Talk:The Simpsons

---

Archives
Ratings information
1. February 2004 - September 2005
2. October 2005 - February 2006
3. January 2006 - May 2006
4. May 2006 - June 2006
5. June 13 - June 29 2006
6. June 29 - December 31 2006
7. January 1 - June 30 2007
8. July 1 - December 15 2007

Has Tracy Ulman ever been on the show?

if not,id say its 'noteable',being that she let them on her show,if it werent for her/show we wouldnt be discussing that at all....know what i mean main?18:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)18:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)18:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)~

She voiced a character in Bart's Dog Gets an F. But I don't know if there's a good place to mention that in this article. Zagalejo^^^ 22:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC) `

From "Influences on Language"

In this section, someone wrote, "The first listed usage [of Do'h!] comes not from The Simpsons, but from a 1945 BBC radio script in which the writers spelled the word 'dooh'." However, that fact is not mentioned anywhere in the cited source. Is there a missing footnote or something? Zagalejo^^^ 20:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It was actually from Jim Finlayson in some of the old Laurel and Hardy films which I found on a different page on the same source Doc Strange (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Main page picture

The main page picture doesn't represent this article at all...how horrendous...bad job, wikipedia editors.

Do you have a better idea? It has to be a free image and for some reason the main page director didn't want the Simpsons Hollywood walk of Fame star. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sitll confused by the RIDICULOUS idea of banning fair use images on the main page but not in articles. My suggestion: remove the image altogether. The current image is misleading and inappropriate. --Teggles (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well you see, a couple of paranoid people like to try to ruin it for the rest of us, so that's why fair use images can't be on the main page anymore. As for the image of Matt Groening, he created the series so I don't see why it is so inappropriate. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It is inappropriate because the article is about The Simpsons, not Matt Groening. I can honestly say that when I saw the image, I thought it was about Matt Groening. As for the "paranoid" people, a better term would be "hypocritical". --Teggles (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for an alternative image? - auburnpilot talk 02:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion, which I have already stated, is to use no image. --Teggles (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been swapped for the star. - auburnpilot talk 02:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Shockingly inane image - should have been a shot of the family. Sad mouse (talk) 05:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, get an image of the family RobertsZ (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a creative commons image that could be used: [1] JACOPLANE • 2007-12-17 19:47

That is an interesting suggestion indeed. I'm sure there is some sort of "copyright" on these kinds of sets, I wonder how that transposes to photographs. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That image isn't free use, under the Commons:Licensing rule its a derrivative work, because its an image of 5 copyrighted characters, no matter how you look at it, and its a statue. So its not free-use. Gran² 20:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think it's going to fly. If we couldn't use the picture of the Scooby-Doo parade balloon, we couldn't use this. Zagalejo^^^ 21:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection?

Is this page covered by the cascading protection on the Main Page? It definitely doesn't look like that. We should expect some vandalism for the next 24 hours, shouldn't someone protect this? GlobeGores (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this page was protected for a year up until this morning. Usually they try to leave the TFAs unprotected for the 1 in 600 IPs that won't vandalise the article today. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, why don't we just use the main picture on the Simpsons article (the family portrait) as the pic on the main page?

Honestly it would grab everybody's attention, and no real reason why we sould NOT use it. It's the only logical thing to do. Steinarb999 (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The "real reason" is that a group thought it would be a good idea to ban fair use images (copyrighted images) on the main page, but not in articles. It didn't make any sense at the time and it still doesn't make any sense. --Teggles (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That is the, if not one of the most stpupidest things I've ever heard all weekend. WHen people think of the simpsons they think of, well...The simpsons. Not a ******* star on the walk of fame. We NEED to change it. Steinarb999 (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but unfortunately nothing can be done. Like I said, the few ruin it for the many. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow...Well, oh well. :( Steinarb999 (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Read about the free culture and lobby your government to join the right side. Then perhaps one day we may be able to use a Simpson's picture on the main page without being liable for a giant lawsuit... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. We're using fair use images in articles, which is exactly the same idea. The image is being used to identify the subject at hand. There is no difference. --Teggles (talk) 05:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there actually a legal basis for the decision that an encyclopedia article about a cartoon can't show an image of that cartoon? If so they shouldn't be in the article, if not it is just silly not to use it on the front page. Sad mouse (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

While copyright paranoia is annoying, instead of taking potshots about a symptom of the disease, worry about the causes.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing to say that putting copyrighted images on the main page is any worse than putting them on pages. What I'd be more worried about is giving "public domain", "creative commons" (etc.) tags to photographs of copyrighted objects. This image? This image should not be under the GNU license. It exclusively features a copyrighted item, and it certainly doesn't fall under Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama. --Teggles (talk) 06:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've felt for a long time that no image is the better option in cases like this. Also to follow the logic of the copyright idea. Surly the walk of fame could sue them for using that image. Buc (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The walk of fame is a public, open location. It falls under Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama. Actually, I could be wrong. It's not a building, so it doesn't fall under Freedom of panorama. --Teggles (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

confusing

'the simpsons is the longest-running american sitcom and longest-running animated program.' Ever? or Currently? Should be clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.180.166 (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Both. (Well, note that the article says it's the longest-running American animated program. There have been longer animated series in Japan.) What would you recommend to make the sentence clearer? Zagalejo^^^ 03:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

