Jump to content

Talk:The Simpsons: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 244: Line 244:
This article needs a section on Criticism. The show has certainly changed (which briefly noted in the writing section) and the number of critics (usually former fans) has grown to a point where it's easy to find. There have been several articles, one off the top of my head was this feature in [[Slate]], [http://www.slate.com/id/2078501/ Who turned America's best TV show into a cartoon?]. I'm not advocating a section that says "The Simpsons Suck" or anything like that, but a section should address it's changing fan base and resulting trends. Far lesser things have warranted such sections. [[User:Bobak|Bobak]] 21:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
This article needs a section on Criticism. The show has certainly changed (which briefly noted in the writing section) and the number of critics (usually former fans) has grown to a point where it's easy to find. There have been several articles, one off the top of my head was this feature in [[Slate]], [http://www.slate.com/id/2078501/ Who turned America's best TV show into a cartoon?]. I'm not advocating a section that says "The Simpsons Suck" or anything like that, but a section should address it's changing fan base and resulting trends. Far lesser things have warranted such sections. [[User:Bobak|Bobak]] 21:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


New Entry: I agree. Family guy gets a whole page devoted to controversy with fans and the simpsons, with thousands of people seeming to be turning away from this show something must be mentioned. Even a small section will do. But this page is just saying all the good thing, cutting out the bad points and denying that this show has taken a nosedive.
New Entry: I agree. Family guy gets a whole page devoted to controversy with fans and the simpsons, with thousands of people seeming to be turning away from this show something must be mentioned. Even a small section will do. But this page is just saying all the good thing, cutting out the bad points and denying that this show has taken a nosedive.

:OH man, somebody erased any criticism towards the series, now its just one HUGE extended fandom praise to the simpsons.


==Moe = Rich Hall==
==Moe = Rich Hall==

Revision as of 21:18, 6 April 2006


See the first archive of this page

Longest running animated series

"It is the longest-running American sitcom and animated program, with 17 seasons and 368 episodes since it debuted on December 17, 1989 on FOX."

Would it be deemed relevant to make a mention of the Japanese animated series "Sazae-san", which has run since 1969? Obviously not as popular world-wide as The Simpsons but it did at its peak get viewed by up to 25% of the Japanese TV audience.

It's of course accurate to say it's the longest running American animated series, maybe people might be interested to know, as long as it has run, it isn't the world's longest running animated series, as I'm guessing most people don't know that.

This is the wikipedia entry but the information can also be verified by the entry in "The Anime Encyclopedia" by by Jonathan Clements and Helen McCarthy.

"Sazae-san animated series In October 1969, Fuji Television started an animated comedy series, which is still on the air today and currently in production (making it Japan's longest running TV anime). It has been broadcast every Sunday from 18:30 till 19:00 and contains three vignettes. The animated series has some characters, like Katsuo's classmates, who don't appear in Hasegawa's original works."

Someone wrote in this article that after the 19th season, the show will end. This has not been confirmed, and I have deleted it.

Removed from Cars section

I've removed this from the Cars section as it didn't really make much sense where it was:

Homer has enjoyed repeated hirings by Mr. Burns, has been fired at least once and has quit several times. In one episode, he is fired, becomes a used car salesman and ends up as an ambulance driver in the space of twenty-two minutes plus commercials.
The show also has a vast array of quirky supporting characters, including co-workers, teachers, family friends, extended relatives, and local celebrities. Many of these characters have developed a vast cult following of their own. For a comprehensive list, see characters from The Simpsons. Some of these, like Itchy and Scratchy, super-violent versions of Tom and Jerry, are fictional even within the Simpsons universe.

