravity duality and meta-stable dynamical supersymmetry breaking by Stanford University physicist Shamit Kachru and three others: "While in both cases for P anti-D3-branes the probe approximation is clearly not good, in the set up of this paper we could argue that there is a competing effect which can overcome the desire of the anti-D3s to embiggen, namely their attraction towards the wrapped D5s. Hence, also on the gravity side, the non-supersymmetric states would naively be meta-stable." This paper and the use of the word "embiggen" is discussed with humor and scientific detail on the Scientific American blog at Scian.com [6] 24.205.138.122 (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC) (New Here)

Try here Darrenhusted (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Jebus/Jeebus
Jebus (The Simpsons) redirects to the "Influences on Language" section of this article, where Jebus/Jeebus isn't even mentioned. I'm not saying it should be included, but isn't this behavior a bit strange? To redirect to a place where the original subject isn't even mentioned? What do you guys think would be the proper solution? JGerretse (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"Can't sleep, clown will eat me"

Why isn't it in the "Influences on language" section? --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you can find a sources, which discusses its influence on language, then you can add it. --Maitch (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a section about it in Lisa's First Word. We used to have an entire article about the phrase: [7]. :) Zagalejo^^^ 18:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Traveling in the Simpsons

Whatever happened to that wonderful section, Traveling in the Simpsons? If it was deleted due to being too much like a fan guide, then how come List of Homer's Jobs" is still there?--Coin945 (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Homer's jobs aren't linked to this article. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying that it's a similar type of article - a list, so I was wondering why that particular article was left, while the 'Traveling' article has been deleted.--Coin945 (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, both lists should really get deleted per Wikipedia's policies. The reason why the list with Homer's job is kept is that it has a few sources. The travelling list had none. --Maitch (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Different explanation from Matt Groening

Read this:

AVC: Is it true that James L. Brooks originally wanted to adapt Life In Hell for The Tracey Ullman Show, but you refused because you would have had to relinquish your rights to the characters?

MG: No, it was that I had this good gig going with my weekly comic strip, and I was actually afraid that if the animated cartoon didn't work out, there would be a taint on my weekly comic-strip job. So I created The Simpsons on the spot, thinking that if it did fail, I could just go back and draw rabbits, and no one would be the wiser.

link: http://www.avclub.com/content/node/47771/2 198.85.228.129 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Even in the "America's First Family" featurette in The Simpsons season one DVD boxset, Groening says he didn't want to ruin his characters. He says nothing about the rights to them.198.85.228.129 (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In this interview, Groening himself says "Suggested I animate my life in hell characters ... I found out I would give up ownership of whatever it is that I put up, so I created The Simpsons. You know, Life in Hell, that's a regular gig and I didn't think this would pan out so I decided not to sacrifice my characters." I think it depends on the source, Groening is often like that, often changing his official story. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing about The Simpsons fan base/following

That's an important part of the show: the dozens of fan-created websites (in various languages), the relationship between the fans and show's staff, particularly, its influence on the show's humor (freeze frame gags, entire episodes, such as "The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show"), the websites snpp.com and nohomersclub.net (which the staff has directly addressed in particular episodes and commentaries), the fact that The Simpsons is a featured article on Wikipedia—there should be at least a paragraph about this in this article.

Bear in mind that I am aware that Wikipedia is not a fan site. Nonetheless, I believe this article needs to address this in some way. To leave out this unique facet of The Simpsons (and The Simpsons alone) is akin to leaving out any other segment of the show.198.85.228.129 (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You think we should mention that "The Simpsons" is a featured article on Wikipedia, in its Wikipedia page, as evidence of fan following? I don't think so, somehow. The only fansites with any notability are NoHomers and SNPP, and in the early days alt.tv.simpsons. Maybe we could mention them somewhere, but not without reliable sources. Gran² 21:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you misunderstood me—that's not what I'm saying, that we should mention that The Simpsons is a featured article in its own article. I was merely using that as proof of the fan devotion to the show. And if you want a reliable source, look no further than Chris Turner's book Planet Simpson, which you already have listed as a source—he covers the fan following to The Simpsons (in and outside of the US) at length—and, like I said above, listen to the DVD commentaries to hear from the horses' mouths themselves.198.85.228.129 (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Turner is a good source. You're free to write a section on fandom yourself. If you want, you can post it here first, and we can help you with wiki formatting or whatnot. Zagalejo^^^ 20:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea! Also, why not create an account? CTJF83Talk 20:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Mexican simpsons-as-X phenomenon

In Mexico, it is common to see T-shirts or framed posters with the main Simpsons characters as other popular culture characters: "Simpsons in Black", "Spider-bart", "La Ley de H(om)erodes", etc. This use dates back at least to the mid-90s, and I doubt any license fees are changing hands in most cases. I never understood it myself, but there are whole stores that seem to be devoted to this stuff. In Guatemala, you see it sometimes, but it is much rarer. Homunq (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would be interesting to add more details about the international popularity of The Simpsons to the article SamanthaG (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Simpsons mention wikipedia

BART: But wikipedia says he was passionate about rehearsals! HOMER: Don't worry about wikipedia, we'll change it when we get home. *snarls* we'll change a lot of things.

Simpsons episode "Apocalypse Cow" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.45.194 (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

They've done it a few times, we don't mention it at all, it is just trvia CTJF83Talk 19:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

good article

Resolved

 – Has been a Featured Article since August 14, 2007.

supI've seen that in the external links to the other wikipedias is a mistake, because in spanish Wikipedia, the simpsons is a good article and if the community aproves it'll be featured article in a few days. Thank you, --Joanlm (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Why don't we bring this page up to "Featured article" status? It's the top-important one in the range of The Simpsons articles. Let's give it a shot, and improve it. It also needs a title sequence image, but I'll upload that soon, when I have more time. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 05:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This page IS a Featured Article, it's been one since August 14, 2007. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh... I see this has been  Done. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 05:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I've now uploaded a title screen image that has been put on the main page. Thanks. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^{T C} 06:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Intro vs. Origins -- Rewrite one or the other or both

Much of the content in the intro is immediately repeated in the following Origins section. I'd clean it up but I'd probably hack off some fan who is better equipped to do the editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.105.214 (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead is supposed to summarize the article, so it's really unavoidable. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The human condition?

From the first paragraph of the article: "aspects of the human condition including American culture, society, and television(my italics)". How can American culture or tv be described as elements of the human condition? They might be aspects of some human lives but that isn't the same thing. The human condition is necessarily universal, surely. On a side note, it seems like maybe the lead should mention the criticisms about the decline in quality. Other than that, this is a really good article, well done guys. 90.192.223.119 (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Locking?

I think this article should be locked because it is perfect right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angry Dad (talk • contribs) 12:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Longest Running PRIMETIME Series?

Even though it's continuing to at least 2012 and surpassing Gunsmoke, shouldn't it be labelled as the longest-running primetime series? Since there's a lot more series (like NBC's Meet The Press, soap operas like As The World Turns, etc.) that have been on forever. Seems to me, labelling it as the longest running series ever is a bit of a misnomer. Caleb Osment (talk) 01:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was only added a few days ago, I've removed it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not 2012 though isn't it!123.2.85.195 (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Bender Cameos

I'm suprised thier isn't a page (or sub-page) based on Bender (Futurama Character) throughout the show. If there is I'd really like to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.85.195 (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

See Bender_(Futurama). Barnabypage (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Aging

I do not see any mention in this article as to why the Simpsons never age.Mdriver1981 (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

So? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Because it is a cartoon and no cartoons ever age —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.161.165.114 (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

They poke fun of that themselves from time to time. In the most recent episode, "How the Test Was Won," Homer remembers all the times he has been hurt throughout the show's 20-season run and then exclaims "What a week!" Like stated above, it's the way cartoons work. Rafajs77 (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The Simpsons is parodying the fact that this is how many cartoons (and comics) work. And yes it should be mentioned in the article. Format (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's another cartoon cliche, like why do all cartoon characters only have 4 fingers? Galeforce winds13 (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Couch Gag

For some bizarre reason the article is locked so I can't add it but someone needs to add a specific reference to the couch gag in the recurring themes sections. It's only obliquely referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.69.176 (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about, the Couch gag pages isn't protected at all. What is the reference you would like to add. CTJF83Talk 19:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering that too. SamanthaG (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Were you wondering why it is locked or what couch gag issue? Orderofthehouse (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Popular expressions

I have doubts about the first three expressions mentioned in the language influence-section being Simpson originals. Compared to "d'oh" and "cromulent", they are very generic. "Excellent" is the more likely of the three, but it's pretty likely that it's been used many times before, quite possibly with the same intonation. "HA-ha" could just as well be something that was widespread before The Simpsons. (It seems pretty obvious that people have taunted each other with over-articulated laughter before 1990.) "Woohoo!" definitely seems like something that hasn't been invented by any Simpson-writer. The problem is that claims about these expressions don't appear to be referenced.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Cromulent was first used in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, not the Simpsons.