'The Simpsons is the longest-running sitcom and the longest running animated program in U.S. television history'. The opening paragraphs already mention that it is still currently airing, so there is no need to mention that it is currently the longest-running sitcom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wessmoor (talk • contribs) 03:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What I meant to say is that there is no reason to 'imply', not 'mention' that it is currently the longest running sitcom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wessmoor (talk • contribs) 04:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that I look at it, that sentence is problematic for other reasons. How are we defining "longest-running"? In terms of seasons on the air, or number of episodes? Scooby-Doo has been on-and-off the air for almost 40 years, and it may have more seasons under its belt than the Simpsons. Anyone? Zagalejo^^^ 05:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it might me longest running for consecutive years, but I'm not sure myself.-Wafulz (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Can the term "longest-running" mean anything other than having produced full seasons of new episodes for the greatest number of years? Rangergordon (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In which case Scooby-Doo may hold the title, depending on whether one considers all incarnations as part of the same series. Zagalejo^^^ 02:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?

For a featured article, it doesn't seem to have a NPOV. Conservative groups give the show a lot of criticism. (I found several sources in a short time.) However, the subject is briefly touched on only a couple times in the article, such as George H.W. Bush's Walton's comment and a brief mention about Bart's bad behavior without consequences. Before jumping head first into a new section, are there any comments/concerns about creating such a section? ++Arx Fortis (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, could you give us an outline of some of the specific facts you'd like to add? I think the article already highlights the most important stuff with regards to that topic. It's been a while since I read a newspaper article about conservatives lambasting the show. The early 1990s really was the heyday for that stuff.

Nowadays, people are more likely to complain about the show just because it's not funny. There's much worse material out there for conservatives to chastise.

But maybe I'm just reading the wrong sources. Let's see what you have. Zagalejo^^^ 08:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The practice of gathering quotes from individuals uninvolved in a story simply because you know they will oppose whatever it is you're writing about is, in journalism, known as "false balance." Anti-Hollywood "conservative groups" may criticize the show, but unless they can demonstrate that the writing or animation is flawed or poorly executed, must their quotes be sought automatically for the mere sake of including an anti-Hollywood viewpoint? Rangergordon (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We shouldn't give undue weight to the "conservative" viewpoint just for the sake of appearing neutral. The notable occurrences (like the T-shirt controversy and the George Bush speech) are the only things that are really significant enough to be mentioned in an article like this. Zagalejo^^^ 02:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Show Evolution

How can you have a featured article on the Simpsons that has no information about the show's changes over 19 seasons? Where's the information on the lead character changing from Bart to Homer, etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.158.154 (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence for this show "evolution", as you call it. What, the lead character just changed from Bart to Homer by chance? It was all part of God's plan, an intelligent design if you will. 128.143.78.146 (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, give me a link that proves that the lead character has changed from Bart to Homer. I'm a prity big Simpson fan and I've never heard that before.

As for the show's evolution, try the Production section. Buc (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's a pretty accepted fact from fans that the first few seasons were more Bart-centric, but without a source it should stay out, although I think it might be mentioned in Planet Simpson. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That's totally judgment of fans it might have just been chance. To me they seem about equal. Buc (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Professional language

Re: edit dispute over "broadcast" or "air".

I do not wish to create an edit war, so I am mentioning this on the talk page.

I changed uses of "aired" to "was broadcast". The word "air" in this sense is a slang colloquialism - not formal, professional English. Colloquialisms do not belong in properly-written encyclopædia articles - not least in featured articles.

Another editor reverted my edits because s/he disliked the use of the passive voice. In this sense, though, a TV program is an inanimate entity - and can not do anything by itself. An episode can not actively do something: but a television company can broadcast it.

I have, however, now used "broadcast" actively. Perhaps other editors can take note... EuroSong ^talk 23:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Air" may have been slang at one point, but every dictionary I've checked lists it as standard usage. See [2], for example. Do you have a modern dictionary or style guide that says otherwise?

I do agree that the show itself doesn't "air" episodes; I'm just curious why you think the word is a colloquialism. Zagalejo^^^ 00:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• "In times of crisis, the family often turns to God..." This must have been contributed by asomeone who hasn't seen the show. --Wetman (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say that? No, they're not always religious, but there are many moments throughout the show when they pray. Look through some of the examples here. Zagalejo^^^ 08:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Analysis of show by scholars, professors, and TV writers

