Talk:Homer's Phobia

Template:Simpsonsportalepisode date

Quotes

The "Quotes" section is a bit long. While the use of some is considered fair use, I doubt this many would. Squad51 23:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I don't see any quotes. Can we have a couple or three at least? Example: Yeah, and that's another thing! I resent you people using that word. That's our word for making fun of you! We need it! <- That's social commentary a la Lenny Bruce! We need it! Deadnancy 05:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Good article pass

I did a little bit of fixing up for the plot summary, but I don't think that's a significant contribution. Happy to say this is the second article I've ever tagged as a good article, and that the articles for TV episodes are coming along and have definitely proved to be capable of being encyclopedic. With this one,

1. It is well written. Appears to flow well. 2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. Well referenced especially given the topic. 3. It is broad in its coverage. Yes, out of universe perspective is long and detailed. Interesting. 4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Appears to be. 5. It is stable. Appears to be. 6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. Yes, and doesn't go overboard. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur. It's sure to even make it to FA status now that it's being peer reviewed.--Orthologist 19:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

TV.com

Christ, I saw after I promoted it, the beginning of this synopsis is a bit too close for comfort to that in TV.com. My suspicions, based on the history of this article, is that they copied from us rather than the other way around; still, it's worth looking into. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really. At least I don't so. It's a less than 30 minute episode, meaning that you can only have a sort of synopsis. What I mean is some things will be the same wherever they are used, because that is the best thing to say. Also this synopsis has more detail (cockamani's/$900) and it is written better. So what I mean is, its fine. And if it is copied, then, like you said, its them from us rather than the other way around. Gran2 16:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it can be taken lightly; as the detail was needless anyway I just removed it. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 10:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok I don't mind. Gran2 12:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

But of course. It's synopsis; details are completely uneccesary, and may constitute copyright violation.--Orthologist 19:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Links

I think that there should be at least two or three links for the guest star. One in the infobox (all others episode have it), one in the introduction and other on the related section when its discussed his participation. I put them a couple of times but someone keeps reverting it so I wanna know why--ometzit<col> 01:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)--ometzit<col> 01:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Because its overlinking, you only need one, and that's in the lead, maybe one in the infobox, but I personally don't feel there needs to be one anywhere else. Gran2 06:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

portal

There is a link to the portal. Isn't there somewhat of a concensus that these portal linkboxes should go in the See Also section ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to do with me, it just appeared there, I think it must have been added to the Season infobox template. As for what you said, I have no idea, I don't even think there needs to be one at all, but that's just my opinion. Gran² 18:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It was recently added to the infobox. I have now reverted it. --Maitch 18:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sentence from lead: "The episode sees Homer refusing to meet a new family friend named John after finding out that John is gay."

I think the verb meet is problematic here. Some readers might interpret the sentence as saying that Homer had never seen John at all before learning he was gay, which isn't true. Any comments? Zagalejo 23:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose, how about "The episode sees Homer refuse to see a new family friend, named John, again, after discovering that John is gay." Any better? Gran² 06:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

How about this? "In the episode, Homer disassociates from new family friend John after discovering that John is gay. He worries that John will have a negative influence on his son, Bart." The first sentence is a little less wordy; I added the second sentence because I think it gets to the heart of the plot. Zagalejo 15:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's alot better, I shall put it in. Gran² 15:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What's a "friend John"? Did you mean "friend, John"? -Harmil 08:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why would you need a comma before John? Would you rewrite this headline as "NFL Quarterback, Michael Vick, Indicted in Dog Fighting Case"? Zagalejo 07:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Empty space in lead

What's with the empty space at the top of the page and how can we get rid of it? --thedemonhog talk contributions 01:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, it's just a space, I don't really think matters. I've seen alot of articles with them. If yo can find a way to get rid of it then good, but as I said I don't really mind about it. Gran² 06:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Awards

It says at the lead that the episode won 4 awards, but I can only see the Emmy, WAC and GLAAD awards listed. Which is the fourth? :-) Cheers Raystorm 18:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Annie Award, its in there, "Mike Anderson won the Annie Award for Best Individual Achievement: Directing in a TV Production". Gran² 18:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, my bad. Sorry and thanks :-) Raystorm 18:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow

When I first saw a Simpsons episode article featured, normally notorious for their non-notability, I was more than a little surprised - but this episode evidently had significantly more impact than the average episode and is excellently researched. Good job everybody. Dcoetzee 00:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think Wiki is advertising 4 Simpsons Movie which comes out 2morrow. Y not do a featured article on Who's Your Caddy? or I Know Who Killed Me ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.44.125.29 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC).