Perhaps we can find a more appropriate place for it?--Ramon omar 04:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---I think the entire car section belongs in the List of vehicles in The Simpsons article. That kind of information is too specialized to belong in the main Simpsons article. I'm going to move that there for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.29.176 (talkcontribs)

"Setting/Where is Springfield" section

Some people may think that my paring down of the "Setting" section was too bold. The fact is that it was a messy eyesore with too much useless, subtrivial information. The sectioned contained a great deal of extremely minor points speculating about the "location" of Springfield that have no place in a general encyclopedia article (much less so close to the top of the article, before even a rough synopsis of the show is given). Anyone interested in the information concerning the state Springfield can find it all, and much more, at the "Where is Springfield?" document linked in the same paragraph. What's more, the conclusion that the section comes to, that Springfield isn't anywhere, renders irrelevant all of the "It's in Kentucky, no wait it's in Missouri, I mean it's really Oregon" nonsense that preceded it. There is no place for this obsessive clutter in a quality article. Readers who are mostly unfamiliar of the show should be treated not to a barrage of munitiae, but to a summary that paints a clear picture of the matter, and leaves the details to the linked SNPP docement. Andrew Levine 01:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


well there is a city by the name of Springfield,Virginia. and it is more so like riverdale in archies--Jayanthv86 04:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The Simpsons is not in Missouri though no one has stated this i just wanted to make sure it was not mistaken. The reason to believe this is in Homer Badman Abe Simpson(Grandpa) states "I'll be deep in the hole until i reconize Missouri as a state. - Ac/dc rox

Character Templates

Could a character template be created to be added to the dozens of Simpsons character pages? It could feature a few details such as age, job, etc. Below is a quick template I made for Homer Simpson, made from the Lemony Snicket character template.

The Simpsons character
File:C-homer.png
Homer Jay Simpson
Gender Male
Age 36 - 39
Job Safety Inspector at the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant
First appearance Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire
Major relatives Wife Marge, son Bart, daughters Lisa and Maggie and father Abe

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Squidward2602 (talkcontribs) 02:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Just one thing though: The red box with the text in it is a bit hard to read. Why not have Simpson Yellow instead. Ps. What is up with Homer's eyes!? smurrayinaHauntedHouse...Boo!(User), (Talk) 20:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I though we found out in the hippie episode, that Homer's full name was Homer J Simpson, the J not standing for anything.--Dp462090 20:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that episode they revealed that the J stands for Jay -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 20:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. hehe--Dp462090 23:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Distributor list

Do we really need the list of distributors for the show? What about this article: List of TV channels that air The Simpsons ?? 32.97.110.142 17:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons

The Simpsons (1980)

The Family of four was made Homer, Marge, Bart , Lisa and little baby simipson maggie. They all started on the tracy olman show were matt made it

By The Z Factor


The names of the family came from Matt Greoning's family.

Can someone explain to me why every "Simpsons" website linked gets deleted? There's no reason. They are valuable resources about the show.

Because Wikipedia is not a link repository (aka Wikipedia is not Google). A handful of links should be (and is) inlcuded. If the user needs information not provided by those links, then they should be capable of launching a Google (etc.) search for it. Otherwise we'll have every Geocities site on here run by 14-year-old webmasters. The JPS 06:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But due to that, the only link that was freakin' there was the 14 year-old Geocities site. I've seen the better sites, run by people who know what they're doing, and now due to that type of reforming it's just the crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.208.139 (talkcontribs) 01:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have been corrected, because the sites listed at the moment are far from 'crap'. There are hundreds of Simpsons sites out there, and it is not unreasonable that someone would attempt to use wikipedia to get more hits. We need to address POV in our selection of external links too (esp. true when you resort to vague descriptions such as "crap"). Selecting the official site and the site run by the newsgroup seems to be pretty safe. The JPS 09:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it was fine was because I had just removed the Geocities site that showed up. I'm deeming things "crap" because they're crap; I can certainly phrase things in a more adult vocabulary, but crap just cuts so perfectly to the heart of the matter.

