Talk:Homer's Odyssey (The Simpsons)

Untitled

Does Mr. Burns appear in Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire? I know that he speaks in that episode, but I don't remember if he actually appears until this one (Homer's Odyssey). Can someone help me out? 12.73.228.239 00:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes he tells everybody (via intercom) that there will be no Christmas bonus this year.--220.238.253.147 04:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Previous Job

This article states that Homer becomes the Safety Inspector in this episode, and that his previous job was unkwon, however on or about 4:45, when the plant is going to blow Mr Burns asks Smither "My God 7-G whose the safety inspector there?" to which Smithers replies "Homer Simpson". Maybe it's just production oversight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SJrX10 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

?

"Also notable is that Marge was originally called Juliette in this script. The writers based it off of Romeo and Juliette." Are you sure this isn't a mistake? Or an in-joke from the staff during production? It makes no sense; why would Marge (who has been called Marge in the shorts and two previous episodes) suddenly undergo a name change in the script? This requires more clarification, because it really makes no sense right now. Gran² 11:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Homer's Odyssey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Well done.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   It wouldn't hurt to link "Smithers" in the Plot section, unless it doesn't have an article. In the Production section, "Romeo and Juliet" needs to be italicized, per here.

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the above statement can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to LAAFan who got the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Homer's Odyssey (The Simpsons) → Homer's Odyssey — I'm wondering if this page should be moved to Homer's Odyssey, with a hatnote on the episode page linking to the Odyssey. My reasoning is that "Homer's Odyssey" is the exact name of the episode, but not of the Odyssey, so the one whose "real" name it is should take precedence. --✶♏✶ 00:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Simpsons episode is a minor and derivative usage, to the point that this proposed move would make Wikipedia a laughingstock, frankly. Andrewa (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Homer's Odyssey" means the well-known Greek poem by Homer, not some modern silly cartoon episode. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • This "silly cartoon" has won 25 Emmy Awards. The age of a topic or your opinion of the quality of The Simpsons have no relevance to what the primary topic is. It's a shame you don't know that considering you're an admin who is frequently involved in closing WP:RM discussions. 90.218.93.248 (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The classic by the Greek writer Homer is the primary use of the term Homer's Odyssey - the Simpsons episode used the title in a derivative sense. A simple Google search shows that most of the first page of hits are about the classic work, not any of the modern ones (although some of those do appear). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Greek writer's work is the article most readers would expect to see, and that is what is important as far as Wikipedia article naming goes. 90.218.93.248 (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sensing some hostility to The Simpsons itself here, and while it's well within someone's right to dislike cartoons, I don't think that personal preference is a good perspective from which to approach this discussion. Just in general, I would like to point out that there are other well-known topics that share alternate names with very frivolous articles, where the frivolous article has a hatnote to the well-known one. The first example that comes to mind is London Bridges, but I'm sure there are others, especially for things like episode and album titles.

I also don't see how one single redirect is likely to make Wikipedia any more of a "laughingstock" than the many other idiosyncrasies for which it is publicly criticized, such as its great amount of attention to special interest topics such as Star Trek.

Personally this move simply makes sense to me because I don't see why a page should both have a hatnote to an article with a different name, and force that differently named article to have a topic specification on the end. But, I mean, whatever. :) This is the last I'll say on it. I just want to make my reasoning clear. --✶♏✶ 14:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree that there are already many other things that are less than perfect in Wikipedia, but this is no reason to add one more.

I hope I'm not being hostile to the Simpsons, or to cartoons generally. I more often read the spinoff Sunday comic than watch the show, but I enjoy both very much. And I'm a great fan of Carl Barks so I'm certainly not against such media in general.

There seems to be no mention of the Sunday comic strip in The Simpsons or even The Simpsons (franchise) aricles, so that's a gap we should fill. And the lead to Sunday comics refers specifically to the USA! We do have them in the other colonies...

Disagree that this is quite the same as having such good coverage of Star Trek while other topics are still relatively sparse. If we were to redirect Voyager to Star Trek:Voyager and place a hatnote on the Star Trek article pointing to a Voyager (disambiguation) page, then that might be a better parallel. But I hope we're not about to do that.

There's nothing I can see in our current article naming conventions reflecting your logic above, which would have far greater implications than this one article if adopted. It's an interesting idea. My initial reaction is that it would make the disambiguation process more complicated without a great deal of benefit.

Not all criticism of Wikipedia is fair. That's one reason for spending the time we do in creating and maintaining policy and guidelines.

I respect your intention to withdraw from this discussion. But if I'm wrong about the current article naming conventions (it has happened!) or if you feel that they can be improved, it would be good to point this out. Andrewa (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am a great fan of The Simpsons, and my opposition is nothing to do with the episode per se, but rather the fact that I find it self-evident that Homer's original is the primary subject. I wouldn't normally look at too many Google searches, but I was curious and just did:

• Google Web Search (first 100 hits)

• The Simpsons Episode: 7
• A book about a cat by Gwen Cooper: 10
• The Greek writing: 83

• Google Images (first 100 hits)

• The Simpsons Episode: 5
• The book about the cat: 3
• The Greek writing: 85
• Others: 7

• Google Video (first 100 hits)

• The Simpsons Episode: 20
• The book about the cat: 20
• The Greek writing: 53
• Others: 7

• Google News (62 hits): none were about the Simpsons, and about 50 were about the Greek writing
• Google News Archive (first 100 hits): 2 were about The Simpsons, 1 about the cat, 90 about the Greek writing and 7 about other things
• Google Books (first 100 hits): all of the first 100 hits were about the Greek writing
• Google Scholar (first 100 hits) almost all of the first 100 hits were about the Greek writing, and none of them about the Simpsons episode.

So although I enjoyed the Simpsons episode immensely, I cannot see how anyone could make an argument that it is more likely to be the primary topic than the great bit of writing by Homer the Greek! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Doh! Johnbod (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose You do hear the Odyssey called "Homer's Odyssey" because of the author's name. Goes back to notability. Squad51 (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removed Good Article status

Removed {{Good article}}. The article does not meet criterion for Good article status. The plot section has no references. Per good article criterion, good articles need to be "Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

An easy fail, a section that's entirely unreferenced. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the consensus these days are that a plot should not be referenced. We could easily provide references if needed. Anyway, you can't just remove the status of an article without going through GAR. --Maitch (talk) 11:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Put Your hand inside the Puppet Head

When Homer wrights his suicide note, it's on a memo that says "Dumb Things I Gotta Do Today", a referance to They Might be Gaints's "Put Your Hands Inside the Puppet Head: — Preceding unsigned comment added by MidnightCrisis (talk • contribs) 06:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Homer's Odyssey (The Simpsons). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.hurtwoodmedia.com/mckenzie/pdf/simpsons.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)