[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Simpson family

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSimpson family 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 starSimpson family is the main article in the Simpson family 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
DateProcessResult
December 3, 2008Good article nomineeListed
December 20, 2008Featured topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Family tree

[edit]

Does having a family tree really hurt the article?[1] The article is all about a family, after all. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You revert me, yet you haven't given me a reason. Just "you reverted my edit, now I'm angry."

It is simply a summary table that adds little to the article. If one wanted to know how the various family members were related, all one has to do is read the article. It is also giving undue weight to a very minor part of the article. I should also point out that parts of it are based on uncited original research. Finally, if included, users would feel the need to expand it to the one included in the family history book.

I shall quote the one and only Gran2 on this one: "Well it is useful. To a fan. But this isn't a fan site." That's correct, and a family tree falls under the category of trivia. I suggest you try joining a site like WikiSimpsons, where these kind of contributions would be more than welcome. -- Scorpion0422 12:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You revert me, yet it took me 11 months of pleading to make you take part in the discussion.
You either don't understand or don't want to understand the concept of undue weight. I see no disputed theory or a significant minority of adherents to a theory or anything like that in this discussion. The concept is completely unrelated to the issue. You might have as well cited Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Furthermore, what is that you consider a minor part of the article? The entire article is about a family. A very large family. The relations of various members of the family is clearly not a minor part of the article about the family. Having a family tree that illustrates relations between the members of the family can only improve it.
There is no reason to assume that users would feel the need to add anyone who is not already mentioned in this article. If that character is not already included in the family tree, he/she should be.
And once again, you link to an entirely unrelated guideline in order to make it appear that policies and guidelines are in your favour. I honestly fail to see that we are discussing sections with lists of miscellaneous information. Surtsicna (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11 months of pleading? Okay, you just lost all of your credibility. You reverted me every now and then, and you never bothered to leave me a message on my talk page. My editing patterns over the last year have been sporadic, so it's hard to keep track of things. I see an edit that needs reverting, I revert it, and when I hear nothing about it, I move on.
Undue weight is when you give too much detail on a very minor element. Yes, I know it links to wikipedia's neutrality policy, but the concept is very real and certainly applies to this case. If you have an article on the Simpson family and devote 3 paragraphs to the unseen Uncle Arthur? Undue weight. When you have a section on Marge and devote the majority of it to her gambling addiction? Undue weight. When you have an article on a fictional family and decide to clutter it up with a family tree? Undue weight.
Besides, the article is already on the large side, and the family tree only summarizes what is already mentioned (Homer and Marge have 3 children. Homer's father is Abe. Etc. Etc.). In fact, the more complex parts of the family history (ie. the cousins, uncles and historic relatives) aren't even in the family tree. And if they are included to make the table "complete", where does it end? Abe's parents are seen in an episode, so shouldn't they be included? Abe's grandparents are also seen in a flashback, so shouldn't they be included? Of course, then the Bouvier side of the table would be incomplete, so shouldn't we add the very minor relatives mentioned in the Simpson family history book? And what about the carny who is Herb's mother? Or Abbie's mother? Why aren't they included. And don't say it's because they're minor characters. Abbie and Cyrus and Clancy and Gladys are also very minor and they're included. This is a general encyclopedia, not a fansite. Any family tree we do include with just main characters would still be very incomplete. But to include the less major characters (ie. Herb) would mean we would have to include the very minor characters (Abbie) to make it more "complete" (and that's where undue weight comes into play).
I should also point out that if the tree is included, editors will see it as being incomplete and take it onto themselves to expand it. Don't believe me? Check the history. Other users have been adding family trees for quite some time, many of which are based on OR or very minor sources. -- Scorpion0422 16:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think that nobody can see what was happening since August 2010? It's all documented. When you first undid the edit, I immediately noticed and started the discussion. You ignored it and I reverted your reversion.[2] It then took you 4 months to remove the family tree again, but this time so sneakily that I didn't notice right away.[3] Months later, I noticed and readded it,[4] saying that I was "readding content that was quite rudely removed weeks after I had started a discussion about it which had ended without a response". You could not have reverted this edit without reading the edit summary so you obviously read it. Nevertheless, you completely ignored me again and reverted without any explanation whatsoever and, of course, without bothering to respond.[5] Just when I thought you couldn't get any more rude and arrogant, you said that there was "nothing to discuss".[6]
The first two examples you gave are undue weight. A family tree in an article about a family is not an undue weight. It would have been undue weight had it been added to the article about the show. But it's not in that article. It's in the article about the family. There is nothing odd about that.
As I said, any character who is prominent enough to be mentioned in the article should be mentioned in the family tree. If a character is not important enough to be mentioned in the article, then the character is not important enough to be included in the family tree. The family tree I added is based on this article. If you dispute anything about the family tree, feel free to remove the disputed info along with the relevant article text. Surtsicna (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, my editing patterns over the last while have been sporadic. I checked the Simpson family page every now and then, I see a family tree that doesn't belong, I remove it. If you had really desired to start a discussion with me, you would have left a message on my talk page. Either way, can we stick to the topic? It's hard