You could call it advertising if you like, but many Articles of the Day end up being chosen for that day because it is relevant that day. Nowhere in the article is the movie mentioned. Those articles you cited are not Featured Articles, so they would not show up on the main page as an AotD. Wikipedia is not a company that chooses as a community which articles to turn into Featured Articles. Individual users or groups of users privately transform articles and take it through a rather rigorous process (see: WP:FA, WP:FAC, WP:PR, WP:TFA). If you want to turn those articles you mentioned into Featured Articles, you are more than welcome to. JHMM13^(Disc) 05:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Dcoetzee. I just mentioned this episode yesterday in relation to a conversation about "Everybody Dance Now." Keegan^talk 04:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Th26July: Featured Artilce: Is wiki advertising 4 Simpsons Movie ?

Is Wiki advertising 4 Simpsons Movie which comes out 2morrow. Y not do a featured article on Who's Your Caddy? or I Know Who Killed Me ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.44.125.29 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC).

No, I don't think it's advertising. This became a featured article several months ago, and was chosen to appear on the main page today, because, well, it fits. The reason why the movies you link to aren't today's featured article is because they aren't nearly up to the standard for acquiring featured article status. That's not to say that they can't become featured articles; you can work toward improving them, if you are so inclined. Also, please don't format your comments like that. Nufy8 01:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the annoying formatting, if that's okay with everybody else. Freshacconci 01:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Who's Your Caddy and I Know Who Killed Me can't become featured articles. A comprehensive article has information about the film's critical reception, sales, awards, etc., all of which needs a couple months for adequate sources to appear. 17Drew 01:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but the article's appearance on the Main Page seems to be coincidence. Here's the removal of the Main Page request. It was requested back in March, with the comment "Any date, ever, will do." There doesn't seem to be any message about it at User talk:Raul654, so it looks like it might just be chance that it's here. (Or Raul654 likes The Simpsons.) 17Drew 01:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. It was indeed requested to coincide with the release of the movie. It's not advertising though. There was a consensus to include the article, with two objections that it might come off as advertising. 17Drew 03:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to understand why fan-cruft articles like this become featured articles, but I'm not ready to conclude someone is on the take. -- Mikeblas 02:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you point out what exactly is fancruft? It looks like a really nice article to me, completely out-of-universe and pretty thorough. 17Drew 03:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, happy to help. You can find a good definition of fancruft at WP:FAN. -- Mikeblas 23:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What article would you prefer to see instead? It's better to spend your time improving that one than to clutter the talk page here. Zagalejo 23:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Clutter? Discussion pages are for discussions -- not just discussions that you personally like, or worshiping the article. -- Mikeblas 05:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

