Talk:You Only Move Twice/Archive 1

older entries

One of the pictures in this article does not appear to be official, it looks more like fan art. It is entitled "Hank Scorpio in front of Scorpio"

I believe it is fan art. This page contains the image and a reference to the page owner having drawn the image.

I think that the African Delegate referred to in this article was actually Indian. AllStarZ 00:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that Homers workers are always playing video games and Homer is ignorant to this. In the First scene the guy on the right appears to be playing doom, in the last scene the guy on the left is playing space invaders.

similair to this, in one shot when the camera zooms out, the workers all lift their heads up from the desks, as if they had been sleeping. Andy mci 07:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In the DVD commentary, the director says it was because they needed to zoom in on Homer, but they couldn't do it without seeing the workers heads in the scene. So they made them lie down until the camera pulled out. -- Scorpion0422 08:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold

I think the paragraph on Homer's colleagues needs expanding: right now it makes no sense. Also, I think the lead could do with an expansion. Like the plot, the fact this is the greatest Bond parody ever (or something like that). Alientraveller 17:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. -- Scorpion 19:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand about Homer's colleagues in the Production section. For that, you'll have to go with short, slow sentences. Alientraveller 19:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've given it a shot, what do you think? If you still don't think its clear enough, perhaps you could give some suggestions? Thanks. -- Scorpion 21:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well partly I don't get the significance. Is it a specific joke that the workers pop out of nowhere, judging from Homer's expression. Forgive me, I haven't seen a lot of Golden Age Simpsons episodes in a long time. Alientraveller 21:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's not a joke. I'll try to explain it. Basically, in the scene, the "camera" started out with a full shot of Homer, Scorpio and the workers, but it zoomed in to just focus on Homer and Scorpio. However, in the scene, you would have scene the tops of the employees heads. The director did not want that and basically the only way to keep them out but still allow the camera to pull back out would be to have the employees "duck" out of the shot and immediately sit up as the camera pulls out.... Maybe I should just use that explanation. -- Scorpion 21:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Do so. Oh, and it's seen, not scene in what you're saying. Alientraveller 18:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a full list of notes and modifications:

• Italics need to be put for You Only Live Twice and it needs to link to You Only Live Twice (film). Ditto with the Casino Royale spoof.
• "Brooks ad-libbed most of his lines and was always redoing his lines. In the end, there were over 2 hours of recordings. While writing the episode, the writers did not worry too much about Scorpio's lines because they knew Brooks would ad lib most of them although Scorpio's final line was written by the Simpsons staff." to "The crew did not worry too much about Scorpio's line as they knew Brooks would ad-lib and constantly redo them. In all, his recordings amounted to over 2 hours in length, although the character's final line was written by the Simpsons staff."

Alientraveller 12:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

All done, plus a couple of other things I spotted. Gran² 12:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Pass. Alientraveller 20:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm

"nothing to do during the day but drink a glass of wine"? I know we're not re-telling jokes here, but doesn't this misrepresent the truth a bit? It's been a while since I saw this, but I thought the whole point was that she was so bored that she could only drink one, not the recommended one-and-a-half? Lampman 19:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the joke was that there was nothing to do but drink, and then a secondary joke that Marge is simultaneously appalled that she's 'up to' a glass a day, while still cognizant that one-and-a-half is the reccommendation. That's kind of a Marge thing.

Walden II?

Could it be that there are also references to the book "Walden II" by B.F. Skinner in this episode? 84.158.88.132 18:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What needs to be done

Well, the page is an FAC now and it needs work. In my opinion, we need to:

1. Expand the lead
2. Perform several copyedits on the synopsis section
3. Clean up the production section
4. Expand the Cultural references and especially the Reception sections.

In other words, it needs a complete overhaul. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 06:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wordiness, disjointed paragraphs, trivial information

The "production" section is wordy. Take this sentence:

The second, which Josh Weinstein feels worked really well, was Homer getting a new Silicon Valley type Steve Jobs-esque modern boss who would be a contrast to Mr. Burns, an old fashioned style boss, and who actually respects Homer.

"Sillicon Valley type Steve Jobs-esque modern" is one hell of a long modifier. Can we communicate this more concisely? How about "modern, employee-friendly boss" or just "modern boss"? Also, this sentence, despite the fact that the writing at FAs is supposed to be of professional quality, describes Mr. Burns as a boss who actually respects Homer.

At certain points, there are notes from topics unrelated to the rest of the paragraph. The James Bont bit is referenced in a paragraph that starts off talking about the need to create new set designs.