If you're going to remove all fan-site links, fine, I guess - but make it a real ban, and check it. Nothing but the Archive and the Official site. There is no site on the internet that is a better resource for "The Simpsons" that is not one of those two sites and is not a fan-site. Period. This includes things like "The Simpsons Wiki", which was started by fans with the same "pov" issues from the same community as those fan sites (just check the thread at nohomers.net to prove this). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.64.150 (talkcontribs) 04:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The external links as they stand right now look pretty good. I don't see much reason to add anything besides what's there, and I don't see any good reason to delete any of the ones that are there, either.--chris.lawson 00:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Fine, so long as it's kept that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.208.139 (talkcontribs) 06:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Before checking this talk page, I added a link to Off The Telly's Simpsons articles. Although interesting, the "history of the series" articles are perhaps a bit non-NPOV to have their own links, but it's the history of The Simpsons on the BBC that I was most impressed with and haven't seen anywhere else (as far as I know, there's nothing like it on The Simpsons Archive). Is there a better Wikipedia page that the link could go on (List of TV channels that air The Simpsons, maybe?) or is it really too minor to be included at all?--Nick R 18:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List removal

I have removed several lists from this article and have spun them off into their own articles, trimming the article size from about 61KB to about 47KB. What do you think of this? Remaining tasks are that this article needs to be fact-checked and referenced, with maybe a list at the bottom in small text, before this article could be nominated for featured article status. Toothpaste 23:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's a list of Simpsons Episodes, should there be a section with episode information? It seems like it just takes up space when there's a complete page for it. Pnkrockr 17:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen Terrace

There should be an article on Evergreen Terrace, the street where The Simpsons live. Maybe even an article specifically on their house at 742 Evergreen Terrace.

EA Games

Yeah, I can confirm. This was all over the news about three days ago. A quick search on Google News should turn up plenty.--chris.lawson 06:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Someone also confirmed this to me on my talk page. I just wanted to make sure it was factual before it got buried in other edits. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 07:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween Specials

Has anyone else noticed that the Holloween specials are getting progressively less violent and more normal?--Vercalos 01:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A few elements in the CG episode(namely the Library and the music paired with it) greatly resembles a couple of elements in Myst.--The dez 10:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debut in Muslim/Arab Countries

This section should read debut in Arab countries. The Simpsons was broadcast in Pakistan over 8 years ago in English. Pakistan is a Muslim country, but not an Arab country. Fkh82 01:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV In Film Section

There's a claim in the film section that a live-action film would "ruin the franchise." This is clearly POV, but I don't know enough about the subject to contribute anything but removing that. It probably just needs to be rephrased, as it's probably a big part of why the live-action film wasn't made (I mean, look at The Flinstones). I'd love to see what could be done. Dave 22:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I have changed it to a more NPOV. It previously read:
  • (Matt Groening recently turned down a proposal to make a live action film based on the characters, as this would likely ruin the franchise and anger fans)
It now reads:
  • (Matt Groening recently turned down a proposal to make a live action film based on the characters, feeling that this would have the potential to ruin the franchise and anger fans)
Anyone else is welcome to tweak this if you feel it would make it read better.
EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 23:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Is there any source you can point me to that shows this was Groening's reason?Dave 23:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wasn't able to find these exact words, but things very similar (perhaps we can change the sentence to fit with these sources, if we wish). The main article about turning down a full length movie is here. The main quote seems to be:
Matt Groening, the man behind 'The Simpsons' has revealed he's turned down a proposal to make a feature length episode starring real actors. He reckons fans of the show would hate the idea...
He has also said multiple times that a movie (not necessarily just a live-action movie) would potentially "kill" the franchise. On this page it says he feels a poor movie would effect the TV show.
Those are the best ones I found...a good source to see what everyone has said about a Simpsons movie is here.
EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 00:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who keeps adding a cars section?

There is a separate article: List of vehicles in The Simpsons, so there is no need for that section. Besides, the information there is not true. None of the Yugos that were sold in the US were sedans or station wagons. I suggest that the main article be locked from editing by anonymous users.

The Simpsons has featured many, many songs over the years that sooner or later I have had to obtain or re-aquire. I find when I re-watch episodes that many of the featured song(s), often just a very short clip a few seconds long, really start to grow on me and I want to hear the whole track. I will start a list here and give it a layout in this order ;

Season number, Episode number, 'Episode name here' - Artist 'song/track name'

Examples ;

Almost any episode featuring the Duff beer mascot "DuffMan" - Yelo 'oh yeah'

Season 7, Episode 24, 'Homerpalooza' - Smashing Pumpkins 'zero'

Season 9, Episode 7, 'The Two Mrs. Nahasapeemapetilons' - Foreigner 'hot blooded'

