Talk:List of animals in The Simpsons

Coyote

Does anyone know the name of the coyote who was Homer's spirit guide? Dark Mousy 00:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His name was Yo-mumma JayKeaton 04:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball I

I think the picture of Snowball I should be taken down. It just looks like the picture of Snowball II coloured white (rather poorly, if I may add). Unless somebody can prove that that's an actual, non-drawn on picture, a better picture should be found. ButchRocket 19:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mojo (The Simpsons) merge

Support - as with one-time characters, an animal that only appeared in one episode does not need his own article... - Adolphus79 02:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Danflave 17:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Baloney mr. OP. Mojo should be listed in a list of animals in the Simpsons, as should Pinchy and other 1 episode animals. What harm does it do having these animals on the list? It is information right? Who the darn diddily iddily are you to say which animals get listed and which don't? Get off your high horse, and allow them all to be mentioned! You want a notation for recurring animal characters and "guest star" animals? Fine. But don't exclude, you elitist bastard! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.167.251 (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball III/Coltrane

There was a section dedicated to Snowball III (aka Coltrane) apart from the one on top that's called Coltrane. So I deleted it cause it was just a redundance of the same cat. Thief12 20:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the picture of the cat drowning appropriate? I know that it's only a cartoon, but it is still an unpleasant image to have on an encyclopedia. 212.159.30.47 12:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to anyone intending on splitting off a section

This page has been processed by N-Bot, which, for browsing convenience, changes links to redirects to lists to links to the relevant list sections: e.g. [[Snowball \(The Simpsons\)]] is changed to [[List of animals in The Simpsons#Snowball|Snowball \(The Simpsons\)]].

As a result, anyone who intends to split a section out of this page should be aware that, as of 15 August 2006, the following sections were linked to from the following pages:

~~ N-Bot (t/c) 02:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Santa's Little Helper and Snowball II

I'm just curious as to why SLH and Snowball II don't have their own pages. They appear in many episodes, and in fact, SLH has had more episodes about him than Maggie. So, why don't they have individual pages? -- Scorpion0422 03:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Redv Blue 17:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simpsons' fish

The Simpsons have fish - they should be added to this page. Redv Blue 17:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're mentioned in the page for The Simpson family, but none of them have ever had names (well, except for the Goldfish mentioned in the beginning of THOH13), but you can add them to the page if you like. -- Scorpion0422 17:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Blinky.gif

Image:Blinky.gif 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 14:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Laddiemedal.jpg

Image:Laddiemedal.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 05:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Pig

The Spider-Pig section needs a complete overhaul, and it links to YouTube which is not allowed in this case. ViperSnake151 16:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It also totally gives away the plot for the simpsons movie which is unacceptable. someone rework it so it doesnt involve its own plot and spoilers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.51.103.64 (talk • contribs)

Well, you can't really as Spider-Pig does play an important role in the movie. Besides Wikipedia is NOT censored, which means spoilers are perfectly acceptable. And please sign your posts with four tildes (~). - .:Alex:. 11:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.51.103.64 (talk • contribs)

Should Spider Pig have his own section? I mean he even has his own theme song! Bacta 13:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it's understandable why you would add some movie plot about the pig (Like how he came into Homer's adoption) it's not really necessary to include the rest of the plot... For instance, what does the whole "Pig Crap Silo" have anything to do with the article? If anything, it's actually taking away from the article. The article isn't informing on the pig, but rather the plot of "The Simpsons Movie" I understand why someone would want to add plot seeing as it was a movie character... but shouldn't plot information go into the plot section of "The Simpsons Movie" article?

Not only that, but "proving that he did survive." Whether or not Plopper survives is NOT a fact. Unlike events in real life, if the creators of the show didn't specify what happened to the pig, then anything said about it is purely speculation. We can "speculate" that the pig survives because it appears in a cut scene at the end of the movie, but until some footage of that comes out (Say, on the DVD release of the movie) It's just speculation. Even worse, saying that he didn't survive and then saying that it was "proven" that he survived.... that's like saying something is red but it's not actually red. Very poor editing, guys. And even for speculation's sake... the couch gag is almost always non-sequitur (that is, the couch gag rarely has anything to do with the actual episode) And even less than that, it was the couch gag for a Halloween episode (which are laden with inconsistencies in the Simpsons universe).

So, unless you people want to add a "speculation" warning, I suggest you just keep the pig's entry to just his role, and appearances... and not its plot contributions or the implications of its actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.40.133 (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the article a bit, but it needs a bit of work for better flow. But for now, it's pretty concise and brief, without sidetracking.

Cleanup.