Finally, there's the matter of unnecessary detail. As it stands, the section basically lists anything at all relating to the production of the episode. There's a distinction to be made between "comprehensive" and "overly detailed" or "trivial". It's possible that where I would draw the line is different from where others would, but I hope that we can agree that certain details, such as the line about Josh Weinstein in the quote above, are not necessary. Croctotheface 16:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the one point mentioned there, but the page is fine. Why don't you start work on a new episode page and get it to FA status? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Because this page could still be improved? Reverting me doesn't help those other pages, either. Croctotheface 17:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between improving grammer and removing content. If you want to copyedit the page then be my guest, because I want to see the page get as good as it could be. However, when you remove half of the production section, then it's different. All of the information adds the comprehensiveness of the article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't own this article. You don't get to decide that other editors can only copy edit it and can't remove content. I removed, I think, five or six sentences from the section. If I removed the WHOLE section, which is what you said I did, then I would be sympathetic to what you're saying. Do you honestly believe that the article ceases to be comprehensive because it doesn't spend two full sentences discussing the fact that the animators did not initially put the dog and cat in the episode? My version discusses the important elements of production--the goals of the episode, the reason Bont has a different name, Albert Brooks's adlibs, and some other details that are probably not essential but certainly matter more than whether Snowball II was in the animatic. Croctotheface 17:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You removed 2000 characters, which is half of the section. And, you don't own the article either. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

How many of those characters were things like reference tags? More importantly, what content did I remove that was essential to understanding the episode's production? Do you really think that the presence of the dog and cat, who do not figure into the episode except as background material, deserve two sentences in an encyclopedia article? Croctotheface 17:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It relates to the animation of the episode - the producers had to go back and change things, which I think does add to the page. The page went through a peer review and an FAC and nobody seemed to think that the section was too long, so I take that as a good sign. If you don't like the article, then put it up for FAR. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you're suggesting that I can't edit the article unless I first get its FA status revoked. If we accept your logic, then no change could ever be made to any article that went through peer review or a successful FA nomination. Length is not my issue, unnecessary detail is. Are you saying that any and all detail regarding the episode's animation should be included, or just that if such detail were put into the article it should never be removed? Croctotheface 17:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

When did I say that? All I said was that you shouldn't remove 1/8 of an FA without first discussing it. And, all details from the commentary are not included in the page, just the stuff relating directly to the production. Wikipedia is not paper, so why can't we be as detailed as possible? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Because we're presently discussing it, I assumed that arguments you were making here had to do with future edits, not past ones. In other words, I asked why we should include certain details or what about the material I removed was so essential. Your response was that the article went through peer review, etc., and the implication seemed to be that going through PR was an endorsement of the exact page verison or that it could not be further improved. If the standard is to include "all details from the commentary", then I don't see how we can avoid an problem of undue weight, since it is certainly conceivable that a detail from the commentary could be trivial. If one of the animators discusses what he was eating while laying out a scene, or if he mentions moving an object from one side of the screen to the other, but that movement doesn't actually impact anything, must we still include those? They are details from the commentary. WP is not paper, it's true, and that's a good rationale for having articles like this one in the first place. However, we must also remember that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the mere fact that some detail could be informative to someone is not reason enough to include it. Croctotheface 17:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Now your being silly. Everything there relates directly to the creation of the episode and thus is relevant. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was being silly, that's how reductio ad absurdum works. So we can be discriminating, then? The fact that something is discussed in the commentary does not automatically mandate its inclusion here? Your rationale before was that we should mention the dog and cat because "the producers had to go back and change things". I'll quibble with that: they didn't actually have to, they just figured it was a better episode if they did. Wouldn't the same be true of the most insignificant detail about the animation? How can we exclude any change if that's the standard we use for what to include? Croctotheface 18:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because you think something is insignificant doesn't mean it is. Look at the production section for My Sister, My Sitter, a GA that will never make FA status, and see if you can notice the difference. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) Likewise, just becasue you think something significant doesn't make it so. I am endeavoring to construct a rule by which we can decide what information is or is not significant. Mine is that we should judge details from the commentary as significant if they involve the construction of important plot points or dialogue or if they explain something that might be confusing (Bont rather than Bond, studynet.edu). There may be additional reasons that I haven't thought of. Your rule, by contrast, seems to be that we should include "all details from the commentary...relating directly to the production". I replied that such a rule would allow for the inclusion of clearly irrelevant details and therefore is inadequate. You haven't submitted a different rule or explained why I'm wrong. Croctotheface 19:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You've obviously never listened to a DVD commentary. The article could easily be twice as long if I included everything. You really can't create a set of rules for what is notable and whats trivia because every situation is different. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the personal attack, but I hope you can refrain from those in the future. That's the second one so far. You certainly can create rules of thumb. You really haven't given a reason as to why we should include the dog and the cat bit. I've suggested several why we shouldn't, and you've responded with very general phrases. It "relates to the animation". Does it follow that we could or should include everything that relates to the animation? They "had to go back and change things". Does that mean we could or should include everything that was changed at some point? I maintain that this particular detail does not impact on the episode or its plot in a major way. It doesn't speak to anything significant regarding the production of the episode, and it doesn't answer a questiont that the audience might have. It's just an interesting tidbit, which is basically trivia by definition, and therefore it's not appropriate for an encyclopedia. What is your response? Croctotheface 22:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Every Simpsons episode GAC and FAC has everything from the DVD commentary relating to animation because since The Simpsons is an animated show, animation is kinda important. Like I said, in the commentary, they said they had to go back and change entire scenes to readd SLH and Snowball, so that makes it notable. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

So the standard is "everything relating to animation"? That is a rule, by the way, so you've obviously never learned what "rule" means. So there is nothing that about the animation that could be too trivial for Wikipedia? If the animators talk about a character's eyeballs being too big or the director mentions that he changed the color of a table, it's appropriate information for the encyclopedia? Croctotheface 22:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

When did I say that was a rule? I try to include every notable bit of info animation that I can. No, not EVERY mention is included, but when its something major like changing finished scenes (because they can't just go back and digitally impose them in), then I think it's notable.