You don't seem to be comprehending what I'm writing. Yes, it's an article on a family, but the family tree adds nothing to it. All it does is confirm the obvious. Any IP user that sees this tree will say "wait, it's missing _______" and add them. Before you know it, it will be twice as large and filled with minor characters and original research. So, it's best to avoid that scenario by leaving it out. Even if we just stick to major characters with their own page, it would just be the Simpsons, Abe, Patty and Selma, and what would the point of that be? Besides, wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a fan site. The page (mostly) sticks to real world info. Having a family tree (an incomplete one at that) on a fictional family goes against Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) which says you need to present fiction from a real world perspective. Having a family tree means you're treating them as a real family. -- Scorpion0422 19:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop making it seem like it was me who tried to avoid discussion. Your editing patterns are completely irrelevant. You could not have reverted this edit without realising that I had started a discussion. Most recently, you said that you were not interested in discussing anything. It was not my duty to come to your talk page and beg you to discuss.
If the greatest reason for your opposition to the tree is something that you assume might happen in the future, may I suggest that we wait to see if it will actually happen - and cross that bridge when we come to it? It can hardly get any larger than it is now if we include only the characters mentioned in the article. I don't see IPs invading the article to fill the text with minor articles and therefore I cannot see why they would suddenly want to fill the family tree with minor characters. I never suggested that the family tree consist only of the Simpsons and the Bouvier sisters. As I've said a couple of times already, it should consist of all the characters mentioned in the article whose relation to the main characters is known. Surtsicna (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't given a good reason why it should remain. I have. I shall summarize my arguments.

  1. Undue weight.
  2. wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a fan site. The page (mostly) sticks to real world info. Having a family tree on a fictional family goes against Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) which says you need to present fiction from a real world perspective. Having a family tree means you're treating them as a real family.
  3. There is no definitive family tree (well, one was published in the early 90s, but the show has since contradicted it many times). Any tree would include some degree of assumption and original research. For example, Abbie is never expressly stated to be Homer's sister (strongly hinted, but never stated), so to include her is original research. There are also many uncles and cousins whose exact relations are unknown, but they did play a big enough role in an episode to warrant inclusion in the article. For example, Dr. Simpson.
  4. It will always be considered incomplete to some segment of the fanbase. If we limit it to major characters only, then it appears that Herb has no mother, Abe has no parents and Marge has no father. A fan will see that and expand it. Don't believe me? [7] Still don't believe me? [8] Of course, therein lies the catch-22. If we include the table with every known family member (which would require OR), then the table would definitely be too big and would include extremely minor characters. If we limit it to recurring characters, then it appears incomplete.
  5. It's stuck at the bottom and simply confirms what the article states. It serves no real purpose.

And that's what I think. In a general encyclopedia, a family tree on a fictional family comes off as fancruft. -- Scorpion0422 18:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Scorpion on this matter; while having a family tree would be a good visual aid, it presents the fictional family as if it were a real one and adds little to the article (aside from undue weight) as the information is already presented in the text. And the IP scenario is a possibility, as I have seen on other pages--GroovySandwich 21:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I also agree with Scorpion. He pretty much said it all. Theleftorium (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to reiterate what I said on Scorpion's talk page Surtsicna, this is the kind of useful feature for a fansite. As Scorpion has explained it has no place here. At Wikisimpsons yes, but not here. Gran2 21:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpion, you are repeating your arguments without addressing my responses to them - and that's not your first time. A family tree in an article about a family is obviously not undue weight. A family tree in the article about an individual character would be undue weight. MissionNPOVible responded to the second argument - many articles about fictional families include a family tree and it does not make the family seem any more real than mentioning their age and dates of birth and death does.