Season 9, Episode 7, 'The Two Mrs. Nahasapeemapetilons' - The Carpenters '(They Long to Be) Close to You' (an Indian version, played at Apu's wedding) [1]

Season 10, Episode 10, 'Viva Ned Flanders' - Elvis 'viva las vegas'

Season13, Episode 22, 'Papa's Got a Brand New Badge' - Golden Earring 'radar love'

Season13, Episode 22, 'Papa's Got a Brand New Badge' - A3 (previously known as 'Alabama 3') 'woke up this morning (Theme for The Sopranos)'

Season 14, Episode 10, 'Pray Anything' - Kiss 'I was made for loving you baby'

Dirk Diggler Jnr 17:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the List of songs featured in The Simpsons is a great idea :-) Fred Bradstadt 19:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is a spoiler?

Wikipedians seem to find it challenging to know what should or shouldn't be considered a spoiler when it comes to a long-running TV series. Perhaps project members might find it interesting to contribute their insights on this subject to Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines#Spoilers...66.167.253.58 07:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Religious conservatives section

In the section on the burgeoning popularity of the show among religious conservatives, one of the points mentioned is the Flanders' 'pipeline' (my word) to God v/v Him performing miracles for them.

In actual fact, the Simpsons have had the largest share of miracles (specifically in the form of answered prayers) of any family on the show (more than the Flanders'). I always thought the writers were mocking believers who hold to the idea that God rewards piety.

And more importantly, the miracles God performs (or appears to perform) for the Simpsons are often orders of magnitude greater than those He performs for the Flanders' (actually just Ned, IIRC).

From what I can remember:

Simpsons:

  • Bart's prayer asking God to restore his soul was answered (yes Lisa bought it but He works in mysterious ways lol);
  • when Bart asked for a miracle to get the day off school there was an unseasonable snowstorm;
  • when Marge prayed for the family's wellbeing during the hurricane it blew itself out and the Simpsons lost nothing; and
  • when Homer decided to follow Ned's example and pray, several of his prayers were answered (some of them ridiculous/whimsical): He gave Homer a new taste combination (bacon (or pork rinds?) and fudge); the Simpsons' house needed extensive drywall repair, Homer prayed for a solution and broke his leg at the church, sued the church, and was awarded the deed to the church; and I think there was another one in that episode. {comment:it was bacon}

In fact, I haven't seen an episode where a serious prayer by the Simpsons (though they be few and far between lol) wasn't answered.

Flanders':

  • Ned reminded God 'it's me' during a bowling game and the last pin dropped;
  • Ned asked God to save Todd when Maude launched him in a reed basket down a swift river; and
  • there was one where I don't remember the prayer, but I remember God saying 'Okeley-Dokeley' to Ned when Ned thanked Him. {it was after the prayer to save Todd that God said that}

On the other hand, Ned's prayer regarding His reasons for taking Maude wasn't answered.

Because I don't know the origin of the observation, I don't feel comfortable changing it.--Anchoress 11:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simpson Episodes Question

The simpson episode articles have two templates. Should we make one official or should we let both be used? --TBC 02:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Controversy