I believe that I have argued my case to the extent that I can. Perhaps you should try listening to the commentary yourself because there is a LOT of info in it, and the production section for this article is a LOT longer than any of our other Simpsons FA or GAs. As well, it seems to me that the only reason your still here is because your angry that I called your edit vandalism. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually came here BECAUSE I was watching the episode with commentary on it. I'm still here because I want to improve the article and I believe that my edits, while perhaps not perfect, are better for the article than the version you like. I would make the changes I favor, but I believe that you would just revert me. Is it so hard for you to envision a slightly pared down production section? Croctotheface 22:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Giving it another shot

OK, so, I gave it another shot. The only sentences I removed referred to the business about the writers "debating" the Marge b-story because it was "depressing". I don't see what this adds, since it doesn't end up impacting the actual plot. I made some of the other parts more specific with respect to the family stories. I also removed the business about the espresso makers because, honestly, who really cares that they're modeled after the animators'? The rest of the changes I made did remove letters, but they did NOT remove content. I even left in the business about adding SLH and S2. The truth of the matter is that the writing in this section was not very good. It spent a lot of words to say things that could be communicated succinctly. It used clunky constructions when it could've used streamlined ones. If you compare the prose, I think it's hard to say that my rewrites do not improve the page. Croctotheface 03:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We all think our edits are absolutely perfect. That's why there are other users who can tell us otherwise. Your prose was far from improved. Stuff that causes major dissention in the writers room is notable. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you think "your" version is so much better. Your text contains FAR too many runon sentences, commas and is nowhere near as good as you think it is. And I really dislike the fact that I should be forced to see the page defaced just because an editor is too immature to accept that his version isn't an improvement. You really are the most immature and unprofessional editor I have ever had the misfortune of dealing with and I will see you in a day when I revert to the better version. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Defaced? Go read WP:Own and find something productive to do. Croctotheface 03:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:Own is a two way street, you don't own it either and just because you think your edits are perfect, doesn't mean they are. The previous version (which isn't just mine - four people worked on it) passed an FAC and I guess that counts for something, doesn't it? You just want to get your own way, that's all. By the way, who is Ernst Stavro Bolofeld? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Your attitude this whole time has basically been to tell me to go away. You keep referring to the article's FA status as if that means that it is perfect as is and can't be improved. When you apologized for calling me a vandal and then "retracted" that apology, I am left to believe that you only apologized in the first place because you thought it would make me leave "your" article alone. We can disagree about the appropriateness of this detail or that detail, but the prose needs improvement. I am honestly surprised that it was selected as a FA, but rather than take your flippant suggestion of nominating it for a FA review, I decided to be bold and improve the article. My reward for that was insults, accusations of vandalism, and reversions. If I just wanted to get my way for the sake of getting my way, I would not have undertaken two distinct rewrites. You reverted both of these outright. In your mind, not only was my version not an overall improvement, not a single word was worth keeping. Even if I am a terrible writer, a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. I'm left to believe simply that you reject and will revert any substantial change to this article out of hand. Croctotheface 04:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, look at this diff. Do you really believe that NONE of my changes are even a MINOR improvement? Croctotheface 04:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Get over yourself. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, then, I hope your recognize that we need further comments from disinterested parties to resolve this. Croctotheface 04:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

3rd Opinion As Requested

1. Croctotheface's edits improved the article greatly. He is a good writer and has a good sense for weeding out clutter so that the article is actually easier to understand and more informative. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. Just because it's true doesn't make it encyclopedic.
2. Scorpion0422 was completely out of line for jumping right in and labeling the constructive edits as vandalism. Scorpion0422's failure to assume good faith is what kicked off this mess.
3. Scorpion0422's edits were only in the nature of dragging the article back down to its less readable state.
4. Remember the three-revert rule ? It's not the gazillion revert rule. You're both guilty. Equally. Policy is policy.
5. Scorpion0422 has had a harder time remembering to be WP:CIVIL, but you've both lost control. Just look at this talk page tomorrow after you've had a good night's sleep. You'll be saying to yourselves: "What was I thinking!?!"
6. You guys sound like a couple of kindergärtners who didn't get their nap today. Do better next time. Don't make yourselves and everyone else miserable over a SIMPSON'S EPISODE (y'all know it's just a half-hour cartoon, right?)OfficeGirl 04:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Another third opinion

(edit conflict, I see OfficeGirl got here first, but here goes anyway...)

I'm going to start this not with an opinion on the content, but with an opinion on this discussion. The WQA volunteer in me won't let it slide. Scorpion0422 (t c), I count at least four comments you've made in this discussion that are blatant violations of WP:CIVIL, another three instances on Croctotheface (t c)'s talk page, and it seems to me that your input on this discussion (especially in the "Giving it another shot" subsection) indicates you've caught a bad case of ownership of this article. To put it bluntly, Scorpion, you need to back off, take a deep breath, and realize that others may have valuable contributions to make.

I'm honestly surprised that this discussion hasn't escalated farther than it has already; and for that I can only credit Croc's saint-like patience. Personally, I would have reacted far more poorly than he did to wholesale reversions of good-faith attempts to improve an article.