If you don't think Abbie should be presented as Homer's half-sister, then amend the article to include the possibility that she is not his half-sister. As it stands now, the article states that she is without any doubt: Abbie is Abraham's illegitimate daughter and Homer's half sister from a relationship he had with a British woman named Edwina during World War II. I find it curious that you react to her inclusion in the family tree but completely ignore the statement you actually appear to disagree with.

Additions such as this one should obviously be reverted. I've said it a million times already but you keep ignoring it so I have to say it again: only characters mentioned in the article should be included in the family tree. Galaston Simpson is not prominent enough to be mentioned in the text = he is not prominent enough to be included in the family tree. It's that simple. As it stands now, the tree is not incomplete, since it includes all the members described in the article whose relation to the family is known.

If you think it should not be at the bottom, move it up where it suits you. Its purpose is to illustrate complex relations between members of this large family - the purpose it shares with all the other family trees Wikipedia has. Finally, fancruft implies that the content is unimportant. If relations between the members of the family were unimportant, the article itself would not have been neccessary. Surtsicna (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, when I was first working on this article, I removed Abbie for just that reason [9]. An IP has since re-added her. I also keep saying it a dozen times, not every notable character's exact relation is known. Any family tree (including the current one) requires original research. You also don't seem to understand the concept of fancruft. An article on a very notable family that stars in a very notable TV series is not fancruft. A family tree and things like dates of birth and death (which you will notice are, in fact, not included her) are. This article is also a good article and is meant to represent some of wikipedia's best work, so you can't compare it with neglected articles such as Griffin family. If that article was improved to GA status, then the family tree would be removed.
You're just grasping at straws. Three other users, two of them accomplished writers of Simpsons articles, disagree with you. Another editor feels that without a definitive source (and there are no current ones. To revert to the early 90s version would mean the exclusion of characters such as Ling) it shouldn't be included. -- Scorpion0422 17:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3O

[edit]

Hi, I saw this on the third opinion page, and thought I'd start by giving a quick response to main arguments - these are just my 'off the top of my head' responses. I notice there are family trees for other fictional families in WP, so I wonder if that demonstrates that it is not necessarily "fancruft" to include such a thing...? I seriously doubt a reader would be fooled into thinking that the Simpsons are a real family by such an inclusion, but I think there is a problem if a definitive tree doesn't exist - that suggests it runs the risk of WP:OR, so there would need to be a RS. Having said that, I don't think a tree has to be all inclusive or complete to be justified - it just has to report what the RS says. I do think it would serve some purpose since, as already mentioned, "it would be a good visual aid". I understand the concern about it opening the flood gates to additions, but that is where the WP:RS comes into play and ensures that editors don't keep 'growing it' willy nilly. MissionNPOVible (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that none of those other articles are GAs. This one is, so you can't really compare them (besides, you should judge these things on a case by case basis). And it is true that there is no up-to-date official family tree. A long time ago (early 90s) they released one in the Uncensored Family Album, but the show has since contradicted that tree numerous times (and the present family tree is not based on it). Also, years of editing Simpsons articles has taught me that policies like WP:RS (or WP:NOR or WP:V) don't stop IPs from doing whatever they want. If an IP thinks the family tree needs Great Aunt Hortense, then they'll add it, policy be damned (proof: check cultural references sections for just about any episode, though the newer ones are the best examples. IPs add whatever they like even if they have no source). -- Scorpion0422 23:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scorpion. You're absolutely correct about 'each case on its merit', I was only observing that fictional family trees do exist in WP - which makes it less controversial to have one here (compared to the situation where there are no fictional family trees at all in WP, which would make it considerably more controversial to have one here). If there is a RS (and I presume the "Uncensored Family Album" is one), then I think that version could be a reasonable inclusion. WP policy isn't intended to stop IP's or anyone from doing things, they're designed to make sure that only WP-worthy material sticks - and the key to that is WP:RS's. MissionNPOVible (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a number of objections to including the uncensored family album tree. It would be based on a very minor source, and includes many relatives mentioned in the show(this is roughly what it looks like), so including them would certainly be undue weight. An exact copy also raises copyright concerns. Finally, the family tree is out of date, and has been contradicted by the show many times. -- Scorpion0422 16:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If all the information in the text is correct, then all the information in the tree is correct. There is thus no issue of original research here. Surtsicna (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point of WP:OR is that we can't draw any conclusions, only report what is in RS's. So if we want to include something, it must come from a RS. As for copyright, I would suggest that there is plenty of scope within the notion of 'fair use' to reproduce the information of a tree in the style currently used in the article - you would have a stronger case if an actual image of the tree was being suggested, but I didn't think we were talking about an "exact copy" - I don't know since I haven't seen the source... Any problems about errors in the tree could be included in a note or introduction to the section - suitably sourced of course. I don't think WP:WEIGHT really applies since it isn't advancing a particular argument. It would be absolutely relevant if there were competing versions of the family tree - are there others in RS's? MissionNPOVible (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old Country