208.2.205.162 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC).

That's a perfectly cromulent point. DFS (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Fox and the Simpsons

A passage about the critical opinions stated about Fox within the Simpsons episodes would further enhance the quality of this article, also taking into account possible reactions of Fox. There are episodes which claim or imply that Fox supports the Republicans financially and through biased broadcasting, fuels hatred against 'liberals' while at the same time being hypocritical by showing beyond-shallow programs. In the article, there's a passage about a contract clause prohibiting Fox from interfering with the Simpsons content, however a bit more in-depth information on this very special relationship between the Simpsons and Fox would certainly be interesting. 85.180.180.56 (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if we could source it, but if you can, please add it! It sounds quite interesting. Xanthic-Ztk (talk) 03:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons is not the first Fox show to poke fun/criticize the very network it is broadcast on. Married with Children did countless Fox gags. I think a lot of it has to do with Fox's status as the fledgling fourth network. The Fox News Channel is a fairly new phenomenon considering the 20 year history of the Simpsons. The Simpsons made fun of Fox before the Fox News Channel ever existed. Galeforce winds13 (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

showrunner is a word?

somewhere in the article it is written "showrunner." is that even a word? as i understand it, it is meant to be written as "show runner." Twipley (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed —TheLeftorium 14:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, both are acceptable forms of the word. DFS (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Middle class

It says in the article that The Simpsons are middle class. I always thought of them as being towards the upper end of the working class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writelotspaynone (talk • contribs) 18:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If you own a house you're usually considered middle class, especually if it's in the suburbs. Plus, Homer has a white collar job. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Does Homer have a white clollar job? I thought it was unskilled. --Writelotspaynone (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree his job is white color, it is blue if anything. CTJF83Talk 20:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

He sits at a desk all day for the most part. M00npirate (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

He might work in a factory, but he is a safety supervisor/inspector and he doesn't do manual labor, so I say he is white-collar. Despite this, there are many episodes that deal with the Simpsons having financial troubles, the first Christmas episode for example shows Homer taking a second job to buy Christmas presents, and there are countless other episodes where the Simpsons struggle financially, while other episodes contradict this, though they seem smaller in number. Some of these difficulties could be blamed on Homer's poor financial planning. In the episode "Double, Double, Boy in Trouble" I believe there is a line where Bart refers to his family as being part of "the upper lower middle class" but I could be wrong. Homer is obviously unskilled, but as this is a cartoon, everything usually works out for him, I mean he was an astronaut, for chrissakes! Galeforce winds13 (talk) 09:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

In some episodes they are struggling financially. In some episodes they have loads of money. In all of them however we see them as typical homeowners, which represents the middle class. --Maitch (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms/Call for Closure

I think there should be a section mentioning the criticism which has been growing lately that the show has become rather stale and done, and the suggestion that it should be brought to an end, particularly the criticism which has appeared in other shows such as Family Guy. Bshrode (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a section currently on criticism. I don't think we should list criticism that has appeared in FG though. CTJF83Talk 22:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, there is a criticism section. I think you are the third guy that have requested this without actually reading the article. The criticism have been there since Mike Scully took over as showrunner and is not a recent thing, but you are welcome to improve it. I don't think we should include jokes from Family Guy. If there is a quote from Seth MacFarlane on the other hand regarding The Simpsons, then that might be worth including.--Maitch (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Attention

There is currently a discussion taking place over at the List of South Park episodes concerning the notability of the majority of the South Park articles. The final decision with those episodes may effect this project in the future also. More opinions are wanted and needed at the talk page so that we can get a better idea of the consensus. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to comment, but I'm not reading through all that. That talk page would be 53 pages long if printed out. Could you give me a summary of what's going on? Zagalejo^^^ 03:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The short version: Some people tried merging the season one articles of South Park. In this discussion some people supported while others opposed. Instead of chosing a route that would be unpopular with either side, Masem proposed an alternative. If people can prove the notability of four random episodes, people would leave all the episode articles alone. What you need to read is Talk:List_of_South_Park_episodes#Alternate_route_to_move_forward. --Maitch (talk) 11:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

11April2009 the Simpsons will be made into a 44 cent stamp issued 07May2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by VMegladonv (talk • contribs) 18:49, 11 April 2009 featuring the 5 main cast members, Homer, Marge, Lisa, Bart and Maggie vMegladonv(UTC)

Yes, that's mentioned in the Merchandising section. Zagalejo^^^ 19:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Chapelle's show

In the article it says "When the first season DVD was released in 2001, it quickly became the best-selling television DVD in history, although it was later overtaken by the first season of Chappelle's Show.". This claim is supported by a source, but I have reasons to question whether this is true. My problem with the statement is that it says "in history". Saying that would mean that it is the best selling DVD ever in the whole world. I seriously doubt it. It is not syndicated to the rest of the world. In fact it is only released in Region 1. Americans have a tendency to use the terms "all time" and "world champion" about statistics that only refer to Americans. Also, the article mentions that the source is Nielsen VideoScan, which only collects data from USA and Canada. I think we should rephrase that sentence. --Maitch (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The new order of the sections

Doesn't it make much more sense to put the characters and the Setting sections on the top of the article ? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No ratings section?

Don't most television show wiki entries include ratings? There should be a table of the season averages with each season number linking to the list of episodes with the viewership for each individual episode. Is this information not available? The13thzen (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. The only problem is that The Simpsons is a very old show and we have a very hard time finding sources for the early seasons. Since it will look stupid to present an incomplete ratings table we have left it out entirely. You are welcome to do your own research. --Maitch (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

International animation studios involved

This box is uncited and currently has a {{fact}} tag on it. This should be fixed so that the article doesn't go to FAR. I have looked on the internet and it is hard to find a reliable source that tells what episodes that different studios were involved with. The only site I can find is this, but I would consider that an unreliable source. So what do we do with the box? Should we just delete it? --Maitch (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, we know for a fact that those are the animation studios. And that Akom handled the first two seasons (I also know that they did the first six season three episodes, HOMR, The Wettest Stories Ever Told, Trilogy of Error and a few others). Maybe we should update the episode list to show which company did which show, kinda like the episode list for Tiny Toon Adventures.

Just a suggestion, that's all. Philipnova798 (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Images

I was removing those images in this article failing WP:NFCC, and I noticed that an image of Julie Cavner was missing, there is a free image on Flikr [8], if someone wants to upload it. Fasach Nua (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That image isn't free-use, it doesn't allow commercial or derivative use. Gran² 20:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

yes you are correct, I saw the cc logo and jumped the gun, well spotted. Fasach Nua (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The images were deemed okay when it was promoted to FA (diff) and they have FURs for this article. If you disagree with the FURs you have other options. The image of Kavner on Flikr is not a suitable free image as it is tagged with a no derivatives licence which would make it a WP:CSD#F3 candidate. --JD554 (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"Eponymous" family?

In the opening paragraph: Of course the family are fictional, but isn't it logical to assume that the show is named after the family rather than the family named after the show? If that assumption holds, then the show is "eponymous" rather than the family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.29.49 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

editing animation section

the simpsons sixth season is on air in the Arab world through Fox Series channel subtitled into Arabic with minor censorship and its getting postive reviewes.

sorry new to editing somthing about semi protected contents and new users, am feeling alot like Homer now! Nabkawe (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect footnote on family portrait

Someone needs to change the footnote under the family portrait on the page The Simpsons from "Snowball II" to "Snowball V". In "I, (Annoyed Grunt)-Bot" Snowball II dies, then snowball III, then Coltrane. Their current cat is Snowball V. Dehodson2 (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Lisa named the new cat Snowball II. Theleftorium 09:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Because the name Snowball II is engraved on the cat's feeding bowl, and they did not want to buy a new one... Tprosser (talk) 08:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit needed on declining quality?