I have cleaned up the article and made a few changes. From now on, animals which appear or are mentioned but have no significant impact on storyline go in the "Other animals" section. Animals which feature prominently in the series or play a pivitol role in an episode go in the "Main animals" section. Just keeps it neat and tidy folks. - .:Alex:. 20:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giant fish

does anybody know the name of the giant fish homer caught, but then released, showing marge how much he cared about her? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.16.113.77 (talk) 04:08, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

General Sherman, IIRC... 24.8.252.164 (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE bart junior

bart junior was the name of the pet lizard that bard hatched from an egg... not a frog. its in the episode where bart kills the mother bird, and out of his guilt hatches its eggs, which turn out to be bird eating lizards. The name of the creature stated in the article is a frog... addy g in da house keep it swillAddy-g-indahouse 11:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of writing the page described both Bart Juniors in separate segments, I have crosslinked them to clarify. Lessthanideal (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I call the big one Bitey

I pressume anyone who is linking this to being Matt Groening's all time favorite line is referring to the commentary for that particular episode, but I'd like to note that Groening has a new favorite line almost every season and this episode was quite a long time ago. I'm wondering, does anyone know if there's any other source than the original commentary, if not I'm going to edit it. --76.234.131.180 23:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Simpsonsfan[reply]

Just because he has other favourite lines, it doesn't mean that we should discount it. I changed the wording to "one of his favorite Simpsons lines". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jub-Jub the Iguana

I had always assumed that Jub-Jub was named after the Jub-Jub Bird in Lewis Carroll's poem, "The Hunting of the Snark," and had never heard of the Conan O'Brien explanation. Can anyone provide evidence that the latter is true?

Gegnome 18:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Gegnome[reply]

Funny you should ask. Conan just mentioned it on the Wednesday (10/17) episode when talking to some sports guy (Joe Buck, according to the write up). He contradicted a lot of things, he said he wanted the name worked into the show and eventually it was as a Salamander (!), and he actually spelled it out as J-B-J-B. I think his memory is a bit rusty, but that's pretty good confirmation IMO that he did come up with it. He asked the sports guy to work the word into an upcoming sportscast.74.39.35.192 05:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information; I'm convinced. Gegnome 00:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List or article?

It looks to me it is more an article about animal characters not mere a list of them. Should the title reflect that? --Irpen 00:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:CrazySquirrel.jpg

Image:CrazySquirrel.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 07:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Itchy and Scratchy and Poochy?

Shouldn't these characters be on this page? My initial thought was they should, but maybe there's some organising principle keeping them off? Lessthanideal (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that would make sense, but I and S have their own article and Poochie has his own section on the I and S article, so you would link to there instead of giving them their own entry. Rhino131 (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've done that, thanks. Lessthanideal (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they should be listed at all. The rest are all "real" animals, while they are just cartoon animated animals, within the Simpson's world Ctjf83 ^talk 02:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

spider pig

The part where it says that he reappeared in the couchgag, "proving that he wasn't killed in the movie" doesn't sound right. Since when have the couch gags been treated as canon? --Simpsons fan 66 21:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it doesn't matter as the producers have confirmed that he is alive. You can remove or rephrase the comment if you want. .:Alex:. 18:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of fair use images in this article

So, the anti-images-in-lists crusade continues... I just want the edit warring to end.

For goodness sake, will someone point out to me where it explicitly says in stone that images are not permitted in lists? I have asked for this the whole time and the request has been ignored. Also, the argument of using group shots is flawed. Where on earth will we find a group shot of all of the animals? One does not exist and we cannot make one, hence why individual images are used. Now I don't want to harken back to this ugly dispute, but we need to sort this all out once and for all. .:Alex:. 17:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, i can't AGF here, but these image people have nothing better to do, then going around, and deleting images that people work hard to put on article pages Ctjf83 ^talk 18:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is no point in discussing this here User talk:Betacommand‎ doesn't want to give me official policy that says we can't have any images Ctjf83 ^talk 18:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you want a policy link? WP:CONSENSUS (previous consensus)β^_command 18:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what am i suppose to read there? I removed 4 pictures from what it was originally, but that isn't enough for you, you had to remove the other 3. so how is that a consensus?? Ctjf83 ^talk 19:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please see User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation for an explanation. β^_command 19:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the non-offical policy. i can't even talk to you with out getting a migraine Ctjf83 ^talk 19:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again BetaCommand, you need to relax and chill. Ctjf83 asked for the link to the official Wikipedia policy where it says that images can't be used in such a list. Your attitude and edit-warring is not helping the situation and is not helping the user. Need I remind you of WP:BITE and WP:DICK? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 19:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am following policy, if either of you took the time to read what I linked to you would understand, there have been numerious previous discussions, in which WP:CONSENSUS has stated that NFC is not to be used in lists per WP:NFCC. β^_command 19:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutralhomer: WP:MOBY.--WaltCip (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what really is your problem with images Beta, they all follow WP:NFCC policy, do some constructive mainspace edits Ctjf83 ^talk 19:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