Hi all, I put in a section that summarizes the comments that film studies writer Kristin Thompson has made about "The Simpsons." An editor removed this section. I'd just like to say a few words in defence of having some analysis of the show by scholars and professors. The Wikipedia guide to writing about fiction encourages the inclusion of analysis of the book, show, or film in question by reputable critics. The author I cited, Kristin Thompson has been publishing books and articles about film theory and analysis since the late 1970s. Some of her publications include "Storytelling in the New Hollywood: Understanding Classical Narrative Technique" (Harvard University Press, November 1999); "Breaking the Glass Armor: Neoformalist Film Analysis" (Princeton University Press, August 1988); and, as a co-author with David Bordwell; Film Art: An Introduction (McGraw-Hill College, January 2003); Film History: An Introduction (McGraw-Hill College, August 2002). Nazamo (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between a book or movie and a TV show with over 400 episodes. What do you focus on? It just seems kind of unnecessary because this page is just supposed to be about the general show, and you should leave the analysis to the other more general pages. And originally you had it in the "Influence on television" section, but one others theories is not proof of influence on other shows. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your comments. I agree that the section could be put in a better place. It is my understanding that in our editing, we are to be guided by the various rules and policies set out by Wikipedia. The Wikipedia Manual of Style section on writing about fiction says that:"Examples of useful information typically provided by secondary sources about the original work, or primary and secondary sources about information external to the work:

the author or creator , other key figures of the creation process, e.g. the cinematographer for films or notable translators for novels , the film or software company or publishing house , the design , the development, both before its first appearance and over the course of the narrative real-world factors that have influenced the work or fictional element , for a fictional character in a dramatic production, the actor who portrayed the role and their approach to playing that character , foreign translations , its popularity among the public its sales figures (for commercial offerings), its reception by critics , a critical analysis of the subject , the influence of the work on later creators and their projects" ....The Kristin Thompson comments are in the category above that says "a critical analysis of the subject." She is assessing the overall approach used in the shows, as far as how the storytelling is done. What do you mean when you said that we should "leave the analysis to the other more general pages." Are you suggesting creating a new article such as "Critical analysis of The Simpsons"?Nazamo (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of analysis sections, because usually they focus on the opinions of only one or two authors and are kind of POVish. And no, I'm not suggesting creating such a page. Wikipedia is just supposed to give general information and if people wanted analysis, then they should go buy the book. You wouldn't check Encyclopedia Brittanica for analysis of Shakespeare. If there is a fairly large section devoted to The Simpsons in the book (and not just a couple of pages), then perhaps it could be included with the other books at the bottom of the page. And by the way, the MOS just has EXAMPLES of what could be included, it doesn't say that every one should be. Either way, I'll wait and see what some others think. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Nazamo, would you be interested in improving Religion in The Simpsons and Politics in The Simpsons? Alientraveller (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the analysis is useful; it provides real-world context to the subject, as well as demonstrating real-world impact. As mentioned earlier, analysis is encouraged when it is properly sourced from independent sources. We're the ones who aren't supposed to do it. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The page is already pretty long though, and there is really no need. Besides, a lot of it seems to be theories, not analysis and like I said, unless we include a half dozen other authors opinions, it's pretty much POV because we'd only be shocasing one author who doesn't even specialize in The Simpsons. And I'm suspicious. Neither of you made a single edit until yesterday and suddenly you're both fighting to keep this section in? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, please do not make blatantly unsubstantiated, irresponsible, unfounded accusations about "sockpuppets". Stay on the topic at hand; if you'd have bothered to look at contribution histories before writing that text, you'd never have hit the "SAVE" button. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [3]. --Maniwar (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

BBC reference

Here is a great reference to how the simpsons has impacted the world. [4] Great material. It was left on the Homer the Heretic talk page. All credit to UkPaolo. --Simpsons fan 66 00:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Idea for a new article: Assessment/Critical reception of the Simpsons?

I added a review article, but Scorpion0422 said that the main article would be too large if every positive review was added.

So, do you think a separate article covering the critical reception of the series would work? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just not sure if it's entirely necessary. Yes, it would be nice to have a large reception section, but the article already mentions several times that it's an influential and well received show, so why add in some more reviews? The problem with adding reviews for a television show is that many of the ones you'll find are targetted more towards individual episodes, rather than the series as a whole.

But in answer to your question about a new article, no, I do not think it would work. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

IMO to say that the show is well received is one thing, but it is another to cite reasons for why and how the show works or does not work. Also if there are so many reviews surely we could distinguish which ones are for the show and which ones are for individual episodes (although episode reviews may work if the authors believe that the episodes reflect larger trends within the series). WhisperToMe (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's Wikipedia's function to provide a link list of every good (bad and indifferent) review. Links in an article should be there only to back-up a point or points. The same goes for a section, or article or critical reception. Organise the criticisms by type (positive or negative, or whatever) with citations. That should keep it shorter, and I'm not sure that a seperate article would be necessary Ged UK (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be there so much to provide a link to every review - it would be to show different points and arguments regarding the show. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ratings chart

Currently there is no real section that describes the ratings for each season, unless I have missed it. I think we should put a ratings chart/table under "ratings". I understand that it will be very big, but if we can get sources for each season, I think not only would it look great, but it will also allow people to compare the popularity of seasons. ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 13:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Good luck finding reliable sources. In the mean time you can look at Talk:The Simpsons/ratings. --Maitch (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If, and it's a big if, you can find such ratings, I think the size of it might make it unworkable within this article. It may work as a separate article on it's own though. Ged UK (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand. It's practically impossible finding reliable sources. The table here Talk:The Simpsons/ratings looks good. Maybe we can only include the seasons with reliable sources, and leave out the rest. ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 02:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)