The Criticism of declining quality section starts thus: "Critics' reviews of new Simpsons episodes praised the show for its wit, realism, and intelligence": given that the articles linked to in support of this statement are from 1990 and 1993, surely this should refer to early Simpsons episodes instead? (I cannot edit semiprotected pages, so maybe someone else could.) Inkin73 (talk) 02:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Well spotted. Fixed. Gran² 08:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Capter Sequence

I think chapter 7 should really be a subsection of the following Chapter, Reception and achievements. Also, I would like to move the Character Section down the list to after the Themes Section, just makes the article more 'ordered'. What do you think?Tprosser (talk) 08:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge from Recurring jokes in The Simpsons

I'm starting to think we should merge that page here. There are few sources, and some of the jokes added are either very minor (especially in the catchphrases section), not actually recurring (Lisa's "If anybody needs me I'll be in my room" - has that actually been used more than once?) or are a comedy staple used in many shows (ie. "Comical establishments"). The article should either be merged, or we should come up with some kind of criteria, because looking at it, it's a huge mess with some things randomly added by IPs and some notable jokes are not mentioned at all (for example, is the "Floorboard gag" really more notable than, say, Homer taking a great deal of physical pain?). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. Only the most important information should be merged, though. TheLeftorium 23:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Merge it doesn't need its own page...if we even need to list the info at all, anywhere. CTJF83Talk 04:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Most of the jokes are actually used in many episodes, and they have enough notability to be a separate article. --Fixman^{Praise me} 03:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Merge Just in order to keep things together, I think we should merge most of that article into this one's Hallmark section. I do not see the need for a separate article--Tprosser (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Gran² 08:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Where do they live?

They are believed to live somewhere in Iowa based on the fact that in episode 10 of season 19 titled “E pluribus wiggum” at approximately 6 minutes 10 seconds in to the episode. Lisa states that their state’s primary elections are first in the nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnight21108 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all Iowa has caucuses, not primaries (New Hampshire is usually the first primary) and second, there has been hundreds of conflicting location "clues", they live in no real location! CTJF83Talk 16:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Jon Stewart interview

Is this new? I thought some of the crazy things he said about how they made him record his lines could be put into the article -- as though the show is put out by the Secret Service. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Cast Images

What was the rationale behind having a gallery of the voice cast? There was a decision to include one on the Family Guy article, but I don't like it. I am not sure what purpose it serves. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 19:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

New opening sequence

After watching a couple of versions of the new HD opening sequence, I have noticed some parts that changes often:

• The bird at the beginning (flying in alternating directions)
• What Ralph says (like "It's dark!" or "I see stars")
• The big advertisement sign right before the school
• What Bart writes on the chalkboard
• What Barney says when Bart hits him (right after the school)
• The melody Lisa plays on her saxophone
• The couch gag

Just thought I should mention this ... Frxstrem (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Also the TV doesn't always fall off the wall at the end P38fln (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Semantics

If a registered user could make this change: in the lead it's mentioned that The Simpsons is the longest-running prime time entertainment series. In truth of fact it could be argued that Hallmark Hall of Fame and Wonderful World of Disney lasted longer (by decades). However the distinction is that The Simpsons is broadcast on a regular weekly schedule (which disqualifies Hallmark) and features continuing characters (which disqualifies Disney), so this should be noted. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"Rejected by the courts"?

The article asserts that Tracey Ullman's claim that "her show was the source of the series' success [and that] she should receive a share of the profits of The Simpsons" was "rejected by the courts" (citing Frank Spotnitz, "Eat my shorts!", Entertainment Weekly, p. 8(1), Oct. 23, 1992). However, the Tracey Ullman article states - helpfully providing no reference - "A settlement was reached whereby Ullman would receive a portion of the profits made from the show, although no amount was ever publicly disclosed." Krakatoa (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Simpsons Confidential (although it's Ortved's own words, so I don't if we can use it) he says Ullman had a share of the profits already, she wanted an increased stake and some of the merchandise money as well. The courts rejected this, but she keep he existing share. (The other Tracey Ullman Show producers got tiny payoffs for their shares). Gran² 20:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Expanding Simpsons Impact on Culture

Not sure how this would fit in, but it's doubtless that The Simpsons have had a larger impact on American Pop Culture than is listed here. Fall Out Boy, I Voted For Kodos, and Evergreen Terrace are all bands named after The Simpsons. Is this of note? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.219.43 (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Simpsons Songs?

I think it's a good idea for a new article about all the songs/parts of songs used in Simpsons episodes. Lots of people watch the show and hear a good song and then try to look it up. Or is this already exist? And I'm just too lazy to sign in to my real account, so I'll use this IP Address. --98.26.27.218 (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

A list did exist at one point, but it was deleted. I'm too lazy to try to dig up to afd. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Why was it deleted? I think the list should be re-added, or a new one made. JoseySmith (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Class

The introduction calls them "middle class", I had thought that (in the beginning at least) they were meant to be a working class family? I think I have read that in official stuff... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.243.37 (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on "offical stuff"? CTJF83 chat 22:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't find the original source but IMBD and a whole lot of other stuff have the exact phrase "working class family". http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096697/ - Fox TV DVD site also says it - http://www.foxtvdvd.co.uk/brand_view.php?ID=1 - "The Simpsons Season 1 The beginning of the satiric adventures of a working class family in the misfit city of Springfield." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.243.37 (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think... "The series is a satirical parody of a middle class American lifestyle epitomized by its eponymous family, which consists of Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa, and Maggie." Should be changed to... "The series is a satirical parody of the life of a working class American family, which consists of Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa, and Maggie." There are much more sources calling them working class than middle class. A lot of the earlier episodes were about the family's money struggles, Homer running the union etc.ChrisKnott (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. If this is the middle class (one brain (or two, if you count Marge, which is iffy at times) in a five member family) with all their definitely lower class attitudes etc. what does this say about the inhabitants of the USA? Do you have to be an illiterate serial killer to be lower class according to this standard? And no, I'm not American, and I honestly hope Homer and his flock are not middle class. All the best 157.157.70.111 (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Throughout the series Homer mentions themselves as Upper-Lower-Middle class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.85.195 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not a real thing. CTJF83 chat 01:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone considered adding historical research to the idea of the show's declining quality?

Just a simple search on Google Groups for the earliest coupling of "worst episode ever" and "Simpsons" provides this:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.tv.simpsons/browse_thread/thread/9f11167a2c374535/da06756a145b8303?q=%22worst+episode+ever%22+simpsons#da06756a145b8303

Which demonstrates, I believe, that people already thought the quality was declining by the fourth season--which, to be honest, is later than I remember that phrase starting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.36.164 (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Internet discussion has no place on Wikipedia. Andy120290 (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not? I understand that such discussion can't be considered a reliable source necessarily, but can it not serve to trigger discussion of some aspect related to the article?    ¥    Jacky Tar  07:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Because internet discussion by the shows inane 'fans' is meaningless. The first mention of "Worst Episode Ever" on alt.tv.simpsons was for "Itchy and Scratchy: The Movie", back in season 4! There already is a section on criticism of the show's declining quality. Gran² 08:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion about the appropriateness of using alt.tv.simpsons posts to comment on the show's declining quality, but there is a straightforward comment about the show's decline that comes from a reputable source which I'm tempted to incorporate into The Simpsons#Criticism of declining quality, based on http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8449416.stm:

In a retrospective on the show's 20th anniversary, the BBC noted that the "common consensus is that The Simpsons' golden era ended after season nine"; nine of the 10 "most memorable" episodes mentioned in the retrospective were part of the show's first nine seasons, though "The Monkey Suit", from the 17th season, was also on the list, for demonstrating that "the writers still have fire in their bellies."