When I read through the entire article the one section that really annoys me is the "Fan Controversy" section. If this article ever wants to become a featured article this section has to be completely rewritten or deleted entirely. It consists of statements like "Some prefer the earliest seasons", "Others prefer seasons 4–7" and "it is believed that season 11". Can anyone verify the facts? It sounds like original research based on internet message boards. If we want to find the most popular seasons why not look at the ratings instead. At least those are verifiable sources. --Maitch 16:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. --Maitch 19:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, most of that section reads like fan speculation/commentary that should definitely be removed. If any of this kind of commentary has been made by a notable person (preferably a film critic), it can be put in. Any "fans", "some", "others", "critics", and "supporters" are not notable enough to be included here, and should definitely be removed. --Deathphoenix 16:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "Fan Controversy" is not a suitable title, though I do not think this section should be completely deleted. I suggest we rename the section "Public Criticism" and slightly reword the article. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? --TBC 01:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, a simple rewording won't be enough to save this disaster of a section. There are too many "Many fans feel ..." and other similarly vague and unverifiable statements to make it worth saving. I say delete the whole section. — EagleOne\Talk 01:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a former rabid fan of The Simpsons, and I certainly think that The Simpsons have absolutely sucked after the tenth or twelfth season or so—I've since stopped watching the new episodes. However, I'm not notable enough to have my comments included in the articles, and neither are "fans". Then again, it all depends on how you would reword the article. I agree with your rewording the title (eliminate the capitalisation to make it "Public criticism", though), but I'm still going to reserve judgement on the textual content of this article. Given some time, I'll probably work on it as well. --Deathphoenix 13:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all fans I've talked to believe that the "glory days" of the Simpsons lie in the past, especially the first half (i.e.- first 8 seasons) of the show. Many note Phil Hartman's death in 1998 as a turning point. However, I agree that this should be done in some verifiable way. Perhaps we could use these user ratings, noting NONE of the top 50 rated episodes have been since 1997? (N.B.- You will see 5 of this year's episodes on this list, but none of these have actually aired yet, and are only up there by a small number of votes from people who haven't seen the episode yet). Any thoughts or other sources? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 21:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Votes like that can be a bit dubious; perhaps giving the actual viewing figures may work better instead, although even that isn't perfect; Bart Gets an F is the highest rated ever episode of The Simpsons, but no-one could say the show's been going downhill since the start of Season 2. smurrayinchester(User), (Ho Ho Ho!) 21:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have a completely different take on the quality of Simpsons shows. I'm 38 years old, and never watched The Simpsons until about 1999-2000. I don't have any TV reception, so my only access has been through tapes of the show my Dad makes for me (mostly re-runs, plus the new seasons as they come out). Because re-runs aren't broadcast in order (go CBC), I had no idea for the first few years which seasons I was watching (except for the general timestamps reflected by the presence of Doris Grau and Phil Hartman).
I'd heard about how TS had declined in quality over the years, so I assumed - whenever I saw an episode I thought was poorly written or executed - that it was of a later vintage. I was surprised to find, after I became a real fangirl and started reading up on the series, that many of my 'thumbs down' episodes had actually been from earlier seasons, and some of my faves (or just episodes I thought were particularly well-done) were more recent. Furthermore, I've found many episodes that I thought were crap the first time I saw them, grew on me after a few viewings (offhand the Hank Scorpio and Marge vs Big Sugar episodes are the only ones that spring to mind), and I wonder to what degree this 'attachment through repeat exposure' phenomenon applies to earlier seasons.
I do think the show has declined slightly in quality (on the - Season Two I think - DVD the producers admitted to rolling out all their best ideas at once because they didn't think the show was going to last), but I wonder to what degree the prevailing opinions of longtime fans can be attributed to other factors?--Anchoress 22:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the section is now deleted by someone, so I don't know how relevant this discussion is. I believed the best way to measure which season was best is with the use of season ratings and not episode ratings. A single episode could suddenly spike because of great lead-in (e.g. the Friends episode The One After the Superbowl being more watched than the finale). It would even be better if we measured their season rank in the Nielsen charts. --Maitch 23:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it would appear som fanboy will not accept it and now there is no mention of how more and more people are saying how bad it is now. Surely something should be said.

To say a season can be judged for quality by comparing ratings, is like saying a dictator was a great leader because he would get 100% of the vote. Judging a show by ratings simply showes false information, it shows the more popular seasons when people watched, but not the quality. I propose getting a life, and enjoying the simpsons past, present, and future.

This article needs a section on Criticism. The show has certainly changed (which briefly noted in the writing section) and the number of critics (usually former fans) has grown to a point where it's easy to find. There have been several articles, one off the top of my head was this feature in Slate, Who turned America's best TV show into a cartoon?. I'm not advocating a section that says "The Simpsons Suck" or anything like that, but a section should address it's changing fan base and resulting trends. Far lesser things have warranted such sections. Bobak 21:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Entry: I agree. Family guy gets a whole page devoted to controversy with fans and the simpsons, with thousands of people seeming to be turning away from this show something must be mentioned. Even a small section will do. But this page is just saying all the good thing, cutting out the bad points and denying that this show has taken a nosedive.