/me attempts to remain civil. read what I linked to, it is policy. β^_command 19:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A user page is not policy...and I am not reading what you linked, because honestly I don't care. That is not why I am in this discussion. It is your attitude and your edit-warring (and now vandalism) that has me here. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 19:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is no real policy, you just keep referring to user pages explain on WP:NFCC what wasn't followed...you can't cause there is nothing!! and you still haven't answered what your problem with images is. Ctjf83 ^talk 19:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you guys refuse (or cant) read previous discussions on this matter the current interpertation of NFCC#8 Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding is that Non-free content is not allowed in lists β^_command 19:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for not assuming good faith again....Ctjf83 ^talk 19:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm just going to intervene before things get out of hand. All I want to know is this: I have been repeatedly informed that there is a policy about it on several pages such as WP:NFCC. I have read it and not seen anything about it and have not been told where on this page it says that images are not permitted in lists. That's all I want to know. Just that. .:Alex:. 19:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex for a complete summary about NFC and lists see User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation as it links to the previous discussions and explains them. β^_command 19:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it doesn't alex, i've been asking beta that for hours, with no response Ctjf83 ^talk 19:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NFC#Unacceptable_images. Please read all the relevant policies before you begin arguing with other users and alleging administrator misconduct. Nick (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

apperantly the only thing you can link to is a userpage with previous discussion by all of you anti-image people, and not to official policy, i feel like i'm talking to a brick wall here Ctjf83 ^talk 19:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you may have replied to the wrong person, but just to be safe, I can confirm I have linked to the current policy on Non Free Content. Nick (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it was not intended for you...what, i can't make an article with each animal, cause then it fails notability/fiction standards...so am i allowed to take pics, and alter them a bit and upload under fair use under my own work, so i can stop having people like beta ruining articles Ctjf83 ^talk 19:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you cant do that either as you would not have the copyright to the image{s}. β^_command 19:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, because we are trying to create and distribute a totally free encyclopedia, our policies are more stringent than the copyright laws they adhere to. We don't permit the use of a vast number of images in the list, for the reasons detailed in the Non Free Content policy. Unless we absolutely can't survive without the image, then we will do without the image, regardless of how ugly any article looks without an image. An excellent example of an article that uses it's non free image correctly would be Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and this section in particular. That's not something I see in the list here and that's why we don't generally permit images in lists. Nick (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if i'm altering the image, how is it c-right Ctjf83 ^talk 19:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image retains the original copyright and becomes what we call a derivative work. This page explains at length about Derivative Works. Nick (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it is that if each element of a list is not significant enough to have it's own article, then it's not significant enough to have an individual fair-use image. However globally the list is significant, which is why a group picture is allowed. The specific phrase of the policy with says this is The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements usually fails the test for significance (criterion #8), and if it fails this test such use is unacceptable. Hope this helps, best to just name the policy as soon as someone asks to avoid revert wars, copy pasting the exact phrase helps because often users just skim over policy pages I think. Jackaranga (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also in the USA it is illegal to reproduce and modify a copyrighted work without the owners permission, except under fair-use, however fair-use doesn't allow modification, so I think modification of a copyrighted work is always illegal. You can read Copyright#Exclusive rights, the list is the list of things you are not allowed to do with a copyrighted work. Jackaranga (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair-use can seem restrictive but it is in fact the opposite, on the English wikipedia there is a very high use of copyrighted work (even though fair-use is only in the USA, and this is not the American wikipedia allegedly), on the French wikipedia for example, they can't have any images of films, cartoons, games, album covers, etc. The only copyrighted work they can use is logos, so don't feel ill done to. Even if you don't speak any French take a quick look at fr:Les Simpsons and you will see they have absolutely no images of the Simpsons on the main article page. So remember fair-use is an exception granted to en.wikipedia by the foundation so we should try to use it the least possible, as an exception specifically. Jackaranga (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should Plopper be used to recurring?

Seeing as he has appeared in two episodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaji of the Flame (talk • contribs) 21:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two episodes are not recurring, and he played his big part in the movie, so keep him there for now. Rhino131 (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey was that Plopper in the second last episode of season 20?