Full reference: <ref>{{cite web | title= The Simpsons: 10 classic episodes | url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/entertainment/8449416.stm | publisher=[[BBC News]] | date= 14 January 2010 | accessdate=2010-01-15| quote= The common consensus is that The Simpsons' golden era ended after [[The Simpsons (season 9)|season nine]], but this episode, from [[The Simpsons (season 17)|series 17]], shows [[List of writers of The Simpsons|the writers]] still have fire in their bellies.}}</ref>

72.244.204.17 (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm going to add this, and also a similar comment from a CNN article a few months ago. Gran² 16:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:American comedy television series

I have placed the show in these already existing categories in addition to animated, but it has been reverted, several times.. I have asked why and please tell me the explanation to the reverts, and it is just reverted again with no explanation. I placed it here because 1) the categories are for American comedy television series and this is an American comedy television series.. 2) not all animated shows are comedy shows... Please explain the reason the categories keep getting removed, I have asked for explanation twice, but none is being provided. Ejfetters (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need a category for every decade? It just adds to the bulk of unneeded categories. CTJF83 chat 21:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Then nominate the categories for deletion. Ejfetters (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is a bad category, I'm just saying we don't need a bunch of arbitrary categories on The Simpsons, please read Wikipedia:Overcategorization CTJF83 chat 21:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Nielsen Rating

I propose that we put the nielsen rating average for the season and give them a section I find a lot of them Joe59108 (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Joe59108

Why? It's really not that important and looks horribly out of place in the articles with a two sentence section. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yah but plenty of articles have it and it couldf give an example for the declining quality Joe59108 (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Joe59108

Nielsen Ratings are not evidence of quality and have been declining for almost all shows. Shows like NewsRadio and Futurama were acclaimed but were cancelled due to low ratings. Gran² 00:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Gran NR decling and go up constantly even the best show can get a bad score and and the worst shows get great scores its not a constant number.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should put the Nielsen Ratings an describe it;s up and downs plus those other shows have them I think all shows should have one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.250.247 (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I put it on TheSimpsonsRocks (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)TheSimpsonsRocks

And I reverted it because it was incomplete and added nothing to the article. The Simpsons is one of those shows where, in the long run, ratings have little meaning, and the average ratings have fluxuated over the seasons, having nothing to do with quality. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Scorpion. The table looked horrible and out of place. CTJF83 chat 21:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I suggest we put it on or at least put the average ratings on the Season pagesTheSimpsonsRocks (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)TheSimpsonsRocks

This Article is NOT Neutral

I saw somewhere it said conservatives complained about the show. This is political and biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treyjag (talk • contribs) 02:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to "Bart's rebellious nature, which frequently resulted in no punishment for his misbehavior, led some parents and conservatives to characterize him as a poor role model for children." What's so bad about that? It refers to the philosophy, not any specific political party, and the groups that complained about him were conservative. And it is sourced as well. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ratings Decline

The article states a ratings decline from 13.4 to 7.7 million viewers up until 2008. Due to the length of running of the show, however, the change in population should be taken into account, viewed here: http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=uspopulation&met=population&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+population

If adjusted for population increase (up almost 50 million from 1989 to 2008 to 304 million), then the equivalent number of viewers of season 19 (ie viewer ratings had this season been aired in 1989) would only be 6.2 million, a whole 1.5 million lower due to a ratio population change of 1.23. The percentage of viewers per population has fallen from 5.4 % in 1989 to 2.5 % in 2008.

Has this issue been raised before? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.192.102 (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

contradiction with another Wikipedia article:

This article states that Springfield is a city name in more than half of US states. (The ref link for this is dead.) However List_of_the_most_common_U.S._place_names#Springfield_.2832.29 indicates there are only 22. One of these is wrong obviously (I'm not certain which). 59.101.12.162 (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I just checked that site (it's changed its domain), and yes, they're are only 22. I'll change the article to reflect that. Gran² 18:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Factual error in section 7.2 'Television'

The article states 'The Simpsons was the first successful animated program in prime time since Wait Till Your Father Gets Home in the 1970s.'. This is false as I can name Danger Mouse (1981-1992) just for starters. However, it is more than just a simple edit to correct this and I am not going to delete a large paragraph without first discussing it? kimdino (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It means in the United States. Also, was Danger Mouse primetime? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it should say the Flintstones? I know it is sourced, but 49 episodes doesn't seem very successful to me. CTJF83 chat 18:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The inference in the paragraph is that the record is global, not limited to the US. Also, When I mention DM we have considered just the UK & the US, a very small part of the world. I considered adding 'in the US' where needed to clarify this but the paragraph became very clunky. As to primetime - I can't remember exactly what time DM was shown but I do remember that I would finish work (at 5pm) catch the bus home (about 45 minutes), and brew up my tea in time to sit and watch it. That puts it in the same timeslot as 'The Simpsons' is usually shown. kimdino (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, primetime is 8-11 PM. A primetime show is one where the first airings of episodes occur between those hours. The Simpsons episodes you likely saw were syndicated. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Unsure which programme you are speaking of when you speak of 49 episodes, however if you are speaking of DM there were more many than 49. I have just been on a quick look round to get a figure and have seen between 89 & 164 depending on what is counted and how they are counted. There could be a problem that 'successful' is a subjective term anyway? I believe 'The Flintstones' date from outside the period in discussion. I've just a quick look on the Flintstones page which shows 1960 to 1966.kimdino (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: primetime as 8-11pm. okay, I wasn't aware of this definition but have early evening family viewing in mind. I have just checked the defintion and agree that DM is no contender. However, has Chinese, European, USSR etc programming been checked? kimdino (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I already added that it's referring to American television to the text. Considering that it's an American show, it really should be obvious what it's referring to. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Care Bears? (only joking). Seriously though - if I was to say that Concord is the fastest airliner, does that mean that Germany, China, the US, Australia, Japan etc could have faster ones? No, if a limiter is not specifically applied to a statement then the implication is that that the statement applies to everyone i.e. in these cases the whole world. Btw. Your change does make the article a lot better. kimdino (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Snowclone Overlords

I'm wondering if we could replace the phrase "has become a common variety of phrase" regarding new insect overlords with "has become a snowclone"; see http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000399.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.100.91 (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Theme tune composer

The info at the side of the article states alf clausen is the composer. Danny Elfman wrote it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.235.57 (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 161.149.63.183, 18 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Under the picture of the writers there is s woman listed in the front as unknown. Her name is Leslie Richter. Can you please change it from unknown to Leslie Richter?

161.149.63.183 (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide a source before it is changed. CTJF83 chat 19:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Addition of a link

About the humor in The Simpsons : http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheSimpsons It would be good to add it to the "external links" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.26.68 (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Rising Quality

Lately critics have stated the show has been some what getting better and i was wondering if we could put this in the article.NoD'ohnuts (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts

Getting better? It's becoming worse and worse every year... Do you have any sources? Theleftorium ^(talk) 19:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well if you look at the reviews of season 20 and season 21 episodes many say the seriesh as gotten better for example IGN, TV SquadNoD'ohnuts (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts

Can you give examples? Theleftorium ^(talk) 08:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

IGN's "wise opinion" is somewhat weakened by the fact that they're owned by the same people who own Fox. I think the view of the majority of fans (myself included) is that the show is getting worse and worse and should just end (and should have ended 11 years ago). Let's see after season 22, perhaps this 'trend' will continue... Gran² 10:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

OK I'd like to also say TV Squad, A.V. Club, and the others o reviewed season 21 episodesNoD'ohnuts (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts

Either way, you need to find a source that specifically says the quality is rising, not just more positive reviews, that would be WP:OR CTJF83 chat 18:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There was also a period during seasons 13-16 when some believed the show was improving, but that isn't mentioned because it's not really necessary. Even if they think the quality is rising slightly, all of those critics still acknowledge that the recent years are far below the magnificent standards of the classic era. That section covers all of this criticism. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

One of them says lately the series has got better and called this season better than the ones in previous yearsNoD'ohnuts (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts

Edit request from 69.230.192.46, 2 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} the simpsons were based on a midwest family in colorado.

69.230.192.46 (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

•  Not done find a source, and I'll add it. CTJF83 chat 04:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The End?