That being said, Croc, you may wish to take into account some of Scorpion's less irritable comments. I see that in the edit which you linked just above this opinion, you'd already done so to an extent, but it's obviously not what he was looking for. I'll take some time a bit later (tomorrow morning, I think, it's midnight here) to read over the actual edits you've made and Scorpion's comments about them and see if I can work out a reasonable compromise for this article. --Darkwind (talk) 05:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It has never been my opinion that my edits were 100% perfect. I'm certainly willing to see this or that sentence changed from my version. I do have to agree with OfficeGirl about my version being an overall improvement. I would appreciate more guidance from both of our third opinion-givers about which details we should exclude and which to include. For the time being, I left each disputed detail IN and focused only on the prose, but I don't think that each belongs. Croctotheface 05:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay I'll give my opinion on this matter. Now, firstly I'd say (with the original edits) both Croc and Scorp could be counted as being wrong in a way. Now Croc was being bold, which is of course great, but I think (whether he or anyone else believed in greatly benefited the article or not) in removing more than an a sentence or two, it may have been a good idea to add a section here first, fully explaining why. As (although no FA is set in stone perfect) edits like this to an FA can be opposed and controversial, as this has proved. That said, Scorp's blank reverting and vandilism accusation was not good. Rather than reverting, asking Croc why on his talk page, or on here would have been more civil.

Now on to the content, having read through both, I am not disputing the fact that Croc's version (in terms of prose) is alot better. But I do think that most of the content there is good info and should be keep, but just re-written. Although that said, some things could go: "Christian Roman, John Reiss, and Mike Anderson, who storyboarded the episode, described the sets as highly exotic" for example. But I'll read through both versions again when I have more time and am more awake, and see if I can see anything else. So in conclusion, I'm not actually going to take either side just now as I think both Croc and Scorp have some points of equal measure. Gran² 06:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet another opinion

Thought I'd chime in. :) I do think this article needs a lot of work. Had I noticed the FAC, I would have voted Oppose because of prose concerns. A few quick comments after looking at the lead:

• The episode focuses around Homer getting a new job at the Globex Corporation in Cypress Creek. "Focuses around"? We could probably do better.
• The episode title is a reference to the James Bond film You Only Live Twice and many elements of the episode parody the Bond films. This is a run-on sentence. You need a comma between "Twice" and "and".
• We use the phrase "unbeknownst to Homer" twice within three consecutive sentences.

I think the Simpsons project should try to clean up some of the old FAs instead of looking for a new article to promote. If A Streetcar Named Marge passes its FAC, I'm probably going to turn my attention here. Zagalejo^^^ 03:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have sought to improve the writing here, but I have been met with considerable resistance. Croctotheface 04:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You've been met with resistance because you're trying to remove content. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You claimed I removed content before, and then you shut up becuase you realized that I didn't. You continued to then revert contributions that everyone else agreed were big improvements. You made this personal from the very first edit, and you continue to refuse to accept my edits as legitimate. Croctotheface 04:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And, by the way, I want to remove content for the good of the article. The stuff I want to remove is trivial and unnecessary. It's a matter of three different little factoids. You've reverted me, in whole or in part, multiple times. You claimed that my edits did not improve the article at all. For you, this is not about the article, it's about me. Croctotheface 04:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well let's see here, you came out of nowhere and removed half of the production section. It seems to me that you tried to remove a LOT of content. You seem to have forgotten that. And, by the way, removing sourced content without discussion IS considered vandalism. And don't you start with this "good of the article" stuff and acting like your so innoncent. I'm done with you. I've stated my case as clearly as I possibly can and the fact that you are still arguing over silly things proves that you don't care about the article. I tried to restart a discussion about the "three little factoids" and you ignored it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You owe me an apology for calling me a vandal. You owe me an apology for saying that I don't care about the article. Until you do that, I have nothing to say to you. Croctotheface 04:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

How can you say that you aren't taking this personally? Besides, you called me a vandal. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We need to hash out which details should be excluded from the production section

Based on the third opinions, it seems that the general feeling is that not every detail that is currently in the section should be there. I notice that we've lost the coffee makers, I guess because I removed them and didn't get reverted at some point. The only other detail I really want to remove is the one about the pets. As I've said, it doesn't relate in any meaningful way except as a piece of trivia about what's been in and out. The second, related detail I want to remove is the "Ralph hair" business, for basically the same reasons. The last one that I think could go concerns the "hunched over" technicians. Of the three, I'm more sensitive to arguments for keeping this one because it's something that actually is in the episode. However, it's still just sort of a silly trivia item, more appropriate for something like an SNPP.com episode capsule than an encyclopedia article. Croctotheface 19:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The details in question relate to the production of the episode. You've [sarcasm]"perfected"[/sarcasm] the section, so I don't think there is any need to remove any details. Like I've said many times, the article passed an FAC and nobody had any issues about the detailing of the article because FACs should be as comprehensive as the sources allow. How about instead you go work on a new Simpsons episode article, rather than trying to get rid of information from this one. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you read any of the above opinions, regarding things like civility and ownership of the article? Are you ever going to stop saying that the article should not be edited becasue it's a FA or that I should stop editing here and go edit something else? Croctotheface 20:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I have explained a thousand times that just because you think something is useless, it doesn't mean it is. The information in question adds to the section. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

