Talk:History of The Simpsons

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleHistory of The Simpsons was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 19, 2011Good article nomineeListed
February 5, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 6, 2007.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that The Simpsons' history began when Matt Groening conceived of the dysfunctional family in the lobby of James L. Brooks's office?
Current status: Delisted good article

Ideas for further expansion[edit]

The article could be improved if we mentioned the first use of 3D animation ("Treehouse of Horror VI"). It could also be noted that "Deep Space Homer" used some form of computer animation. In addition to that the article should mention the entire feud with the Bush family ("Two Bad Neighbors"). --Maitch 07:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should also mention the Who Shot Mr. Burns contest as well as the real Simpson house contest. --Maitch 07:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article would be better with a list of the significant events that have occured on the show such as Milhouse's parents spliting up, Maude Flanders death, Apu getting married and having a family ones that have had a permanent lasting effect on the show. Oh thats right Sargent Scorpion won't allow it because he seems to think he owns all The Simpsons articles on Wikipedia and dictates what can and can't be on here. Bhowden (talk) 06:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing cite?[edit]

There is a problem with cite 3. Cirt 16:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Great article![edit]

This is a most wonderful article. Well-done Maitch (talk · contribs) !! I must say I have not encountered much of your work (yet) on the project, though I have seen some of your featured stuff. You do great work. Cirt 16:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

List of changes within the show[edit]

A week ago I created a section listing the changes that have occured within the show, these are notable changes that have occured and have had a lasting change instead of reverting back to the way things were in the next episode or before the episode finished as the viewer would normally expect. These are things like Apu getting married and later Manjula having children and Milhouses parents spliting up. Anyone who didn't ever see these episode would have no idea such event occured and why such a change never happened, like I have never seen the episode where Barney gave up drinking and started flying a helicopter so I had no idea until I read about it somewhere. So I think this is a good idea, however Scorpion who seems to patrol these articles and removes any change he doesn't like doesn't like it. This info has a place somewhere within The Simpsons articles on Wikipedia, I don't think it is enough info for its own article and I know Sargent Scorpion would probably delete it like he did a few weeks ago with an article on businesses I wrote so decided this was the best place to put it. If someone can think of a better article then shift it there but this seems appropriate being in the History of The Simpsons. Bhowden (talk) 07:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize it was initially removed by someone else, right? By the way, I didn't delete the businesses article, I nominated it for deletion. It was the votes of a half a dozen others that deleted it.
This is an out of universe history of the show, it is not a dumping ground for cruft. The stuff you were adding doesn't really belong here. -- Scorpion0422 07:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got to agree with Scorp, it's a page about the out of universe history, so a list of permanent changes is really trivial cruft. The Simpsons Wiki would be a better place. Gran2 08:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Scorpion and Gran. That list is pretty trivial and fan crufty. --Maitch (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last person that reverted this did so saying it was uncited no other reason, I was quick to fix this saying it is cited as there is a reference to the episode the event occured in. The people that are going to read this and any thing else Simpsons related on Wikipedia are more than likely fans of the Simpsons, if I wasn't a fan of the Simpsons I wouldn't have even considered looking at these articles. It seems so stupid that everything has to match silly PC standards, most people that read this will find it interesting. I think this should be included before some of the other content within The Simpsons articles. Bhowden (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:New Orleans Chalk Gag.png[edit]

The image Image:New Orleans Chalk Gag.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contraversy/History[edit]

When i first went to this article, i thought it was going to be like: the earlier seasons, thr golden age, the movie, the dwindling years - a proper historical recount on the life of the simpsons - but it looks to me more like a list of all the controversy and advertising it has done over the years. There also seems to be a lot of repetition in the article, and the introduction at the beginning seems to have taken whole paragraphs from the middle of the article. I propose that either the title of the article of changed, or the content is.--Coin945 (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:History of The Simpsons/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk • contribs • count) 21:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's note: First of all - thanks for the review. It is much appreciated. Before I start responding to your critique, I would like to explain the editorial decisions behind the article. There is a lot of material available on The Simpsons. The Simpsons WikiProject has written 298 GA's and 22 FA's by now with more to come. I could probably write an 300KB article if I wanted to do that. I decided that I wanted it to be an overview article that should be kept under 100KB (first draft was 140KB), because I don't really think anyone would want to read 300KB about a cartoon. So I tried to make the article as tight as possible and only included the most important stuff. Maybe some sections are too short because of this, but the idea is that the season articles should provide even greater detail. I will try and work on your concerns. --Maitch (talk) 08:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be using the criteria below.AstroCog (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