They're for discussing ways to improve the articles. Your comments added nothing constructive; they're just the same condescending complaints we see at every pop culture FA discussion page. And where do you see me "worshiping" this article? Zagalejo 05:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, I don't want to get into a long argument here. You may very well have some intelligent things to say about this page. In the future, though, please provide a more substantial argument than CRUFTCRUFT. Otherwise, you'll just get people riled up.Zagalejo 06:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It's advertising but we're not getting paid for it. D'oh! --W.marsh 04:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Where does it mention the movie in this article? It's not even immediately obvious on the main page that this is a Simpsons-related FA until you start reading the summary. JHMM13^(Disc) 05:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be funny if I didn't know you were serious. This is an unpaid advertisement. It's an article about a show a day before the movie on that show comes out. It happened, it's not going to be undone. Not really a big deal, it's happened before. --W.marsh 05:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you didn't take a condescending tone with me. This is not an "unpaid advertisement." This article and the mention on the main page do not contain a reference to the movie at all. If I knew nothing about film but only visited Wikipedia, I would never become aware of the fact that a Simpsons movie is being released. This article was going to end up on the main page at some point and a date request was made for this day because it was the most relevant to the subject. This is the recognition of several users' hard work at turning this into an FA, not some person's desire to bring attention to the movie. Really if seeing the word "Simpsons" on the main page draws a person to watch this movie, Wikipedia must be the only place that person ever goes because it's impossible to escape the real advertisements for this movie. JHMM13^(Disc) 08:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If Fox put up a giant building ad in NYC with a picture of Homer today, even if it didn't mention the movie, I'd think it was an advertisement for the movie. In 2007, advertising doesn't always have to consist of statements that just say "See this movie!", ever heard of viral marketing? A lot of marketing nowadays is just getting the word out about a product any way you can, and letting people do the rest. I realize everyone involved meant well here, but running this article on this day is something that promotes the movie. To put it another way, if you just read an article about an episode you liked and it reminded you how much you enjoyed The Simpsons, would you be more or less likely to see the movie if your friends were going tonight? Featuring the article has an obviosu effect. --W.marsh 13:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

JHMM13 is acting naive, yes, but I'm not thinking this FA timing is so bad. If a newspaper runs a Simpsons article today, yes they're helping feed the Fox PR machine to promote the movie, but their article might also have a higher probability of getting read because of the (presumed) general rise of interest in The Simpsons because of the movie promotion. I don't see anything really wrong with this, it's not completely making Wikipedia a corporate tool. Tempshill 15:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have heard of viral marketing. Have you ever heard of the word "relevance?" This page is relevant today. It has a connection with the movie. If Fox put up a giant ad with just Homer on it, everyone who might go to the movie would know that it refers to the fact that the movie is coming out today. No, seeing this article does not make me more likely to see the movie. It makes me more likely to remember when the Simpsons were actually funny and remember how seeing the movie might further spoil my image of the way the show used to be. No, I am not "acting naive," as you put it. I know all about the concepts of marketing and subtle advertisements, so please, Tempshill, do not making a passing stab at me without knowing anything about who I am or what I know. I'm simply recognizing the aims of the AotD idea. Just as John Adams is relevant on July 4, Homer's Phobia is relevant today. If Wikipedia has grown so large that in some way it makes the tiniest dent one way or the other in Simpsons Movie ticket sales, that is entirely irrelevant. Saying that we are advertising for the Simpsons Movie by putting up an episode from season 8 of the Simpsons television show without making even the slightest single reference to the idea that the Simpsons movie is coming out might be "true" in a very abstract way, but it's a stretch. A person would already have to actively know that the movie is coming out today, and even then the connection isn't immediately made. If the article on the main page was the Simpsons in general with a reference to the movie coming out today, you might have a point. As it stands, you're really grasping at straws to make an issue out of something that really, really isn't. JHMM13^(Disc) 02:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Just want to add my voice to the crowd and express my distate for having a Simpsons featured article one day before the movie release. Even if it's unpaid, it feels pretty unprofessional at best.75.82.126.191 05:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason it was featured today was to coincide with the release, no surprise there. It makes sense to give it a day that will mean something compared to a random day. Many featured TV shows have there featured article displayed before the new season starts or before a marathon etc. Plus this article was nominated a while back, it be different if it was rushed through and just made a feature article. And I dont think its unprofessional given that it is a good article. (Sorry if it seems like I'm being mean or anything, I just get mad when people are like why is so and so an article when its stupid. Its a featured article because it is well written and many people worked hard on making it good.) Rosario lopez 06:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well to be honest, if Raul thought there was a problem, he wouldn't have done it. Gran² 06:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You're all missing the point. This article is actually trying to associate the movie with themes of homosexuality, attempting the label the movie as "gay". Clearly it's unpaid slander. Lovok 12:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Only if you feel homosexuality is wrong. Judging from your analysis I feel you do. Hardly anyone else's problem but yours. - Throw 13:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe you fed the trolls. Tempshill 15:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, not everything on the internets is meant to be taken in gravely serious tones. Food for thought, perhaps. --Morbid-o 14:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