OfficeGirl seemed to think that my changes, all of them, were improvements and that all the material I removed was trivial and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The other users who commented left open the possibility that some things could stay and some should go. I'm attempting to ascertain what should stay and what should go. All you seem to be interested in is getting me to go away and leave "your" article alone. Am I wrong in believing that? Croctotheface 20:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You've already cut a bunch of content out of the page. It seems to me that the only reason you haven't left is because you're desperate to get your own way. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What "content" have I cut, except for the coffee makers bit? Croctotheface 21:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the WP:FICT guidelines, the production (ie. Real world) section of an article is the most important and notable part of a fiction article. There's plenty of stuff that is less important on the page, like why is the 2 second appearance of characters modeled after Norman Schwarzkopf and Mrs. Goodthighs any more or less notable than who the characters in Bart's class are modeled after? Why is the writers first choice for singing a song more notable than major animation changes? You seem to think there is lots wrong with the page, but you haven't touched any of the other sections. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what content did I remove that you want to put back? Croctotheface 22:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

When did I say I wanted to readd anything? All I said is that you've already removed stuff from the article, ie. The coffeemaker bit, stuff about Bont, etc, etc. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You said, "You've already cut a bunch of content out of the page." I then asked, "what content", besides the coffeemaker, which does not qualify as a "bunch" in my mind. What "content" did I remove about Bont? What else? Croctotheface 22:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I already answered, several random sentences. What, do you want a blow by blow recap of everything that has been cut? I think the better question is: why are you avoiding my question? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You're avoiding my question. "Content" is different from verbiage. What ideas did the old version communicate that the current version does not? Croctotheface 22:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have misinterpreted my statement. All I said was that you've already cut some stuff from the production section. Did I say that I wanted to readd it? No. Did I say that I say that it took away from the article? No. So I don't see why you keep leaping over that one sentence. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

(removing indents) Misinterpreted? All you've done is revert my changes and tell me to go away. You've said more than once that my edits did not improve the article at all. You said I removed content, and I asked what content I removed. You then avoided that question, changed the subject, and now maintain that you didn't actually mean that I cut content. Why are you so hostile to my being here? Everyone else seems to agree that my contributions have made the page better. Croctotheface 22:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And all you've done is tell me your edits are perfect, that I don't own the page, and that you demand that several sentences be taken out.

According to the WP:FICT guidelines, the production (ie. Real world) section of an article is the most important and notable part of a fiction article. There's plenty of stuff that is less important on the page, like why is the 2 second appearance of characters modeled after Norman Schwarzkopf and Mrs. Goodthighs any more or less notable than who the characters in Bart's class are modeled after? Why is the writers first choice for singing a song more notable than major animation changes? You seem to think there is lots wrong with the page, but you haven't touched any of the other sections. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're pointing out deficiencies in the other section, then fix them. I like to edit one section at a time. Within the section, there were and remain bits of trivia that, in my opinion, don't belong. Please note that I was not the only editor who expressed disapproval of your actions here, and Darkwind agreed with me, saying that you have "caught a bad case of ownership of this article. To put it bluntly, Scorpion, you need to back off, take a deep breath, and realize that others may have valuable contributions to make." I created this section as a way to discuss what to include or exclude. You went right back to the same "FAC" argument that everyone else who posted here rejected and then again told me to go away. You are now arguing not so much that the details I want to remove are important, just that there is other stuff in the article that is even more trivial. Croctotheface 22:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You know what, I think YOU need to back off, because every single time I reply to you, you respond with accusations of ownership. I have not once claimed it is my article. Okay, you want to discuss your proposed changes? Fine.

"I really want to remove is the one about the pets." It may seem trivial, but according to the commentary, the animators had to go back and add them which would involve changing several scenes. Animation is an important part of the process and SLH and Snowball are both character who regularily appear in episodes, so I felt it was notable enough for inclusion.

"I want to remove is the "Ralph hair" business". This involves the design of characters, who appear in several scenes. Again, animation is a major part of an episode and I always try to add as much design info as I can to an article and I felt since the characters were designed like Ralph, a major character, it was notable.

"The last one that I think could go concerns the "hunched over" technicians." According to the commentary, it took the animators quite a bit of time to perfect that and was quite a poser for them. I agree that the section is a tad long, but it is difficult to convey the information and keep it short at the same time.

There you go. And notice how all of your statements are "I want", not "I think it would be best for the article"... -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, "I want" to remove those for some reason other than because I think it would be best for the article. You do realize that you're supposed to assume good faith, right? Look, I'm willing to have this discussion with you, but only if you could be convinced to change your mind. Otherwise, we're just going to bicker back and forth with no attempt at resolution. Croctotheface 22:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This may seem amazing to you, but I don't have ownership issues. I worked hard on this page and I simply want to see it be as good as possible. I admit that I went a little far the other day in outright refusing your changes. However in this case, you are speaking of removing content which you claim adds nothing to the article. However, I disagree. I think a lot of what has to do with the production of an episode is notable for inclusion and it is not just minor details. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Plot section, now

First, you tell me I shoudl focus on other sections. Then, you partially revert me. Am I going to need to ask for another third opinion here? Croctotheface 22:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

What, am I all of the sudden not even allowed to edit the article? I didn't revert you, I fixed some typos and fixed some clunky sentences. That is all. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

