Talk:Sideshow Bob/Archive 1

Archive 1

Auditor

Hehee ... he's an Auditor for Snohomish County, WA [1] =) 142.177.123.204 22:07, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Xeom?

Which episode is he called 'Xeom'? I don't remember anything like that, and can't find any good references from a google search :S 192.43.227.18 02:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sideshow Bob's Middle Name

Does anyone besides myself think that Sideshow Bob's full name is really "Robert Onderdonk Terwilliger"?

I know it's an uphill battle here. Everyone, including the biggest fansite (snpp.com) and the series companion book (The Simpsons: A Complete Guide) list the name as "Underdunk". But consider the following:

1. "Onderdonk" is, like "Terwilliger", an uncommon but real surname in the United States.

2. The name, like "Terwilliger", has snooty upper-class associations.

3. The name is of Dutch origin, and there were (and probably still are) may wealthy Onderdonks in the Hudson Valley area of New York State. An area from which a well-heeled and well-connected family might send their children to nearby Yale or Princeton...

4. The first (and, to my knowledge, only) time his middle name was spoken aloud was by Mayor Quimby in the episode "Sideshow Bob Roberts". With Quimby's (Castellaneta's) thick "Boston Brahmin" accent, the vowels in "Onderdonk" could easily be mistaken for those in "Underdunk".

Does anyone agree? Am I crazy? Do I have far too much time on my hands? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimcat (talk • contribs) 20:36, 14 October 2005

I do agree and you are correct. I am going to tell you why. Sideshow Bob is named after Onderdonk, more specifically my father, Dr. Andrew Onderdonk. The story as we have heard it from Conan O'Brien's father (Conan worked on the Simpsons), who worked with my father at Brigham and Women's hospital in Boston, is that Conan was looking at a Harvard directory (he went there and my father is a professor at the medical school) and saw the name and thought it was really cool - said something to his Dad. So he put it in the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.238.14 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 11 November 2005

I'm going to have to vote for "too much time on your hands." Either way, if the above story is correct you will need to have something more than "I heard a story that my dad heard from conan's dad heard from conan." sigh, maybe I have too much time on my hands, also :) Oreo man 14:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Its definatly Robert Underdunk Terwilliger. Im sure about that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.163.154.234 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 31 December 2006

Desperate Housewives

It states in the article that "Bob had an appearance on Desperate Housewives as Gabby's love interest in 2005". Eeerm....what? Verify or remove this. 86.128.40.201 02:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Too Long?

Isn't it a little strange when the article for Side Show Bob is twice as long as Kelsey Grammer? Delmet 03:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Stewart played Shakespearean characters for the Royal Shakespeare Company, and several of his characters are greater than the Stewart article, as well as being accused by bardolaters of being the method by which Shakespeare "created the modern human" (way we think of ourselves). Robert Terwilliger is simply that great. *grins* --Chr.K. 02:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Die Bart Die

Isn't "die" German for "the" anyway? Even if it is slightly grammatically inaccurate, why even bother including a rubbish thing like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GuidedByPavement (talk • contribs) 20:52, 16 March 2007

Feminine-the. Der, as another notable psychopath made famous, is the masculine form. --Chr.K. 02:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

On the Trivia section...

Isn't "Choices" a segment of Bob's kids show (renamed Cavalcade of Whimsey after Krusty was jailed), furnished with European modernist furniture (Mies or Breuer, I forget), in which Bob talks with kids á la Dr. Phil? He happens to call Bart to the stage for a chat, only to have Bart reveal his theory (correct, of course) that Bob framed Krsuty. In the Cheers reference, most of the series cast is shown in cartoon form, and as I recall most of them speak, voiced by the actual actors -- with the unusual exception of the Fraser Crane character, who is silent.PurpleChez 14:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Trivia?

I dont know if this counts as trivia,but should we put in that sideshow bob was reference in gintama episode 1? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.200.7.70 (talk) 05:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Or the fact that he has a running gag with rakes along with his son. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.168.169 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 8 May 2007

Kelsey Grammar Record Beaten

I was thinking that Dan Castelneta, voice of Homer Simpson, recently beat Kelsey Grammar's record for portraying a character on TV for 20 years (Frasier Crane). What about Sideshow Bob, Grammar has been playing him since 1990 and will play him again next season 2008. That's eighteen years playing sideshow bob, is that good trivia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mattawa (talk • contribs) 14:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

pre-Krust Gets Busted

Was Sideshow Bob ever shown on Krusty segments prior to his first big appearance? --NEMT 23:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

yes in the telltale head —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.251.150 (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Restored full article.

I came to check the "Sideshow Bob" episodes section and saw that the article had been shrunk to only the biography. This is nuts. I had read the article a week before with fascination and delight. (I adore Sideshow Bob.) Cleaning up is one thing but deleting almost all of the article is another. I restored it. Eje211 23:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It was removed because 90% of the section was already mentioned in the biography section. Take a look at Troy McClure and Homer Simpson and then this page and see if you can notice the difference. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll at least put back the list of episodes that "star" Sideshow Bob. This is useful, no matter what. Eje211 02:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it was previously decided that such lists are unencyclopedic. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That is said of trivia sections. Listing the nine episodes where Sideshow Bob appears and making them stand out (which is what I did) is hardly limited to "fan sites". It is meant as being part of a reference to the character, which is what Wikipedia is. Once more, I originally came to this page originally looking up which episodes the character appears in. Now, all that's left is a "biography" for the character. Sideshow Bob's life was made up episode after episode: it's clear, for example, that before his brother was mentioned, such a brother had never been thought of.

