Talk:Apocalypse Cow

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Reference[edit]

I remember the following from last night's episode about Wikipedia about 6 minutes into the episode (from when my DVR started recording, so it might be not be synced properly):

Bart: "But Wikipedia said he was passionate about rehearsal!"
Homer: "Don't you worry about Wikipedia. We'll change it when we get home. We'll change a lot of things."

Wouldn't this be noteworthy on the article? - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 13:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not noteworthy. We had the same problem in Funeral for a Fiend when Wikipedia is mentioned. Just because this is Wikipedia doesn't mean we need to mention every time they say it on The Simpsons or any other show, unless it is a main plot detail, which it isn't. CTJF83Talk 17:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not even on the "Cultural References" section? I think Wiki's a culture... wouldn't you think? ;) *nudge nudge* - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have any opinions on Wiki anymore, so add it if you want, other people, who I won't name, will probably delete though, so do what you want! CTJF83Talk 17:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, this episode is different than those episodes, as the wikipedia reference is longer and more detailed (I think I remember it was part of another conversation Bart and Homer had). I would allow the reference to be included because it's not just a mention like to other two. Rhino131 (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Don't be dramatic Ctjf83 :) I personally don't think we should reference every cultural reference, because if we mention everything that was mentioned it'll turn into a long unsourced list. I think we should keep it at parodies, though the Rocky and Wikipedia things are kind of borderline. If you want to add it, meh. The DominatorTalkEdits 23:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it should be mentioned, it is fun curiosity! Since when does Wikipedia have rules against mentioning too many things? What matters is mentioning them the right way. The first thing I did after seeing the episode was to check Wikipedia to see if it was mentioned - which it was, to my delight! Now, a couple of days later, I check in again only to find out that someone removed it. Personally, I think removing references just because they are connected to Wikipedia is a very boring attitude. I'm quite confident I'm not the only one checking for that reference right after seeing the episode. SBIT (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The rules for Wikipedia mentioning too many thing is here and this and this and even this apply. The DominatorTalkEdits 18:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, I think none of those guidelines apply here. I don't see anything in WP:NOT applying here and the reference should of course be properly sourced (eliminating WP:V and WP:RS) and as goes for notability - I suggest you read WP:NNC. SBIT (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that WP:TRIVIA applies the most here. Although, the Wikipedia reference was somewhat prominent and I would include it. It doesn't even need a {{fact}} tag because it was actually said in the article. The DominatorTalkEdits 19:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bull vs. Cow[edit]

Why one earth are they calling a bull a cow throughout this episode? How come that no one has said anything about this? This is just terrible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.46.34 (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it just looked like a bull. Rhino131 (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lou was definitely a bull. Mary tells Bart, "You do realize that's a boy, right?", to which Bart responds, "Oh, I thought she was just peeing out her nipple". Seansinc (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed a bull, but is it a notable enough error to include in the article? Possibly a passing mention in the plot summary? The DominatorTalkEdits 03:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Error and error... I think they call it a cow for the sake of the episode name. It just wouldn't work with bull. Don't call it an error unless you can find a source where the creators confirm that it was an error. SBIT (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every cartoon ever refers to bulls as cows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.87.28.191 (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a whole final 'Bart's gay' joke too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.46.157 (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casablanca Reference[edit]

I think that the scene where Lou get's on the plane is clearly a reference to the scene in Casablanca, where Ilsa get's on the plane. The words in Casablanca are: "If that plane leaves the ground and you're not with him, you'll regret it. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life." In this simpsons episode, Bart says: "Lou; if that plane leaves the ground and you're not on it, you'll regret it. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and defenitely after they kill you." And when Lou actually get's on the plane, Bart says: "Here's looking at you, cud!" which is obviously a reference to the famous line "Here's looking at you, kid." from Casablanca. A different reference to the same scene was already in the episode Natural Born Kissers, by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.56.88.107 (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was included in the article, it might have been accidentally removed. Please add new sections to the bottom in the future (just click the new section tab at the top) and sign your posts by typing ~~~~ which will automatically convert into a signature. The DominatorTalkEdits 14:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They also play La Marseillaise (the French National Anthem), maybe it is another reference --24.116.241.14 (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added it to the cultural references section although it's clumsily phrased at best. Cat-five - talk 03:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two-time running gag[edit]

It seems there are two instances where the name of a certain voice actress is mentioned: 1)Bart finds the CD "Anguished Animal Noises" by Tress MacNeille (like Frank Welker, seems she can also do animal noises) in the radio under his bed, and 2)while Homer is in the slaughter house, he hears a mechanized woman's voice and merrily says, "Hey, that sounded like Tress MacNeille." You don't suppose this episode pokes fun at the fact that Tress is the most common voice actress heard compared to the other voice actresses for the show, do you? --Secret C (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music[edit]

The score for this episode is written in the style of Aaron Copland, best known for Appalachian Spring and Hoedown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.254.11 (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The song heard repeatedly throughout the episode is Dream March by Aaron Copland from the Red Pony Suite. Bpr83 (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


My edit: "The background music while Bart drives the combine is: The Comancheros theme by Elmer Bernstein. The background music while the hogs, birds, and kids are being fed, as well as the long montage where Bart takes care of and grows his bull is "The Red Pony: Dream March and Circus Music" by Aaron Copland. The background music during the wedding is a novelty version of Pachelbel's Canon in D using hillbilly instruments such as a washboard and a tub & string bass." will continually be posted in this article. Someone keeps removing it with no exlpanation.