Do you think it is worth mentioning that the simpsons is only renewed until next season? http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40254 76.222.232.160 (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It is mentioned that the show is renewed next season. Saying that its "only" renewed is mindless speculation. Why should it have been renewed further? Unfortunately I don't see this show going away any time soon. Gran² 17:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Speculation? Didn't you read the link? The Simpsons are over next season.76.222.232.160 (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That link (from February last year) says the show has been renewed till the end of season 22. It makes no mention, even a tiny speculative mention, that the show might end. What on earth are you on about? Gran² 18:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Simpsons is one of Fox's biggest cash cows. It won't end anytime soon. Theleftorium ^(talk) 18:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

*sigh*, thanks for getting my hopes up, IP. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 18:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

My point is if it is only renewed through that season, it may end if it isn't renewed again especiall76.222.232.160 (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, but that's what we call speculation, which has no place here. Gran² 08:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Infobox question

I'm just wondering how on Earth you guys managed to get parts of the lead infobox to appear yellow? --.:Alex:. 14:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think many of the infoboxes for television shows are specially coded so that certain shows use certain colours. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right Scorpion http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Television_colour&action=edit CTJF83 pride 17:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hm, that's interesting. Thanks. --.:Alex:. 17:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Reception

Critical reception

Opinions from critics, analysis of certain characters and episodes, etc.

Awards

[Subsection] Content as it is now.

Commercial success

Content from 'Early success'

Run length achievements

[Subsection] Content as it is now.

Criticism and controversy

Content as it is now.

Actually I think we need to add a "Simpsons Controversies" Page. It happens to be listed as: International Controversy. Maybe Americans don't see the harm. But what about Aussies Man? THEY [Bleep]ING MOONED THEM MAN! MOONED THEM! —Preceding unsigned comment added by UltraPrimez (talk • contribs) 08:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Australians didn't take offence to the episode about australia - we love that episode, it was hilarious, in fact i'd go so far as to say that we most likely appreciate the humour of the episode more than anyone - and the article quoted as a source, refers to the uproar within the episode, not any actual uproar that ever took place. i'd be more likely to take offence to the fact that ppl think we'd actually take offence to this episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.237.63 (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Declining quality

[Subsection] Content as it is now.

Would anyone object to this layout? If not, I could work offline on the edit and submit it for review and input before actually implementing. The only real effort would be on the content in the first subsection.Autonova (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? Personally, I find the reception section to be the least important part of the articles, but these days you see some articles with huge reception sections to help mask the lack of other information. In an article this size, I think the reception section should be limited just the more notable parts. What would adding a bunch of quotations from random reviewers add to the article? Not much, really. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm I suppose you're right. I'm a heavy video game article editor and that's the standard layout of game reception sections. I suppose I am putting the Hallowe'en costumes up a little early... criticism accepted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.254.27 (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Not TV's longest running show

From sources I have gathered, The Simpsons is the longest running TV series still going on. They are WRONG. It is Doctor Who. Doctor Who was created in 1965 and is still going on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.49.94 (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Who is British, not American. Theleftorium ^(talk) 19:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on, you did not just say Doctor Who is American.--Jjeong12 (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh? No, I said Doctor Who is British, and The Simpsons is American. The article says "The Simpsons is the longest-running American primetime, scripted television series." Theleftorium ^(talk) 19:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I was meaning the guy who wrote above :). --Jjeong12 (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh.. I see. Sorry about that. :) Theleftorium ^(talk) 20:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't say The Simpsons is "TV's longest running show" it says its the longest running American animated show (which it is), the longest running "American primetime, scripted television series" (which it is) and the longest running sitcom in terms of episode count (which it is). General Hospital is not primetime. Doctor Who was off-air for the better part of 15 years before it came back. Gran² 17:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Formatting

This article uses inconsistent formatting when it comes to naming seasons of the show. I see "Season 1" (which I believe to be correct), "Season One", and "season one". Shouldn't some consistency be brought to this, since this is a featured article?--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "season one" is the correct format. Do you think you could fix this? Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Simsons Music Reference

In the Music section, all three TV music albums are referenced ("Songs in the Key of Springfield," "Go Simpsonic witht the Simpsons," and "The Simpsons: Testify"). It also mentions their first non-TV show album, "The Simpsons Sing the Blues." But it neglects to reference their second non-TV show album, "The Yellow Album." This was released in 1998. Can this reference be added? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.15.87 (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Conan O'Brien

Is this article part of WikiProject Conan O'Brien? I didn't know Conan O'Brien use to work for The Simpsons. JJ98 (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It is, as noted in the projects section at the top. CTJF83 chat 20:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd argue that this article should be high importance for that project, since he is easily the most famous ex-writer from the show, and many people still associate him with it. Also, we (The Simpsons project) have contributed 1/1 FAs and 7/10 GAs to that project... We rock! -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Episodes

Each episode takes 6 months to produce? They all are made in paralel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.143.47.33 (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, multiple episodes are produced at the same time. Theleftorium ^(talk) 09:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Christian hints

Hello, I think that in this TV series, there appear a lot of jokes abou Christinanity, the proof is that every time Ned Flanders speaks, there is a joke about him (=Christian). However, there is no mention inside the article. Do you think it would not be advisable to add something like that inside? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrancerCZ (talk • contribs) 05:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No. The show makes jokes about everything. And there is already a Religion in The Simpsons article. Gran² 10:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything? I do not agree. If we compare how much fun the show make about Christinanity and about Islam, the ratio is circa 95:5. Thank you for the sister-article link, I got interested by this part:

... the religion of Islam or Muslim characters had not featured heavily in the show's 19-year history ...

I think that the developers of the TV series avoid insulting Islam, as a violent religion. In case their show have contained a lot of Islamic jokes, Muslims would start to oppose against them and producing could not be working anymore. I am sure they realize the difference; shortened, it is like this: If you insult Muslim, he will kill you, if you insult a Christin, he will stay quiet. These two views are given by Koran/Bible, as mentioned. I consider this behaviour of the show's creators very coward and would like to type about it inside the article.

I understand the word "heavily" in the quoted part of your linked article - there already appeared little Muslim jokes in the 19-year history. However, as I said, compared to Christianity, in whose spirit were even full episodes insulting it, the ratio is very small and disgusting of the show's developers. Just imagine if the neighbor of The Simpsons were not a Christian (Ned Flanders), but a Muslim. Do you think the show could be broadcasted for 20 years? Or would there be, on the other hand, attempts on Matt Groening's life?

In my opinion, the developers misuses the character of Christians and Christianity which will, but will not be as cruel as Muslims would be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrancerCZ (talk • contribs) 02:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This is original research, and we don't allow that in the encyclopedia. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It should be remembered that fun works with topics the audience is already familiar with. If most characters are protestants it's not because of some hidden agenda: it's simply because the show is aimed for an American audience, and most Americans are protestants. Thus, they are better suited to understand the jokes. For example, the recurring jokes of Homer trying to avoid going to the church or sleeping in it can only be understood by someone already familiar with the concept of mass (not just as a religious celebration, but also as a social habit). MBelgrano (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Poor reception section

The section as it is now has four subsections: 'Early success', which concentrates mainly on the show's initial commercial breakthroughs, 'Run length achievements', 'Awards', and 'Criticism and controversy'. Why isn't there a section with actual critical praise on the show? It's considered by many critics to be one of the greatest television series of all time, and yet in this article it's hard to see the show's actual praise and intellectual breakdown as to why it is as such. The section is quite confusing as it has critical praise sprinkled in 'Early success', 'Awards' and 'Criticism of declining quality'. The featured article The Wire is far more straightforward in this regard as the reader can quickly read critical opinions on the show. I'd suggest an effort to rework the section as such:

So you just want a section filled with mindless praise of the show? I think our current format works quite well, it has critical opinions, but also doesn't cram them all into one place. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Seasons

I think the short overview table on the seasons is appropriate in this article. There might be a better place for it than at the end though. Nergaal (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is already too long, which is why there is a list at List of The Simpsons episodes. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Which is not even linked in the article. Nergaal (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Disputed source

Under criticism and controversy - the source (170) claiming that Australians had negative reactions to season 6 Simpsons episode Bart vs. Australia - has nothing whatsoever to do with Australians' reactions to the episode and is certainly not an encyclopaedic source. Any negative reaction in Australia was neglible amongst the vast majority of Australians - indeed "taking the piss" is key to Australian culture, and we are more than happy to take the piss out of ourselves. The episode indeed is loved by Australians. * This last point may be a generalisation - however, I for one take offence to the fact that someone has tried to fabricate on our behalf that there was one (and their citation should be removed). [shazzawozza] 202.89.165.153 (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, what you are claiming is original research. Whatever you might think you cannot speak for the whole of Australia in 1995. Neither can this article, but the point still stands. Source 170 requires subscription to be read fully; I've have not read it myself, but I would guess it does adaquately source the point in question. And indeed, the reception section of Bart vs. Australia supplies many other sources to support this claim, including from the writers themselves. Gran² 17:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You raise some valid points - and on second-reading it's not worded too badly. The source doesn't say anything else on the topic, however, the negative reaction in Australia was greatly countered by positive reaction. You do raise some valid points though - and yeah, the point i guess would stand as correct. 202.89.165.153 (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you can find some positive Aussie reviews, they would be a welcome addition to the Bart vs Australia article. Gran² 18:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Website Link

Should the official website link at the bottom have "at Fox.com" at the end? It's not like Fox is hosting it at www.fox.com/thesimpsons AND seeing as it has it's own website, shouldn't it be "Official Website".