OH man, somebody erased any criticism towards the series, now its just one HUGE extended fandom praise to the simpsons.

Moe = Rich Hall

Moe Szyslak, the owner of Moe's Tavern (where Homer spends most of his free time), is a borderline sociopath who threatens people with his loaded shotgun, and attempts suicide every Christmas. Based on comedian Rich Hall.

They're definitely similar, but was he really based on him? If the article doesn't give a source for that statement (e.g from one of the writers or voice actors. On a DVD commentary perhaps?), then it should be removed! --Nick RTalk 17:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


~I do remeber hearing that in the dvd commentary somewhere but I forget exactly who they said it was based off of though, however I do remember them also saying around it that they let Moe go off character more then any other charactor because they figure he is ugly enough it didnt matter, I am pritty sure it was somewhere in season 3 possibly season 4.

When he was on Spicks and Specks, Adam Hills introduced him as the mad they based Moe on.--Greasysteve13 05:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone agree this isn't true?

The character Waylon Smithers. Since the debut of the show, the term "Smithers" has become a common eponym for a spineless underling.

I don't know about the spineless, but Smithers has always been a stereotypical "underling" name. Most famously in Archie comics, where the character Veronica Lodge has had a butler named Smithers since the comic began, in the mid-1940s.

It's weird, but I've noticed when it comes to TV show articles on Wikipedia, a lot of fans come in and attribute these age-old things to their favorite show. --65.175.223.122 21:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Word from the z factor the simpsons rocks

which couch gag was 46 seconds

does anyone know Johnnysfish 22:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's this one. From the description at The Simpsons Archive:
FABF08, GABF05 The couch scene pans out until it reaches intergalactic space, where the galaxies are replaced with atoms, which pan out until they reach Homer's head and then the couch scene again
--Nick RTalk 22:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could be:
GABF20 Springfield's couches rise up against their masters. It sounds short, but it took ages (There's a full description of it at The Simpsons couch gags). smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 10:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic

The transliterations offered do not match the Arabic given, at least by my limited understanding of Arabic script. Is there a source for this that can be checked against? --Kbh3rdtalk 14:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; the Arabic as it now exists is incorrect (it appears to be a go at spelling "simpsons" rather than the actual name of the program as broadcast in Arabic-speaking markets, "Al-Shampshoon." If I knew how to correct it, I would, but I believe it should be spelled aleph-lam-sheen-meem-beh-sheen-wow-noon. I don't believe there was an "s" at the end, but haven't seen it in a couple of months (it was only broadcast during Ramadan on any channel I can get, alas)..... Robertissimo 14:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change from original vision

I've removed this section because it was unverified speculation and not neutral. It also used a lot of weasel words. If anybody wants to add something about how much The Simpsons suck today, then find a credible source to document it with. See also the talk section about "Fan Controversy". --Maitch 12:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awards?

It would be useful to add a list of awards won by The Simpsons, I think. I will begin a new article on that topic, unless somebody disagrees. ElTchanggo 02:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a new article, List of fictional places on The Simpsons, as a merge target for several articles that border on Simpsons-cruft, such as Bronson, Missouri and Humbleton, Pennsylvania. The list is far from complete at the moment. If another article about a minor location in the Simpsons universe arises, I would recommend merging it with the list as an alternative to putting it up on WP:AFD. Szyslak ( [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 22:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

qrank calls

i personaly think it would be cool if we could get a list of all the prank calls Bart did to Moe's Tavern.----68.49.75.128 00:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but do you have any idea how much time that would take?--Dp462090 01:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, there is one at Moe Szyslak#Prank calls. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redirect problem

Why does "bumblebee man" a(a link from a list of John Belushi characters) redirect to here? JeffStickney 14:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because in the simpsons there is a character named the bumble bee man Joler 22:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debut in Arab/Muslim Countries

Why is it under "Simpsons Publications"? .----Ultrabasurero

Running gags

Would it be a good idea to split the running gags section into its own page (in the style of Running gags in Friends)? The list is getting long, but do we need more Simpsons lists? smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 19:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of "Xt'tapalatakettle"

I explained my opinion that the spelling for Xt.... is wrong on the Xt'Tapalatakettle page. After watching Blood Feud and rewinding the part in question a bunch of times, I know for a fact that this spelling is wrong. Burns' version of the name isn't even the same as the version here. It is supposed to be "tapalapa" not "tapalata" as shown. The DVD captioning also spells it as Xtapalapaquetl. I would think the DVD captioning would have more precedence over the non-canon comic books. Any body want to help clear this up on that page? Ultrabasurero 22:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highest Rated Simpsons Episode

does anyone know what the highest rated simpsons episode is?