The Simpsons is a great source of music for people. The producers regularly include, but don't label in the credits, various important peices of music. I have repeatedly gone to Wikipedia's resource of Simpsons (and other television show) episodes to get the facts about these particular pieces of music. Sometimes the article has the information, and sometimes it does not. When it doesn't, I do extensive research and if I'm 100% sure, I'll post the information. I am not alone. I've seen forums and blogs with people out there asking for musical information from The Simpsons. This information is valuable to the fans.

Because of these facts, I will always post my edit on this page. Removing it won't stop it from coming back and providing this valuable information to the reader. --Anthonix (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think that wikipedia is a fan site, rather than a general encyclopedia. Firstly, you were inserting it into the plot summary, which is the wrong place. Second, and most importantly, it was all unsourced original research. THe majority of the other Simpsons articles (well, the good ones anyway) all have cultural reference sections, but the key difference is that they're all sourced. Find some RELIABLE (meaning not a fan site or youtube or a blog) then you can re-add it. -- Scorpion0422 02:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"You seem to think that [W]ikipedia is a fan site". Quite the contrary. I go to Wikipedia for facts, not opinions or spinned articles or speculation. I see that Wikipedia discourages "original research" however, the entire "plot" section of this article sites no sources. It's several people's interpretations of the plot and apparantly to you, what is notable. There is no way to site the plot section, however it is still valid. There are many instances where original research is the only way to provide a fact. Since you didn't take much time to read my explanation above, I'll clear it up for you. The "blogs" and "forums" I'm referring to are people asking questions. NOT my source for the information. I personally verified it myself - owning copies of all of the musical pieces in question. You have also removed other valuable pieces of information from the "plot" section from other contributors siting "speculation" etc. I'm all for keeping things simple and to the point, but from what I've read about what you do to Simpsons articles, you seem to jut hack away at anything you don't understand or think is personally important - to one "fan", which is you. Like you said, this isn't a "Fan Site". It's a fact site. Don't remove facts just because you don't understand them or they don't resonate with your own personal fandom. --Anthonix (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There are many instances where original research is the only way to provide a fact." - Wikipedia:No original research states: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." And: "The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts." Also from Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."
In other words, it doesn't matter if you know something to be true, unless a reliable third-party source says it is, it cannot be added. There's tonnes of stuff I'd love to add which I know is true, but I can't because I don't have a source for it. I'm sorry but that's just how Wikipedia works. Gran2 23:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I unfortunately have to accept this, But I do. As hard as it is to accept, and contrary to my initial edits of this article, I actually LIKE the fact that "No Original Research" matters after reading all of the Wikipedia guidelines. That's what makes Wikipedia articles valid. Sure, I've seen many sentences/paragraphs noted as "Citation Needed" in many other articles all over Wikipedia, but apparently, there are serious fans (well, like I would consider myself) of The Simpsons wanting to keep information from the show, and episodes very pure. And as much as I'd like to contribute regarding music trivia, My information doesn't follow those guidelines. That is a fact. I humbly accept this finally. I was wrong.

If I want to present to the world my information regarding music that has been significant in Simpsons episodes, I now know that it is my responsibility to provide a source for my information, not my personal "original research". I still feel it is valid information, but as a Wiki user I'll follow the rules and figure out something genuine to post. --Anthonix (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. I hope you stick around and help us at WP:DOH. Gran2 13:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous References[edit]

As a lover of Flemish Giants (they're supersized rabbits... how can you not adore them?), I was wondering if there is anywhere on the article I could mention that, while sorting chickens, Mary labels a chicken a type of rabbit... --Memoriesonfilm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.65.85 (talk) 06:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC) In the end credits we see "Special Guest Voice JEFF BEZOS" No mention in the IMDB or Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.1.150 (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Meanings[edit]

Why exactly does Wikipedia not have an index page for "Apocalypse Cow"? It means a lot more than just this episode. It's also an album of Milk inc, a character from the The Tick, a television show and a music record (Apocalypse Cow Records). Also how do you create a page like that?93.125.198.182 (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Authenticity of [7], Matt Groening's articles.[edit]

....seems fake, they keep talking about the Simpsons ride." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.46.157 (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Apocalypse Cow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 15:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apocalypse Cow. 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) 14:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 June 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 06:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalypse Cow → ? – Disambiguate from the Channel 4 documentary https://www.channel4.com/programmes/apocalypse-cow-how-meat-killed-the-planet Chidgk1 (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2022 (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:Apocalypse_Cow&oldid=1204907577"