Another thing, is there any guidelines on how the official link to an articles own webpage (like The Simpsons) should be displayed as? eg: "Official Website, Official website, Official The Simpsons Website, The Simpsons official website... etc.

AnimatedZebra (talk) 10:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Longest

The current version lists The Simpsons as:

The Simpsons is the longest-running American sitcom, the longest-running American animated program, and in 2009 it surpassed Gunsmoke as the longest running American primetime entertainment series.

Is it not true that The Simpsons is the longest-running sitcom, longest-running animated program, and longest running primetime entertainment series?

I think elimination of the "American" qualifier makes this fact more noteworthy.

Full Decent (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Well it would, were it not incorrect. The Simpsons is not the longest-running sitcom, that is Last of the Summer Wine, it's not the longest run animated programe, that would be Sazae-san and nor is it the longest running primetime entertainment show in the world either. Gran² 16:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Simpsons_Love_Is_a_Many_Strangled_Thing_promo.jpg

All opinions welcome. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 17:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

External Links Revision

The "External Links" section seems cluttered to me and so I have created a revision below...

• Official Website
• Simpsons Wiki at Wikia.com

Quotations related to The Simpsons at Wikiquote Media related to The Simpsons at Wikimedia Commons

1: When linking to the official website of an article, "Official Website" is all that's needed, unless there's more than one for different countries.

2: Isn't Wikia the only other link we need? Wikipedia and Wikia both have a wealth of information for the show, why would we need the others?

3: Maybe change the top-right sidebar link from "Website" to "Official Website"?

So what do we think? AnimatedZebra (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, some of the current ones are good to link to. CTJF83 12:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

tv.com, tv museum, and imdb.com don't #1 "...provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.", they don't contain any extra then what we have like simpsons wiki or the simpsons archive (snpp.com) CTJF83 12:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused as to what you wrote sorry.

PS. Thanks for removing my double posts, mouse got stuck. AnimatedZebra (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure...out of the links at The_Simpsons#External_links I think the links to TV.com, The encyclopedia of television, and the Internet Movie Database should be removed, because I feel they violate #1 here CTJF83 13:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I see. I've been looking at The Simpsons Archive and it does seem to have a few unique things on it, even though it has very little info on Characters, Episodes etc. Should we keep? AnimatedZebra (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The early season have far more episode info. I'm not even sure the site is updated like it use to be. See here for how detailed early episodes are. They have a lot more info then we do. Mostly cause it is trivia and unsourced. CTJF83 20:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll leave the Archive link alone and remove the others. AnimatedZebra (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I'm going to restore them. I totally disagree with it being "cluttered" in any way, shape or form. As for WP:EL#1, IMDb and TV.com clearly passes this, providing far more technical and credit information not in the article. The Museum of TV is unique as well because not every show gets a page there. More importantly, they are standard links for every TV article. I see no problem at all with them being included. Gran² 11:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Ok Gran2, good point, no worries. However, should we put the Official Website first followed by the rest? And what about capitalizing "Website"? I think it looks better with capitals IMO but is there suppose to be a specific way cause many different articles pages do it differently. Thanks. AnimatedZebra (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Nevermind about the capitalization of "website", as I have found the template page for labelling official websites and now I actually prefer it lowercased. :)

AnimatedZebra (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the order. Technically the offical site link is the first external link because Wikiquote and WikiCommons don't really count as external (and they used to be templates, not links). I have no real opinion in this area, so if you think the official site should be first then go ahead. Gran² 18:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• I do feel it should go first but if anyone feels different, no worries, we can undo!

...Flies away to carry the Owl (official website link) up to the peak of the mountain... AnimatedZebra (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Science of Relationships source

An editor added a reference to this article and it was reverted. It seems like a reliable source to me though and not merely promotional. I mean, it even cites a scientific article, and it says it is a summarized version of a book chapter. –CWenger (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no. He added a statement which added nothing to the article (okay, they have a "prototypical relationship"... So?). AND he added a link to that website (which is not a Simpsons website) to the external links section, which goes against WP:EL. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The external link was inappropriate, I agree. But the sourced statement seemed OK. I think it is reasonable to point out that they have a prototypical relationship (suggesting unlike other sitcom marriages), and it shows their impact on culture, even of the more scientific variety. –CWenger (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Except that neither the statement nor the article say that. Besides, this article is meant to be a general one about the show, so we should avoid adding too much analysis. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit of a stretch based on what the source says, but it would be better refactored than removed entirely. I don't feel strongly either way, but I do ask you to leave a reason for removing good faith edits. –CWenger (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If it is to be included then it should be cited properly because, as that article clearly states, the content has just been taken from The Psychology Of the Simpsons. Gran² 11:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

cite is to the online content because it gives the original cite (the book). The author of the post on Science of Relationships is the same author as the book chapter. The online source is the easiest way for readers to get the information so I thought this was the best way to cite it Gpwhld (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 99.50.199.28, 4 July 2011

I would like to edit this page due to some wrong info. 99.50.199.28 (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

What wrong info? Theleftorium ^(talk) 11:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

There is also a Simpsons Scene IT Dvd Trivia Game — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.170.32 (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Blue comedy?

It certainly has it's moments. And I imagine people considered it blue during the 90s.

What do you think? wikipedians. 188.222.41.105 (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but it is a network show so never had properly coarse language or nudity. Being edgy doesn't 100% mean being blue. Certainly compared to South Park. Gran² 17:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Seasonal Ratings

I wasn't able to find them all, and I wasn't sure to go by viewers or share. Anyway, I didn't add them to the article since so many are missing. Here is what I was able to find in case someone wants to add them anyway and for the missing seasons just write "not in the top 30" or something like that.

Rank Source

• 1989-1990 (28) Complete Directory
• 1990-1991
• 1991-1992
• 1992-1993 (31) Complete Directory
• 1993-1994
• 1994-1995
• 1995-1996
• 1996-1997
• 1997-1998 (31) Complete Directory
• 1998-1999 (26) http://web.archive.org/web/20091029011819/http://geocities.com/Hollywood/4616/ew0604.html
• 1999-2000 (26) http://www.quotenmeter.de/cms/?p1=n&p2=9946&p3=
• 2000-2001 (21) http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,256435,00.html
• 2001-2002 (30) http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/2002/2002-05-28-year-end-chart.htm
• 2002-2003 (40) http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/browse_thread/thread/ee82c0640bcaeb06/82c78e0fe7710443?lnk=st&q=nielsen+top+156&rnum=1#82c78e0fe7710443
• 2003-2004 (42) http://web.archive.org/web/20070208132303/http://www.abcmedianet.com/pressrel/dispDNR.html?id=060204_11
• 2004-2005 (52) http://web.archive.org/web/20070310210208/http://www.abcmedianet.com/pressrel/dispDNR.html?id=060105_05
• 2005-2006 (62) http://web.archive.org/web/20070310210300/http://www.abcmedianet.com/pressrel/dispDNR.html?id=053106_05
• 2006-2007 (60) http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showthread.php?114628-Final-Nielsen-ratings-for-2006-07-season
• 2007-2008 (83) http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=052808_06
• 2008-2009 (77) http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=051909_05
• 2009-2010 (61) http://www.deadline.com/2010/05/full-series-rankings-for-the-2009-10-broadcast-season/
• 2010-2011 (65) http://www.deadline.com/2011/05/full-2010-11-season-series-rankers/

Gilliganfanatic 13:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice work. I will save these until the day when we can complete the list. We need to bring Mike Scully back in order to save the ratings :-) --Maitch (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Ratings --Maitch (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Spoken version

There is a spoken version of the article, as of 2008. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Final Season?

