Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Homer's Enemy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleHomer's Enemy is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Good topic starHomer's Enemy is part of the The Simpsons (season 8) 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 6, 2011.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 2, 2007Good article nomineeListed
April 3, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
April 11, 2007Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
May 7, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
May 27, 2007Featured topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

older entries

[edit]

This apparently had a negative fan reaction? I thought it was generally considered a fan favourite. DrDisco

When the episode first came out, it was seen by many fans as being an extremely dark episode - how can it not be? Homer's incompetance drives this poor guy insane - but if you look at the capsules at snpp.com or the archives at Alt.Tv.Simpsons you'll find some pretty negative reviews. I highly recommend listening to the DVD commentary for the episode because it is easily one of the best. In it, they talk about the "generation gap", they say the older fans that have been watching since Episode 1 generally dislike the episode and the fans who spent their youth watching the The Simpsons generally like it. -- Scorpion0422 15:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

316

[edit]

When Lenny says Homer should have been killed 316 times by his count, is there any significance to this number? I was wondering if there's some hidden trivia behind it.JW 02:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Production

[edit]

Hm, to tell you the truth I never liked this episode, although I know that puts me in the minority. I was asked to look at the production section to see whether it's more of an analysis section, but I think it's good. It talks about the story's origins and what the writers meant to do with the episode, which goes to the story's origins, indeed its making or production, rather than an after-the-fact Comic Book Guy commentary. The only thing I wonder about is completing this article while leaving the one-time character article Frank Grimes separate. Well, that, and I think "buddies" in the intro is slightly slangy. Reception section is good and well-sourced. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree ; I don't like this episode at all. Wimpyguy (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review (currently on hold)

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

I am putting this review on hold for now, because only minor changes need to be made. I will pass the article without reservation provided the following things are done:

1 (a). Prose. I am a huge stickler for this on Wikipedia, as you might have noticed from my previous reviews. Here is a list of the following problems I saw with this article:

    • "35 Inductry Way" is a typo
    • "and and gives Milhouse a job" is a typo
    • Every instance of "Grimes'" should be "Grimes's", see Apostrophe#Possessive_forms_of_nouns_ending_in_s
    • Homer Simpson is one of the most popular characters in TV history, yet he embodies many negative characteristics and Grimes, a "real American hero", is seen as the "bad guy" in the episode. is a run on sentence, should be changed to something like "Homer Simpson is one of the most popular characters in TV history, yet he embodies many negative characterics. Grimes, a "real American hero", is seen as the "bad guy" in the episode."
    • Since this show is an American show, I believe the article should favor the American English spellings of words. Hence "favourite" is not acceptable

1 (b). Structure.

    • The side-plot of Bart's factory is kind of just given a sentence at the end of every paragraph concerning the story of Homer and Grimes. Consider starting separate paragraphs for these, or weaving them into the paragraphs concerning Homer's story arc. I don't like the way it reads right now, and I find it very distracting.

2 (b). Inline citations.

    • Citations need to come after punctuation, not before. Do a quick run-through of the article to make sure they're all in the right place.

6 (a). Tagged and captioned.

    • Does the image in the infobox need to be tagged and captioned to be promoted to GA status? I don't know, but I would really like to see it done, if for no other reason than to be thorough and complete.

This is all I have; make these minor changes, and I'll promote the article to GA immediately. I preemptively congratulate you on a job well done, as I can tell that a lot of hard work has gone into the article. Good luck! –King Bee (T • C) 19:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to 1(b), originally, the Bart story was put at the end of the summary, which I disliked because I think it took away from the real ending of the episode (which in my mind is one of the best episode endings). I also generally dislike seperating stories so usually I just try mix them together. The Bart story is pretty minor and it really only needs 2 mentions.
Two mentions, sure, I agree. Bart's story is really minor in that episode. Just try to make them flow better with the paragraphs in which those live. –King Bee (T • C) 20:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'm done implementing your suggestions. -- Scorpion 21:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done. I'll pass the article now. =) –King Bee (T • C) 21:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italics or Quotation Marks

[edit]

In First Section, Paragraph 3, the name of the episode is placed in Quotation Marks, yet in Section/Production, Paragraphs 1,2, the episode is formatted in italics. As far as I am aware of, Wikipedia states that episode names should be in Quotation Marks although other WikiProjects such as Doctor Who uniformly use italics. Could someone correct this and inform me of the regulation regarding Simpsons Episodes? Thanks; JameiLei 18:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes should be used for any episode. The Doctor Who project use italics, but they use it universally so it doesn't really matter. But we use quotes. Gran2 18:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes is the standard for episode titles on Wikipedia. --Maitch 20:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, Simpsons also uses italics, as denoted by the Simpsons Style Guide. I'll update it now. JameiLei 20:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the style guide says "use quotes when referring to a single episode". --Maitch 20:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dammit - in that case undo my two edits. Sorry about that. JameiLei 20:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'm pretty sure we know what we're talking, it was us the wrote the style guide ;). Anyway, don't worry about it. Gran2 20:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User ratings

