![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I've looked through some of the articles on individual episodes and noticed that same ol' distracting "Trivia sections are discouraged..." tag on some of them. Folks, one of the things that made the Simpsons great was BECAUSE of their pop culture references and seeing as how there's soon to be 19 seasons worth under its belt, I propose that all the "Trivia Sections are Discouraged" labels be zapped from the episode articles. Now, I'll admit I do have a pro-trivia section bias, but you have to admit that a Pop Culture References section is absoultely ESSENTIAL to give the Simpsons episode articles justice. 76.177.160.69 ( talk) 00:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
In the episode "Behind the Laughter," the narrator says, and I quote, "The Simpsons past was forgotten and now the future looks brighter than ever for this "northern Kentucky family."
I've watched it multiple times, but this was the first time I caught "northern Kentucky family." I couldn't believe it, but it's true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.3.98 ( talk) 04:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Behind The Laughter is non-canon. The northern Kentucky line was just put in by the writers to confuse viewers, since The Simpsons were meant to be real-life actors in this episode, so they were given a real-life location to come from. In reruns of the episode the line is sometimes changed to "Southern Missouri family". See the episode's article for more. DVD Smith 02:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed "Emmy and Peabody Award-winning" from the opening sentence. The opening sentence should simply state who or what the subject of the article is. Winning awards is something The Simpsons has done, but it's not what the show is. A common response to this is "but it's true that they've won awards". Well yes, but it's trying to cast the show in a "positive light" and this kind of phrasing is something you expect from a press release and not an encylopedia. The awards can of course be put later in the lead, but not the opening sentence. Slayer, a recent front page FA had a hidden message in the first sentence saying "Do not add Grammy winning here". Spellcast 12:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
"Tweening, coloring, and filming occurs at international studios." That's right, the work takes place in Korea, new opportunities in China are currently being checked.... 91.12.215.149 17:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
im supprised there is no mention of special appearances by the likes of michael jackson, elizabeth taylor etc. Realist2 23:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there a page which lists the the songs played or sung in each episode? I've looked but I cannot find one. This would be a good idea if it is not already created. Thank you Dani948 20:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I have a question. Why was this article's GA status delisted? I am not sure, but can anyone answer this question. It would be much appreciated. Thanks. Greg Jones II 15:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Although Matt Groening has said that the Simpsons' Springfield has much in common with Portland, Oregon, will we ever know which state it really is in? In the episode "Behind the Laughter," it is said that the Simpsons are a "northern Kentucky family." The increasingly curious fans will never know if Kentucky is the state in which Springfield resides. It seems that with each episode, the location of Springfield is altered in some way. The newly released movie also provides some confusing "clues" to the position of the town the Simpsons call home. On a hike Bart and Flanders took up a mountain in Springfield, the four states that border Springfield are revealed: Ohio, Nevada, Maine, and Kentucky. This might be a sign from Groening that fans will never know the location of Springfield,________. Wisojo 02:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
DUH! 02:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's "D'oh". After all, I knew the real Homer, and, you sir, are no Homer. (I've wanted to say that for years. Actually, the real Homer as in Groening was as far from the show's Homer as a person could be.)
Springfield, Oregon, has one feature very like that in the Simpson's fictional home town: Teledyne Wa Chang, a nuclear materials handling plant that dumped used radio active materials into an open pond on its property. This pond became a huge issue in the seventies, with the company successfully resisting attempts by government and private groups to get them to clean up their act. The movie producers selection of a New England was a marketing device, so let them bask in their short glory. Those in the know. . . Jaymes ghoti 20:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Actually, a Springfield, Illinois man says in one of the Simpsons episodes' opening act, they showed a sattelite viewing of Springfield and it showed that Springfield was in the exact spot where Springfield, Illinois. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1bullsfan ( talk • contribs) 01:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, But the Springfield from the Simpsons can't be Springfield, Illinois. In one episode, they travel from Springfield to "Capital City." As Springfield, Illinois is the capitol of Illinois, if the Simpsons lived in Springfield, Illinois they would not be able to travel to "Capital City" (which I'm assuming is the capital of the state they live in.) On a side note, I recently wrote a lot in this section about where the Simpsons home town can or can't be, and it looks like someone deleted it. Would someone care to tell me why? -- AnticScarab3 ( talk) 01:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Upon reviewing the article based on the criteria set forth at WP:WIAGA, I feel this article is very close to GA. I corrected minor mistakes myself as I read the article. Listed below are those things that need to be addressed before I list the aritcle at WP:GA.
The nomination has been put on hold for no more than seven days while these issues are addressed. Let me know if you have any questions or disagree with any of my recommendations. Regards, Lara ♥Love 07:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the page for ANY South Park episode, on the far right there is a list of all the episdoes in that season. This is in the simpsons too, but in the South Park version there are two arrows at the bottom of the list that link to the preivious seasons episodes and the next seasons episodes. I think this should be included in the simpsons pages because it makes navigation extremely easy. You can easily surf the seasons looking for a specific episode, where as in the simpsons you have to go to the "list of episodes" everytime. This is very annoying. I would do it but I don't know how. Can someone tell me exactly how to do it?
It is stated in the article that the show has been dubbed into Swedish. However, if that's true (no sources for that) it has never aired on Swedish TV. In the main article about the subject, a swedish dub isn't mentioned. Since the simpson article is protected, could someone please change this minor, yet annoying, error. 81.170.134.178 01:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it was Dan Quayle who made the comment about The Waltons (not George W. Bush). Laurel Papworth 22:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
What's the name of the episode in which Homer takes a journey through a desert? The desert has a fake Marge, a talking fox/coyote and I think a giant pyramid. Zeldabalooney2006 05:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
is the simpsons rated R+18, R+15, R, MA+18, MA+15, MA, M, PG, or G? i know that it wouldn't be rated R+18, R+15, R, MA+18, MA+15, MA, or M but i just put it there for fun. also it probably wouldn't be rated G because it has some drug referances, sexual referances, some course language E.T.C, E.T.C and yeah —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sylvan wu ( talk • contribs) 07:18:56, August 19, 2007 (UTC).
I ust noticed something. I watched the old Treehouse of Horror episode "Homer Simpson and the Devil". The donut Flandevil (if you watched it, you understood) gives Homer is exactly like the one in the Simpsons Movie title. But I am not sure in which article trivia I should place it. In the Treehouse of Horror IV article, in the main Simpsons article, or the movie article? I can forget about the movie article because I can`t post anything. So I have two choices left. Where should I place this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gamesrcool ( talk • contribs) 22:36, August 23, 2007 (UTC).
