Talk:Dial 'N' for Nerder

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dial 'N' for Nerder article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Animation Low‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Simpsons Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject The Simpsons, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to The Simpsons on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.The SimpsonsWikipedia:WikiProject The SimpsonsTemplate:WikiProject The SimpsonsThe Simpsons articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

edit

Collaboration: Featured topic Drive
Copyedit:
Merge:
Cleanup: Ralph Wiggum, Milhouse Van Houten
Shorten plot synopsis:
Free-use images: Jon Vitti, Pamela Hayden, Greg Daniels, Ian Maxtone-Graham, Jim Reardon, Alf Clausen
Reference: Bongo Comics Group, The Heartbroke Kid, World of Springfield
Expand: The Simpsons Theme, Bongo Comics, Mark Kirkland, Jim Reardon, The Simpsons: Tapped Out
Stubs: Neil Affleck, Bob Anderson (director), Wes Archer, J. Stewart Burns More...

"apparent"[edit]

I like it when it says "apparent death" as that is pretty much what it says in the press release and it remains kind of neutral and gives the information about his death without being too specific. "Backfires" is good, but it's missing the reference to his death. The Dominator (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The press release clearly says he dies and Bart and Lisa think they do it. If we're not going to say that he dies, then we shouldn't say he apparantly dies, because that is not what it says. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, the press release clearly states that he dies and Bart and Lisa think they did it, but using some common sense, 99% chance he isn't dead, therefore somebody doing research on the character of Martin Prince, would be mislead into believing that he once and for all dies in this episode. The Dominator (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't state that he dies. It states that Bart and Lisa *think* that they've been responsible for his death. It doesn't actually say that he dies. Anybody recall the episode where Ms Bellamy supposedly died? Sillygostly (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"they think they’re responsible for the accidental death of Martin Prince" that sounds like he died to me. I'm pretty sure that he hasn't actually died, but it is what the press release said, and note that you have violated 3RR. The Dominator (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the current revision is actually pretty good and sort of quotes the press release, so I say we should leave it at exactly where it is. The Dominator (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edit is neutral; it neither claims nor denies that Martin may die. I don't see what the problem is. We shouldn't be jumping to conclusions, particularly since most of us believe beyond reasonable doubt that Martin will not die. Sillygostly (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current edit's cool. The Dominator (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

culture references[edit]

For Christ's sake, the episode itself said that Nelson was Columbo. Here's the Mystery Movie theme if you don't believe me about that, either. Meanwhile, you folks deleted my spelling corrections. The Albino Alligator (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a youtube video isn't a valid source!! Ctjf83Talk 01:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So put whatever you consider a valid source in there. I'm pointing out I'm right and you had no business repeatedly deleting it. The Albino Alligator (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he did: WP:NOR. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is my observation that the closing is a shot-for-shot and note-for-note duplication of the opening of another tv series "original research", but the lengthy plot description isn't? Why are you singling me out? Every single Simpsons page on the encyclopedia has this sort of information. The Albino Alligator (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your ridiculous complaining. Obviously we are pointing out the plot, as it is shown in the episode, you saying that it is in reference to another show is Original Research. Ctjf83Talk 01:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Columbo and the Mystery Movie is shown in the episode. Again, what's the difference? You're synthesizing, and I'm synthesizing. Either we're both wrong, or we're both right: none of the stuff in the plot section is "a reliable, published source." The Albino Alligator (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not understanding and/or haven't read about OR you saying it is a reference to Colombo and the Mystery Movie is using your own knowledge to make the connection. No where in the episode did they say it references those shows, so it is your own OR or Original Research Ctjf83Talk 01:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, when the episode says "Nelson Muntz is Columbo", I couldn't possibly have gotten that without my own original research. Forget it, I can't believe I've wasted thirty minutes of my life arguing over this. I won't be back, congratulations, you've driven away someone who actually knows what he's talking about. The Albino Alligator (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the episode yet so I can't say whether you're telling the truth or not, but if they actually said that, then feel free to remove the tag, leave it for the other thing though. It's not a bad thing that the citation needed is there, it's just a way of improving the article further. The Dominator (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They never said what the user is putting in the page, it is OR Ctjf83Talk 02:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, it all depends, if they actually said "Nelson Muntz is Columbo" then it doesn't need a source, you say they didn't therefore the fact tag is appropriate. Personally I think this is a bit frustrating to new users and while we're not actually being mean, but Wikipedia policy is a fairly hard thing to fully grasp, I think we should sort of try to make things clearer an not just use those templates, just my opinion. The Dominator (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I dunno...those templates are just the easiest thing to do Ctjf83Talk 02:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, but some users are here to disrupt or are just generally disruptive people, while some are here to help, Albino Alligator seemed to want to help the article and I think people like that should get a more detailed explanation or then we're losing quality contributors. It's not like we get fifty new contributors on episode articles a day, I think we owe it to the more helpful people who only arrive every few weeks or so. The Dominator (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was Martin's funeral music "Gonna Fly Now"? You think that would sort of be notable? The Dominator (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea...but as far as I've seen, we don't usually list songs Ctjf83Talk 02:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm strongly against listing songs and in this case; even if it was, it has no significance as far as we know, so not important. The Dominator (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bell pepper beer smoothie[edit]

Did they actually refer to Moe's drink as a "beer smoothie"? I recall it being served in a martini glass and would be more likely to name it a "pepper-tini" - although that's not really a blended drink. Hoof Hearted (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They never really called it anything...I'll fix it in the article. Ctjf83Talk 18:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unsourced Cr's[edit]

I know there is constant debate on unsourced CR's, but I will add one more into the mix. What is the problem with having a CR with the unsourced tag think following it? It would seem that having that would settle both sides of the argument. The (supposed CR) would be there, and there would be an invitation for someone to find a reference for the CR. The CR's which have that have been deleted even with the tag, so I might be missing a WP:something that says to remove them, but I am not sure. 76.189.125.215 (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I'm against that. If people can just slap on a fact tag, then they wouldn't bother to try to find a source, but if you make users find a source first, then that improves things. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I deleted them was because it got a bit too trivial, I guess the Taj Mahal thing was OK but I oppose listing songs unless they have some deep meaning in the episode, and things that were just referenced in a quick line IMO don't need to be included. The Dominator (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what your are saying, but how will someone know to find a source if the CR is not there? I just asked the question because it seemed like there were notable CR's being deleted because they had no source. And by notable I mean important and not "obvious" or something like that. 76.189.125.215 (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think we need to establish a set of guidelines specific to the Simpsons as to what CR is notable and what is not (unless this already exists). If there is a lengthy parody, I think it should be included with the {{fact}} tag, but things like them mentioning a TV show, or playing a song is not a relevant CR and should not be included. The Dominator (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we need some sort of guidelines cause on some of these pages the CRs are getting out of control, with excessive meaningless ones. Ctjf83Talk 03:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons and I think we should establish these guidelines there, anyone who wishes to discuss is free to do so. The Dominator (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overused refs[edit]

Sorry about not using the edit summary before. Anyways, some refs are way too overused. Yes, quotes have to be sourced, but not if they are in the same block of writing. I have never seen an article like this before and I doubt that is the way to go. Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 16:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dial "N" for Nerder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move discussion[edit]

There is a WP:Requested move discussion at Talk:Bart Gets a 'Z'#Requested move 25 December 2023 which may affect the naming of this article. You are invited to participate in that discussion, which should take place there, not here, in order to keep it all in one place. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]