[edit]

In the episode Much Apu About Nothing, Grandpa says that the Simpsons emigrated from the Old Country to New York, United States. Should this be added to the article? Portillo (talk) 06:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons (family)

[edit]

Could we possibly rename the article to something like The Simpsons (family)? There's something about the current naming that seems a little off to me..--Coin945 (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Their last name is "Simpson" not "The Simpsons" or "Simpsons" CTF83! 05:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo

[edit]

What about Bart's twin brother Hugo who Marge and Homer secretly kept and fed fish to in the attic in a Tree-house of Horror episode? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.166.240.5 (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree again

[edit]

OK, so I'm well aware that this has been discussed extensively already, but I have created a simple family tree which displays the family exactly as it is described in the article, with no additions. This could therefore easily be referenced. Furthermore, I believe that it is a good visual aid as the relationships are often somewhat complicated to understand in text. If anyone has any objections, please raise them. Otherwise I shall add it to the page.

Hiram SimpsonMabel SimpsonVirgil Simpson
Eliza SimpsonAbraham Simpson, Sr.
1 generation
Orville SimpsonYuma Hickman
15 wivesCyrus SimpsonAbraham SimpsonMona OlsenClancy BouvierJacqueline GurneyGladys Gurney
Amber Simpson
Homer SimpsonMarge BouvierSelma Bouvier6 husbandsPatty Bouvier
Herbert PowellAbbie SimpsonBart SimpsonLisa SimpsonMaggie SimpsonLing Bouvier