I think I'm going to request December 17, as it is the day that Simpsons Roasting first aired, although I won't be able to do so until November. I was going to request September 23, but I would like a Simpsons FA to hit the main page on a day that doesn't make it seem like advertising. -- Scorpion 0422 01:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The creator of Ren and Stimpy doesn't think too much of The Simpsons, as well as South Park and Family Guy. Should that be included? -- 78.16.24.52 20:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Can someone change the "Setting" section so that it does not read "the show has become intentionally deceptive in regard to Springfield's location". It shoud say intentionally evasive. It has never tried to deceive, but does evade the issue, for example having someone stand in front of a map just as someone points to Springfield, so we can't see where they're pointing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.161.52 ( talk) 22:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
What's up with the relatively low color quality on Simpsons episodes from earlier and even not-much-earlier seasons? Is there any explanation? They seemed to be colored very cheaply even after the series had become wildly successful and presumably the budget was higher, as well as beyond the era in which cartoon quality in general was raised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 ( talk) 23:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." The short answer to your question, though, is that it has nothing to do with money, but with what animation techniques were available at the time and how long they took. I believe the difference you are noticing is the difference between traditional cel animation and digital ink and paint. Natalie 23:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
"The Simpsons was the first animated program in prime time since The Flintstones in the 1960s."
This statement is inaccurate. There were quite a few prime-time animated shows between the Flintstones and the Simpsons (such as the Jetsons, The Alvin Show, The Bullwinkle Show, Top Cat, Wait Until Your Father Gets Home, and I think Jonny Quest). However, these shows were nowhere as successful as the Flintstones (and the Simpsons, Family Guy, etc. would be in the future) and they generally only lasted a few seasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Pannozzi ( talk • contribs) 20:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Whati think it should say is that the simpsons are the most popular show since the Flinstones 1960. addy-g Addy-g-indahouse 22:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm beginning to wonder if the page is really necessary - the big one is d'oh, and it has its own page. Most of the words there really don't have true proof of cultural significance, they just have "in ____ it was used" with no sources. And for some reason, people seem to think that being mentioned in another Simpsons episode, in a book about The Simpsons or being the title of a little known book or song automatically makes a phrase significant. Recently many "lists of significant words" have been deleted, including a list of Family Guy words and a list of words from the Colbert Report. As such, I think it should be merged here because all of the really significant words are mentioned here, and have sources. -- Scorpion 0422 18:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I've seen references to "Can't sleep clowns will eat me" on the net. I did a quick search on Google and found a song by Alice Coooper with that title. (Can't link to it because the site is blacklisted.) I put this here in case anyone feel encouraged to investigate these words and phreases further. / Jiiimbooh 13:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
No doubt despite its steady popularity, the simpsons has somewhat decreased in the quality of episodes from the earlier seasons.Like the article says, now its basically too much emphasis on zany antics of characters, as opposed to deep character driven plots of ealy to mid 90s.
But even South Park, with its noteriety and longevity, has maintained its same level of crude, mature, contraversial style of comedy, even considering its 1992 short film origin.
Have the producers, or anyone on the show ever adressed this issue, or, not to be biased, could the writers simply have gotten lazy per se, in not maintaining the shows early style?. Rodrigue 23:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia was mentioned in the 2007 season episdoe "I Don't Wanna Know Why the Caged Bird Sings". Zue Jay ( talk) 00:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I can edit the article because it's semi-protected, and I am probably not an authorized user. Maybe someone who is an authorized user could add some information about the Simpsons Mystery of Life board game that was released in 1991. Here is a link to a site with some basic information on the game: http://www.snpp.com/guides/games_mol.html. If you google around, you can also find out some more information about it. Chris Mo 05:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to receive some sort of approval so I can post content that I need for my English homework. I plan on posting The Simpsons quotes. They are only selected kinds. I would like to post as soon as possible. Thanks in advance.
Wikieditor752 02:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Wikieditor752
The use of the website Associated Content is somewhat controversial as many do not consider it a Reliable source. In fact, there has been a user removing it from all of the other Simpsons pages. I just discovered that we actually use it as a reference (#99) for board games and such. It links to this page. Perhaps we should try and find a better source? -- Scorpion 0422 02:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok So I tried to update The Simpsons like relationships but they just keep getting deleted. May I ask why? Also by who? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petty773 ( talk • contribs) 03:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
--> But it is also very valueable information. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Petty773 (
talk •
contribs)
03:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
--> But I was told this is a place where we as people could add facts to a source if we see it lacks a fact. Now you tell me that certain facts aren't...well up to your standards? I don't mean to come off as cold or sarcastic this is just what I was told and how I feel. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.12.133.107 (
talk)
03:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
--> Once again I don't mean to come off as cold I would just appreciate a reply to my question. Please.
--> I guess I can live with that for now it is still going to irk me when I go on a page and see... non-updated information. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.12.133.107 (
talk)
03:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
--> What do I have to do to prove to you that they do?
The Simpsons has never been dubbed into Swedish, I know because I live in Sweden.
Maybe one or two episodes has been dubbed, but it the article makes it sound like all episodes of The Simpsons are dubbed in Sweden, which is false. I have NEVER heard Homer speak Swedish and I watch the show everyday here in Sweden. :P Remove to improve.
Simpsons always airs in English, like all other tv-shows. But with some translated text-lines.
I switched Swedish to Portugese, because a Portugese version has been included on the DVDs. However, it would be handy to try and find a source for that statement. -- Scorpion 0422 01:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be included/mentioned somewhere that technically Snowball II is Snowball III in one episode lisa was having some "Cat Trouble" snowball II ended up dying. she got two other cats and when they both died she got a third and it looked like the original, late, snowball II. She called it Snowball III but decided to say it was Snowball II to avoid confusion. I dont know the episodes name sadly. -- JordanTuck ( talk) 05:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)♫♫
Some of the main recurring themes on the Simpsons include self-deprecation and plot drift, but other than what's in the episodes, I can't find any sources to back me up. Should I put it in the article? -- Hydrokinetics12 ( talk) 02:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't feel like a description of what one internet journalist thinks of each Simpsons episode of this, the 19th season, is interesting, informative or encyclopedic. The "Reception" section should be axed, in my opinion.