Listing the nine episodes makes much more sense than cutting off anything that's not part of the "biography". Furthermore, the "biography" in question is, in itself, highly "unencyclopedic": it is somewhere between chronologically and thematically-based, it varies greatly in its level of detail and it does not mention the most important: the nine episodes. In fact, it would have been much more "encyclopedic" to remove the biography and keep the episode list and the trivia sections, re-arranged as a text rather than a bullet-point list.

Once more: Sideshow Bob is a character redefined, to some extent, each time he appears. He is not a "person" and so, limiting his article to a poorly constructed biography is absurd and counterproductive and certainly not useful to anyone.

If the biography had been carefully re-written, the result may have been useful, but it, too, has just been cut. This is chopping bits off more or less at random, an easy activity, and not "cleaning up", which is the product of hard work. Eje211 07:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a better idea, since you are such a big Sideshow Bob fan, why don't you clean up the article instead of readding cruft? Model it after Troy McClure or Homer Simpson. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have decided to make the page my next improvement project and I will be working on it here. If you wish to help, you are more than welcome. There are 5 DVD commentaries to listen to that will have plenty of production info. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Yes, it's true that laundry lists of random items are frequently unencyclopedic. That doesn't mean that every list is automatically unencyclopedic. In this case, the list of episodes definitely complies with the style guideline for embedded lists. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be included, and several why it should (Eje211 (t c)'s comment about the reason he came to the article, my roommate's comment as he was looking over my shoulder as I write this that he's frequently frustrated that Wikipedia doesn't have the information he came here to find, and the fact that this character is fairly unique in the Simpsons universe as to the rarity of his appearances.) --Darkwind (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Try adding such a list to a GAC or an FAC and see how far you get. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Your reply, in addition to your edit summary for the edit you just made to the main article, indicates that you're taking this rather a bit personally. If you have a rebuttal to the points I made in my opinion, please rebut, don't retort. This article isn't up for FA or GA nomination, and even if it were, I'd like you to point out where in the FA and/or GA criteria it shows that a list is an automatic disqualification. If it were, then why is there an embedded list guideline in the first place?

If, on the other hand, you see something specifically wrong with the list as it stands, then please do improve it. My main point for inclusion of the list-format is that it improves the accessibility of the information as to which episodes, in order, the character appeared in. --Darkwind (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sideshow Bob 2.PNG

Image:Sideshow Bob 2.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Some comments

OK, I did a quick read-through and fixed a few obvious errors. Here are some issues that may require some discussion.

• From the lead: Some viewers have described him as "Frasier as a homicidal maniac" (appropriate as his voice actor, Kelsey Grammer, played Frasier Crane). This is presented as if it comes from an outside source. Do we have a ref?
• We switch between "Krusty the Klown" and "Krusty the Clown." I think both spellings have been used on the show, but our Krusty article uses the latter.
• The tense shifts several times throughout the "Role in the Simpsons" section.
• From creation: "In that appearance, his hair was blue and round in shape." Was it really blue? I swear it was red. I'll have to pull out the DVD, unless someone has a screenshot.
• From development: In nineteen seasons of The Simpsons, Sideshow Bob has appeared in nine episodes, and has been the main focus of all of them. He's not the main focus of "The Telltale Head," and he makes other non-speaking appearances (eg, "Bart the Murderer").

I was also wondering if this article may be helpful. (It was originally published in TV Guide.) Zagalejo^^^ 20:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

Hi, I'll be reviewing the article according to the Good Article criteria.

A good article has the following attributes:

1. It is well written. In this respect:

   (a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct; and

   (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:

   (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;

   (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and

   (c) contains no original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:

   (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; and

   (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).

4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
5. It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.
6. It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images. In this respect:

   (a) all images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for any non-free content; and

   (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.

After scanning the article, it looks in good shape so the review shouldn't take long. Bookkeeperoftheoccult 03:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: congrats! Bookkeeperoftheoccult 05:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

NOTES:

1. I still believe Bob's role should be placed after the "character" section, but its not enough of prevent the article from being promoted.

2. Reference 23 is now a dead link. This should either be replaced or removed.

3. Biggest issue: fair use for images. The following template should be used for fair use with all sections filled.

{{Non-free media rationale
| Article           = 
| Description       = 
| Source            = 
| Portion           = 
| Resolution        = 
| Purpose           = 
| Replaceability    = 
| other_information = 
}}

In addition, the images for most of the simpsons articles are well over 300px, which violates fair use. They should be reduced in size and uploaded again. I notice Featured articles also have the same issue, so again, its not enough to prevent the article from passing. Bookkeeperoftheoccult 05:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Source

There is a chapter that provides an analysis of Sideshow Bob in the book "Leaving Springfield". It is the first one and it is called "Use a pen, Sideshow Bob". If somebody wants to take it to FA status it might be worth looking into. I can't do it myself, because I don't have the time for it anymore. --Maitch 16:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't own that book, and I can't find it any any bookstores. Perhaps I'll be able to find it at a library.

