Talk:Reception of The Simpsons

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...

Untitled discussion

Anyone else want to help me clean this article up, getting rid of all the unreliable sources and such? Wimpyguy (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm humbled by your desire to try to fix up this messy article I created in good faith. :) I thought that while the topics it explored had good merit (and that perhaps the article was incorrectly named and should have been refocused), it was beyond help, so am intrigued to see where this leads. I think I am done with this article for now; I will probably continue to work on the individual episode articles though.--Coin945 (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been having a read of Planet Simpson today just for the fun of it (I bought 3 Simpsons-related books on ebay a couple of years ago, plowed through John Ortved's book immediately, but never got onto the others until now), and have discovered some quite useful info for this article - The 3 Ages of the Simpsons (pg.35-43). I'm well aware you've probably read this book cover to cover multiple times, but just to give you the heads up this source is available if we need it.--Coin945 (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

http://whatculture.com/tv/simpsons-10-moments-just-plain-suck.php/

Interesting article, but outdated

Most sources cite to 2012-13, there's probably newer writing on this topic, as well as a continued evolution of the show in the last decade. Its place within Fox’s, and subsequently Disney’s, stable of IP has also changed in ways that make some of these sources outdated. 2601:249:9180:CA30:38E5:DB61:9ADA:EBC (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, there's a further opinion that might merit its own section now: that the decline in quality was real, but has recently been stopped and even reversed. There are at least indications of that. Using the search string simpsons are good again I find, among others, this article. I'm not a Simpsons connoisseur, though. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article title: is historiography the right term?

Historiography is the study of history writing, and how changes in approaches to historical writing relate to a specific subject. The article instead seems to be about the show's reception (i.e. not how historians have changed in their approach to studying the Simpsons, which is not mentioned, but critics and audiences' opinions on whether the quality of the show has declined or remained the same). Other articles with a similar scope, which have titles that could be more accurate:

--Yodin^T 16:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With no responses, I've moved the page from Historiography of The Simpsons to Reception of The Simpsons. --Yodin^T 09:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]