[edit]

Ok, let's tackle this here. User ratings are not good. They are not representative samples of viewers, they are subject to vote stacking, they do not help articles. They are not allowed on film pages, why would they be allowed here. One of the other Simpsons editors, User:Maitch, and I have already discussed this, and even he removed them on another page. Let's see, there are 162 votes from TV.com. Last time I checked, The Simpsons brought in millions of viewers. When is the last time you say 162 people represent several million before? They are unencyclopedic, unverifiable figures. Nielsen ratings should be used if you need a statistical number for something. And no Scorpion, it isn't my responsibility to provide the Nielsen Rating, as you seem to think in your edit summary. I'll be happy to put the article up for FAR. The same goes for IMDb.com. That's 145 votes, that's even less that TV.com, and probably consists of the same people voting. Needs correcting. Bignole 00:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have taken my statement the wrong way. Do you think that I haven't looked for a Nielson rating? I have, and I find it unfair that you decided to criticize me for something I couldn't help. This article passed its FAC and nobody mentioned the ratings at all, so I think that means that nobody besides you minds them. Also, Nielson ratings are not indicative of how good/bad an episode is. -- Scorpion0422 00:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subjective nature of how good and bad an episode is left to professional critics, not viewers. We don't put them on film pages. Also, just because it passes an FAC doesn't mean it's perfect. It seemed SandyGeorgia questioned them as well, and she is a well respected reviewer on FACs. Regardless, they aren't representative of viewers. You can't tell me that 140 people summarize the feelings of millions. Bignole 00:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And how do the feelings of one critic sumarize the feelings of millions? If the user ratings have to go, then so should statements from any "professionals". -- Scorpion0422 00:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why you have reviews from many critics. Also, they are paid to give their opinions. There are also fewer critics then there are viewers. There are only 200+ critics on Rottent Tomatoes film review for most films. That's a film, not a television show. Critics are not paid to summarize the feelings of viewers, they are paid to summarize their feelings. Sorry if you don't agree with that, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. There are plenty of others that feel the same way I do about user ratings, so don't think I'm sitting in left field. Professional critics are acceptable, random internet user is not. It's called verifiability. I can verify this critic said this, and that critic said that. I cannot verify any of the users that voted on that episode (regardless of the fact that it doesn't represent the millions of viewers that watched it). Bignole 00:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can only add what we have sources for. Again, find some "professional" reviews that the page is missing, and I will gladly add it. -- Scorpion0422 00:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't my responsibility to find sources for you. I'm only pointing out the problems with what you do have. Your line of thinking is that if we can't find a reliable source for something, then an unreliable one will do for the time being. It doesn't work that way. Bignole 00:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I have tried my absolute best to find reviews of the episode, with no luck. Please stop criticizing me for things I can not help as I would love to have a long and detailed reception section, but I can only add what I can. The way you are acting, there dozens of sources out there that I am refusing to add, which is not the case. -- Scorpion0422 01:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't criticized you for anything. You keep making statements that appear as though you want me to find the info for you. I KNOW how hard it is to find that stuff, I've done it twice already, and I'm struggling with a third. It's extremely hard, but I don't think that's a reason to include unreliable stuff, just to fill up a space. Bignole 01:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reception section is fine. It probably can't be much longer, considering your efforts, so don't force unreliable non-essential info into it. "...but has since become a favourite among fans who grew up with the show" represents those stats. –Pomte 20:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that the TV.com ratings represent that? I don't think that small over number represents that at all. Bignole 01:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying the converse. The article already says it is a fan favorite, so TV.com ratings aren't necessary. –Pomte 02:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of one time characters

[edit]

Frank grimes appearance in the list of one time characters page is a bit lacking in references, and the ones that are there simply say "richmond pg 117.", hardly proper format. Can someone who is familiar with the episode and has the DVD commentary add some references and (if applicable) tidy up the section in general? I'd do it myself but I dont have season 8 yet. Cheers. --Simpsons fan 66 05:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

snpp a source?