In what ways were your "fixes to clunky sentences" different from the version just before I edited the page? Croctotheface 22:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, I accepted 75% of your changes but decided that in some cases, the original text was better. We try to avoid specific jokes, unless they have something to do with the overall plot and I removed a couple of instances of over-detailing. But, you immediately reverted to "your" version and all of the sudden you seem to have the ownership issues. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted because I assumed that your partial reversion was arbitrary. In the past, you have reverted me without a good reason, and you didn't give one in your edit summary. Based on your more recent changes, I think that the reversion has actually been a positive, since you reconsidered some of your earlier reversions, which did not benefit the article. The "abandoned" sign could be a joke retelling. OK, fair enough, take that out. The "prove he's not bluffing" quote could be unnecessary, OK, fair enough, remove it. I am still inclined to quibble, though, with a couple of other ones. First, "does not recognize or comment on what is going on" accurately describes what Homer does, while "remains oblivious to Scorpio's evil genius tendencies" is inferior for a few reasons. First, "evil genius tendencies" sounds strange. What is it to "tend" to be an evil genius? Would you accept a compromise version of "does not realize/recognize what his boss/Scorpio is doing" or "does not realize/recognize that his boss/Scorpio is a supervillain"? And I think that my intro is just better, even if it might spend another ten or so words. The writing is better. Croctotheface 23:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Could we please get more opinions here? Here is the diff in question. The version Scorpion keeps reverting to does not explain why Homer's seniority matters. It does not mention that Homer accepts the offer first and convinces later--it suggests the opposite. The writing is not as tight. Scorpion and I will never agree; we need more opinions. Croctotheface 22:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Because they are minor details with little to do with the overall plot. Synopsises are supposed to be as brief as possible and avoid jokes unless they are absolutely necessary. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to apologize to me for your numerous personal attacks. If you want to remove the bit about the seniority, fine, but you haven't done that. You've insisted on leaving it in without explaining why it matters. Your version makes that detail even more irrelevant. If you did not reject my edits out of hand becuase of your ownership issues here, maybe the article could actually get better. Croctotheface 22:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, time for a mature discussion

This is just for discussing the article. No more immature arguing. My arguments:

"I really want to remove is the one about the pets." It may seem trivial, but according to the commentary, the animators had to go back and add them which would involve changing several scenes. Animation is an important part of the process and SLH and Snowball are both character who regularily appear in episodes, so I felt it was notable enough for inclusion.

"I want to remove is the "Ralph hair" business". This involves the design of characters, who appear in several scenes. Again, animation is a major part of an episode and I always try to add as much design info as I can to an article and I felt since the characters were designed like Ralph, a major character, it was notable.

"The last one that I think could go concerns the "hunched over" technicians." According to the commentary, it took the animators quite a bit of time to perfect that and was quite a poser for them. I agree that the section is a tad long, but it is difficult to convey the information and keep it short at the same time.

There you go. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You still owe me an apology for the numerous times that you have attacked me personally. I will not attempt to work with you unless you do that. Croctotheface 04:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That lasted a long time. Option a) We discuss this maturely and end this. Option b) Someone acts immature and the feud continues. I guess you've chosen. By the way, you've insulted me several times. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You're in no position to lecture me on maturity here. If you won't apologize for what another editor described as "blatant violations of WP:CIVIL" and your countless baseless personal attacks, then it is not I who is being immature. Besides, is there even anything that I could say that would change your mind about this issue? Croctotheface 04:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

At least I'm making an effort to end this. This is getting to the point where I think I personally am going to add it to Wikipedia:Lame edit wars. If you're not going to discuss things, then don't even bother replying. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you two ever work things out... here's what I think.

• The "hunched over technicians" thing should definitely go. Yes, it was a creative solution, but hardly anyone would have noticed the continuity problem in the first place. It seems like the animators were just bending over backwards to appease the Usenet crowd.
• The bit about the pets is probably expendable for similar reasons, although I think slightly more viewers would have noticed that the pets were missing, so I'm kind of on the fence with that one.
• I do think the "Wiggum hair" item could be retained, because the average fan most certainly would've recognized that many of the children sounded and acted like Ralph. The note about the design change adds some interesting info about a scene that many people were probably wondering about. However, I won't really fight for it if others want it removed, since it's not really essential to one's understanding of the episode. Zagalejo^^^ 06:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I addressed this topic at length in a previous discussion, so what I'll say here will serve to add to, rather than replace, what I've already said. My feeling is that, in the production section, we should include material if it is relevant to the way the story is constructed (stuff about the general outline, the ABCD stories, the omitted E story), if it directly impacts the plot or dialogue (Brooks's adlibs and rewriting), or if it answers questions that the audience might have (origin of the name "James Bont", the school website joke). We should not include material because the animators had to go back and change something, which is, as best I could tell, one of the reasons Scorpion gave. They produced the same episode that way as they would have if the cat and dog were there the whole time--they just went about it in a different way. By contrast, if Albert Brooks were not involved, the episode would've been quite different.