Fair enough I suppose, although it still seems silly to me. Ah well, best to leave these matters to you experienced types. -- 66.31.169.12 04:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
For the 19th season, a new gag started where some of the people Bart passes on the street on his skateboard (Mrs. Lovejoy and Chief Wiggum) say different things from episode to episode. First, my adding it to the article as undone as "unsourced". Then, someone claimed it's not notable enough. How is it notable enough? It's a gag that's probably gonna be recurring for every single time that segment is included in the opening sequence. It's also an extremely late addition, it took 19 years for them to add it. And it only takes up two lines to mention it. -- FallenAngelII XX:XX, 2 December 2007 (GMT+1)
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)~
The main page picture doesn't represent this article at all...how horrendous...bad job, wikipedia editors.
Shockingly inane image - should have been a shot of the family. Sad mouse ( talk) 05:30, 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. Gran 2 20:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. -- Scorpion 0422 02:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow...Well, oh well. :( Steinarb999 ( talk) 03:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
-- Hippieslayer ( talk) 01:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC) I agree with them they should use the family portrait as the main pic. (hippie slayer)
'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)
'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)
Dude they should edited the main pic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippieslayer ( talk • contribs) 01:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
What about the show becoming mroe surreal over time? I mean one of the latest episodes includes things like a racoon family exactly matching the simpsons and an army of worms defeating homer. The earlier episodes seem more based in everday situations and problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.139.94 ( talk) 16:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
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 [4]. -- Maniwar ( talk) 01:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is a great reference to how the simpsons has impacted the world. [5] 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)
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)
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)
i was looking at the article and didnt notice any information about the simpsons aging. within the series, it has been a trend that the characters never grow are age...lisa and bart do not age or graduate into the next grades at school, even though halloween passes every year as well as christmas. if someone can find reliable sources for this, is aging notable enough to placed in the article. it may already be mentioned somewhere in the article, i just didnt find it. thoughts?-- ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 20:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Well Lisa is 8 and I have no idea how old Maggie is!! Have they ever mentioned this?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.9.227 ( talk) 00:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Reason why i ask is becuase on Episode 4 of Season 10 "Tree House of Horrer IX" At about 15:00 Minutes in the show, Maggie is telepathicly calling out to her alien parent & the call zooms out of the house,town,country then world which the state of Louisiana or mississippi is located under so i was just wondering do we know which state they are in and if so this should be posted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.136.132 ( talk) 04:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
There are some notes on the episode commentary for Lisa's First Word that describe the continuity with age problems. Matt G also states that originally The Simpsons was going to be set in "an alternate universe where nothing was exactly the same as ours, including presidents and famous people, it was all gonna be a completely fictitious world. ...And they lived in some kind of vague 50's, 60's world taken from sitcoms. But that was abandoned very early on. It was kept in the Tracy Ulman shorts but then it fell apart." Just an interesting note that I think should be looked into. -- Simpsons fan 66 00:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
i would like to add the image: Simpsons-cast.jpg i think it is better that the current image in the character section because is shows more characters. does anyone agree or disagree FW07 ( talk) 13:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
"The Simpsons Movie, a feature-length film, was released in theaters worldwide on July 26 and July 27, 2007"
Wish it was (living in Japan) it was released worldwide on these dates: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0462538/releaseinfo
In Japan they also replaced the original Japanese voice dubbers with other celebrities causing angering long time fans of the show in Japan: http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=2698 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djsilver ( talk • contribs) 04:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is a section about criticism 2/3 praise and apologism? Controversy over the perception of decline in quality of show is a major issue for fans (and ex-fans) and should be elaborated on - and maybe the praise moved to a different section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.173.68 ( talk) 05:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
why not link to List of recurring characters from The Simpsons? it could fit in this line: Hank Azaria voices recurring characters such as... 75.118.48.215 ( talk) 15:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Could someone list the series of the simpsons, especially the date when they were aired? It would be great of such information could be either put into the page, or a link to it (with a prominent notice) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.103.172 ( talk) 15:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Under this section there are two separate paragraphs that both address voice actor pay disputes.
202.89.185.197 ( talk) 12:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
Yes, Dan Castellanata has often clairified this in interviews. "Annoyed grunt" was what was written on his scripts, so he copied Finlayson's "Doooooooooooh!", but Matt told him this took too much time, so he shortened it to 'D'oh!".
This has been reflected in episode titles as an 'in joke'; for example, "Supercalifragilisticexpiali<Annoyed grunt>cious" DanTheShrew ( talk) 14:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't there any mention of once popular (but now outdated) phrases like "Don't have a cow, man"? WJS 9:34, May 28, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.249.251 ( talk) 13:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
But they definitely "influenced" our language with it. Under the category, they specify that "D'oh" wasn't invented by Simpsons producers either. What about Apu's contraversial "Thank you come again!"? They're all phrases that were made very popular by the Simpsons, but can't be credited by the producers. They didn't "invent" these phrases. WJS, 3:18PM, May 28, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.249.251 ( talk) 19:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
New word to add
Another word offered up by The Simpsons is "embiggen". Originally used in the 1996 episode Lisa the Iconoclast, it has now been found in physics! From a String Theory paper titled Gauge/gravity duality and meta-stable dynamical supersymmetry breaking by Stanford University physicist Shamit Kachru and three others: "While in both cases for P anti-D3-branes the probe approximation is clearly not good, in the set up of this paper we could argue that there is a competing effect which can overcome the desire of the anti-D3s to embiggen, namely their attraction towards the wrapped D5s. Hence, also on the gravity side, the non-supersymmetric states would naively be meta-stable." This paper and the use of the word "embiggen" is discussed with humor and scientific detail on the Scientific American blog at Scian.com
[6]
24.205.138.122 (
talk)
09:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC) (New Here)
Jebus/Jeebus
Jebus (The Simpsons) redirects to the "Influences on Language" section of this article, where Jebus/Jeebus isn't even mentioned. I'm not saying it should be included, but isn't this behavior a bit strange? To redirect to a place where the original subject isn't even mentioned? What do you guys think would be the proper solution?
JGerretse (
talk)
19:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't it in the " Influences on language" section? -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 00:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Whatever happened to that wonderful section, Traveling in the Simpsons? If it was deleted due to being too much like a fan guide, then how come List of Homer's Jobs" is still there?-- Coin945 ( talk) 14:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm just saying that it's a similar type of article - a list, so I was wondering why that particular article was left, while the 'Traveling' article has been deleted.-- Coin945 ( talk) 14:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Read this:
AVC: Is it true that James L. Brooks originally wanted to adapt Life In Hell for The Tracey Ullman Show, but you refused because you would have had to relinquish your rights to the characters?
