Talk:Treehouse of Horror V

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleTreehouse of Horror V has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starTreehouse of Horror V is part of the The Simpsons (season 6) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 26, 2007Good article nomineeListed
March 16, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
March 22, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 25, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
February 13, 2009Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

What is the Cowboy Film shown at the beginning?[edit]

I'm referring to "the 1947 Glenn Ford classic '200 Miles to Oregon'", which I can't actually find on the web and yet was shown in a snippet at the beginning. May I assume then the footage is from another cowboy film, and if so which one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.7.41.160 (talk) 11:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shame no one has answered this yet. I have researched this and there is no such film. No film database includes a film by that title, no Glenn Ford filmography includes the title, and the over 3,000 Google results of a search for the exact phrase are all discussions of this Simpsons episode. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References to "The Shining"[edit]

Is this section necessary? I mean, the segment's title and the initial mention that it's based on the movie should be enough. The plot summary makes it clear that Homer plays the Jack Torrance role, Bart is Danny, Willie is Halloran, et cetera. It seems very redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynskeet (talk • contribs)

Nightmare Cafeteria[edit]

Why are the two statements that Homer and Maggie don't appear in "Nightmare Cafeteria" incorrect? They weren't really shown, but seen at the end, while Bart realized it was just a nightmare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.38.1.27 (talk • contribs)

Lose the trivia section[edit]

Please see WP:Trivia and Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles L0b0t 02:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always wondered why trivia are suposely so bad. I read the WP:Trivia, and I still wonder what people consider "important". I think most part of any encyclopedia won't help me to survive, to eat, or to find a place to sleep safely. Other than that, important is just a state of mind. But I do understand how Trivia sections can get out of hand. I guess it does make it somewhat easier for random users to come in and push some data.
Anyway, introductions aside, this trivia seems little enough, and I'd like to ask you, someone who seems to dislike trivias, if this one, for example, could be merged into the article. I could see, with few different words, part of it on the description, and the last one into the Shinning section itself. I'm asking as someone who is not that active, and like to avoid deleting (sometimes way too much).
After all, one of the most important parts of wikipedia, from what I can see, is the wiki and wikifications should always be welcome.
--Caue (T | C) 05:40, Tuesday 2006-12-5 (UTC)
Hello Caue, thanks for asking. My objections to the trivia sections are rooted not in a dislike of trivia but, rather, with the way in which it is often presented. Editors must provide a reliable source for all information that is added to the encyclopedia. If one is only describing an event that happens in a particular episode (not mentioning any other work of fiction or real life event) then the episode itself (a primary source) is all one needs to cite. If however, one want's to make a connection between two works of fiction or between a particular episode and a real-life event we require that an editor cite a secondary source to satisfy the no original research policy. Essentialy this problem is one of causality, things like parody, allusion, homage, etc are specific stylistic devices or literary techniques and to attribute these motivations to the writters of an episode without a reliable source stating that the writters did indeed intend for that scene to be a parody of a scene in another work is a clear violation of our original research policy. There are many, many, many, many forums and fansites where fan speculation and analysis is welcomed but the general purpose encyclopedia is not one of them. So, let's suppose that an editor has a piece of information and a reliable source ready to cite to back it up. How does one add it to the article? If the information is written up as prose, in a nice neat paragraph then there is no problem. The problem arises with the creation of a bulleted list, nothing will kill an article's chances at featured article status faster than a bulleted list. Lists are a prime example of lazy writting, if one can not be bothered to put information into prose then one should not bother to edit the encyclopedia. These list sections serve as cruft magnets, encouraging others to come by and add more crufty nonsense to the list. I hope this helps answer your question; please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you would like to discuss this or anything else. Cheers. L0b0t 16:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup Tag[edit]