Your "average fan" standard, Zagalejo, is interesting, but it's a bit speculative for my taste. We can't really speak to how many people would've missed Snowball II if she wasn't there. Even if we could, I'm still left asking, "So what?" What does that say about this particular episode of television? Does knowing that the pets were included later rather than the whole time expand my knowledge of this episode in a non-trivial way? I can't see how it does. For both this and the "Ralph hair" detail, they could certainly be interesting to people, but they would be interesting on a trivia, "I want to know even the tiniest detail" level. "Interesting", as OfficeGirl pointed out, is not the standard for inclusion here, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Croctotheface 08:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm familiar with WP:NOT. It is kinda hard for me to dismiss those items as pure "trivia" when I'm used to stuff like this (eg, "When the parachutes open in the couch opening, Lisa and Bart open their mouths, and Maggie closes her eyes"). The above three items at least provide an insight into the minds of the writers and animators. But, like I said, I understand that none of the facts are essential, and I think you'd be justified if you removed them. Zagalejo^^^ 09:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A compromise

We're going to get nowhere with this all or nothing crap, so let's try a compromise:

1. The bit about the ducking employees can go.
2. The SLH/Snowball notes and Ralph Hair stuff stays because like I said, SLH & Snowball are regularily appearing characters I think it is major that they were forgotten.

It allows the article to retain some of the information, but it also gives you some of what you want. Most importantly, it ends this before we both go insane. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The crouching employees can go, but I think the bit about SLH and Snowball is just as notable as the other stuff. I allowed you a consession, so you should grant the same. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Why should I grant you anything when you have attacked me personally the entire time I've tried to improve this article and you've never even said you were sorry? Every editor who brought up the topic of your conduct toward me said that it ranged from bad to reprehensible. You are alone in wanting this compromise. Three editors (me, Zalejo, and OfficeGirl) are on record saying that the details can go. Two did not give an opinion on the matter. You are alone in advocating your solution. Croctotheface 22:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Because if you want to remain engaged in this stupid war, you can go ahead. I will let you do whatever you want to the page if you agree to leave that bit in. Besides, you are not innocent. You've called me a vandal, paranoid, immature and have been just as nasty, but I am eager to end this, so you have to be willing to make peace. And by the way, OfficeGirl didn't specifically say she wanted that bit gone and Zagalejo said he's on the fence, so don't put words in others mouths. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My goal is not to "do whatever I want to the page", it is to improve the page. I have sought out extra opinions here when you have just engaged in reversions. The extra opinions so far have either agreed with me straight away, agreed with me after discussion, or taken no specific position. One of those "no position" editors, by the way, DID make a point of rebuking you for your lack of civility and "bad case of ownership" of the article.

The bottom line here is that you and I cannot work together. For a long time, you refused to acknowledge that my changes had any merit at all. When the unanimous opinions of other editors who looked at them disagreed with you, you dropped that opinion. However, you continue to revert me at every possible turn. We need to look past one another and to others for opinions. My edits are informed by the opinions of the other editors who have come here.

OfficeGirl referred to my edits in their entirety. She said, "Croctotheface's edits improved the article greatly. He is a good writer and has a good sense for weeding out clutter so that the article is actually easier to understand and more informative. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. Just because it's true doesn't make it encyclopedic." Considering that the whole of the discussion that she was invited to give an opinion on dealt with the details in question that I removed, I don't think there's any way you can say that she was not making a comment. She also said, "Scorpion0422's edits were only in the nature of dragging the article back down to its less readable state." In saying that your reversions did not improve the article, she did not pick out anything from them as having merit. In other words, she praised every edit I made and criticized every edit that you made. Zalejo said, "I think you'd be justified if you removed them," where "them" referred to all three details in question. He was on the fence, but he came around to my position.

No editor, except for you, gave the opinion that they should stay. You seem to now be suggesting that because you have softened your prior position of "revert Croc's edits without thinking and personally attack him", you are entitled to have your way. If other editors come here, are willing to look at the issue objectively, and agree with your posiiton, then that would actually change the calculus here. NOBODY has done that so far. Croctotheface 22:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

But nobody has said they wanted it gone. If you want to go to an RFC over a single sentence, then fine, but I'm not changing my opinion because I think the fact that they had to change entire scenes just for two characters who aren't even in the story is interesting. If you're going to remove that, then you can remove half of the section, because why is that any less notable than who the writers wanted to sing a song, or who a 1 second character is based on, or the internet joke, or what a writer thinks of a minor characters accent. I think the only reason you keep reverting me is stubbornness and because you are angry at me for calling you a vandal. I agree that we can't work together because here I am trying to reach a compromise and you keep storming in with your "I know whats best and I want what I want" attitude. NONE of the people above specifically said it should go, and I think Officegirl's comments meant the overall flow rather than the one sentence. Like I said, if you want to get into a huge fight over something miniscule, I'm ready and willing, but I think you should do the mature thing. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

We already had this conversation. I found other opinions. They agreed with me. NOBODY AGREES WITH YOU. Rather than be able to point to people who agree with you, you have found it necessary to try to explain why people who say things like "Croc's edits improve the page greatly...Scorpion's edits served only to return the page to less readable form" or "I think you're justified in removing the three items" actually do not really mean what they are saying. I'm not going to rehash my various arguments and standards for what to include. My endeavor has been to create a standard for inclusion here. You made no attempt to discuss such a standard with me, and you said that we can't create one. Well, if we have no way to DISCRIMINATE between what should and should not be included, then the section is an INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. Your standard appears to be that we should include stuff because it "is interesting". That's not the way we do things here; as OfficeGirl said, that's an indiscriminate standard. If you want to file an RfC, go for it. Considering that you're the only one on record as wanting to make your change, it is probably in your best interest to find more opinions.