WilliamF1two (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a fan site. I suggest going here where such contributions will be more than welcome. -- Scorpion0422 01:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can essentially agree that there are two elements to fancruft:
1. Can the information be reliably sourced? Yes, provided that the rest of the article is/can be. There is nothing in this family tree which is not stated clearly in the article.
2. Is the information only useful to hardcore fans? I would argue that the opposite is in fact the case - in an article about a family, surely the relationships between its members are the most important element of the article, and only a hardcore fan would be willing to trawl through some 3,000 words of text to discern them for themselves. The family tree gives a clear and succinct version of that information, surely the purpose of any graphic on wikipedia.
Also, how is this case any different for that of Harry Potter (character)? I acknowledge that this page is no longer a good article, but it was for over two years, and it featured a family tree for the whole of that time (see this revision from the day it was listed as a good article).
Finally, if we're going to quote policies, I would refer you to WP:CRUFT2, which states "declaring something to be "cruft" in itself is not a rational argument for deletion". Thanks for your help WilliamF1two (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actualy, I wrote that Wikipedia is not a fansite. I'm curious, how can knowing who the parents of Abraham Simpson, Sr. are(a character who appeared in one episode) be considered anything other than information useful only to hardcore fans? The useful info is in the prose. As for the Harry Potter article, I shall cite a different policy to you: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Quite frankly, there is absolutely nothing you can do to convince me that this should be added to the article. As a good article, it needs to be held to a high standard and cheapening it with useless fan service definitely diminishes that quality. I'm pretty sure the other members of WP:DOH feel the same. -- Scorpion0422 23:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Well I can certainly see the merits of both sides, but I would side with Scorpion on the grounds that it isn't really notable. The only characters of any note within the show have their relationships adequately conveyed in the text. But you should probably get some wider opinions to obtain a broad consensus. Gran2 06:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst that was what you wrote, the policy you quoted was WP:CRUFT... I don't see how you can argue that it's OK to include 75 words about Mabel & Virgil Simpson in the article, but it's not OK to include four words about them in the tree. Surely that's hypocritical? Would you still object to the tree if it was trimmed to only include Abraham Simpson Jr. and lower, thus only including characters who are undeniably notable? As for WP:WAX, I would say that when the "other crap" is classified as a good article, that argument is totally invalid. I'm disappointed that you feel the need to describe my work as "useless", surely a breach of WP:CIV? I'm going to mention this in the talk page of WP:DOH to try and garner some wider opinion. WilliamF1two (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if I cared about the Harry Potter article (and I don't) I would also argue strongly that the tree doesn't belong. It's one thing to include major characters, it's another to include immensely minor ones mentioned only in passing. In the end both of them are merely decorative and contain both information already in the article and information only of use to hardcore fans and not to readers of a general encyclopedia. As for trimming the tree, as was mentioned in the previous discussion, IP users and others such as yourself would look at it, say "it's incomplete!" and expand it (say nothing of the fact that the Simpson family history is full of holes and contradictions). I should also point out that this page used to omit the more minor characters but IP users and others such as yourself felt the need to add them and it gets to the point where one gets sick of fighting such users. But the fact remains: wikipedia is not a fan site. If you want to include such things, I suggest going here or perhaps starting your own fan page. -- Scorpion0422 14:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's clear to me that this discussion is going nowhere between just you and me, let's see if there are any significant contributions to be made by the WP:DOH community, as requested here. Incidentally, I resent your implication in that last comment that I am an inexperienced editor with no understanding of Wikipedia. As an editor with nearly 5,000 edits to my name, I feel I deserve a little more respect than that. WilliamF1two (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to reach a consensus on this issue, so I'm going to list this discussion at WP:3. WilliamF1two (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a Family Tree, Star Wars characters have a family tree on their article. Why the Simpsons can't? Also Selma should be closer to Abe Simpson since he is one of her husbands. Rosvel92 (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Rosvel92[reply]

This conversation is pretty stale - but as stated above, even if Star Wars has a family tree...WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - also, it seems consensus was reached over 2 years ago with a NO. Garchy (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion Request

[edit]

Scorpion0422 and I would appreciate a third opinion regarding the above discussion about family trees. Thanks. WilliamF1two (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: IMO the tree should be included. If it's put in at standard size, it won't be a distraction from the article, and only readers who want the information will click on it to see it at a legible size. Scorpion0422, you are quite right that the Simpson genealogy is contradictory and convoluted. You're also quite right that these sorts of articles tend to become unwieldy as more and more characters are added. But If the Simpson family deserves its own page separate from The Simpsons TV series, then we're going to get that sort of thing happening. It's not something that will be overcome by omitting the family tree. As you yourself note, this page has already grown as more minor characters have been added. It seems the inclusion of the family tree can only reduce the space needed to be devoted to these characters. The criticism that including the father Abraham Simpson, Sr. means the family tree would only be useful only to hardcore fans is hard to justify since, as you note, that information is already included in the text of the article. If the tree violoates WP:FANCRUFT, then by extension the entire article does. Mark Marathon (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark beat me to it in taking the 3O on this, so I will not opine. But I suggest editors take a look at the ancestry template to be found at Bear Grylls#Ancestry. And now that I've said my peace (or is it piece?), I can enjoy my nice cold Duff. Cheers! – S. Rich (talk) 03:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still very much object to this. The opinion of one non-Simpsons editor means more than the opinions of 2 editors who know the show back to front (not to mention the ones involved in the previous discussion). The entire justification of Mark Marathon is faulty. His logic is "The page exists, so why not?" but in the mean time he acknowledges the validity of my concerns. Sorry, but one "there's no harm in it" opinion doesn't make your suggestion any more valid. -- Scorpion0422 18:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we're obviously still miles from a consensus so I'm going to list at WP:RFC. Thanks to Mark Marathon and Srich32977 for your contributions. WilliamF1two (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you really want to win this one, don't you? I notice that you aren't asking Simpsons editors like Theleftorium or ctjf83. What's wrong, afraid they'll agree with me? -- Scorpion0422 21:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was aiming for a consensus on the subject - as you well know that can't be achieved with just two or three opinions. I had never heard of Theleftorium or ctjf83 until their comments below, so I find your implications of cowardice offensive and puerile. You've got your way, you could at least show a little dignity. WilliamF1two (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

