Wikisimpsons:Featured article/Past Nominations 1

All past featured article nominations.

Passed

Trappuccino

I would like to nominate Trappuccino for a featured article. It is a very detailed article on the events that happened in the film and it looks like a very good, well written article. ☆The Solar Dragon ^(Talk)☆ 10:29, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support

Wow, i never even we knew of this article until someone edited Spider-Pig with it, but even then i didn't know how detailed it was.--Sgtcook (My Talk Page) 12:42, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Good idea for featured article this month. >DohAyeCarumbaDoh

Frank Grimes

Well-detailed article, and (since I have been here) not featured yet. Jessica98sites 04:49, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support (4)

1. I like it, would be good featured article. >DohAyeCarumbaDoh
2. Since the article has been cleaned up, I have changed my mind. However, I think that Marge Simpson really should come first. It is a lot better than this article. ☆The Solar Dragon ^(Talk)☆ 17:33, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
3. --Simpsons88 (messages · +) 19:47, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
4. Agreed Alexandersig 18:51, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose (0)

1. All articles should be written with an in-universe point of view. Frank Grimes is not. A good character article should have all features of Project Characters. Frank Grimes still has a way to go. ☆The Solar Dragon ^(Talk)☆ 06:15, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Remember, strength of argument beats number of votes. It doesn't fit in with the above policies on a featured article so therefroe it shall not pass and can not be featured. ☆The Solar Dragon ^(Talk)☆ 06:19, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Marge Simpson

Good detailed article and hasn't been featured yet. ☆The Solar Dragon ^(Talk)☆ 21:15, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support (6)

1. Looks good. Should be featured. 78.149.162.102 15:40, March 13, 2010 (UTC)
2. Okily-Dokily, this probably should be featured. D'ohAyeCarumbaD'oh 10:42, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
3. I think this article should be featured. Very detailed. Jessica98sites 15:28, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
4. All the other articles of Simpsons family members have already been featured except for this one, and the Marge Simpson article looks quite good. Ldude893 08:22, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
5. One of my favourite articles on the wiki. It's a yes from me! UFO Editor 15:52, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
6. Yes from me. Can't believe it hasn't been featured yet! Josegiraffio 16:52, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral (0)

1. Meh. Ldude893 14:07, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
2. Uh,..................................... >DohAyeCarumbaDoh

Sideshow Bob

It's a good, large and informative article, everything's clean and in-universe style, and the appearances and information are all up to date. Ldude893 01:35, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support (9)

1. Looks great to me. ☆The Solar Dragon ^(Talk)☆ 06:36, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
2. Yep, would be a great article to feature. Dohayecarumbadoh 23:35, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
3. One of the best articles on the wiki. It's a yes from me!    Effluvium    talk    contributions    email   09:55, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
4. I agree with Effluvium. One of the best articles on the wiki, and its SO long! Kittykatmeow10 00:08, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
5. A good detailed article. Would be great to feature. Josegiraffio 15:27, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
6. Wait, why didn't I support this before? I forget. You have my support for this. - ThePlatypus 15:52, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
7. And my support too. — ^TheHomer ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 19:15, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
8. Concur; this is an excellent article. And with the recent episode featuring Sideshow Bob, a timely one as well. Mythigator 23:14, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
9. Good article. UFO Editor 18:15, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Rejected

Santa's Little Helper

I wanna nominate Santa's Little Helper. It's detailed and informative with lots of pictures. SpongeBoy 01:05, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose (3)

1. Although it is long, it is not in in-universe point of view. ☆The Solar Dragon ^(Talk)☆ 08:44, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
2. Yep, he ain't gonna make it to the featured article spot like that. Dohayecarumbadoh 23:31, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
3. Needs quite a lot of work - its not ready to be featured right now.    Effluvium    talk    contributions    email  

Hans Moleman

A pretty good article. - ThePlatypus 22:51, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose (2)

1. Not in in-universe style. ☆The Solar Dragon ^(Talk)☆ 06:59, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
2. Not to ready to be featured now. Various problems - mainly it not being in-universe.    Effluvium    talk    contributions    email   22:13, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Bleeding Gums Murphy

