Talk:Burns Verkaufen der Kraftwerk

Untitled

the title isn't a joke about the band? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.203.56.50 (talk • contribs)

I think no! "Kraftwerk" means "power plant"... --Filzstift 07:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Filzstift is right. But isn't this the episode where somebody says he's going to seeKraftwerk> -Alex H.

No, that's the episode with the stolen art from WW2 and the tontine... AnonMoos (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Episode title

According to the audio commentary, the title was an actual mistake by the producers, believing the titles would never be known. 141.6.203.14 13:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the whole section on correct German grammar is needless and boring in the context on info on a simpsons episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.90.241 (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The big company in East Germany

The quote is "He is from the East and I am from the West. He owned a big company and I owned a big company, now we own a very big company." The implication is that Fritz is from East Germany and Hans is from West Germany, and that their big companies merged upon reunification. Thus, my edit stand.

While (private) ownership of large companies by "native" East Germans may have been unlikely in the early 1990s, it was by no means impossible. E.g., several large corporations (Kombinate) were bought out by their (East German) managers. While (most of) the funding for these buy-outs ultimately might have come from the West, East Germans were technically and legally owners of large East German companies. Also, please sign any comments. --ThorstenNY 20:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Factual error in the show?

In the scene where Burns introduced his bees to Smithers, Smithers got bitten by several bees, and while his response was far from casual, it was also inconsistent with his response to bee stings in the episode 22 Short Films About Springfield. In that episode, it was revealed that bee stings cause Smithers to "um... die." One sting caused him to collapse within minutes, so it is presumed that multiple stings would disable him at least for the evening.

Is this a reasonable thing to add to the article? OliveHenry 04:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, Get-a-life, or watch the episode with Homer as Poochie. ;) 84.129.37.141 02:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This shouldn't be on this article. It wasn't a goof when this episode aired. If the Smithers/bee thing could be called a goof anywhere it'd be on 22 Short Films although given that The Simpsons play fast and loose with continuity all the time I wouldn't call it one. They probably knew that the later episode's bee thing was going against what happened in this ep but just didn't care.

I agree. the 22 short films about springfield was made a fair while after this one. by the way, on one of the DVD commentarys Matt Groening says "don't bother writing to us about continuty problems, we just dont care". And might I remind User:84.129.37.141|84.129.37.141 to shut his mouth because the simpsons is the best animated show in the world.

You can actually develop bee allergies even after a number of uneventful stings, -I put my foot in a hive when I was younger and got stung a lot with no allergic reaction, but later when I was older I developed an allergy. As per here, "Insect sting allergy can develop at any age and usually manifests after several uneventful stings." -so this isn't a goof or inconsistency for either episode.219.88.68.195 (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

German non-error

The capitalisation of V in "Verkaufen" is not incorrect German, because titles always have each word capitalised, except small words such as "the". If it were written not in a title, it would be "verkaufen". Pn57 (talk) 06:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the English rule. There is no difference in capitalization between titles, headlines and "normal" sentences in German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.145.89.65 (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong however is the grammar of the title. A correct translation would be "Burns verkauft das Kraftwerk." So "Verkaufen" and "der" is incorrect. (I am a German native speaker) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.191.16.42 (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I shouldn't argue against a German native speaker, but the capitalisation of Verkaufen is defensible in this case, since it is a noun derived from a verb. As I understand it, the title should be "Burns Verkaufen des Kraftwerkes", roughly "Burns' Selling of the Powerplant". So the original title is wrong in assigning "Kraftwerk" a feminine gender (and consequently, using the feminine genitive article "der"), but not in treating "Verkaufen" as a noun, and as such, capitalised and not conjugated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.117.173.172 (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hell, no! First, "der" is not feminine but masculine. Second, the word "Kraftwerk" needs the neuter article, i.e. "das Kraftwerk". Third, the verb "verkaufen" is not be capitalized because it is a verb. "Verkauf" is, indeed, a noun. Fourthly, If you'd like to put it like "Burns' Selling of the Powerplant" you have to write: "Burns Verkauf des Kraftwerks" (neuter, genitive) but you shouldn't because it sounds very artificial. Fifthly, since "Burns verkauft das Kraftwerk" sounds also a bit artificial, I'd recommend to use "Burns verkauft sein Kraftwerk" ("Burns sells his power plant"). It is more coll. and would fit more to the Simpsons. By the way: The German title puts it like an ad: "Kraftwerk zu verkaufen", in English: power plant for sale. -- German Dude 77.5.142.73 (talk) 10:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the title is not standard German but do want to point out that der is indeed the feminine definite article in the genitive case, e.g. the book of the woman: "das Buch der Frau".-Ich (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

That's great, it's used in a college course...

My Macroeconomics T.A. used an episode of the Simpsons at the University of North Carolina to make a point. Should we mention that in the Wikipedia too? 208.78.65.10 (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Slight error about the 'Hogans Heros' link

Seen the episode a number of times with all the repeats. I'm pretty sure it is 'Horst' who thinks he looks like Sargent Schultz, rather than either of the two who appear in Moes bar and chat with Homer early on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.6.11.20 (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Burns Verkaufen der Kraftwerk/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I vaguely remember enjoying the episode, and the article looks decent enough, so I'll take a look :)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   See below. This is my main concern- there are some real structure problems sentence to sentence

   B. MoS compliance:

   See below.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   What makes http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/simpsonsseason3.php, http://dvdmg.com/simpsonsseasonthree.shtml and http://www.digitallyobsessed.com/displaylegacy.php?ID=6129 reliable?