The Road to FA

Ideas? We'll need a better cultural influence section, but based on the Troy McClure article, I don't think we're that far off. Just a little expanding, perhaps some info on the later episodes, and a few more cultural influences and I think we'll be there. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the statement and citation to an associated content article because it's inaccurate...AC did not come up with the list; it was the author's personal opinions (as stated on the article's first page). I could not find any independent confirmation that the author is a known expert on the Simpsons, and AC is a frequently diputed/questioned source several noticeboards, so I don't think the content/source strengthens the article. It looks like the info has been picked up and carried across several articles, but there are so many edits to all these articles, I could not trace to the original adds or any previous discussions about this source.Flowanda | Talk 22:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so you mean its unreliable. Generally, if a writer writes something for a publication, then it is the opinion of the publication, so if we post a review, we would write "Entertainment Weekly gave it ____" rather than "Mr. Anonymous of Entertainment Weekly gave it ____"

The source has been used in several articles, and it was removed from several of them a while back, and nobody ever went looking for uses of that source. It's use as a source is clearly controversial and if you wish to remove the statement, then by all means go ahead. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, those atributions would be true for those publications, but AC is more of a directory or collection of content than an authoritative source on any subject. I think the article is great without the AC content...I'm not a Simpsons fan, but I enjoyed reading this article (as well as the others in this category) because it goes beyond just what fans would be interested in. I don't have strong feelings either way, and I'll be glad to help/concede if there's any gaps because of this. Flowanda | Talk 22:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Name

He's never been referred to as "Robert Terwilliger Jr.", so it really shouldn't be mentioned here. We shouldn't make any assumptions about names. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Do we even know what their middle names are? I don't know about Australia (where Alex apparently comes from), but I know that in the U.K. a father and son need only share a first and last name to be considered "Sr." and "Jr." However, in the U.S. the entire name has to be identical, which is why George Herbert Walker Bush and George Walker Bush are not "Sr." and "Jr." As the Simpsons is an American creation, American English is used in this article. Perhaps this is where the misunderstanding comes from? Cheers, faithless (^speak) 18:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

According to "Funeral for a Fiend", Kent Brockman states that his father is "Robert Underdunk Terwilliger Sr.". Whether or not that this is the case, I guess we can imply that he's "Jr" without stating that he is. Apparently, they both have the middle name "Underdunk". minespatch | Talk 10:50, 2 December 2008 (PST)

Copy editing notes

Scorpion0422 popped by my talk page the other day and asked if I'd give this article a bit of a copy edit. I'm taking my first sweep through this evening (I'll come back and do more) and will add questions/comments below that I think may help the primary editors to take this article to the next level.

• As a reader who has miraculously escaped the daily barrage of Simpsons episodes (I hide in the other room with my headphones on while the rest of the family watches it), I think that a bit of a timeline incorporated into the article would be helpful. While I know that individual episodes are linked in, it would still be useful to know in which season Sideshow Bob made his first appearance, and what subsequent seasons he's shown up.
  • All of that information is in the citation templates. The point of the templates is so that you don't have to say "in the season ___ episode ____" every other sentence. However, if you would like an image which has a timeline of episodes, I could try to make one.
• As you are incorporating additional material into the article, it's important to try to keep the tense of the sentences consistent. There shouldn't be much present tense in the article, particularly when discussing past episodes, critique, and so on.

• "Once again, Bob was released from prison, and developed a plot to kill Krusty using Bart as a suicide bomber, but later helps Homer discover who is trying to kill him."

• Who is the "him" at the end of that sentence? Krusty, Bart, Homer or Bob?

• Fixed. The Sentence was a little long so I split it up.

• "After the mystery was solved, he returned to murder Bart, but found he could not do it."

• From the structure of this paragraph, the reader may think the plot mentioned just above and this return to murder Bart are from the same episode, but it appears that is not the case from the references; the sentence probably needs to be broken up to indicate that Bob goes away and then returns in a later episode.

• "The family later returns and Bob fakes his own death..."

• Is this in the same episode as the sentence before, where Bob's family swore a vendetta? And which family is returning, Bob's or the Simpsons?

• Fixed.

• Verify which year the amusement park ride opened in Florida.
  • Done.

That's about all I will get through tonight; I'll return again tomorrow to continue. Thanks for inviting me to collaborate. Risker (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Bob tried to bury Bart alive?

Actually he tried to cremate Bart alive.Brazilian Man (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh-oh, sorry. It's a mistake. The words were burn Bart alive, not bury Bart alive.Brazilian Man (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Zagalejo

OK, here are some comments/questions. I'll probably have more later.

• Lead

• I think the second paragraph of the lead lacks a clear focus. The first two sentences seem like they would fit better in the preceding paragraph (with some modifications, of course).

I did some re-arranging, is it better?

Yeah, I think that's better. Zagalejo^^^ 07:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Appearances

• Although the program was accepted by children, Bob's reign was short-lived, as Bart Simpson exposed his plan by realizing that Bob's feet were larger than Krusty's and landed him in jail.

We don't actually explain why the big feet are relevant. Some more details might be helpful.

I don't know, that would take a lot of detail, but I'll see what I can do.

What you did seems OK. Zagalejo^^^ 07:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• I notice we use the word "foiled" pretty frequently in this section. Some word variety might be good.

• Well, it's hard to explain the same basic premise over and over again without sounding repetitive. I'll take a look in the thesaurus.

• Looks better. Zagalejo^^^ 07:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Character # Development

• At one point, we say that the writers found the Bob episodes "difficult" to produce, but elsewhere, we say they thought they were a lot of fun to work on. Now, these two ideas aren't necessarily contradictory, as something can be fun as well as challenging, but readers might be a little confused at first, since the first paragraph of this section makes it sound like writing the episodes was a real drag.