Oh wow. I didn't know it was possible to make that big of an article of someone like Bleeding Gums. - ThePlatypus 22:51, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose (3)

1. Not in in-universe style. ☆The Solar Dragon ^(Talk)☆ 07:00, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
2. I like the article -- heck, I like the character -- but it needs an in-universe cleanup. Mythigator 23:08, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
3. Once it's in-universe, I'll happily give it my support. But not in its current state. Effluvium 16:37, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

If it had more references and was made in-universe though it would be a great article article to feature. - ThePlatypus 14:12, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's not so no atm. ☆The Solar Dragon ^(Talk)☆ 14:14, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Reverend Timothy Lovejoy

A great article for a random character. ThePlatypus 12:31, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Support (0)

#All looks fine now. Would be good. ☆The Solar Dragon ^(Talk)☆ 11:10, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

1. Now In-Universe and pretty long for a random character. Josegiraffio 14:09, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
2. Yeah. Good article.    Effluvium    talk    contributions    email   17:49, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral (2)

#It is good except the appearances list needs updating as they don't all have the episode template and there are some red links. ☆The Solar Dragon ^(Talk)☆ 13:25, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

1. Yep, Solar Dragon is right. Some appearances need to be cleaned up to fit with the Manual of Style. Dohayecarumbadoh 23:48, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
2. It needs to be fit in with the manual of style first, it's not in-universe style. Ldude893 00:10, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose (3)

#Only just realised it is not in in-universe style as well. Needs the appearances and to be in in-universe style. ☆The Solar Dragon ^(Talk)☆ 07:02, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

1. Strong Oppose Content copied from Wikipedia. Needs to be changed before it can be featured. The Solar Dragon 13:50, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
2. If its copied from wikipedia then no. Kingcjc 15:16, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
3. A big no, unless someone can sort out the wikipedia dump...    Effluvium    talk    contributions    email   15:53, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn

Springfield's State (Withdrawn)

Springfield's State is a massive article. It is of great quality and is probably one of our best articles outlining most occurrences of when the state was mentioned in some way with the real world. It is one of this wiki's longest articles and deserves to be featured. ☆The Solar Dragon ^(Talk)☆ 20:48, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support (2)

1. Oh man, I never thought of featuring that article. It would be a great article to feature. - ThePlatypus
2. Wow. This would be an AWSOME featured article! There is so much information, and it is a great topic to be featured. Kittykatmeow10 00:06, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral (1)

1. It's well written, but it should be made In-Universe --Smiley12 was here at 06:30, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Anyone up for the task of shifting into in-universe view? ☆The Solar Dragon ^(Talk)☆ 16:24, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn the request until in In-Universe pov. ☆The Solar Dragon ^(Talk)☆ 20:13, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Mrs. Glick (Withdrawn)

This article has everything in order. It actually is a long article for someone like Mrs. Glick seeing there is barely anything to write about her. Just made it in-Universe. - ThePlatypus 11:49, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose (4)

1. Seems too short to be a featured article. The Solar Dragon 11:52, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
2. Yes, way too short, and it's not exactly informative. Ldude893 12:39, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
3. I agree that it is a long article for such a minor character, but I don't feel it should be featured.    Effluvium    talk    contributions    email   17:46, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
4. Sorry. I realize now that it's a good article, but shouldn't be featured. Can I delete this? - ThePlatypus 14:54, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

It will be removed at the end of the month. The Solar Dragon 15:30, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• I personally don't think it matters if it is long as long as it is a good article. This article is a good article, and I'd like to see people who oppose to it write one longer. - ThePlatypus 20:41, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

I know it is good for a minor character like that but look at the length on the Featured article section of the main page. It is about the same length of the whole article so sorry, but it won't be featured. The Solar Dragon 21:02, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Can I nominate a new featured article this month now? - ThePlatypus 17:15, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

No. You have to wait until next month. The Solar Dragon 17:34, June 21, 2010 (UTC)