MG: No, it was that I had this good gig going with my weekly comic strip, and I was actually afraid that if the animated cartoon didn't work out, there would be a taint on my weekly comic-strip job. So I created The Simpsons on the spot, thinking that if it did fail, I could just go back and draw rabbits, and no one would be the wiser.
link: http://www.avclub.com/content/node/47771/2 198.85.228.129 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Even in the "America's First Family" featurette in The Simpsons season one DVD boxset, Groening says he didn't want to ruin his characters. He says nothing about the rights to them. 198.85.228.129 ( talk) 19:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
That's an important part of the show: the dozens of fan-created websites (in various languages), the relationship between the fans and show's staff, particularly, its influence on the show's humor (freeze frame gags, entire episodes, such as "The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show"), the websites snpp.com and nohomersclub.net (which the staff has directly addressed in particular episodes and commentaries), the fact that The Simpsons is a featured article on Wikipedia—there should be at least a paragraph about this in this article.
Bear in mind that I am aware that Wikipedia is not a fan site. Nonetheless, I believe this article needs to address this in some way. To leave out this unique facet of The Simpsons (and The Simpsons alone) is akin to leaving out any other segment of the show. 198.85.228.129 ( talk) 21:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
In Mexico, it is common to see T-shirts or framed posters with the main Simpsons characters as other popular culture characters: "Simpsons in Black", "Spider-bart", "La Ley de H(om)erodes", etc. This use dates back at least to the mid-90s, and I doubt any license fees are changing hands in most cases. I never understood it myself, but there are whole stores that seem to be devoted to this stuff. In Guatemala, you see it sometimes, but it is much rarer. Homunq ( talk) 13:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
BART: But wikipedia says he was passionate about rehearsals! HOMER: Don't worry about wikipedia, we'll change it when we get home. *snarls* we'll change a lot of things.
Simpsons episode "Apocalypse Cow" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.45.194 ( talk) 19:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
supI've seen that in the external links to the other wikipedias is a mistake, because in spanish Wikipedia, the simpsons is a good article and if the community aproves it'll be featured article in a few days. Thank you, -- Joanlm ( talk) 20:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Much of the content in the intro is immediately repeated in the following Origins section. I'd clean it up but I'd probably hack off some fan who is better equipped to do the editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.105.214 ( talk) 01:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
From the first paragraph of the article: "aspects of the human condition including American culture, society, and television(my italics)". How can American culture or tv be described as elements of the human condition? They might be aspects of some human lives but that isn't the same thing. The human condition is necessarily universal, surely. On a side note, it seems like maybe the lead should mention the criticisms about the decline in quality. Other than that, this is a really good article, well done guys. 90.192.223.119 ( talk) 17:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I think this article should be locked because it is perfect right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angry Dad ( talk • contribs) 12:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Even though it's continuing to at least 2012 and surpassing Gunsmoke, shouldn't it be labelled as the longest-running primetime series? Since there's a lot more series (like NBC's Meet The Press, soap operas like As The World Turns, etc.) that have been on forever. Seems to me, labelling it as the longest running series ever is a bit of a misnomer. Caleb Osment ( talk) 01:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not 2012 though isn't it! 123.2.85.195 ( talk) 10:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm suprised thier isn't a page (or sub-page) based on Bender (Futurama Character) throughout the show. If there is I'd really like to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.85.195 ( talk) 10:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I do not see any mention in this article as to why the Simpsons never age. Mdriver1981 ( talk) 02:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
For some bizarre reason the article is locked so I can't add it but someone needs to add a specific reference to the couch gag in the recurring themes sections. It's only obliquely referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.69.176 ( talk) 17:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I have doubts about the first three expressions mentioned in the language influence-section being Simpson originals. Compared to "d'oh" and "cromulent", they are very generic. "Excellent" is the more likely of the three, but it's pretty likely that it's been used many times before, quite possibly with the same intonation. "HA-ha" could just as well be something that was widespread before The Simpsons. (It seems pretty obvious that people have taunted each other with over-articulated laughter before 1990.) "Woohoo!" definitely seems like something that hasn't been invented by any Simpson-writer. The problem is that claims about these expressions don't appear to be referenced.
Peter Isotalo 08:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Cromulent was first used in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, not the Simpsons.
208.2.205.162 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC).
That's a perfectly cromulent point. DFS ( talk) 16:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
A passage about the critical opinions stated about Fox within the Simpsons episodes would further enhance the quality of this article, also taking into account possible reactions of Fox. There are episodes which claim or imply that Fox supports the Republicans financially and through biased broadcasting, fuels hatred against 'liberals' while at the same time being hypocritical by showing beyond-shallow programs. In the article, there's a passage about a contract clause prohibiting Fox from interfering with the Simpsons content, however a bit more in-depth information on this very special relationship between the Simpsons and Fox would certainly be interesting. 85.180.180.56 ( talk) 14:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if we could source it, but if you can, please add it! It sounds quite interesting. Xanthic-Ztk ( talk) 03:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The Simpsons is not the first Fox show to poke fun/criticize the very network it is broadcast on. Married with Children did countless Fox gags. I think a lot of it has to do with Fox's status as the fledgling fourth network. The Fox News Channel is a fairly new phenomenon considering the 20 year history of the Simpsons. The Simpsons made fun of Fox before the Fox News Channel ever existed. Galeforce winds13 ( talk) 09:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
somewhere in the article it is written "showrunner." is that even a word? as i understand it, it is meant to be written as "show runner." Twipley ( talk) 14:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, both are acceptable forms of the word. DFS ( talk) 16:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip ( talk) 11:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
It says in the article that The Simpsons are middle class. I always thought of them as being towards the upper end of the working class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writelotspaynone ( talk • contribs) 18:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Does Homer have a white clollar job? I thought it was unskilled. -- Writelotspaynone ( talk) 20:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I think there should be a section mentioning the criticism which has been growing lately that the show has become rather stale and done, and the suggestion that it should be brought to an end, particularly the criticism which has appeared in other shows such as Family Guy. Bshrode ( talk) 21:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion taking place over at the List of South Park episodes concerning the notability of the majority of the South Park articles. The final decision with those episodes may effect this project in the future also. More opinions are wanted and needed at the talk page so that we can get a better idea of the consensus. Thank you. Ikip ( talk) 02:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
11April2009 the Simpsons will be made into a 44 cent stamp issued 07May2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by VMegladonv ( talk • contribs) 18:49, 11 April 2009 featuring the 5 main cast members, Homer, Marge, Lisa, Bart and Maggie vMegladonv(UTC)
In the article it says "When the first season DVD was released in 2001, it quickly became the best-selling television DVD in history, although it was later overtaken by the first season of Chappelle's Show.". This claim is supported by a source, but I have reasons to question whether this is true. My problem with the statement is that it says "in history". Saying that would mean that it is the best selling DVD ever in the whole world. I seriously doubt it. It is not syndicated to the rest of the world. In fact it is only released in Region 1. Americans have a tendency to use the terms "all time" and "world champion" about statistics that only refer to Americans. Also, the article mentions that the source is Nielsen VideoScan, which only collects data from USA and Canada. I think we should rephrase that sentence. -- Maitch ( talk) 22:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't it make much more sense to put the characters and the Setting sections on the top of the article ? TheCuriousGnome ( talk) 16:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't most television show wiki entries include ratings? There should be a table of the season averages with each season number linking to the list of episodes with the viewership for each individual episode. Is this information not available? The13thzen ( talk) 21:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
This box is uncited and currently has a {{fact}} tag on it. This should be fixed so that the article doesn't go to FAR. I have looked on the internet and it is hard to find a reliable source that tells what episodes that different studios were involved with. The only site I can find is this, but I would consider that an unreliable source. So what do we do with the box? Should we just delete it? -- Maitch ( talk) 14:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, we know for a fact that those are the animation studios. And that Akom handled the first two seasons (I also know that they did the first six season three episodes, HOMR, The Wettest Stories Ever Told, Trilogy of Error and a few others). Maybe we should update the episode list to show which company did which show, kinda like the episode list for Tiny Toon Adventures.