• I did a little rearranging, is it better now?

• Yeah, looks better. Zagalejo^^^ 07:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Reception # Analysis

• Who wrote this section? The writing style is different from that of the preceding sections. I suspect that some of those sentences are direct quotes eg, "Bob is built into a highbrow snob and conservative Republican so that the writers can continually hit him with a rake and bring him down".

• Maitch wrote a lot of it, but the part you cited was written by me and it's not a quote.

• Ah, so it is. Never mind that one, then. However, I don't think the Leaving Springfield content is sufficiently paraphrased. I found the passage at Google Books, and it seems that several long phrases are reproduced verbatim, without quotes. Zagalejo^^^ 06:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I have been considering getting rid of the analysis section and replacing it with a personality section that would only retain about half of the section (although more would be added: some info from the show and maybe a few comments from the producers; like a more in-depth explanation of Al Jean's Coyote/Road Runner analogy). What do you think of that idea? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 07:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• You can give it a shot, and see how things look. Zagalejo^^^ 07:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, I'll try putting together a section tomorrow. Also, what do you think of the Reception section? It's a tad shorter than I was aiming for. Most of the comments are either about specific episodes or reaction to Grammer's acting. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of really good comments about Bob that would add to the article; most are about Grammer or are just simple ones that would just count as fluff. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 07:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's long enough. Grammer's acting has basically molded the character into what he is, so I think that stuff is perfectly relevant. If I can come up with something we can add to that section, I'll let you know. Zagalejo^^^ 07:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Update I decided to just shorten and clean up the analysis section, rather than starting a new one. I tried to put one together, but there was a lot of overlap with the other sections. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• OK, but parts of that need further paraphrasing, or need to be presented in quotes. For example, phrases like "product of a mass-culture upbringing" and "unaffected by the high culture he represents" come straight from Leaving Springfield. (BTW, the refs in that section need to indicate which specific article from the book is being used. Alberti is merely the editor of Leaving Springfield. The articles in the book were written by other people.) Zagalejo^^^ 23:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• General

• It seems that, for the most part, the article uses the past tense to discuss events from the show. Shouldn't we be using the present tense? Zagalejo^^^ 21:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, and I'll try to make things more consistant. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've taken another try at further paraphrasing the section and I added some quotes in there too. Is it better now? As well, barring any major objections, I'm going to nominate it tomorrow. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's getting better, but there are still a few phrases that are basically identical to those in the book.

• "a multiple-attempted-murderer, a terrorist, an election fixer"
• "manipulate the tastes of the masses"
• "using criminal means to acquire and exercise power"

I'm not sure if it's best to just put those phrases in quotes, or try to paraphrase them. Zagalejo^^^ 19:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't want the section to be too quote heavy. The first was cut, the second was put in quotes and for the third I broke out my handy Microsoft Word thesaurus and changed it to "nefarious methods to acquire and utilize power." -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, that works. Zagalejo^^^ 19:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks once again for your excellent help. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Bob's Sanity?

In one point of the article, it states:"where Bob went completely insane." While in another article(Season 20), it points out that "Kelsey Grammer will return as Sideshow Bob"? What does this imply?

--minespatch 4:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.229.82 (talk)  

That he will return completely insane? Xavius, the Satyr Lord (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

comments from Jackyd101

• "the writers were echoed by the premise of the" - this makes no sense, perhaps inspired would be a better word?
  • That statement is an example of what happens when you edit late at night. The correct word is "echoing"
• "after subduing the rest of the family, attempted to kill Bart. He allowed Bart a final request, and Bart asked him to sing the entire score of H.M.S. Pinafore. The delaying tactic led to Bob's arrest." - Too much detail about a single episode (this is a recurring problem) It would be better to say "after subduing the rest of the family, attempted but failed to kill Bart and was sent back to prison once more."
  • I've done some shortening in the section, is it better? As for the H.M.S. Pinafore, I felt it was important to mention since it is mentioned later.
• In other media, has Bob appeared in any other non-show material e.g. music releases, comics, literature etc?
  • There haven't been any books released specifically about him, but he has had a few songs in CDs (mentioned later in the article) and made some appearances in the comics.
• "A large part of the reason why he does not appear in every season because the writers are not always able to think of reasons to bring him back" - I think there is an "is" missing here and the sentence could probably be cut, as it repeats the previous sentence.
  • Fixed.

Otherwise a very nice article, well done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the review, it's very appreciated. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"They commented..."

Sideshow_Bob#Commendations - "They commented..." (from IGN) - the "they" is a bit awkward here. Who is this exactly? This could use some tweaking. Cirt (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried merging the two sentences, is it better? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 11:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

FAC tweak

I was wondering if it would help to tweak the "On The Simpsons" section to avoid some of the repetition as follows. The first paragraph would be the same. Then something like this could follow: Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In all but two subsequent appearances, the episode would start with Bob's release or escape from prison. His return to prison at the end of each episode was a rule established by the show's writers early in the series, although this pattern was later abandoned . Bob's first major appearance after framing Krusty was in "Black Widower" (season three, 1992). He marries Bart's aunt Selma Bouvier after his release. As part of a scheme to inherit money she has invested in the stock market, Bob attempts to blow Selma up during their honeymoon, but Bart again foils the plan. In "Cape Feare" (season five, 1993), a paroled Bob targets Bart directly, threatening him repeatedly and forcing the Simpsons to move to Terror Lake as part of the Witness Relocation Program. Bob follows them to their houseboat and, after subduing the family, prepares to kill Bart. He allows a final request, however, and Bart asks to hear the entire score of H.M.S. Pinafore. The delaying tactic leads to Bob's third arrest.