Who Shot Mr. Burns? Part Two had the most amount of viewers. --DChiuch 10:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've heard "Bart Gets an F" cited as the most-watched episode, but that statistic might be out of date, or possibly only in comparison to The Cosby Show. --Nick RTalk 14:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any episode ratings, ANY, i will take anything you have, this would get me out of a hole.

ps if you can please make a link to the site where you got it, if you got it from the internet

Live-action recreation of the Simpsons opening.

There was recently a live-action recreation of the Simpsons opening made to promote the show in Britain. You can read about it [2], and watch it [3]. Please talk about it in the article.

This hasn't actually been shown in Britain yet, just appeared on the internet. Not sure exactly how Sky One are going to use it...perhaps as an intro to a special episode. BillyH 13:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to come on here and add that info but someone beat me to it. :P I think it may be used as a couch gag but I'm not sure. I'll keep you updated.
What does everyone else think of the live-action opening? I think it is really fantastic. One of the coolest things I have seen ever. The attention to detail is amazing. I urge anyone who hasn't seen it yet (and loves The Simpsons or just the opening sequence) to download it. <3 --Rachel Cakes 02:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons is an American animated sitcom created by Matt Groening.

This is one of the best (since shortest and most complete) definitions within an article on popular culture in the Wikipedia that I ever read. Whoever formulated and submitted this line, I just say: thank you. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )

A section on University Thesis

How about adding a section on the large occurences of Master's Thesis submitted based on the Simpsons, for such subjects as Philosophy and Theology? Jayteecork 14:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Mang

I've changed Otto's name to include his last name, which appears to be Mang, as seen on his probationary driver's license. This can be seen in season 3, disc 4, episode 4 of the DVD version (The Otto Show), at about 21:26 minutes. koolman2 10:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidate

Just letting people know, I've nominated The Simpsons as a featured article. Vote for it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Simpsons. --DChiuch 08:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

about Homer's car...

"...and the family's two cars, both of which appear to have been manufactured in the early 1980s (Homer's being made from "recycled Soviet tanks", in a "country that no longer exists")." - Is this taken from "Mr. Plow"? I thought he didn't buy that car, he just took it for a test drive? He could hardly fit in it... am I right? Haha.. "Put it in H!" :) --Sammysam 00:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he never had the car that is being described, it must be from Mr. Plow. The point it was trying to make about the timeset is fine, but it is incorrect as stated. I'm too lazy to do anything about it, but someone else should take that out or fix it up. 198.138.40.91 04:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC) no account, just me.[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe thata similair comment was also made in the episode "The Great Louse Detective" 69.217.195.50 10:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section names and "Recurring jokes"

I find the two first header names long and overtly complicated, "Production and history of The Simpsons" might as well be named "History", "Setting, characters, and plot of The Simpsons" might be "Storyline" for a shorter description without including the names of the subsections or referring to the article name.

Also, the recurring jokes are a little too specific for the main article - perhaps it would be better with a seperate article and a {{seealso}} under the "Themes" header, as that also talks about the jokes and quirks in the series. Poulsen 13:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How would you end the simpsons? what do you think the ratings for the series finale will be?

I think i would end the simpsons on such a wierd note and try to suprise everyone in the world and make it the most memorable episode in the history of the show. I also think it ill be in the 70-80 million viewership.


Dave

Plots section

Some of the 'Plots' section does well to highlight recurring themes, but the bullet-point list at the end of the section is pretty disposable for a feature article. It's true of parts of the entire article, actually; there's a fine line between attention to detail and fanaticism, and occasionally this crosses it.