Just a suggestion, that's all. Philipnova798 ( talk) 23:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I was removing those images in this article failing WP:NFCC, and I noticed that an image of Julie Cavner was missing, there is a free image on Flikr [8], if someone wants to upload it. Fasach Nua ( talk) 19:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
In the opening paragraph: Of course the family are fictional, but isn't it logical to assume that the show is named after the family rather than the family named after the show? If that assumption holds, then the show is "eponymous" rather than the family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.29.49 ( talk • contribs) 04:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
the simpsons sixth season is on air in the Arab world through Fox Series channel subtitled into Arabic with minor censorship and its getting postive reviewes.
sorry new to editing somthing about semi protected contents and new users, am feeling alot like Homer now! Nabkawe ( talk) 01:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Someone needs to change the footnote under the family portrait on the page The Simpsons from "Snowball II" to "Snowball V". In " I, (Annoyed Grunt)-Bot" Snowball II dies, then snowball III, then Coltrane. Their current cat is Snowball V. Dehodson2 ( talk) 05:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The Criticism of declining quality section starts thus: "Critics' reviews of new Simpsons episodes praised the show for its wit, realism, and intelligence": given that the articles linked to in support of this statement are from 1990 and 1993, surely this should refer to early Simpsons episodes instead? (I cannot edit semiprotected pages, so maybe someone else could.) Inkin73 ( talk) 02:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I think chapter 7 should really be a subsection of the following Chapter, Reception and achievements. Also, I would like to move the Character Section down the list to after the Themes Section, just makes the article more 'ordered'. What do you think? Tprosser ( talk) 08:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm starting to think we should merge that page here. There are few sources, and some of the jokes added are either very minor (especially in the catchphrases section), not actually recurring (Lisa's "If anybody needs me I'll be in my room" - has that actually been used more than once?) or are a comedy staple used in many shows (ie. "Comical establishments"). The article should either be merged, or we should come up with some kind of criteria, because looking at it, it's a huge mess with some things randomly added by IPs and some notable jokes are not mentioned at all (for example, is the "Floorboard gag" really more notable than, say, Homer taking a great deal of physical pain?). -- Scorpion 0422 02:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
They are believed to live somewhere in Iowa based on the fact that in episode 10 of season 19 titled “E pluribus wiggum” at approximately 6 minutes 10 seconds in to the episode. Lisa states that their state’s primary elections are first in the nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnight21108 ( talk • contribs) 04:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this new? I thought some of the crazy things he said about how they made him record his lines could be put into the article -- as though the show is put out by the Secret Service. DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 19:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
What was the rationale behind having a gallery of the voice cast? There was a decision to include one on the Family Guy article, but I don't like it. I am not sure what purpose it serves. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 19:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
After watching a couple of versions of the new HD opening sequence, I have noticed some parts that changes often:
Just thought I should mention this ... Frxstrem ( talk) 19:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Also the TV doesn't always fall off the wall at the end P38fln ( talk) 02:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
If a registered user could make this change: in the lead it's mentioned that The Simpsons is the longest-running prime time entertainment series. In truth of fact it could be argued that Hallmark Hall of Fame and Wonderful World of Disney lasted longer (by decades). However the distinction is that The Simpsons is broadcast on a regular weekly schedule (which disqualifies Hallmark) and features continuing characters (which disqualifies Disney), so this should be noted. 68.146.81.123 ( talk) 20:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The article asserts that Tracey Ullman's claim that "her show was the source of the series' success [and that] she should receive a share of the profits of The Simpsons" was "rejected by the courts" (citing Frank Spotnitz, "Eat my shorts!", Entertainment Weekly, p. 8(1), Oct. 23, 1992). However, the Tracey Ullman article states - helpfully providing no reference - "A settlement was reached whereby Ullman would receive a portion of the profits made from the show, although no amount was ever publicly disclosed." Krakatoa ( talk) 20:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Not sure how this would fit in, but it's doubtless that The Simpsons have had a larger impact on American Pop Culture than is listed here. Fall Out Boy, I Voted For Kodos, and Evergreen Terrace are all bands named after The Simpsons. Is this of note? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.219.43 ( talk) 17:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea for a new article about all the songs/parts of songs used in Simpsons episodes. Lots of people watch the show and hear a good song and then try to look it up. Or is this already exist? And I'm just too lazy to sign in to my real account, so I'll use this IP Address. -- 98.26.27.218 ( talk) 00:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The introduction calls them "middle class", I had thought that (in the beginning at least) they were meant to be a working class family? I think I have read that in official stuff... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.243.37 ( talk) 22:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I can't find the original source but IMBD and a whole lot of other stuff have the exact phrase "working class family". http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096697/ - Fox TV DVD site also says it - http://www.foxtvdvd.co.uk/brand_view.php?ID=1 - "The Simpsons Season 1 The beginning of the satiric adventures of a working class family in the misfit city of Springfield." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.243.37 ( talk) 11:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I think... "The series is a satirical parody of a middle class American lifestyle epitomized by its eponymous family, which consists of Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa, and Maggie." Should be changed to... "The series is a satirical parody of the life of a working class American family, which consists of Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa, and Maggie." There are much more sources calling them working class than middle class. A lot of the earlier episodes were about the family's money struggles, Homer running the union etc. ChrisKnott ( talk) 10:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Throughout the series Homer mentions themselves as Upper-Lower-Middle class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.85.195 ( talk) 01:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Just a simple search on Google Groups for the earliest coupling of "worst episode ever" and "Simpsons" provides this:
Which demonstrates, I believe, that people already thought the quality was declining by the fourth season--which, to be honest, is later than I remember that phrase starting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.36.164 ( talk) 00:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I have placed the show in these already existing categories in addition to animated, but it has been reverted, several times.. I have asked why and please tell me the explanation to the reverts, and it is just reverted again with no explanation. I placed it here because 1) the categories are for American comedy television series and this is an American comedy television series.. 2) not all animated shows are comedy shows... Please explain the reason the categories keep getting removed, I have asked for explanation twice, but none is being provided. Ejfetters ( talk) 21:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I propose that we put the nielsen rating average for the season and give them a section I find a lot of them Joe59108 ( talk) 02:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Joe59108
Well I suggest we put it on or at least put the average ratings on the Season pages TheSimpsonsRocks ( talk) 18:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)TheSimpsonsRocks
I saw somewhere it said conservatives complained about the show. This is political and biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treyjag ( talk • contribs) 02:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The article states a ratings decline from 13.4 to 7.7 million viewers up until 2008. Due to the length of running of the show, however, the change in population should be taken into account, viewed here: http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=uspopulation&met=population&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+population
If adjusted for population increase (up almost 50 million from 1989 to 2008 to 304 million), then the equivalent number of viewers of season 19 (ie viewer ratings had this season been aired in 1989) would only be 6.2 million, a whole 1.5 million lower due to a ratio population change of 1.23. The percentage of viewers per population has fallen from 5.4 % in 1989 to 2.5 % in 2008.
