Talk:The Two Mrs. Nahasapeemapetilons

GA Status
The article has passed Sections 4), and 5), corrections are needed on Sections 1), 2) 3) and 6).

Overall, the assessment is ON HOLD.

1) Style


 * No split infinitives allowed on Wikipedia - Rewrite "to thoroughly enjoy"

2) Accuracy


 * Introduction - Wiki-link "Hindu wedding"


 * Plot Section - Rewrite and expand plot detail starting "Mrs Nahasapeemapetilon enters,,,,,," I am presuming that you all have DVD's of this episode. If you watch the episode I think you will find that Manjula's mother enters the bedroom and Apu feigns shock at Marge in bed with Homer saying "Marge ! how could you !", Marge gives a weary shrug and tells Apu "to give it up" whereupon Apu confesses to his mother and she leads him out of the room holding him by his ear.

Apu is not tired of the "charade", he is forced into the truth.


 * Production Section - Explain what a "show runner" is and does.

3) Coverage


 * Reception Section - Expand this section to include Hindu views on Apu, consider this article here

4) Neutrality - Article is neutral in tone.

5) Stability - Article is stable without majot edit wars.

6) Photos - Two Fair Use screenshot images of the episode are used. However, the fair use template is not used. Rewrite the rationale using the fair use template found here, Template:Non-free use rationale

The corrections, as specified above, must be done within seven days. Contact me when they have been, and I shall re-assess.

Tovojolo (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They is no rule saying that fair use images must use the rationale template (as far as I'm aware), but I'll try and fix your other concerns, although the plot doesn't really need to be expanded, just re-writen in places. Gran2 19:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay I;ve removed the word thoroughly, corrected the plot without going into to much detail and linked the term showrunner, because a description of it would just "a person who runs the show", and that doesn't really make the sentence flow. The only other point is the reception section, which I'll try and expand. However, although the source you provided would be great for a reception section on Apu's page, it (unless I'm missing something) doesn't mention anything about this episode, so it wouldn't really be relevant. Gran2 19:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I am satisfied that the corrections have been carried out and I note your concerns on those that have not been. I do not regard those as being material and so I am pleased to announce that the article has achieved GA Status.