[edit]

This article has reached the level of being featured even though it includes snpp.com as a reference for the episode's reception. Is this not a breach of the rule (which has been enforced elsewhere) that fan sites are not useful sources? Billwilson5060 (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, and I have removed it. -- Scorpion0422 14:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article seems to have deteriorated

[edit]

Looking at the version that got featured status and the current version, it seems like references were removed saying that this episode was one of the darkest and most famous episodes. 24.64.165.129 (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A fan site was removed, but several more reliable sources in which they say it is the darkest were added. -- Scorpion0422 04:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary detail??

[edit]

rv. Unnecessary detail per WP:PLOT

You gotta be kidding me!

My edits turned a 15,446 byte article into a 15,459 one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.132.47 (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flask or beaker?

[edit]

The sulphuric acid is contained in an Erlenmeyer flask, though it is incorrectly referred to a "beaker." Given that the verbal reference was made in a state of excitement, the appearance should be regarded as canonical. I have edited the article accordingly. Lovibond (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More likely I expect, the writers simply didn't appreciate the difference Nil Einne (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does it really matter? It's a show with four fingered yellow skinned characters, and that is what you're complaining about as inaccurate? It's the term used in the episode, so that's what's used here. -- Scorpion0422 23:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not complained about the show. Rather, I'm trying to improve the article by correcting an inaccuracy in the article. Fictional literature is not supposed to be factual, but encyclopedic commentary on it should be. The acid was in an Erlenmeyer flask; the fact that the dialog does not agree is a different issue. If you would like, you could edit the article to draw attention to this inaccuracy, if you feel that's important. Inasmuch as you seem to state, in your rhetorical question, that does not "really matter," I have restored the correction. Lovibond (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's important at all since it's an extremely minor point, and I really don't feel like getting into a huge debate with you over the correct term. My point is that the show never really strives for accuracy, and I always find it amusing when other editors add goofs - or in this case, a wikilink - for the most minor details. -- Scorpion0422 18:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That the show does not strive for rigorous accuracy is entirely beside the point. What does matter is that the article should not contain errors of fact regarding what is portrayed. I agree that it is not worth an expanding debate, and have much more important things to do than attempt to reason with you if you do not understand the distinction between fictional literature and encyclopaedic commentary on same. You leave me with the impression that you feel you own the article, so it is futile for me to continue to correct the inaccuracy. Lovibond (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You just lost all credibility when it became clear that you didn't bother to check my most recent edit, because I didn't revert you. At least I check people's edits before I criticize them. I also always find it amusing when I get accused of ownership over something minor like this because I love the logic "He MUST think he owns the article because he can't be reverting because he's trying to do what he thinks is best for the article, and I can't possibly be wrong, so THAT must be it!" -- Scorpion0422 16:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

[edit]

Why does the"Legacy" section have stuff in it about Wiggum and some song? Does not appear to apply to this episode. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 06:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a one liner from this episode, when Ralph is still on stage after his turn is up. It is not plot-relevant, hence it is not in the synopsis. However, it apparently was popular enough to be used in said song. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homer Simpson: Classic Clown

[edit]
This link was removed without explanation. I wrote it in May 1998 as an academic paper about Homer Simpson as classic literary clown, and the Frank Grimes character perfectly contrasted Homer's unnoticed (or widely accepted and ignored) buffoonery, laziness, and inappropriate social behavior. I thought it gave a very good description and analysis of what happened in the episode, in three paragraphs. If there is a reason why this link is inappropriate or invalid, please say so. Or, if you'd like to discuss what I wrote, please feel free to do so here. :-) --204.246.229.130 (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article to be included

[edit]

This is an FA so I won't touch it, but to all those people who did write it, here a brilliant article that looks into the cultural impact and significance of the episode.--Coin945 (talk) 10:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating new info

[edit]

This is some great information by animator Luis Escobar, who was personally responsible for a lot of Frank Grimes' scenes. Go to the comments section at the bottom where he describes aspects of the animation process for the episode.--Coin945 (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One-time or recurring

[edit]

This article and List of one-time characters in The Simpsons both classify Frank Grimes as a single-episode character. He's been referenced in 15 total episodes, not counting the HD opening sequence (which has featured his grave since 2009) or tie-in media (like The Simpsons: Tapped Out and Simpsons Comics). At SDCC 2016, it was confirmed that Grimes will have a major role in one of THOH XXVII's three stories. Should he still be considered a one-time character? I was going to change it, but since that would involve editing multiple pages, I'm open to hearing what other people have to say. --NickSpark (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Grimy" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Grimy. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 03:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ranked

[edit]

Hello, would it be possible to check the passage concerning the audiences, in particular the rank of the week ? I have doubts but as I am not familiar with audience measurement in the United States. Thank you Rayquachu (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homer%27s_Enemy&oldid=1217617552"