Bob runs for Mayor of Springfield on a Republican Party ticket in "Sideshow Bob Roberts" (season six, 1994). He defeats liberal incumbent Joe Quimby in a landslide, but Bart and Lisa discover that Bob rigged the election, leading to another incarceration. Bob escapes from prison for the first time in "Sideshow Bob's Last Gleaming" (season seven, 1995), and threatens to blow up Springfield with a nuclear bomb unless the city stops broadcasting all television shows. His escape and plot are thwarted by Lisa and Bart. In the following season, Bob takes advantage of the prison's Christian outreach program, and appears to be genuinely redeemed. In "Brother from Another Series," Reverend Lovejoy declares him a changed man and recommends him for a work release opportunity. Bob is discharged from prison into the care of his brother Cecil, who is Springfield's chief hydrological and hydrodynamical engineer. However, Cecil harbors resentment of his brother's success in landing the role of Krusty's sidekick, and tries to frame Bob by sabotaging the Springfield Dam. Bob, Bart, and Lisa together stop Cecil and save the town, but both of the Terwilliger brothers are sent to prison by order of police chief Clancy Wiggum.

In "Day of the Jackanapes" (season 12, 2001), Bob discovers that Krusty has erased all of the early shows featuring Sideshow Bob. Bob develops a plot to kill Krusty using Bart as a suicide bomber. When he overhears Krusty express regret about mistreating him, Bob decides to abort his plan, although he is returned to prison for attempted murder. Bob's aid is sought by Springfield police in "The Great Louse Detective" (season 14, 2002). After an attempt is made on Homer Simpson's life, Bob is released from prison to help find the culprit. When the mystery is solved, he returns to murder Bart. However, Bob finds he is "accustomed to [Bart's] face" and cannot do it. Bob is not returned to prison and it is revealed in "The Italian Bob" (season 17, 2005) that he has moved to Italy to make a fresh start. He is elected mayor of a village in Tuscany and marries a local woman named Francesca, with whom he has a son named Gino. The Simpson family, in Italy to retrieve a car for Mr. Burns, encounters him by chance. Bob welcomes them with hospitality on the condition that they not reveal his felonious past; however, a drunken Lisa jokes about Bob's criminal deeds, alienating Bob from his citizens. He, his wife and son swear a vendetta on the Simpsons. The entire Terwilliger family returns in "Funeral for a Fiend" (season 19, 2007) in which Bob's father, Robert, and mother, Dame Judith Underdunk, make their first appearances. Bob fakes his own death and attempts to burn Bart alive at the funeral. Instead, Bob and his entire family are foiled and sent to prison, where Bob goes suffers a mental breakdown.

I'm all for avoiding repetition, but I'm having trouble delineating what the difference is between the current revision and your proposed change. (Probably this is a result of staring at the article all day, heh.) Could you summarize? Scartol • Tok 20:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the first two sentences trying to summarize the pattern of the episode starting with release or escape and ending with return to prison (the part about the rule is stolen from later in the article). Then I tried to break up the pattern of release/escape, plot, return to prison, especially in the first two paragraphs. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I added it to the article then reverted so you could see the diff. More could be done along these lines, especially with the last paragraph. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see. I prefer "...the episode starts with Bob's release..." rather than the conditional "would". I would also prefer the second sentence reworded as: "Early in the series, the show's writers decided that he would return to prison at the end of each episode." (The proposed wording above is confusing to me.) Scartol • Tok 20:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please change it as you want - I was just trying to think of a different way to say the same thing over and over. I am short on time, so I did not do much in the last paragraph, but there are places that could be tweaked in it too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Bob in the 2009 opening?

From the Simpsons wiki, I read on his page that Bob is in the new opening trying to stab Bart while the boy is on his skateboard? Is there any clarifying information on this, since anyone can edit that wiki? minespatch^^^ 22:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sideshow Bob's surname

According to the article, Bob's "last name was first revealed in "Cape Feare"" - ummm, wasn't it actually revealed before that in "Black Widower"? I'm not 100% on this, but in that episode, doesn't Bob say something to Selma like, "By tomorrow, we'll be Mr and Mrs Bob Terwilliger!"? The Drainpipe (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

The pictures in this article are very silly. The one of Yale is of a very small detail about the character, and the one of Tuscany isnt much different. Methinks more clips from the show would be better

Agreed and removed. --Leivick (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Terwilliger, Terwilliker, home town shout out or cult classic reference or both.

Please note that the user Prodigalapagos has removed his original first post and stubbornly refuses to allow it to be re-added. For the purpose of history, here is his original post: [2]

It does not follow logically that the name would be changed from Terwilliker to Terwilliger for no reason what so ever.

75.164.165.138 (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That you for your first edit and I hope you stick around on Wikipedia. However, I suggest you read the follwing: WP:RS, WP:V and WP:OR. In the MTV source, Groening says he named it after the film. For us to comment in any other way would be speculation and original research. Gran² 14:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

warning, this may be overkill.

I concede your point on original research though the way I worded it asserting that the purpose is for continuity fits with your objection and is a dumb mistake and I apologize.