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   I'd really like to see the image description page cleaned up- a non-free use rationale template would be useful. The use of the image is legit, it just needs the rationale fixing up.

   On second thoughts, are we even certain that's the best image? How about a picture from the Land of Chocolate sequence? Or perhaps in the bar? I don't think a picture of two Germans really sums up the episode's plot, message or importance. J Milburn (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This article has potential to be rather good- the major problem is with the prose itself. A secondary problem arises with the possibility of unreliable sources. I hope these issues can be resolved so that it can be promoted.

• "Mr. Burns" Link to article or character list?
  • Done.
• (Same applies to the first mention of other characters, locations and the like- the power plant, Homer, etc etc. Helps provide context for those who do not know The Simpsons well. I see you've done this in the plot section, but they would be equally/more useful in the lead.)
  • Done.
• I'm not certain about the spoilers in the lead- I was under the impression they were generally discouraged. Our guideline doesn't mention it... Consider this merely a thought
  • Agreed. I have removed the spoiler-ish bits.
• "Homer mopes" Slightly informal?
  • Fixed.
• "and is resolved to" resolves to?
  • Switched to decides
• What precisely are "show runners", and why are they mentioned before the writer?
  • Removed.
• "The title of the episode "Burns Verkaufen der Kraftwerk" was incorrectly named, as the writer simply used a German-English dictionary to translate." More detail? What is it meant to mean, and why is it wrong?
  • Expanded that bit.
• "there was a two minute scene," Showing what?
  • Fixed.
• The first paragraph of "production" seems to be just a list of points. There seems to be very little unison.
• "the Simpsons's economic" I prefer this apostrophe style, but it is not consistent with previous apostrophes in the article.
  • Fixed.
• "Lenny and Homer" Lenny or Homer
  • Fixed.
• It's not immediately clear what a "beardline" is.
  • Fixed.
• "when the Simpsons were shorts" Very odd phrase
  • Fixed.
• "Tracy Ullman Show" italics?
  • Fixed.
• This next paragraph also seems to just bounce from point to point, point to point. There's very little structure in the production section's first two paragraphs
  • I took a crack and cleaning the section up.
• Again, the structure in the "cultural references" section is somewhat lacking
• "the top seventh" The what?
  • Fixed.
• "that the bit where" Hardly encyclopedic
  • Fixed.
• In the refs, I'm really not seeing why the whole of (say) "The Simpsons season 3 DVD commentary for the episode "Burns Verkaufen der Kraftwerk"" needs to be in italics. "The Simpsons season 3 DVD" maybe, but not the rest.
  • It's the way the template is formatted.
    • Then don't use the template? J Milburn (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. Done. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Thanks for the review. I have addressed your above prose concerns, and fixed the image rationale. In regards to the unreliable sources, I think hey are okay because in this case they are review websites, and are just being used for their reviews, not information. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The rules for reliable sourcing still stand. I could write a review in my userspace, or start a blog and write reviews for episodes. I don't think anyone is going to care what I think. If they do not meet the guidelines for reliable sources (and could not be considered reliable self-published sources/primary sources), then they should not be used. J Milburn (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, what makes you think they aren't reliable? All three are well-known DVD review websites, and I don't see why a reviewers that write for them would be any less qualified than, say, a reviewer for any newspaper. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Alright then, who are they? I'm sorry, this just isn't how the reliable source guidelines work. J Milburn (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
        • My main question was why do you think the sources don't meet the guidelines? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
          • I can't prove a negative... I can't see any evidence that they do meet them- IE, that the the websites are anything more than someone's blog. Is there an editorial board? Is it run by professional journalists? Are they spin-off sites from reliable publications like magazines? If you feel the sites are reliable, the burden of proof is with you to demonstrate that they are. J Milburn (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• • DVD Verdict - Is more than just a blog, with a variety of reviewers [1]
  • DVD Movie Guide - Doesn't offer much information. From what I can tell, it's mainly just one guy, and doesn't have any of his credentials listed, so I guess that one should be removed. It's a shame because it usually has really good, useable quotes.
  • Digitally obsessed - Again, a bunch of reviewers, but the requirements of becoming one aren't much [2]

So I guess the short answer is that I can't really find evidence that the three meet the RS requirements. I suppose I should remove them, although doing so will gut the reception section. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I can understand the annoyance, but, unless we have reason to consider something reliable, we shouldn't really be using it for such subjective information. Raw data, maybe (date first shown, something like that) but not reviews. J Milburn (talk)

Very well, they have been removed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• I still think there's a problem of just "listing points" in a few paragraphs- they don't flow too well. I feel these need to be cleaned up a little before the article is promoted. J Milburn (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I am going to be away until the 30 March. If the issue is dealt with in the mean time, feel free to contact someone else. Either way, leave a note on my talk page and I will get back to you. Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Love the new "Land of Chocolate" section, it's well written and is worth being there. The illustration is also very helpful. The prose has been well ironed, and everything seems to be have improved massively. I'm now happy to promote. J Milburn (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! :) Theleftorium 13:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)