Talk:22 Short Films About Springfield

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good article22 Short Films About Springfield has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic star22 Short Films About Springfield is part of the The Simpsons (season 7) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
October 25, 2007Good article nomineeListed
July 8, 2009Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Older messages[edit]

One of my personal favorite episodes. Does any one know if the deleted segments will be available on DVD? 23:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Finding all 22 films[edit]

I believe the bee's flight between Lisa getting gum in her hair and the scene with Burns/Smithers could count as one of the 22.

Fair use rationale for Image:Simpsons on pulp.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Simpsons on pulp.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination[edit]

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of October 21, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Well written, in clear, understandable language.
2. Factually accurate?: Cited to (13) WP:RS references, in the proper formatting.
3. Broad in coverage?: Covers Plot, Production, Cultural references, Reception, Legacy very well. If I were you, going forward towards a WP:PR or WP:FAC, I would find some sources to add a couple sentences to expand the Legacy and Reception sections, and maybe see if any secondary sources comment on the cultural references made in the episode, i.e. books on The Simpsons and philosophy.
4. Neutral point of view?: Neutral language, no problems here.
5. Article stability? Some minor anon edits recently, but the more regular users seem to have standardized the citations and other areas. Not a big deal, just keep an eye on this.
6. Images?: (3) fair use images, each with a good fair use rationale. The average on WP:FA articles on The Simpsons is about (2.5) fair use images, so this is just about right.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. — Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 16:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Overall this is a nice read. Just a side note and a disclosure, I the GA nominator Gran2 (talk · contribs) and I happen to both be working on articles on The Simpsons at the moment. Though after reviewing this article I can say Gran2 does good work, I have not had enough encounters or experiences yet at all with this user to form a personal opinion or have this impede my judgement, and that is why I chose to review this article, and not another nom by Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs) with whom I have been working more closely. Cheers, and great job! Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 16:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC).
Thankyou, and a fine review. If your interested, a full list of my GA (and one FA) episode pages, can be found on my userpage. Gran2 16:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I know, I just took a look, wow. Very ambitious. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 16:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC).

GA Sweeps (Pass)[edit]

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, MASEM 17:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 22 Short Films About Springfield. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 19:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Hanging statement[edit]

"The episode is Bill Oakley's personal favorite episode, but it is hated by two prominent figures within the running of the show.[3] "

The reference is to an off-line book. And the article never resolves the mystery. There are two prominent figures out there who hate this episode! Who are they? Why do they hate it? Are they important enough for their opinions to matter? This should be modified to be more clear what exactly is going on with this hate, and why readers should care about it... SnowFire (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Half of a steamed ham[edit]

That is hilarious. Thank you to whoever did that. DatGuyonYouTube (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

List of "films"[edit]

Isn't this basically original research? I don't have a copy at hand, but I don't think the companion guidebook ever listed the segments this way. Some of these scenes are being arbitrarily split to reach the number 22. Plus, further down in the article, we are told that the writers never intended the episode to have exactly 22 "films". Zagalejo^^^ 23:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)