However, In the MTV citation Matt Groening's original opinions are not featured at all on this question. They are the words of Dan Castellaneta the voice actor that does Homer and Krusty; and the last sentence of the cited paragraph exposes Castellaneta claiming to be a big fan of the mProxy-Connection: keep-alive Cache-Control: max-age=0

ie himself and projecting that onto Groening with out verification. The MTV article is a hodgepodge of anecdotes from various team members with no explanation of how the information was obtained if from one place at all. With no credit given to any journalist or interviewer at the header or the footer, nor disclosure of the venue, the article has no credible context other than another MTV account of he-said she-said.

I have read WP:RS, in the context of a second hand account by a person who was not involved with the naming or portrayal of Sideshow Bob in an article with no citation of the origins of the facts. This MTV citation is, in my analysis, a 4 on a reliability scale of 1-10, yes it is Wikipedia worthy but barely. Remember, what they teach you in a history course is to avoid second hand accounts if possible though they are acceptable if first hand accounts are impossible, Castellaneta was not involved with the naming and does not account for the K to G switch and the man or men who can account for it are still alive.

The clear objective truth is that the "K" has been change to a "G" and I cannot find an explanation of that from Groening himself or any one else involved PProxy-Connection: keep-alive Cache-Control: max-age=0

xy-Connection: keep-alive Cache-Control: max-age=0

th the naming. The language of the original and restored edit is not neutral and sounds as if it is supposed to settle a wager. It is perfectly within the norms of Wikipedia to raise the question of the "K" to "G" switch. To say "Despite common fan belief" strongly and emphatically precludes any possibility of Sideshow Bob having been named after both. The exclusive language is simply not merited by the facts.

The sentence still needs to be re-worded. Prodigalapagos (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Matt Groening confirmed that Bob's name comes from The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T on a commentary, but I'd have to verify it first. Changing the text to "but had the "K" changed to a "G" after Terwilliger Boulevard in Portland, Oregon for continuity with Matt Groenings practice of referencing his home town" without any kind of source is original research which you are basing upon your opinion. Don't forget, Wikipedia:Verifiability says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." And what makes you believe that "It is perfectly within the norms of Wikipedia to raise the question of the "K" to "G" switch" without any kind of source? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

To claim that Sideshow Bob is named after Doctor Terwilliker from the movie is redundant we know that. That is verified and that is not the reason for this post.

Again, my point is not to assert that the K to G switch is because of Groenings hometown, it is to avoid ignoring the fact that the K has been changed to a G. But most importantly to avoid un proveable exclusive language, that sounds as if it is supposed to settle a wager.

Scorpion says: "And what makes you believe that "It is perfectly within the norms of Wikipedia to raise the question of the "K" to "G" switch" without any kind of source?". My source is very clear, Sideshow Bobs last name is Terwilli-G-er not Terwilli-K-er. The movie features DR. Terwilli-K-er not Terwilli-G-er, I'm not making a claim about the purpose of the switch, just hoping to mention that the reason for the K2G switch is not resolved.

It is perfectly within the norms of wikipedia because this is a curiosity with no obvious origin and frequently other articles within wikipedia mention such curiosities. Again I'm not claiming any reason for a K2G switch and my biggest problem is that the exclusive language is absolutely not warranted.

Can anyone "verify" that there is absolutely no way that the K was switched to G for a purpose other than referencing his hometown. No. So don't word the article that way. No one has verified any reason for the K2G switch what so ever. You can not verify a denial of the dual reference nor can anyone verifiably confirm it. The current phraseology combines the word "despite" with the word "actually" to make a statement that emphatically excludes the possibility of a dual reference and is therefore unverifiable.

Prodigalapagos (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You can speculate and dispute all you like, but like it or not, there is a source that says it comes from just the film and not the street. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, so there is no reason why it should be changed just because you don't think it sounds right. Now, if you could provide a reliable source that says otherwise (and remember, the burden of proof is on you, not us) then that would be a different matter. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That is my point exactly:

The statement as it is now implies an unverifiable claim. One cannot verifiabily make any claim about the K2G switch. Therefore one cannot verifiably exclude the possibility of a dual reference. While we can verifiably assert his name is a reference to a movie, there is no source of information that explains the K2G switch. To be true and verifiable to its own citation the statement must not make any inferences about the rationale of the K2G switch. As it stands the sentence implies that the switch is dispassionate or accidental while its citation makes no implications and that does not meet the threshold for inclusion.

I do not have to prove any explanation for the switch, I only have to prove that the K2G switch occurred and that the current citation does not illuminate the switch and is not from Matt Groening. In otherwords I can prove that it goes too far with its implications. Follow the citation and see that Dan Castellaneta spoke those words, and made no allusions to, or implications about the switch. The words "Despite the fact that the names are spelled different and fans have long believed Krusty's evil sidekick is named after a street in Oregon", which are found in the citation, are those of the author and not credited to Mr. Castellaneta (there are no quotation marks). That is a writer addressing an obvious question his readers will have and simply re-iterating the fact that Bob (and the whole Bart-Bob interplay) references the movie. What the writer says is factual I do not dispute that but it is not intended to add any new information about the origins of the name, it does not explain the reason for the switch.

It should read: "Dan Castellaneta (the voice of Krusty) reports that Sideshow Bob's last name is a reference to the character Dr. Terwilliker from the film The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T. and, contrary to fan belief, not to Groening's hometown; no reason why the "k" was changed to a "g" has been established." Alternatively if Scorpian or anyone else can locate the comentary where Groening says that himself, we can say "Matt Groening confirms in commentary that Sideshow Bob's last name..." I'd very much like anyone who has that commentary to come forward and share it because Groening may explain the K2G switch and put the whole matter to rest.

