→NPOV?: re |
The Giant Puffin (talk | contribs) {{WPB}} |
||
Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
|maindate=December 17, 2007 |
|maindate=December 17, 2007 |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{WPB |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|||
{{TelevisionWikiProject|class=FA|importance=Top|nested=yes}} |
|1={{TelevisionWikiProject|class=FA|importance=Top|nested=yes}} |
||
{{SimpsonWikiProject|class=FA|importance=top|nested=yes}} |
|2={{SimpsonWikiProject|class=FA|importance=top|nested=yes}} |
||
{{USAnimation|Simpsons|class=FA|importance=Top|nested=yes}} |
|3={{USAnimation|Simpsons|class=FA|importance=Top|nested=yes}} |
||
{{Comedy|class=FA|importance=Top|nested=yes}} |
|4={{Comedy|class=FA|importance=Top|nested=yes}} |
||
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=FA|category=Langlit|WPCD=yes|nested=yes}} |
|5={{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=FA|category=Langlit|WPCD=yes|nested=yes}} |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{todo}} |
{{todo}} |
Revision as of 09:52, 17 December 2007
The Simpsons is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 17, 2007. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
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)
- My suggestion, which I have already stated, is to use no image. --Teggles (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have a suggestion for an alternative image? - auburnpilot talk 02:07, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Shockingly inane image - should have been a shot of the family. Sad mouse (talk) 05:30, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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)