There have been rumors that the upcoming season of the Simpsons (season 23) will be the final season of the Simpsons. I think they should mention that on the page "The Simpsons (season 23)". The proud fans of the Simpsons and Wikipedia have a right to know that people think the final season of the Simpsons, though unimaginable, may be nearing us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LABS4EVER (talk • contribs) 00:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No, rumors should not be mentioned. Anyway, a 24th season is guaranteed because of holdover episodes. --Maitch (talk) 07:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Korean Animation

Simpsons episodes are animated by Korean animators.♥♥♥♥ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Einsteinpc (talk • contribs) 00:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

not the longest running show!

The article claims that the Simpsons is the Longest running sitcom (23 years). IT IS NOT!

If you include sitcoms that ran on TV but also ran on radio you have at least two longer running sitcom's:

Amos and Andy (TV; CBS 1951- 1953) (Radio NBC BLUE, CBS, NBC 1929-1960) 31 years The Jack Benny Show (TV: CBS, NBC 1950-1965) (Radio NBC BLUE, CBS, NBC 1932-1958) 33 years

Neither is it the longest running entertainment program. That belongs to:

Walt Disney (a.ka. Disneyland, Disneys World of Color, The Wonderful World of Disney) (ABC, CBS, NBC 1954- 1983, 1986- 1990) 33 years

Source:' Tim Brooks and Earle Marsh The Complete Directory of Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows, Ballantine Books October 1995 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicmanharold (talk • contribs) 17:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

But we're not including shows on the radio as well: a radio show is not a TV show. And the article doesn't say it is the "longest running entertainment program." Gran² 17:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

He does have a point. Maybe we should clarify that we only talk about television. We do mention it as the "longest running American primetime entertainment series" in the lead. --Maitch (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear what with this being a TV show article, but I think the length-records section does clarify TV, so if its unclear anywhere else then we should change it. Gran² 18:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

According to the article sitcom, the genre originated on radio and is not limited to television as we think today. I think the main problem is the lead, but I don't know if anyone would actually be confused. --Maitch (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

How about "the longest-running televised sitcom in American history", with comparisons to other media?72.95.138.126 (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Thesimpsons.svg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Thesimpsons.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Facing Cancellation

I think that it should be mentioned on the Season 23 page that because of contract negotiations, FOX will cancel the show unless the voice actors take a 45% pay cut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.246.90 (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it should be mentioned on the season 23 page and possibly History of The Simpsons, but not on this page. Obviously, Fox is trying to scare them into taking a paycut, while Fox continue to earn billions of dollars on merchandize and syndication. --Maitch (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I call bullshit on Fox. Theleftorium ^(talk) 20:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Another thing is that ratings actually improved since the last time they negotiated a deal with the actors. --Maitch (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Catchphrases

I have created a sub section Catchphrases and moved it under the section Influences on culture to better corrospond to the article on catchphrases in popular culture. -- Cdw ♥'s ♪ ♫(talk) 15:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits since the text you moved doesn't say anything about the catchphrases' influence on culture. The text in the "Idioms" section already explains the most important catchphrase, "d'oh". Theleftorium ^(talk) 15:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I merely moved the following properly sourced text, why have you choosen to delete it?

The show uses catchphrases, and most of the primary and secondary characters have at least one each. Notable expressions include Homer's annoyed grunt "D'oh!", Mr. Burns' "Excellent..." and Nelson Muntz's "Ha-ha!". Some of Bart's catchphrases, such as "¡Ay, caramba!", "Don't have a cow, man!" and "Eat my shorts!" appeared on t-shirts in the show's early days. However, Bart rarely used the latter two phrases until after they became popular through the merchandising. The use of many of these catchphrases has declined in recent seasons. The episode "Bart Gets Famous" mocks catchphrase-based humor, as Bart achieves fame on the Krusty the Clown Show solely for saying "I didn't do it."

The nature of a catchphrase is that it becomes part of the cultural lexicon, that is the influence it has on the culture. The assertion that Homer's "d'oh!" is "most famous" needs a citation and why do you say that is it "most important"? How about Bart's "¡Ay, caramba!"? -- Cdw ♥'s ♪ ♫(talk) 05:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Venezuelan morning TV ban

I think it's notable to mention that the show replacing The Simpsons was Baywatch Hawaii. 99.239.2.247 (talk) 06:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead image

I'm a bit confused by the choice of image in the infobox. Other articles about TV programmes have the show's title screen as their lead image, but this one does not. Using a picture of the main characters instead means that the article could quite easily be confused for a completely different article about the characters themselves, i.e. the Simpson family article (which uses the same image, of course). For the sake of consistency, would it not make sense to have the have the lead image be a frame of show's intro, showing "THE SIMPSONS" emerging from the clouds? I think that would make more sense, and it would clarify that the article is about the show itself, and not about the characters. 138.38.215.67 (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a god idea. Do we have such an image yet? --Morten Haan (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No. It is not a good idea. The lead image should summarize the entire article in one image. The image of the family tells far more about the show than some stylized letters. --Maitch (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Maitch. The image of the family provides much better identification of the subject than an image of the title. Also, I think it's pretty clear that this article is not about the family. Our readers are not that stupid. Theleftorium ^(talk) 17:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That's precisely where I disagree with you, I'm afraid. I don't agree that the an image of the family provides better identification of the subject than one of the title, for the reason that I stated above. I'm not suggesting using just stylized letters, but rather a screen grab of the title from the intro sequence (e.g. something like this). From what I can tell, all other articles about TV programmes do this; why is The Simpsons different? 138.38.215.67 (talk) 11:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, just because other articles does it, doesn't automatically make it a great idea. There is no rule that you have to use the title card. Try to imagine that you have never seen the show and you were either given the choice of the title card or the current image. What image would tell the most about the show? If you for instance look at the title card for Lost (TV series), then you can only see some blurry white letters on a black background. It does not tell anything about the show. --Maitch (talk) 11:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Maitch and Left, The Simpsons title does nothing. CTJF83 13:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I am clearly in the minority here. Never mind, I just wanted to make the suggestion. Thankyou all for the discussion. 138.38.215.67 (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Category request

{{editsemiprotected}}

Category:Television series about dysfunctional families suits this topic please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.105.155 (talk • contribs)

 Done--Jac16888 ^Talk 11:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Why would u delete my thing

hey guys, why would u delete my edit? i was trying to acknowledge on the article that the show is one of the best and wat-not. there is no excuse for u deleting the edit!!! but plz just lemme know why Oh babe (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)oh_babe

I have removed your recent edit. We already have listed tons of awards, The Simpsons being the series of the century, a star on Hollywood Walk of Fame, and the adoption of d'oh! into the English dictionary. That should be more than enough praise for the show, keeping in mind that we have to keep it neutral. Also, most of your sources are unreliable essays. --Maitch (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

That's good, but the articles for "the sopranos" and "friends" say that as well, but they also say something like "this is one of the greatest shows of all time". so i just added it for "simpsons" as well. Oh babe (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)oh_babe

Actually, when reading the Friends article it says the #21 best show of all-time. The Sopranos has been cited as the best show of all time by a reliable source, so it fair to mention that. The Simpsons has been cited as the best of the 20th century. That is pretty big. Keep in mind that there are lots of opinions on this issue. It is not Wikipedia's job to find out which show was the best of all time. We just report from reliable sources. Your sources consisted of essays that anyone could have written. Those are not reliable sources. I could easily start a blog myself and then write that "Power Rangers" was the best show of all-time, but that does not mean that it should be included on Wikipedia. --Maitch (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-English versions of The Simpsons