* I'm putting this GA on hold while some of the issues below can be taken care of. I think it's a nice article, and not far from GA status. Article is passed, because of the recent improvements. AstroCog (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  • I think this article needs to have a background section at the beginning to explain the show, its characters, and basic setting & style for readers unfamiliar with it. I know it seems unlikely that there exists anybody who isn't familiar with the show, but the article should read well for such people. The lead should reflect this as well. Linking to the Simpsons article is fine, but it should start something like "The Simpsons, a long-running American animated sitcom airing on the Fox Network..." As I read the article, I get an "in-Universe" feeling to the writing. Not in the Universe of the fictional show, but in the Universe of its fans. Story arcs, episodes, and people are brought up without any background or context. For example, the "Treehouse of Horror" section or the "Who Shot Mr. Burns?" sections talk about these arcss/specials as if the reader is already familiar with them. It's not enough to just link to their pages, because article should stand alone. You don't have to add any great detail or plot summary, just some background and context. Does that make sense?
  • It does makes sense. I have been working on Simpsons articles for a long time and pretty much knows everything, so maybe I don't provide enough context for the casual reader. I will try and work on this. --Maitch (talk) 08:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
* Another good example of what I'm talking about: the "chalkboard gag" is mentioned a few times in the article without ever describing what it is. Example: "The Simpsons' producers rushed out an apologetic chalkboard gag for "Homer the Heretic", which aired a week after "A Streetcar Named Marge". It read, "I will not defame New Orleans." The gag should be briefly described earlier in the article.AstroCog (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think this article could use a copy edit. Some of the prose seems too informal, even if it's well referenced.
  • I want to encourage the editors of this article to look at the article The History of Sesame Street as model to follow. It's a FA, and I won't hold you to all of its standards for GA, but for basic structure and elegance of prose, it's an excellent place to look for guidance.
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  • The article, I think, recounts a lot of detail, but doesn't give the reader a sense of the broader impact of some of the controversies or creative decisions, apart from the immediate pop culture musings of the time. I would like to see something that wraps up the article with the show's cultural impact.
  • Almost all of the controversies (even those intentional left out of this article) did not have any broader impact than being in the news for a week or two. As noted in the article, the show holds an unusual contract, which pretty much allows them to do anything. So most of the time the producers just apologies for the time being and then end up doing the exact same thing later on. I could however, provide a section about the overall cultural impact of The Simpsons like The Simpsons#Television. Is that want you want?
* Yes, that's the kind of section that would be good. Also, I would take a careful look at the controversies, and decide which are really worth keeping. You said some were intentionally left out, so I guess some thought has been put into this. But if, as you said, many of the controversies were momentary blips in the news, I'm not sure they're notable enough for inclusion. Perhaps a section called Controversies could go something like: "Because of its unique approach and style, over the years The Simpsons has registered numerous minor controversies...For example, in 1991..." and then you could give some examples. I guess I don't see a need for separate sections for things like the "Feud with G.H.W. Bush". That is certainly notable enough for inclusion in the main part of the article, but I think it's a stretch to call it a "feud", and probably doesn't need a whole subsection. The same with the "New Orleans Controversy". Interesting, but not notable enough to have its own sub-section. So, in the Jean and Riess Years section, for example, my recommendation is to just use paragraphs and not sub-sections. A couple of other sections could be improved along these lines. AstroCog (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  • It's going to take me a while to read through this article carefully to see that the controversial statements are supported by neutral references. There's a lot about controversies in this article.
  1. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Seems stable.
  2. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  • Images, yes. However, it could use a fair-use image or two from the show itself, to illustrate relevant episodes or characters discussed in the article (e.g., Who Shot Mr. Burns?").
I have added two fair use images that both serves as identification for the article and shows the character development from the Tracey Ullman days to today. I don't think I am allowed much more, since the fair use policy is pretty strict these days. I noticed that History of Sesame Street doesn't have a single fair use image. --Maitch (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
* Additional images are good! Yeah, History of Sesame Street doesn't have show images, and I dinged the article for that during its FAN. The main editor of that article has been desperately trying to get images that the Sesame Street people will allow. Apparently, they are prone to issuing lawsuits.AstroCog (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
* I like the new images. I would just caution against going overboard now with pictures. For example, I'm not sure a pic of Rio De Janeiro is necessary.AstroCog (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Overall: I'm passing this article for GA status. The work since the GA review started has been quite good and the improvements have been adequate for the GA criteria.AstroCog (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Pass/Fail:

File:BarabaraPierceBush.PNG Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:BarabaraPierceBush.PNG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 7 September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of how it is able to be syndicated on cable now?[edit]

In the Cancellation threat section, it mentions how the show is possibly worth more cancelled than it is continuing because there is a deal in place that does not allow it to be syndicated on cable as long as the show is on the air. Then, just one paragraph later, it mentions the FXX syndication deal. But absolutely NO mention of how that is possible.