The page seems to follow the same set up as the other Simpsons Halloween pages. What on the page needs cleaned up? Pnkrockr 17:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatly, as with a great many articles about television shows, it is saddled with a "trivia", "cultural reference", or "quotes" section; all of which are very unencyclopedic, magnets for spam and cruft, and tend to turn into lists which is a poor way to lay out an article. Please see: WP:Trivia, WP:NOT,and WP:AVTRIV. Please stop by the Trivia Cleanup Project at WP:WPTCU, if you would like to help out. Cheers. L0b0t 17:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:
Prose
  1. In the infobox, you have Each member of the family enters with disfigure bodies. It should be disfigured bodies.
  2. It saw James Earl Jones guest star as the alternate universe Maggie Simpson. Something about this sentence just isn't right. Perhaps 'James Earl Jones guest stars as the alternate universe Maggie Simpson or something of that nature. I just don't like the It saw business. It sounds weird to me, but this is just one man's opinion.
  3. Any instance of the possessive case of "Mr. Burns" should be written as "Mr. Burns's."
  4. ...access to two of his favorite things - beer and television Should use a colon (:) instead of a dash
  5. With television back again Homer's insanity gradually fades. Bad sentence. Maybe: With access to television returned to him, Homer's insanity gradually fades.
  6. During his first trip, he amazingly realizes... What's amazing about it? Is it because Homer is so stupid? Instead, maybe you can include the part about how Homer reflects on the advice that Abe Simpson gave him on his wedding day.
  7. Every effort goes wrong, however: Homer sits on... a semicolon should be here instead of a colon
  8. However, Marge does not know what a "donut" is, immediately Homer runs screaming to the toaster, travelling back through time again, with a few seconds of his leaving it begins to rain donuts. This sentence has a few problems. Try reading it out loud, then rewrite it so that it flows better. Same thing with the sentence right after it. "Another version" of what?
  9. ...and Lunchlady Doris is now down to serving Grade F meat. "down to" is bad. Maybe "is now forced by budget constraints to serve Grade F meat."
  10. ...between students locked in cramped cages and a "free range" area." Finish the sentence with "as though they were livestock" so that the meaning is clear.
  11. The part about the fog needs to be tied in better with the plot summary before it. Maybe add something like "the family reassures Bart that he was just having a bad dream, and that he has nothing to fear except that mysterious fog that turns people inside out" or something like that. It makes it clear what you mean.
  12. ...a "massive" fan of The Simpsons, and that as he did not file a lawsuit against the show he approved of the episode. This makes no sense.
  13. ...score of 8.2/10 out of 78 at the... I assume mean "out of 78 votes." Minor omission.
  14. ...indeed a disturbing universe" is of Matt Groening's... should be "is among" not "is of".
  15. This article should use American English, not British English, since this is an American television show. As such, change things like "favourite" to "favorite".
Structure
  1. Homer's line "close enough" from "Time and Punishment" was referenced in the Stargate SG-1 episode "Moebius". this does not belong in the "Reception" section, as far as I can tell. I don't know where I would put it.

This is one of the better Simpsons articles I've seen in terms of everything except its prose. I might like for one more screencap in the "cultural references section," maybe of the TV screen coming out of the floor with Flanders's face. I think it would round out the article nicely, but it isn't necessary.

However, the prose needs some work, as I've outlined above. For me, this is the most important part of any encyclopedia article. However, since this is the only thing that I have a problem with, I'm going to put the article on hold, pending these changes. Comb through the article one more time to check discrepancies in British/American English, as I might have missed more than just "favourite." Good luck, let me know when you've made the changes by posting a message on this talk page (I'll add the page to my watchlist), and I'll come back to update my review. A lot of hard work has already been put in to this article, and just a little bit more will put it over the edge for GA. –King Bee (τ • γ) 15:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I dont' have time now, but I'll make these changes in an hour or so. Gran2 15:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O have implemented your suggestions and the article is ready for another look. -- Scorpion 16:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done a little bit myself. As for the image, I personally think its okay, the same with the Moebius thing, but there we go. As Scorpion said, if you could re-review it, that would be good. Gran2 17:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like what you guys have done, and I like that you did it so quickly. I have no reservations in promoting the article now. Good work. –King Bee (τ • γ) 17:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps (Pass)[edit]

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, MASEM 03:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits[edit]

We don't need to include everything said in the DVD commentary. I removed that which isn't needed, especially where specific references to movie "The Shining" are pointed out. We already say the segment is a parody of that movie, so there's no need to go through individual scenes pointing out references. There are a hundred of those in that segment; listing them adds nothing. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:42, 19 Mar 2008 (UTC)

We also don't need to spell out that the scenes were written to be as long as it takes to toast a piece of bread. It's both unnecessary and obvious. I'm not going to revert you again, but this insistence on keeping all of your original factoids listed is not going to get the article to FA standards. You've got all-oppose votes so far at FAC for a reason. The article so far reads like it's a bunch of notes taken while listening to the DVD commentary. If you want to fix that, you'll have to do something different than you have been. Let me know when you're ready to actually improve the article. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:48, 20 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Always looking to improve the article. Your welcome to keep copyediting. Just don't delete info for no reason. Buc (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flander's New world order in Time and Punishment[edit]

It appears that the part with Flanders as world dictator was a reference to 1984 using Ned as Big Brother. The orders to send Homer to "ReNeducation Camp" parallels the Communist regimes in China and Russia, which George Orwell did not want to happen in England. Hugehippo (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)HugehippoHugehippo (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ending[edit]

The scene at the end where they are turned inside out is a reference to an old radio program (Inner Sanctum?) I once heard many years ago. I do not remember any details for reference but thought I'd mention it in case anyone else remembers this.--Phyllis1753 (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

non-Brazillian[edit]

Does anyone know who this Brazillian time traveller is that Homer implies in the second part? -92.228.6.86 (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly, Carlos Castaneda, but that may just be someone trying to make sense of a substitution that was originally nonsensical. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 07:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Floating Homer and Mister Peabody!?[edit]

Since Homer kills so many dinosaurs? He usually stays on the ground for time-traveling, not floating in the middle of nowhere! Plus Mister Peabody and Sherman from The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle are in the middle of nowhere in this episode! For an episode made in 1994, this goes OFF THE CHARTS AND SCALES! --Does it look like rocks to you!? 07:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Av Club article[edit]

The AV Club posted their retrospective on this incredible episode a couple of days ago, and there's some awesome info in there that we can use: http://www.avclub.com/articles/treehouse-of-horror-vi,99427/--Coin945 (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Treehouse of Horror V. 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) 03:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Treehouse_of_Horror_V&oldid=1207861080"