[edit]

Should a family tree similar to the one above be included in the article? WilliamF1two (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  1. No (see below). Theleftorium (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

[edit]

Oh god. For years I was able to avoid crap like this, and I'm dragged into one of these. For those who don't feel like reading the previous discussions (including the first, where consensus was to not include a family tree) here is a summary of my arguments (it uses pieces of my previous arguments).

The supporting users never seem to be able to give a good reason for inclusion other than "it's useful" and "why not?" They then bring in comparisons to real life families (which is a stupid comparison) and other fictional families (just because another fictional character article has a family tree doesn't mean they all should).

  1. wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a fan site. The page (mostly) sticks to real world info. Having a family tree on a fictional family goes against Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) which says you need to present fiction from a real world perspective. Having a family tree means you're treating them as a real family.
  2. Undue weight. Do we really need to know Bart's relationship to Abe, Jr.?
  3. The information is already included. The important stuff is in prose form. Yes, some users don't like to read. It doesn't mean we have to muck up a good article with a flowery table.
  4. There is no definitive family tree (well, one was published in the early 90s, but the show has since contradicted it many times). Any tree would include some degree of assumption and original research. For example, Abbie is never expressly stated to be Homer's sister (strongly hinted, but never stated), so to include her is original research. There are also many uncles and cousins whose exact relations are unknown, but they did play a big enough role in an episode to warrant inclusion in the article. For example, Dr. Simpson.
  5. It will always be considered incomplete to some segment of the fanbase. If we limit it to major characters only, then it appears that Herb has no mother, Abe has no parents and Marge has no father. A fan will see that and expand it. Don't believe me? [10] Still don't believe me? [11] Of course, therein lies the catch-22. If we include the table with every known family member (which would require OR), then the table would definitely be too big and would include extremely minor characters. If we limit it to recurring characters, then it appears incomplete.

And that's what I think. In a general encyclopedia, a family tree on a fictional family comes off as fancruft. And nothing more. -- Scorpion0422 21:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Theleftorium's opinion: No, a family tree should definitely not be included in the article. This is a fictional family, not a real one. The show is very often contradictory and I do not even think minor characters mentioned once or twice should be included in the article (I would remove the "Other Simpson family members" section). Wikipedia strives to treat fiction in an encyclopedic manner with focus on the real-life perspectives such as development and reception. Adding a family tree with all of these minor characters would be the opposite of that and just screams fansite. Theleftorium (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm out of practice on formatting, so forgive errors. No, first it looks ugly. Secondly, as mentioned, any important relatives are listed in the infobox or article text. Who cares that Cyrus has 15 wives? An extremely hardcore fan, so it belongs on a fan site. CTF83! 23:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, you guys all seem pretty set on a no, so we'll go with that. I'm sad, but democracy has that effect sometimes... Thanks everyone who contributed WilliamF1two (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Simpson family. 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.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 16:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Simpson family. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 01:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Simpson family. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Simpson family. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer Note

[edit]

Bouvier family had been a redirect to Simpson family, which contained substantive history that was then merged into Simpson family. This redirect blocked my acceptance of an article on the historical Bouvier family, the family of Jacqueline Kennedy. So I have moved the redirect with history to User:Robert McClenon/Simpson family/Bouvier family. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simpson_family&oldid=1253686910"