I deleted my very first post because it was embarrassing and a distraction to others from my genuine objective as I do not value making any claim about whether or not the name Terwilliger references a street only that the K2G switch has not been explained. It basically suggested that we should change the wording to include a Wikipedia un-worthy speculation on the purpose of the K2G switch, a newby mistake. Prodigalapagos (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's still original research and adding commentary and speculation (which is what adding a bit about the switch would be). You really are making a big deal out of nothing (and no, if memory serves, he doesn't even address the Terwilliger street) and any mention of it would be gtiving it undue weight. I also re-added your first post because you shouldn't go back and change messages. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Scorpion, do not undo my deletion of the first part of this article, I am concerned that people will be distracted by the text and argue over a red herring. I have already made an honest disclosure of the revision and contents of the deletion and the mistake I made. I had already described it for posterity in small text, and going back to improve articles is what makes Wikipedia the best. I am the originator of this post and I have the exclusive right to decide the objective of the post. I have been successfully and easily dissuaded from my original point of view, and the discussion needs to move on. You and Gran have made great points that I have respectfully responded to with point-by-point rationale. My goal has become more realistic as you objections have forced it to evolve. That evolution is recorded for the archives in statements such as my disclosure and the first line of my response to Gran, and further referenced in many other places such as the first line of bold text. Any other person viewing the post will read the title, and then read the deleted text and say to themselves "well that’s just unsourced speculation" and ignore the rest of the post.

To satisfy other users wishes here is the the defunct text in its entirity.

This no longer reflects on the objective of this discussion:

Matt Groening was born in Portland Oregon. Despite the citation of MTVs percpective, the question remains why did Groening morph "Terilliker" into "Terwilliger" if not to throw back to his home town?

Many simpsons characters are clearly named after Portland streets, Quimby, Lovejoy, Flanders, Kearny, I don't know them all. It seems that Sideshow Bob's last name is a reference to a similar character in a movie that has been morphed to fit with Groenings decision to name things after his hometown. Until we can cite Groening refuting the claim that it had anything to do with Terwilliger Blvd, the article should read: "Side show Bob was named after the character Dr. Terwilliker from the film The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T, but had his name morphed to fit with Groenings decision to name things after his home town."

The verbatim edit to Matt Groenings personal page should also be changed. The particular phraseology of the edit in question seems forceful as if to settle a wager: "Despite common fan belief that Sideshow Bob Terwilliger was named after SW Terwilliger Boulevard in Portland, he was actually named after the character Dr. Terwilliker from the film The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T.[55]"

Look at the top of this very discussion page. Be Polite; Be Welcoming.

Please respect my wishes to keep the considerations centered on making the statement "Despite common fan belief... more true to its own citation, and allow a newbie a mulligan. I will corroborate for you that was not the original intent of this post but thanks in part to your criticisms, I have had to make concessions and the objective of this post has evolved. My deletion is within the bounds of Wikipedia’s cleanup guidelines as the text was off topic.

New viewers can simply read the following segment not the whole thing, I will now revise and recap my wishes again:

1- I wish the statement to be edited to read: "Dan Castellaneta (the voice of Krusty) reports that Sideshow Bob's last name is a reference to the character Dr. Terwilliker from the film The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T. and, despite the different spellings, was not inspired by Groening's hometown; no reason why the "k" was changed to a "g" was reported." Alternatively, if anyone can locate the commentary where Groening says that himself, we can say, "Matt Groening confirms in commentary that Sideshow Bob's last name..."

2- It is important to mention the different spellings because the author of the citation thought is was important.

3- It is important to mention that the reason for the K2G switch was not established because that is an obvious question that readers will have.

4- Both are important because naming practices have historically figured prominently in discussions of fiction.

5- Neither are speculative nor original research because #2 is addressed in similar language in the citation, and #3 is again verified by looking at the single established citation.

6- It is important to establish the human source of the information in this case especially since the citation features a person who gives a second hand account.

While my particular edit is open to criticism, the statement as it stands must be changed because:

7- The language of the statement in question is far more authoritative than its citation is; in addition, it omits important information featured within the citation. It goes too far and is imprecise therefore not true to its own citation. In addition the source is MTV reporting a he-said she-said. MTV's reliability is questionable according to Wikipedia’s verifiability page. This is further exaggerated by the fact that the source article does not credit a writer or establish by what means the information was obtained and the fact that the page is a promotion for the Simpsons movie. This together with the incongruent recitation amounts to a breach of verifiability, one that can be easily repaired.

8- The statement in question is not from a neutral point of view, as the lack of explanation for the K2G switch means that there is still speculation about the naming practice. While those speculations must not be included language that implies the K2G switch is incidental is not neutral. I have mentioned my point of view, that and my own fervent pursuit of an edit should demonstrate in your mind that we should be very cautious to make a neutral point of view as to some people this is not inconsequential to their appreciation of the Simpsons.

If you wish to counter my statements, please include the rationale behind your objection. If I provide a rebuttal that includes consideration of your rationale, please do not simply re-iterate your old objection without explaining why my rebuttal is unsatisfactory. To do so is disrespectful and violent, remember the purpose of a debate is not to win but to achieve a consensus. In a debate individual claims are won or lost and as this happens the two objectives are supposed to merge into one or fail and result in an impasse but only after significant evolution, a debate is not a battle it is a mating.