Congratulations,

Tovojolo (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute re episode title
There's been some dispute, recently noted at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎, about the origin of the title of the episode. Perhaps the addition could be rephrased in a way that it is included but in a way that is verifiable. See, for example The_Two_Mrs._Carrolls: The film's title has often been used as an archetype in naming episodes of television shows, often having little or nothing in common plotwise with the film. Most notably, Dallas - The Two Mrs. Ewings (1989), Melrose Place - The Two Mrs. Mancinis (1994), The Nanny - The Two Mrs. Sheffields (1995), Frasier - The Two Mrs. Cranes (1996), The Simpsons - The Two Mrs. Nahasapeemapetilons (1997), Weeds - The Two Mrs. Scottsons (2007). [3] As well as in the 1985 Dominick Dunne novel The Two Mrs. Grenvilles and the 1987 television movie of the same name. And it was further referenced in the Lifetime Television Movie The Two Mr. Kissels (2008) starring John Stamos. Perhaps, then, this phrasing would be acceptable: "The naming of this episode joins the naming of other television show episodes in possibly being a reference to the 1947 Humphrey Bogart film The Two Mrs. Carrolls."
 * Sorry, but IMDb can't be used as a source. It written by its users, just like Wikipedia. See WP:imdb. :/ Theleftorium (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't a content dispute: there's no problem with the content itself, the problem is that there is no reliable source to support it. Gran2 23:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) Comment (and not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS): I think the reason why the reference to IMDB in naming of other television show episodes is acceptable is that it is being used not to definitively state that the name Bogart film was the archetype for the listed episodes. Rather, it is used as a source that the names of the listed episodes are as noted and do exist. If that is acceptable, then perhaps the entry desired here can be phrased in such a way, as I was attempting, to simply note that the episode title has a commonality with a list of other TV episodes, which themselves have something in common with the title of the Bogart film.
 * I agree that, as originally entered, the addition was improperly sourced to support the idea that The_Two_Mrs._Carrolls is definitively the source of the title of this episode. However, it would seem to be something that can easily be reliably sourced (and is not WP:UNDUE that this episode's title has a something in common, "The Two Mrs.", with a number of other significant cultural items. (Note: I have no dog in this hunt, and am just trying to help.) JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that would work. You're suggesting a sentence like "The episode is named 'The Two Mrs. Nahasapeemapetilons' and there is a film called 'The Two Mrs. Carrolls'"? That still implies that there is some connection, and that's original research. Theleftorium (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The sentence I suggested is the one I supplied, not the one you offered. I am hopefule there might be a way to resolve this in a positive way. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that sentence can't be used. It's original research. Theleftorium (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for jumping in, but all this foofarah is because of the article's need to meet the Good Article criteria, right? What the criteria actually say, under Item #2, is that references must be provided for all information, and that a certain subset of information -- "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons" -- must provide "in-line citations from reliable sources". (I vaguely remember participating in a similar discussion awhile ago where someone informed me that's just because that's what's written in the criteria, that's not what's actually meant by the criteria, but it seems pretty clear to me.) Assuming that nobody could find the statement "The naming of this episode joins the naming of other television show episodes in possibly being a reference to the 1947 Humphrey Bogart film The Two Mrs. Carrolls" controversial, and seriously, nobody could reasonably find that statement controversial, I don't see why you can't just include it with the IMDB source. Nobody's going to try to use that as a reason to take away GA status unless they have a humongous axe to grind, and the article is more complete with that information than without it. Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And as long as you guys are just putting yourself in fits over the integrity of the article, I'll point out that the one cited source for the info about the UCB "courses" is a dead link. I would also bet pretty good money that there was only a single course, not multiple courses, as the article says. Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would find it controversial. You would be opening several cans of worms that I really don't think would be a good idea. 1. If all we can say is that it is "possibly" a reference to something, what's the point in mentioning it? Unless we know, why bother speculating? If all that was required was writing "possibly" then everything would be far easier. 2. It would be controversial because it would be IMDb sourced; the part of IMDb covering references is user-generated. If you allowed this, why not anything else? My ultimate point is: we apply a universal standard on (GA level) Simpsons articles' cultural references sections of 'reliably sourced or out'. This stops anyone putting in their own random speculations and virtually eradicates incorrect stuff. In this, clearly The Two Mrs. Carrolls is the reference, but without a reliable source there is no way of knowing for sure. There are plenty of other cases where the most obvious reference has actually been wrong. The best example is from "Homer at the Bat": the episode contains a scene where Don Mattingly is dropped from the team for having 'sideburns' - many people quite naturally think this is a reference to when the real life Mattingly was dropped from the Yankees due to his hairstyle. But in actuality, the episode was written and recorded well before the real-life incident took place. (Oh and thanks for pointing the dead link, I'll go ahead and fix it. And I think "courses" is more poor phrasing than attempting to claim more than one course.) Gran2 21:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If something hasn't been covered or mentioned in reliable sources, it's has no place on Wikipedia. That's it. Theleftorium (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 22 September 2022

 * 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: Reverted un-discussed move. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 23:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The Two Mrs. Nahasapeemapetilans → The Two Mrs. Nahasapeemapetilons – Undiscussed move.

Like with Apu Nahasapeemapetilon, not sure why this episode was ever moved from The Two Mrs. Nahasapeemapetilons, which is the common spelling among many Google site searches including IMDB and tv.apple.com, it's spelt that way on the season 9 DVD and I can't see any recent searches on the newly modified title implying this has been wrongly moved. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC) 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.
 * Support move for the same reason as Apu's page. Disney+ uses -lan, but the majority of reliable sources use -lon.  O.N.R.  (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I was curious at other places you can buy the episode currently and "-lan": D+, YouTube, Google Play, Vudu, Amazon Prime; "-lon": Apple TV. Clearly Disney/Fox-whatever sent out some sort of refresh that changed the spelling. No idea if it was an intentional or not but still the sheer number of the sources using the "original" "-lon" is hard to argue against. See also my commentary on Talk:Apu_Nahasapeemapetilan. Skynxnex (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Presumably the spelling might have changed quite recently as many of those sources provided are not available on the date of release on TVs back in the late 1990's. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: It seems clear that the "–lon" spelling is much more common in use, including in third-party sources, notwitsthanding a few recent commercial offerings. Moreover, the undiscussed move to the current title was only a week ago, so there should be no presumption of consensus for the current title. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)