I am proposing to rename the article Non-English versions of The Simpsons and I would appreciate th views of other users in the discussion at Talk:Non-English versions of The Simpsons. C. 22468 (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Middle class

Since user Heonsi is intent making the Simpsons "working class", I'll provide a quote from Homer himself: http://www.quotefully.com/tvshow/The+Simpsons/Homer+Simpson/125/ "HOMER SIMPSON Whoa, careful now. These are dangerous streets for us upper-lower-middle-class types. So avoid eye contact, watch your pocketbook, and suspect everyone."--Asher196 (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• but it is a long term consensus from the articles creation to november 2011 , so you are the one changing it based on some joke the series made , see family being working class , your broken 3RR as well Heonsi (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)this user is a block-evading banned user, feel free to ignore tham and to undo any edit they have made anywhere, regardless of its quality. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The citation states very clearly "Middle Class". If you have another citation, then please provide one. Otherwise Wikipedia policy favors verifiability over anything else.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• • what is wrong with [9] , it is a good sholary source for encyclopedia Heonsi (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • It appears (and please correct me if I'm wrong) to be an essay/dissertation written by a student. It certainly doesn't appear to a peer-reivewed academic journal. But I could be wrong. As a way of comparison, "simpsons working class" receives 2.36 million hits on Google, whereas "simpsons middle class" receives 15.7 million. Gran² 16:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
      • In my opinion:

        Season 1-2: Working class

        Season 3-now: Middle class

      • Overall, I believe middle class would be the best way to describe them. --Maitch (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I need a subsitute editor.

Matt Groening is an undeniabe script author during the first season, which is contradicted at section 2:2, first paragraph. 203.11.71.124 (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

How is it contradicted? Groening isn't listed in the group of writers Simon assembled because he wasn't one of the writers, he was the executive producer and showrunner, along with Brooks and Simon. Gran² 08:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"Criticism of declining quality" section of "The Simpsons" article is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article

Hello Gran2,

It's clear that a claim of "declining quality" for "The Simpsons" is not supported by any sort of general consensus. Out of the thousands of writers and commenters for the worldwide "mainstream" media, only two such sources (BBC, CNN) are cited here - that's hardly any kind of general consensus. The CNN commenter, while more critical, qualifies his remarks by writing that the glory days of the show are long past "for MANY fans". He didn't write "most", just "many". How many is many? Also note that the BBC writer cites a 2006 episode as one of his Top Ten favorite Simpsons episodes ever.

Also, both the CNN and BBC articles were published more than two years ago, so they don't even reflect the most recent seasons of "The Simpsons" !!! The rest of the comments in the "declining quality" section are selective quotes by individuals and fansites, some of which date back to the year 2000 - hardly reflecting any kind of consensus.

Here's the main question: Is this "Criticism of declining quality" section appropriate for Wikipedia? Wikipedia content should be as fact-based as possible. When dealing with something as subjective as whether a show is improving or declining, the person making the claim needs to show clearly that there is a general consensus, one way or the other. We don't have that here. The section is long, has many quotes, but doesn't reflect a general consensus. "The Simpsons" is routinely ranked as one of the best comedies ever (see the "Awards" section) and it will be with us for a long time to come. Individual opinions about whether the show is better now than ever, or worse than it was before, should be discussed at length in chat forums, not in a Wikipedia article.

Finqqq (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• * * * * * * * *

I can assure you that the general consensus is definitely that the quality of the show has declined. Certainly more than 90% of fans and critics have that opinion. Theleftorium ^(talk) 19:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• * * * * * * * *

Leftorium: You're missing my main point. Subjective opinions belong in chat forums, not in Wikipedia articles.

Actually, you are making my point for me. Suppose I told you that I can assure you that the general consensus is that the quality of the show has improved and that certainly, more than 97.3% of fans and critics have that opinion. Where would that leave us? An endless argument on a subjective opinion?

My point is, you're using Wikipedia to promote your own personal opinion. That's not what Wikipedia should be about.

Finqqq (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• * * * * * * * *

I kinda agree that the criticism section is the weakest part of the article. Some of the sourcing is not really great. We use a quote from Scully that obviously was a joke. We use two top 10/15 lists from ten years ago. Neither of those seems like fair "evidence" that The Simpsons has declined. I don't want to go as far as removing the section, but I certainly think we could do better. Maitch (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that it is subjective. It is a fact that that a sizeable section of the shows fans and critics think it has declined. It doesn't say that it has declined. It doesn't say that all fans think it has declined. It's merely reflecting a very broad trend of opinion. That the BBC and CNN articles are two years out of date doesn't impede the point of a fan perception of decline over a lengthy period: that's exactly what they state. If you can find multiple reliable sources saying that a majority of fans think it keeps getting better then fine, that should be included. The section features opinions of those who don't think it has declined and if more can be found, they should be added as well. The section is not perfect, but it should be there in some form and I'm not just saying because I hate the show now. Other sources: [10], [11] Gran² 20:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• * * * * * * * *

Gran2, Maitch -

I'd like to stay focused on the central point here - the "Criticism of Declining Quality" text might be OK for a chat forum, but it really doesn't meet the standards for a Wikipedia article. Of the Wikipedia "Five Pillars", the first pillar ("Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia") states that "Wikipedia is NOT for unverifiable material" ... the content needs to be verifiable. The second pillar states that "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view". Starting with the section heading, the text is definitely not neutral - it strongly supports the opinion that the show has declined.

Words like "improved" or "declined" actually ARE subjective, by definition. They are not measurable, they are opinions. We can cite the opinions of the BBC and CNN writers, but that doesn't mean they're right. We could be like Comic Book Guy and collect dozens of quotes from the internet from various sources to support one opinion or the other, and then dump them all into Wikipedia. But that wouldn't actually prove a thing ... it would just be a collection of opinions that wouldn't "verify" anything.

You've made it clear that in your opinion, the show has declined and your opinion is highlighted in the article. We could have an endless discussion about it on chat forums, and it might be interesting, but it wouldn't be appropriate on Wikipedia. The "declining quality" section can't be fixed by adding additional text or quotes. The problem is that an opinion piece just doesn't belong in the middle of an encyclopedia article.

Finqqq (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• * * * * * * * *

With all respect. You have missed the point of Wikipedia. The world is subjective. If we only wrote articles solely based on objective facts, we would hardly have anything interesting to write about. Wikipedia have many articles that only deals with the criticism of a subject. Type in "criticism" in the search box and look for your self. The fact we can find plenty of reliable sources on this subject from sources such as BBC and CNN says it is notable - and not a report from a chat forum as you phrase it. Regards, Maitch (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• * * * * * * * *

Maitch - The world is actually objective (it has a fixed size and shape and it orbits the sun in a defined path), but people's opinions are subjective. Another objective fact is that Wikipedia has "Five Pillars" which define "the point of Wikipedia." I'm not citing my opinion about Wikipedia, I'm citing Wikipedia's Pillars Number One and Two. Pillar Number One contains the statement "Wikipedia is NOT for unverifiable material". Pillar Number Two states that "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view".

Here are some pertinent objective facts:

1) Wikipedia articles are to be written from a "neutral point of view" (Wikipedia Pillar 2)

2) The "Criticism of declining quality" section is clearly biased in favor of the opinion that the show has declined.

3) Gran2 has stated "I hate the show now" (see above).

4) You also appear to share the view that the quality of the show has declined.

5) Both of you edit "The Simpsons" article, but you both have a strong opinion on this particular issue.

6) Wikipedia's Pillars also state that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox." It should not be used to promote a particular viewpoint, it should be written from a "neutral point of view".

I honestly believe that what you're doing with this section is very unfair, for the reasons stated above. You can argue the fine points, but in the big picture, you've taken your personal opinion and carefully framed it in order to promote your viewpoint in a Wikipedia article. Injecting this topic into a mostly fact-based article makes it stick out like a sore thumb. Editors of reputable newspapers recognize when they have a personal bias and are unable to be neutral about a subject (I'm talking about news stories, not editorials) - they recuse themselves in cases like that. I know it's not easy, but I'm asking you to be a little self-critical, take a fresh look at the issue and try to see it from the perspective of someone who disagrees with you. Being a good editor isn't easy - it requires you to be your own harshest critic if you want to do the job well. Thanks.

Finqqq (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• * * * * * * * *