Has this issue been raised before? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.192.102 ( talk) 17:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
This article states that Springfield is a city name in more than half of US states. (The ref link for this is dead.) However List_of_the_most_common_U.S._place_names#Springfield_.2832.29 indicates there are only 22. One of these is wrong obviously (I'm not certain which). 59.101.12.162 ( talk) 18:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The article states 'The Simpsons was the first successful animated program in prime time since Wait Till Your Father Gets Home in the 1970s.'. This is false as I can name Danger Mouse (1981-1992) just for starters. However, it is more than just a simple edit to correct this and I am not going to delete a large paragraph without first discussing it? kimdino ( talk) 17:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we could replace the phrase "has become a common variety of phrase" regarding new insect overlords with "has become a snowclone"; see http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000399.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.100.91 ( talk) 17:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The info at the side of the article states alf clausen is the composer. Danny Elfman wrote it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.235.57 ( talk) 19:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Under the picture of the writers there is s woman listed in the front as unknown. Her name is Leslie Richter. Can you please change it from unknown to Leslie Richter?
161.149.63.183 ( talk) 19:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
About the humor in The Simpsons : http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheSimpsons It would be good to add it to the "external links" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.26.68 ( talk) 12:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Lately critics have stated the show has been some what getting better and i was wondering if we could put this in the article. NoD'ohnuts ( talk) 19:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts
Well if you look at the reviews of season 20 and season 21 episodes many say the seriesh as gotten better for example IGN, TV Squad NoD'ohnuts ( talk) 07:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts
OK I'd like to also say
TV Squad,
A.V. Club, and the others o reviewed season 21 episodes
NoD'ohnuts (
talk)
18:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts
One of them says lately the series has got better and called this season better than the ones in previous years NoD'ohnuts ( talk) 16:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts
{{ editsemiprotected}} the simpsons were based on a midwest family in colorado.
69.230.192.46 ( talk) 03:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you think it is worth mentioning that the simpsons is only renewed until next season? http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40254 76.222.232.160 ( talk) 17:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Speculation? Didn't you read the link? The Simpsons are over next season. 76.222.232.160 ( talk) 18:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
My point is if it is only renewed through that season, it may end if it isn't renewed again especiall 76.222.232.160 ( talk) 21:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm just wondering how on Earth you guys managed to get parts of the lead infobox to appear yellow? -- .: Alex :. 14:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Opinions from critics, analysis of certain characters and episodes, etc.
[Subsection] Content as it is now.
Content from 'Early success'
[Subsection] Content as it is now.
Content as it is now.
Australians didn't take offence to the episode about australia - we love that episode, it was hilarious, in fact i'd go so far as to say that we most likely appreciate the humour of the episode more than anyone - and the article quoted as a source, refers to the uproar within the episode, not any actual uproar that ever took place. i'd be more likely to take offence to the fact that ppl think we'd actually take offence to this episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.237.63 ( talk) 02:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
[Subsection] Content as it is now.
This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
![]() | Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC).