Prodigalapagos (talk) 05:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop removing your first post. Like it or not, it sets the tone for the rest of the discussion, and Gran and I both address points from it. We do not need to address the "K2G switch" because there is no source that addresses it. Like it or not, the statement simply repeats what is verified in the source. I suggest you move on and contribute to other articles. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please respect my post. The points addressed by Gran have been conceded and are therefore moot.

I beleive scorpian was so annoyed by the (now irrelevent) speculation that he cannot see past it and that is why he constantly seeks to re-inject it into a discussion where it no longer belongs, aka beating a dead horse.

Scorpian wins on the question of groenings motivation for the switch but loses on the importance of mentioning the switch. The objective changed when the concession was made. Maybe I should have made a new post at that time as this one has obtained an ugly length and is becoming a childish fight.

We need to address the "K2G" switch because it is clearly addressed in the source of the pre-existing citation.

Look at bullet #7, I mentioned omitted information this is it: The sentence found in the source of the citation; "Despite the fact that the names are spelled different and fans have long believed Krusty's evil sidekick is named after a street in Oregon", clearly addresses the K2G switch but calls it "different spelling". If it's in the citation in needs to be in the post WP:V (under "Burden of Evidence", first paragraph, last sentence, second phrase.).

When we mention the switch it needs to be in neutral language implying nothing about the reason for it, since no reason was given. If we don't unambiguously declare that no reason was reported the implication that the switch was accidental, or incidental is inherent as a convention of communication.

If Scorpian wants the last word I will let him have it. I have tried to avoid the words argument or debate because so often modern people think the object is to win or "be right" and will refuse to make concessions. If America's founders had this view of argument, there would have been no way that a room full of 55 prideful men could have written a constitution, especially at a time when it was legal to kill someone in a duel. I will call it as it is though this was my "closing argument". I will not post here for a long while, but I will defend my page against vandalism.

I have learned a lot and will make more concise recomendations in the future.

Remember: Be Polite, WP:CIV, and Be Welcoming WP:NEWBIES

Prodigalapagos (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Look, this debate is eventually going to be archived and just the text and none of the history will be retained. When it is, a user will see just your edited first post and wonder exactly what Gran and I are responding to. That is why I keep adding your first post, because it is the most important part of the discussion. It has nothing to do with "beating a dead horse" or revenge. I'm curious, why do you say that this has become a "childish fight" when you are the one bringing up winning and losing? It has nothing to do with gaining a victory or revenge on you, I am simply trying to maintain the article, which is featured, and keep it so that it meets standards, guidelines and policies. Nothing more, nothing less. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It honestly should read that there are competing theories as to the origin of Bob's name; in the 20th Anniversary Special Groening indicates that the Portland, Oregon reference may be true, he rattles off a list of characters named after Portland Streets, and Terwilliger is one of them. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Sideshow Bob. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080914144851/http://travel.latimes.com/daily-deal-blog/index.php/simpsons-ride-featur-1657/ to http://travel.latimes.com/daily-deal-blog/index.php/simpsons-ride-featur-1657/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080505062933/http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/may/02/bz-woo-hoo-itchy-for-fun-ride-with-the-simpsons/ to http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/may/02/bz-woo-hoo-itchy-for-fun-ride-with-the-simpsons/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071220140402/http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1565538/20070725/story.jhtml to http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1565538/20070725/story.jhtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100514162054/http://terminallaughter.ca/2010/05/06/terminal-laughter-plants-flag-on-unclaimed-simpsons-reference/ to http://terminallaughter.ca/2010/05/06/terminal-laughter-plants-flag-on-unclaimed-simpsons-reference
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5wWgU0Yh9?url=http://www.emmys.org/awards/awardsearch.php to http://www.emmys.org/awards/awardsearch.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070302212129/http://tv.ign.com/articles/731/731095p1.html to http://tv.ign.com/articles/731/731095p1.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 03:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sideshow Bob. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090313015253/http://www.foxflash.com/div.php/main/page?aID=1z4&mo=3&d=22 to http://www.foxflash.com/div.php/main/page?aID=1z4&mo=3&d=22
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071031112102/http://uk.tv.ign.com/articles/730/730957p5.html to http://uk.tv.ign.com/articles/730/730957p5.html

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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sideshow Bob. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111015141244/http://www.nuvo.net/ScreensBlog/archives/2011/07/30/17-reasons-to-turn-on-the-tv to http://www.nuvo.net/ScreensBlog/archives/2011/07/30/17-reasons-to-turn-on-the-tv

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

"Underdunk" or "Onderdonk"?

Which is it-"Underdunk" or "Onderdonk"? When I first heard his full name given, I thought it was "Onderdonk", which is a Dutch name, and sounds funny to some. Do we have a written example from any official "Simpsons" site or page? Best regardsTheBaron0530 (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Just about every source in Sideshow Bob#Creation looks to verify it. Primefac (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Any Connection to the acting Deputy Attorney General George Terwilliger?

I do not favor including the edit again without consensus, but the fact that George J. Terwilliger III was serving as Deputy U.S. Attorney General when Sideshow Bob's last name was revealed in Black Widow is intriguing and would be interesting to research.InsulinRS (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion. I think unless the show creators have said that the real-life Terwilliger was the reason for giving Bob his name, it would just be WP:OR/speculation. An interesting coincidence if not, though. Primefac (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Bart Simpsons.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)