Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/The Simpsons main cast members

The Simpsons main cast members[edit]

The Simpsons main cast members

7 articles

Co-nominators: Scorpion0422, Gran2 and Theleftorium.

This is a topic for all of the main cast members of The Simpsons (please note that Hank Azaria and Harry Shearer may make it to FA some day, so the topic could be switched to FT, if promoted). I know some users may say that we are just selecting the cast members and not including the minor ones, but these six are undisputedly the only main cast members. They have been credited on every episode (well, except Azaria, who became a main cast member in season 2), and the Fox promotional website only includes those six [1][2]. Anyway, enjoy. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 17:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nergaal (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Keep it up. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 14:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I am a bit uneasy with the scope reduction from the regular cast to the main cast, especially when adding the rest of the regular cast (both former and current) would only add a further 11 articles to bring the total to 18, which is not too big for a topic. However these 6 certainly do form the main cast of the show, and as such, while I feel this topic needlessly scope narrows, I also feel that it has a well defined scope, and hence I vote neutral - 21:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question The nominator makes a good argument about why these cast members are more important than any others. However, I wonder whether there were any cast members who were very important in the early series but would not be credited now. One name that immediately comes to mind is Phil Hartman, who played key characters on the show but would not now be featured on the website due to the actor's death. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose the simple answer to your question is: no. But, there were some minor changes in the first few seasons. For example, in a couple very early episodes, several now recurring characters were voiced by Christopher Collins. However, Collins was never given anything more than an "also starring" credit. This is similar to Phil Hartman. He was a regular voice for seven seasons, but he was never credited as anything more than a guest star. However, if Hartman is considered a main cast member, why not Tress MacNeille or Pamela Hayden, who are the most common non-main cast members, or even Maggie Roswell, Russi Taylor or Marcia Wallace, who (similar to Hartman) voice at least one regular character? The simplest thing is to stick with the credited main cast, and those six are the only ones. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 02:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support yet another step on turning this into Homerpedia... igordebraga ≠ 18:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Oppose~~ List of cast members of The Simpsons was promoted in 07 back when standards were very different. It does not meet current standards, and the lead is in violation of WP:LEAD. These problems should really be addressed. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess subtlety isn't one of your strong suits, is it? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I take it that you didn't bother to read the requirements first? The list clearly doesn't meet FL standards for content, and there is a huge MoS violation with the Lead. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then nominate it for removal, and give me some better things to go on than "doesn't meet FL standards for content". I'm assuming that the "huge MoS violation with the Lead" you speak of is the ammount of non-summarizing text and references? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That would be "5 Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages." Normally, FL comply with this by having detailed information in the list itself. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, that's not always true because sometimes such information doesn't really have a place in any of the defined sections, and there is no need for an entire section for a small paragraph. Now, could you please give me some guidance so I will know exactly what you think needs fixing? -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 00:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:LEAD is 100% clear that there cannot be any original information in a lead. You could create a section called "history" or "background" at the top of the list and then summarize in the lead (i.e. move the current lead down into that new section). Now, your page is 23k, so, according to Wikipedia:LEAD#Length, you should only have two paragraphs in the lead. I am sure that you can easily summarize it into two paragraphs. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        So you're strong opposing solely because the lead is a little long... And yet, this isn't important enough for you to nominate the list for removal, just important enough for you to oppose this. I'd also like to point out that #length is just a suggestion. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 00:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If you want, I can put up the list for removal. However, the result in either case would be for you to do the above. Hell, I could do the above in 10-15 minutes. Why don't you just divert your efforts into improving your page instead of fighting against any changes? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not fighting changes, I'm trying to get you to be more specific. I've moved one paragraph into a section, anything else? You also have to remember that this is a list, not an article, so not everything in WP:LEAD applies. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 00:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        This is the specifics to leads in lists, which doesn't contradict anything in WP:LEAD about the lead only being a summary of content and specified to a certain size. The content at the top of the list is not specific to explaining the list, so it would have to go into its own section and then summarized in the lead (i.e. salaries and other such things). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There, I have moved most of the content out of the lead. Does it meet your standards? -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 00:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You have to admit, the page looks -a lot- better than what it did, no? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, make sure to remove one of the first two sentences in Background. There is a redundancy. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well as the original 'writer' of the list, I wouldn't really say it looks "a lot" better ;) but it is certainly an improvement. For the record I never really liked the list that much and didn't really expect it to pass when it did. Gran² 16:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Would love to see this become a FT.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is there a reason behind the order in which they appear in the box above? I would have expected them to be alphabetized, but if there is another rationale for the order, I'm open to that. This question isn't enough to get me to oppose, but I want to make sure there is a reason for the oder of cast members.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the order that they are listed in the end credits. It's very minor though, and can be switched to alphabetical order. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 15:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm fine with that, as long as there is a rational reason for the order... when I saw that it wasn't alphabetical, credit order was my guess. I do like, whether it is a coincidence or design, the fact that the FA is in the center top row. Helps it to stand out.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is probably better if this explanatory note is actually written in the article right before the table. Nergaal (talk) 05:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - topic number 7 for WP:DOH, with number 8 currently nominated as well! rst20xx (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]