From sources I have gathered, The Simpsons is the longest running TV series still going on. They are WRONG. It is Doctor Who. Doctor Who was created in 1965 and is still going on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.49.94 ( talk) 16:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
The article doesn't say The Simpsons is "TV's longest running show" it says its the longest running American animated show (which it is), the longest running "American primetime, scripted television series" (which it is) and the longest running sitcom in terms of episode count (which it is). General Hospital is not primetime. Doctor Who was off-air for the better part of 15 years before it came back. Gran 2 17:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
This article uses inconsistent formatting when it comes to naming seasons of the show. I see "Season 1" (which I believe to be correct), "Season One", and "season one". Shouldn't some consistency be brought to this, since this is a featured article?--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
In the Music section, all three TV music albums are referenced ("Songs in the Key of Springfield," "Go Simpsonic witht the Simpsons," and "The Simpsons: Testify"). It also mentions their first non-TV show album, "The Simpsons Sing the Blues." But it neglects to reference their second non-TV show album, "The Yellow Album." This was released in 1998. Can this reference be added? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.15.87 ( talk) 00:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Is this article part of WikiProject Conan O'Brien? I didn't know Conan O'Brien use to work for The Simpsons. JJ98 ( talk) 20:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Each episode takes 6 months to produce? They all are made in paralel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.143.47.33 ( talk) 23:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I think that in this TV series, there appear a lot of jokes abou Christinanity, the proof is that every time Ned Flanders speaks, there is a joke about him (=Christian). However, there is no mention inside the article. Do you think it would not be advisable to add something like that inside? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrancerCZ ( talk • contribs) 05:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The section as it is now has four subsections: 'Early success', which concentrates mainly on the show's initial commercial breakthroughs, 'Run length achievements', 'Awards', and 'Criticism and controversy'. Why isn't there a section with actual critical praise on the show? It's considered by many critics to be one of the greatest television series of all time, and yet in this article it's hard to see the show's actual praise and intellectual breakdown as to why it is as such. The section is quite confusing as it has critical praise sprinkled in 'Early success', 'Awards' and 'Criticism of declining quality'. The featured article The Wire is far more straightforward in this regard as the reader can quickly read critical opinions on the show. I'd suggest an effort to rework the section as such:
I think the short overview table on the seasons is appropriate in this article. There might be a better place for it than at the end though. Nergaal ( talk) 08:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Under criticism and controversy - the source (170) claiming that Australians had negative reactions to season 6 Simpsons episode Bart vs. Australia - has nothing whatsoever to do with Australians' reactions to the episode and is certainly not an encyclopaedic source. Any negative reaction in Australia was neglible amongst the vast majority of Australians - indeed "taking the piss" is key to Australian culture, and we are more than happy to take the piss out of ourselves. The episode indeed is loved by Australians. * This last point may be a generalisation - however, I for one take offence to the fact that someone has tried to fabricate on our behalf that there was one (and their citation should be removed). [shazzawozza] 202.89.165.153 ( talk) 17:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
You raise some valid points - and on second-reading it's not worded too badly. The source doesn't say anything else on the topic, however, the negative reaction in Australia was greatly countered by positive reaction. You do raise some valid points though - and yeah, the point i guess would stand as correct. 202.89.165.153 ( talk) 18:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Should the official website link at the bottom have "at Fox.com" at the end? It's not like Fox is hosting it at www.fox.com/thesimpsons AND seeing as it has it's own website, shouldn't it be "Official Website".
Another thing, is there any guidelines on how the official link to an articles own webpage (like The Simpsons) should be displayed as? eg: "Official Website, Official website, Official The Simpsons Website, The Simpsons official website... etc.
AnimatedZebra (
talk)
10:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The current version lists The Simpsons as:
The Simpsons is the longest-running American sitcom, the longest-running American animated program, and in 2009 it surpassed Gunsmoke as the longest running American primetime entertainment series.
Is it not true that The Simpsons is the longest-running sitcom, longest-running animated program, and longest running primetime entertainment series?
I think elimination of the "American" qualifier makes this fact more noteworthy.
Full Decent ( talk) 16:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
All opinions welcome. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 17:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The "External Links" section seems cluttered to me and so I have created a revision below...
Quotations related to
The Simpsons at Wikiquote
Media related to
The Simpsons at Wikimedia Commons
1: When linking to the official website of an article, "Official Website" is all that's needed, unless there's more than one for different countries.
2: Isn't Wikia the only other link we need? Wikipedia and Wikia both have a wealth of information for the show, why would we need the others?
3: Maybe change the top-right sidebar link from "Website" to "Official Website"?
So what do we think?
AnimatedZebra (
talk)
12:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
AnimatedZebra ( talk) 12:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
...Flies away to carry the Owl (official website link) up to the peak of the mountain... AnimatedZebra ( talk) 19:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
An editor added a reference to this article and it was reverted. It seems like a reliable source to me though and not merely promotional. I mean, it even cites a scientific article, and it says it is a summarized version of a book chapter. – CWenger ( talk) 02:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to edit this page due to some wrong info.
99.50.199.28 (
talk)
11:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
There is also a Simpsons Scene IT Dvd Trivia Game — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.170.32 ( talk) 00:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
It certainly has it's moments. And I imagine people considered it blue during the 90s.
What do you think? wikipedians. 188.222.41.105 ( talk) 17:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't able to find them all, and I wasn't sure to go by viewers or share. Anyway, I didn't add them to the article since so many are missing. Here is what I was able to find in case someone wants to add them anyway and for the missing seasons just write "not in the top 30" or something like that.
Rank Source
Gilliganfanatic 13:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
There is a spoken version of the article, as of 2008. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky ( talk) 20:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
There have been rumors that the upcoming season of the Simpsons (season 23) will be the final season of the Simpsons. I think they should mention that on the page " The Simpsons (season 23)". The proud fans of the Simpsons and Wikipedia have a right to know that people think the final season of the Simpsons, though unimaginable, may be nearing us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LABS4EVER ( talk • contribs) 00:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Simpsons episodes are animated by Korean animators.♥♥♥♥ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Einsteinpc ( talk • contribs) 00:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The article claims that the Simpsons is the Longest running sitcom (23 years). IT IS NOT!
If you include sitcoms that ran on TV but also ran on radio you have at least two longer running sitcom's:
Amos and Andy (TV; CBS 1951- 1953) (Radio NBC BLUE, CBS, NBC 1929-1960) 31 years The Jack Benny Show (TV: CBS, NBC 1950-1965) (Radio NBC BLUE, CBS, NBC 1932-1958) 33 years
Neither is it the longest running entertainment program. That belongs to:
Walt Disney (a.ka. Disneyland, Disneys World of Color, The Wonderful World of Disney) (ABC, CBS, NBC 1954- 1983, 1986- 1990) 33 years
Source:' Tim Brooks and Earle Marsh The Complete Directory of Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows, Ballantine Books October 1995 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicmanharold ( talk • contribs) 17:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Thesimpsons.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 01:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
I think that it should be mentioned on the Season 23 page that because of contract negotiations, FOX will cancel the show unless the voice actors take a 45% pay cut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.246.90 ( talk) 20:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I have created a sub section Catchphrases and moved it under the section Influences on culture to better corrospond to the article on catchphrases in popular culture. -- Cdw ♥'s ♪ ♫( talk) 15:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it's notable to mention that the show replacing The Simpsons was Baywatch Hawaii. 99.239.2.247 ( talk) 06:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused by the choice of image in the infobox. Other articles about TV programmes have the show's title screen as their lead image, but this one does not. Using a picture of the main characters instead means that the article could quite easily be confused for a completely different article about the characters themselves, i.e. the Simpson family article (which uses the same image, of course). For the sake of consistency, would it not make sense to have the have the lead image be a frame of show's intro, showing "THE SIMPSONS" emerging from the clouds? I think that would make more sense, and it would clarify that the article is about the show itself, and not about the characters. 138.38.215.67 ( talk) 19:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}}
Category:Television series about dysfunctional families suits this topic please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.105.155 ( talk • contribs)
hey guys, why would u delete my edit? i was trying to acknowledge on the article that the show is one of the best and wat-not. there is no excuse for u deleting the edit!!! but plz just lemme know why Oh babe ( talk) 20:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)oh_babe
That's good, but the articles for "the sopranos" and "friends" say that as well, but they also say something like "this is one of the greatest shows of all time". so i just added it for "simpsons" as well. Oh babe ( talk) 00:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)oh_babe
I am proposing to rename the article Non-English versions of The Simpsons and I would appreciate th views of other users in the discussion at Talk:Non-English versions of The Simpsons. C. 22468 ( talk) 19:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Since user Heonsi is intent making the Simpsons "working class", I'll provide a quote from Homer himself: http://www.quotefully.com/tvshow/The+Simpsons/Homer+Simpson/125/ "HOMER SIMPSON Whoa, careful now. These are dangerous streets for us upper-lower-middle-class types. So avoid eye contact, watch your pocketbook, and suspect everyone."-- Asher196 ( talk) 14:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Matt Groening is an undeniabe script author during the first season, which is contradicted at section 2:2, first paragraph. 203.11.71.124 ( talk) 05:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello Gran2,
It's clear that a claim of "declining quality" for "The Simpsons" is not supported by any sort of general consensus. Out of the thousands of writers and commenters for the worldwide "mainstream" media, only two such sources (BBC, CNN) are cited here - that's hardly any kind of general consensus. The CNN commenter, while more critical, qualifies his remarks by writing that the glory days of the show are long past "for MANY fans". He didn't write "most", just "many". How many is many? Also note that the BBC writer cites a 2006 episode as one of his Top Ten favorite Simpsons episodes ever.