Does anyone know how that is possible? Did they compensate the channels that have been airing syndicated episodes all this time in exchange for dropping that part of the original contract? If the reason is known, it needs to be included, because that section as it is written sticks out like a sore thumb due to there being no mention of how what we just read was not allowed suddenly became allowed.198.255.149.63 (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of The Simpsons. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of The Simpsons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on History of The Simpsons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of The Simpsons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Modify records list[edit]

I would like to see each previous record holder mentioned in the section discussing the television records which the Simpsons have broken, I feel that listing theprevious record holders will give perspective to the accomplishments of the series when viewed in a historical context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.190.142 (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Life in Hell[edit]

The Simpsons first appeared as part of a comic strip by Matt Groening called Life In Hell prior to the Tracy Ullman Show. Later Tracy Ullman sued stating that rights to the Simpsons belonged to her show. She lost the lawsuit as Groening was able to prove the Simpsons preceded her show. Jjonagan (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The Simpsons is owned by FOX until 2082"?[edit]

What kind of Simpson rights does FOX own though, especially after the acquisition of Fox by a rival company? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@XXzoonamiXX: It appears this sentence simply references Fox's copyright over The Simpsons. Since the first shorts premiered in 1987, under U.S. copyright law, they would enter into the public domain 95 years after its first publication – that is, 2082. This isn't anything unique to The Simpsons. For example, the oldest Mickey Mouse cartoons from 1928 will enter into the public domain in the next few years. In addition, even though the oldest Simpsons cartoons would enter into the public domain in 2082, Fox (or Disney as the successor corporate entity, or whatever entity ultimately owns The Simpsons in 2082) could theoretically continue to own Simpsons-related trademarks, which last indefinitely as long as the owner of the trademark keeps the IP in use. Assuming of course that Disney still exists and owns The Simpsons in 2082. And further assuming that copyright/trademark law will remain the same in 2082 as it is now, which IMO is a bad assumption to make, given that copyright law was amended several times in the 20th century alone.
In short, I don't think this sentence is worth keeping in the article. Aside from being poorly sourced, I believe it's misleading given what I wrote above. Thanks, Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then why didn't it mention anything about copyrights and the like? The "rights" in that particular sentence is very vague, that I assume that Fox Corporation owns the rights to the franchise and Disney has a right to produce and finance the show. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I didn't write it. I assume whoever wrote it just copied the language from the random trivia site that was cited without knowing what it meant. I'm just going to remove the text because it doesn't add anything to the article. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't know whether it's a copyright or not? From my understanding, Disney owns the studio that makes the series, but Fox Corporation owns the rights to air the show as well as the franchise itself (?) https://www.cinemablend.com/television/2468719/what-happens-to-the-simpsons-now-that-disney-has-acquired-fox XXzoonamiXX (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I was clear in my response, sorry. The 2082 thing is most likely in regards to copyright. However, I can't say this for sure because the source does not clearly state what they're referring to (and I want to emphasize that I believe the source that was attached to the statement in the article, as well as the prior source that was attached to it when it was originally added, are not reliable sources).
As far as who owns the "rights" to the series, that's a question that is much more complicated than it seems on its face. Intellectual property rights are not straightforward in these contexts -- there are copyrights, trademarks, broadcast rights, syndication rights, licensing, royalties, etc., and all of these things may be held by multiple parties. At the most basic level, Fox is the entity that has current broadcast rights over the series and is the entity that drives the series forward -- it decides whether to renew the series for a new season, how many new episodes to order, etc. But, I would imagine that most of the intellectual property rights sit with the Disney-owned Twentieth Century Fox, not Fox Corporation (and I just did a quick search of copyright and trademark records that appears to confirm this).
In either case, I believe that the statement "Fox owns the Simpsons until 2082" is not appropriate to include in this article because it's vague (which "Fox" is the source talking about?), unnecessary (because most copyrighted works by businesses last for 95 years), misleading (IP rights are much more complicated than the statement makes it seem), and poorly sourced. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Swedish tv intro[edit]

The design of the characters, especially Bart Simpson, has an interesting precursor. In 1972, Gabor Csupó, twenty years old and still living in Hungary, designed an intro for a new programme of public info shorts on Swedish public-service tv (later SVT), Anslagstavlan ("The Notice Board"). The programme became a real long-runner and has survived for half a century, though in the last few years the original intro has sadly gone. The similarity of the guy posting a paper onto the board (see link below) to the style of the Simpsons is unmistakable though.

The vignette has been given a few updates over the years (probably all done or at least okayed by Csupo), but the general look always remained the same until it was replaced a few years back. Here's an upload of a videp capture from 1978, this is either the original or very close to it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPkULpK_W1A . 

The prominent yellow, the body structure and the bald head would all find their echoes in Bart and Homer Simpson nearly twenty years later. By 1989, Csupo was executive director not just of the animation studio, but also of the original animation team that designed the tv series version of the Simpson family. Strausszek (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

History of The Simpsons[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2011 promotion has not been adequately updated, meaning that the last decade is given much less weight than the two previous ones. This means GA criteria 3a) and 4) are not met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_The_Simpsons&oldid=1203721311"