John Waters DVD commentary

Does he really refer to himself in the third person like this?--Pharos 00:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No. Those aren't exact quotes, anyway. (I just listened to the commentary to make sure.) Zagalejo 01:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, I hope that's not the way the whole article was written. If we're giving people's quotes, they have to be real quotes, not paraphrases in quotation marks.--Pharos 01:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll double-check the other commentary quotes. It doesn't seem like anyone really scrutinzed the article during the FAC discussion. Zagalejo 02:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of them were OK. I fixed the one quote I noticed that was erronously transcribed. Zagalejo 02:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've also adjusted the wording of the paraphrase a bit, because the joke about killing the animators just looks very strange without quotes. When we do have an accurate quote, of course that should be in the article--Pharos 05:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's exactly what he says:

"I remember the first thing when you all called and asked to do it I thought, well, it's good enough for Elizabeth Taylor, she did one, so I of course would do it. But it was weird because you asked me to play someone named John who looked like me but wasn't me, and, uh, a gay man, and I remember, 'Fine,' I said, 'I'll do it, but just tell 'em that if I look like Richard Simmons I'll have you killed.' Zagalejo 06:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I have no idea how I got that wrong, must have been asleep at the time. But the PR, and even the FAC weren't exactly the most helpful at pointing out problems I had missed. Gran² 06:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Cultural References

Has anyone made note of the fact that the Velvet Underground and Nico album cover can be seen hanging high on the wall behind the counter of Kockamamie's? Though there's no detail (it's just a banana with a white background), I think it's a reference.

Since it's a collectibles store, it is probably meant to be the original pressing of the album with the peelable banana. May be a bit obscure a reference for the article (not that the Velvet Underground is obscure, but the "blink and you'll miss it" nature of the reference). Freshacconci 13:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

On a separate issue I'm fairly certain the episode uses the Betty Everett version of the "shoop" song. I'm pretty much a 100% certain it does not use Cher's. Yeah I know Cher is more of a a gay icon and the BBC source says Cher, but I'm confident they're wrong. The article on The Shoop Shoop Song (It's in His Kiss) indicates Cher's version was much more popular in the UK than in the US so that might cause them confusion. (Also Everett's version seems to have not made an impact in Britain so possibly some British listeners think of it as Cher's) Even if the episode were using Cher's version saying the song is by Cher is, in my opinion, misleading to an almost objectionable degree. Cher I don't think ever claimed the song was "hers" and doing so could almost be a slap in the face to the original black artists who did it. As I recall there was even some controversy like that when the remake from Mermaids (film) came out. (And no I'm not going to change it especially as I'm not a 100% certain it's Everett's. An error like that makes me wonder how this became featured)--T. Anthony 14:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"An error like that makes me wonder how this became featured" Um, what? You've said yourself you don't actually know that its wrong, and if its sourced to a reliable source, then how can it be called a mistake that means it shouldn't be an FA? Gran² 07:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

First line of plot

What does "Needing money to pay the gas bill after one of Bart's antics sets the line alight" mean? What line? I can't figure out what it was supposed to be from the history. ~MDD4696 16:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It never used to be there, it was "Needing money for a new clothes dryer", don't know why it was changed. Gran² 17:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be an attempt to explain the situation more clearly, but I don't think that's necessary. That the Simpson's need money and must sell something should be sufficient. I'm also thinking the sentence was written by a Brit: I can't imagine an American saying or writing something like "sets the line alight" (not that that's a real problem. It just seemed a bit un-Simpson-like language). Freshacconci 17:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This line doesn't make any sense, not just gramatically, the reason the Simpson family are visiting the antique store is because Bart has broken the clothes dryer and Marges takes them to sell a family heirloom to pay for a new one.

Perhaps, the line could read:

"When Bart breaks the clothes dryer, Marge decides to sell a family heirloom to pay for a new one."

Speaking of feature articles...