For instance, in the aforementioned bullet-point list of "several types of scenes that recur often and have become conventions of the show's storytelling style":

  • Scenes that cut from the main action to show what a secondary character, like Krusty or Mr. Burns, is doing at the time.

Listmania, anyone? Yes, of course it's a convention of the show's storytelling style; it's a convention of the medium's storytelling style. It's a convention of storytelling itself. I don't think Matt Groening will be issuing a patent on it anytime soon.

The broader point here is that lists of this kind are worthwhile if they point out recurring plot devices - for instance, the first point, about the oft-used and relatively disposable "trip" of the first five minutes that sets the plot in motion. But if you're writing a list like this and you can't think of enough material, you should stop before it gets to this point:

  • A scene in which one or more Simpsons are watching a TV program, which the viewer watches along with them, or watches them watch it, often to be interrupted.

Yes, on the Simpsons and many other shows. The point here should be the frequency with which "The Simpsons" uses that device to parody advertisements, news reports and general television programming. I know that as a fan it's hard to resist the temptation to quote examples ("Look at all those feminists!") - but it's not a fan list, it's an encyclopedia entry.

  • A scene in which Bart makes a prank call to Moe's Tavern.
  • A scene in which Homer is at Moe's Tavern escaping the hassles of work and family to be with his friends.

Entries like these have nothing to do with the show's storytelling style, beyond being scenes that recur. They're not plot devices so much as actual content.

I don't want to make any changes - I'm a stranger here myself, don't want to tread on anyone's toes - but somebody really needs to go through this page with a steel-tooth comb, 'cos there's a lot of that kind of fluff to be pulled out. Just my opinion, of course :)

203.51.189.23 02:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failed Good Article nomination

Sorry but the article is much too unstructured (lengthy rambling, too many asides and departing on a tangent) and still doesnt have enough referencing, especially given the level of POV fanboy claims (e.g. the Simpsons had "a huge influence on post-Cold War pop culture" - does "huge" here mean the Simpsons is comparable to the Internet as 90s cultural phenomenon? if so, where's the supporting reference) and oddball original research (e.g. the sophomorically bizarre (and again unreferenced/unsupported) connection between Flanders and Weber's Protestant Ethic). I'm blackballing the good article nomination. Bwithh 23:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

also, theres hardly any criticism... its no secret that the new chapters are of lesser quality than some of the past seassons 7 years ago, yet theres not even a slight comment about it. This whole article is one extended praise to the show.

Feature Film section / The merging of this thread and the The Simpsons Movie thread

The "Feature Film" section appears twice. One of them should be taken out but I don't know which one to remove. Gohst 09:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the movie has been officially confirmed, does it deserve its own page?. 'The Simpsons movie' currently redirects here, re a request for deletion . One comment in that discussion notes 'This gets its own article as soon as Fox officially announces that the movie's for real. Now it's at the stage where it'll probably happen sooner or later, but nobody knows when', with others agreeing to this proposal. If there's no comments against then I think someone should recreate the movie aritcle; i'll do it within 24 hours if there aren't any objections. Robdurbar 17:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you do, take note of this USA TODAY article: [4]. It has the first statements by the creators since the trailer's release. 71.96.218.203 19:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for merging the two threads was that there is no concrete evidence that any plans for a movie exists. Now that the teaser trailers have been shown during Ice Age: The Meltdown and during the latest Simpsons episode, I think that there is enough "proof" to move it back. Sapientia abhorreo imprudentia
Yeah; it's been done! Robdurbar 09:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neighbors

In the 'Characters' section, it states that George Bush and Gerald Ford lived beside the Simpsons. However, they lived across the street. 23:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


Ugly duckling

The article doesn't explain how the show turned from the dull Tracey Ullman stuff (how did it get on air?) into something so brilliant. Was it new producers/writers/illustrators? Who made the difference? That writer who sat in the diner smoking ciggies? And why did the standard dip over the last couple of years (2004-05), only to make a partial recovery? eg. the piss-take Cosmic Wars is brilliant, but the 2nd half of that show left me cold. Is it all about the writers?--shtove 01:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]