This is not about you being willing to compromise versus me refusing to. In fact, you refused to entertain the possibility that my edits improved the page at all. You said "No, get over yourself" when I asked if there was anything in my edits that you favored keeping. This is about you refusing to entertain any substantial change to the page, me responding by seeking out more opinions, those extra opinions agreeing with me. After the fact, with no editors agreeing with you, you want to "compromise". Why should I? You're alone in your opinion.

As a final note, I find it amazing that you refuse to ascribe anything but these terrible motivations to me. This is beyond failing to assume good faith--you fail to assume anything but bad faith. You've called me a vandal, a stalker, and someone who is only editing to "get his own way". I'm not sure where you get this stuff from. Everybody else has said that I'm a good writer who improves the pages he works on. I want to improve this one. Your attitude this whole time has been to tell me that my attempts to improve this page are not welcome. They're vandalism, or they're irrelevant because of the FAC, or they're not as useful as "getting some other article up to FA status". You don't want me here. Well, you don't get to decide. If I can improve this page, I will. If a consensus of editors disagrees with my changes, then so be it. However, they don't. If you want to open it up so that others can come look at this page and maybe take your view instead of mine so be it. Croctotheface 01:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not filing an RFC. I'm going to continue to revert you until you file one. And how can I assume good faith when you refuse to even consider a compromise? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, I was all set to strike out that last comment and try to discuss the merits because I saw, right after I sent that post, that that you apologized on my talk page. However, since you are now pledging to edit war, I can't imagine that you actually have any sincere remorse or intent to work together. Your "compromise" isn't much of one. You had no intention of compromising until other editors came here and agreed with me and not you. Before they did, your version of dispute resolution was reverting me and attacking me. "Compromise" by itself is not always a good thing. If Editor X wanted to include 100 irrelevant trivia items, Editor Y wants to include 0, is the proper course to "compromise" by including 67 and deleting 33? Until the consensus changes from supporting my version to yours, or you convince me of the standard that allows including these items but not any random item, then I don't see why your version is better. Croctotheface 01:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don`t see why your so angry about me being ready and willing to edit war, because it`s obvious that you are willing to as well. I`ve already apologized, and you haven`t even though you`ve insulted me. And, you know what, you don`t have to because I really don`t care. And, for the final time, nobody has even commented about that fact. The only one was Zagalejo who said basically said he didn't care. You have no true consensus. I admit I'm stubborn. I've been called stubborn a thousand times and I'll be called stubborn a thousand times more, but I think it's time you admit you're stubborn. I can't believe I'm fighting over a single sentence and you know what, I'm tempted to give up and let you have your way because I have better things to do with my time. But, I'm not going to because I think the fact is notable, at least compared to many that you haven't even commented on. And no, thats not an invitation for you to go ahead and remove half of the article again.

And as a final note, a compromise IS trying to meet two people half way, so yes, in your case if a suitable compromise was to leave 67% and cut 33, then it would be a compromise. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The key in my example is that you're dealing with 100 irrelevant comments. Zero irrelevant comments should be included. What about the converse--two editors, one wants to delete the article, the other does not. Is the solution to "compromise" and just delete half? Croctotheface 02:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Quit bringing in hypothetical sitautions. I'm trying to find a compromise, you're not. I've had the good faith of allowing you to do whatever you want to the production section, so I think you should have good faith and allow that single sentence to stay. And it's NOT random trivia. You want to see random trivia? Go take a look at every single episode page from seasons 10-18 and THEN you will see what indiscriminate information is. This relates to the animation, which relates to the production, which is relevant to the article. It's not some random "the animators where eating chicken while they wrote the episode", it says that they forgot to add two minor characters and needed to change things completely so that they could be readdded, which IS relevant information, no matter what you say. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 12:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Allowing" me to edit the page? Everyone is ALLOWED to edit the page. It's not up to you who is "allowed" to edit or what changes they are "allowed" to make. You still seem to think that it is, and that disturbs me. Croctotheface 20:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line here is that I did everything I could to get more opinions about this issue. While I was doing that, you were reverting me and attacking me personally. You've been wrong every step of the way. You said to me, "Your prose was far from improved." Every other editor who commented on that issue said exactly the opposite. Now that others have come and commented and NOBODY has expressed support for your position, you want to "compromise". Honestly, considering how much you've mentioned that I am motivated only by "getting my way", I think that you're actually projecting your own control issues on to me. I thik it is actually YOU who needs to feel like he is the final arbiter of what happens with this article. I have no reason to indulge you. I engaged Zalejo in a discussion, and he came around to my position. I am not unwilling to see changes made to my edits. However, I do believe that the article is better without these three details, and I have no reason to "compromise" that position when two editors agree with me and only one disagrees. If you want to seek out more opinions via a Request for Comment, you are certainly welcome. As it stands, there is a consensus for my version. Croctotheface 20:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"I am not unwilling to see changes made to my edits." could have fooled me. And you do realize that you basically just admitted that the only reason you're so determined to keep the sentence is because your exacting revenge for me reverting you.

How is the article better off without that single sentence? It wasn't long, it wasn't clunky, it was sourced, and it related directly to the topic. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)