Aren't most feature articles somewhat of an ad? And as far as ads go, I'd say that this is more of an ad for John Waters than the Simpson movie. And at the risk of insulting anyone, I'm just gonna let you use you imagination and end this comment right here.--Steven X 19:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Featured articles need to meet the FA criteria. John Waters does not. While people often try to get date-relevant articles on the main page, it has to be a previously unfeatured FA, so it's pretty hard to get a good one. There are only 5 FA-quality Simpsons articles total, and some of them have probably been featured before. -71.16.70.243 04:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There are 3 FAs (and 2 FLs) and none of them were featured on the main page before todat. The Simpsons used to be an FA and it came close, but it lost its FA status about a week before the date we wanted it to make the main page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Uh, Mr/Ms.71.16.70.243, I never mentioned the quaility of the John Waters article. I think you've got your wires crossed, pal.--Steven X 09:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Never Enough

The Wikipedia Gay Lobby must be revelling in this article. Articles such as this clearly demonstrate that advocates of homosexuality intend to strongly affect children, knowing that young people are easily influenced. Also, by emphasizing it as a feature article, the damage is maximized. Wikipedia should be ashamed of itself.Lestrade 19:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

What? Take your anti-homosexualness (is that even a word?) elsewhere, thankyou. Gran² 20:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you listening to what you're saying, Lestrade? How can you possibly have an opinion like that? You make it sound being homosexual is the end of the world. We live in the 21st century. Grow up. Metty 20:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think he may be kidding... Abeg92contribs 20:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

We live in the 21st century. Grow up. This is proof that homosexuals are succeeding in making their psychosexual aberration seem acceptable. They have systematically achieved this through the entertainment media, which appeals to younger generations. Wikipedia is encouraging this by giving such articles a featured article status. It is ironic that Metty tells me to grow up. The reason for the irony is that homosexuality is, itself, adolescent behavior that is exhibited by immature persons. Mature people grow past that stage into normal, healthy, natural heterosexuality.Lestrade 21:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Gee, thanks for your wonderful insight, Fred. Tony Myers 23:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The truly sad thing is, he's not kidding. Freshacconci 21:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This is really love and all, but take it somewhere else. The talk page is the place to discuss improving articles, and comments stating an article should not become featured (re: that an article should not be improved) aren't productive. If there is something in the article that promotes homosexuality, then please point it out, though you should note that the subject of an article promoting homosexuality and the article itself promoting homosexuality are two very different matters. And if you're going to go on tangential rants about the gay cabal, then find somewhere off-wiki to do it. 17Drew 23:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahem! CaveatLector^Talk 15:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Won't somebody please think of the children! Freshacconci 15:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I applaud Lestrade's comments. It shows they've been thinking about homosexuality and gay issues a lot! It's hard in a world full of change to assert what is normal and therefore needs defending - bravo! Benjiboi 22:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Official statement from the gay cabal, if there was one, which there isn't: There is no gay cabal. At all. There is no, I repeat no, massive conspiracy of hundreds of editors across several continents scheming via talkpage and hidden IRC channel (which if it existed, which it doesn't, would called #evilgaycabal, and the password to it would be "Mariah!") to carefully construct Wikipedia articles in such a manner that innocent young recruits children reading them will suddenly be possessed of an urge to wear pink (or flannel) and watch Queer as Folk (or The L Word) five times in a row before our crack Faery teams swoop down on them and carry them off to our perverted nests high up in the Brokeback Mountains for unnatural instruction in lisping and DIY. No conspiracy at all. And there is no "gay cabal". In fact, the words gay cabal don't exist. You're imagining it. And yes we would revelling in the article right now if we existed, which we don't. Well done Gran, if he existed, which he doesn't. All hail Xenu!(if he was real, but he really, REALLY isn't). Signed (or not), Dev920, Supreme Mugwump, if there was such a position, but there's not, of the Wikipedian Gay Lobby ™, if there was one, which there isn't. But if there was, would we tell you? 22:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to the "It's advertising" crowd

If advertising the release of the seventh Harry Potter book on the main page isn't advertising, then neither is this. Besides, The Simpsons Movie isn't mentioned once.

I just got home and I was quite happy to see this. Myself, Maitch and Gran2 were the main contributers to the page and we've been trying a LONG time to get a Simpsons article as a TFA, so this is VERY gratifying. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Homer's Enemy has been one.--Steven X 09:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Homer's Enemy has never been TFA. Gran² 09:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was mislead by the fact that the article has been deemed FA worthy.--Steven X 09:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)