Also, both the CNN and BBC articles were published more than two years ago, so they don't even reflect the most recent seasons of "The Simpsons" !!! The rest of the comments in the "declining quality" section are selective quotes by individuals and fansites, some of which date back to the year 2000 - hardly reflecting any kind of consensus.
Here's the main question: Is this "Criticism of declining quality" section appropriate for Wikipedia? Wikipedia content should be as fact-based as possible. When dealing with something as subjective as whether a show is improving or declining, the person making the claim needs to show clearly that there is a general consensus, one way or the other. We don't have that here. The section is long, has many quotes, but doesn't reflect a general consensus. "The Simpsons" is routinely ranked as one of the best comedies ever (see the "Awards" section) and it will be with us for a long time to come. Individual opinions about whether the show is better now than ever, or worse than it was before, should be discussed at length in chat forums, not in a Wikipedia article.
Finqqq ( talk) 19:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Leftorium: You're missing my main point. Subjective opinions belong in chat forums, not in Wikipedia articles.
Actually, you are making my point for me. Suppose I told you that I can assure you that the general consensus is that the quality of the show has improved and that certainly, more than 97.3% of fans and critics have that opinion. Where would that leave us? An endless argument on a subjective opinion?
My point is, you're using Wikipedia to promote your own personal opinion. That's not what Wikipedia should be about.
Finqqq ( talk) 19:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I disagree that it is subjective. It is a fact that that a sizeable section of the shows fans and critics think it has declined. It doesn't say that it has declined. It doesn't say that all fans think it has declined. It's merely reflecting a very broad trend of opinion. That the BBC and CNN articles are two years out of date doesn't impede the point of a fan perception of decline over a lengthy period: that's exactly what they state. If you can find multiple reliable sources saying that a majority of fans think it keeps getting better then fine, that should be included. The section features opinions of those who don't think it has declined and if more can be found, they should be added as well. The section is not perfect, but it should be there in some form and I'm not just saying because I hate the show now. Other sources: [10], [11] Gran 2 20:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Gran2, Maitch -
I'd like to stay focused on the central point here - the "Criticism of Declining Quality" text might be OK for a chat forum, but it really doesn't meet the standards for a Wikipedia article. Of the Wikipedia "Five Pillars", the first pillar ("Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia") states that "Wikipedia is NOT for unverifiable material" ... the content needs to be verifiable. The second pillar states that "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view". Starting with the section heading, the text is definitely not neutral - it strongly supports the opinion that the show has declined.
Words like "improved" or "declined" actually ARE subjective, by definition. They are not measurable, they are opinions. We can cite the opinions of the BBC and CNN writers, but that doesn't mean they're right. We could be like Comic Book Guy and collect dozens of quotes from the internet from various sources to support one opinion or the other, and then dump them all into Wikipedia. But that wouldn't actually prove a thing ... it would just be a collection of opinions that wouldn't "verify" anything.
You've made it clear that in your opinion, the show has declined and your opinion is highlighted in the article. We could have an endless discussion about it on chat forums, and it might be interesting, but it wouldn't be appropriate on Wikipedia. The "declining quality" section can't be fixed by adding additional text or quotes. The problem is that an opinion piece just doesn't belong in the middle of an encyclopedia article.
Finqqq ( talk) 23:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Maitch - The world is actually objective (it has a fixed size and shape and it orbits the sun in a defined path), but people's opinions are subjective. Another objective fact is that Wikipedia has "Five Pillars" which define "the point of Wikipedia." I'm not citing my opinion about Wikipedia, I'm citing Wikipedia's Pillars Number One and Two. Pillar Number One contains the statement "Wikipedia is NOT for unverifiable material". Pillar Number Two states that "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view".
Here are some pertinent objective facts:
1) Wikipedia articles are to be written from a "neutral point of view" (Wikipedia Pillar 2)
2) The "Criticism of declining quality" section is clearly biased in favor of the opinion that the show has declined.
3) Gran2 has stated "I hate the show now" (see above).
4) You also appear to share the view that the quality of the show has declined.
5) Both of you edit "The Simpsons" article, but you both have a strong opinion on this particular issue.
6) Wikipedia's Pillars also state that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox." It should not be used to promote a particular viewpoint, it should be written from a "neutral point of view".
I honestly believe that what you're doing with this section is very unfair, for the reasons stated above. You can argue the fine points, but in the big picture, you've taken your personal opinion and carefully framed it in order to promote your viewpoint in a Wikipedia article. Injecting this topic into a mostly fact-based article makes it stick out like a sore thumb. Editors of reputable newspapers recognize when they have a personal bias and are unable to be neutral about a subject (I'm talking about news stories, not editorials) - they recuse themselves in cases like that. I know it's not easy, but I'm asking you to be a little self-critical, take a fresh look at the issue and try to see it from the perspective of someone who disagrees with you. Being a good editor isn't easy - it requires you to be your own harshest critic if you want to do the job well. Thanks.
Finqqq ( talk) 17:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)