TwitterFacebookDiscord

Wikisimpsons:Featured article/Past Nominations 1

Wikisimpsons - The Simpsons Wiki

All past featured article nominations.

Contents

Passed[edit]

Trappuccino[edit]

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[edit]

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

Oppose[edit]

Neutral[edit]

Comments[edit]

Frank Grimes[edit]

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

Support (4)[edit]

  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)[edit]

  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)

Neutral (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

  • 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[edit]

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

Support (6)[edit]

  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)

Oppose (0)[edit]

Neutral (0)[edit]

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

Comments[edit]

Sideshow Bob[edit]

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)[edit]

  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 (TalkContributions) 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)

Oppose (0)[edit]

Neutral (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

Barney Gumble[edit]

It has never been featured and should. ThePlatypus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.65.64 (talk) 14:25, April 4, 2010

Support (10)[edit]

  1. Good. detailed article. ☆The Solar Dragon (Talk)☆ 13:28, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Yes, okily-dokily. Dohayecarumbadoh 20:31, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Yep - - Smiley12 was here at 21:33, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
  4. I agree with Solar; it's a good, detailed article, and gives a great idea about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.40.124 (talk) 19:41, May 5, 2010
  5. Yup :) UFO Editor 18:51, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Great Article, could use more interesting trivia though. Alexandersig 20:55, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Yes from me. Josegiraffio 14:08, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
  8. This should be a featured article. — TheHomer (TalkContributions) 20:38, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Looks great. (BUUURRRRRRPPP!!) -- Mythigator 12:34, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
  10. Looks good to me. Ldude893 16:19, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral (0)[edit]

#Although very detailed and has a great long list of appearances, I think this list still needs work. Every episode should have a bullet point * and there should be no spaces in the template itself, e.g. some are like {{ep| Episode Name }} Once this is cleaned up though, I will happily move back to support. ☆The Solar Dragon (Talk)☆ 21:00, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

  • Yes, I may seem picky picking at the smallest things wrong with the article but it is all continuity. We need it to all flow and look the same, as with all websites. ☆The Solar Dragon (Talk)☆ 21:08, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • Took me a while but have updated all appearances. ☆The Solar Dragon (Talk)☆ 15:01, April 6, 2010 (UTC)


Ralph Wiggum[edit]

Very detailed, and if his "home daddy" can make it to the featured article spot, so can he! :) Dohayecarumbadoh 01:29, June 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support (14)[edit]

  1. Seems like a great article and could easily be featured. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 06:43, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Long, detailed article that is in-universe style. Josegiraffio 09:25, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
  3. It's got my support.    Effluvium    talk    contributions    email   11:21, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
  4. My suport too. — TheHomer 14:03, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Agreed.Pokeman223 15:16, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Sure. - ThePlatypus 18:01, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Good article UFO Editor 18:44, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
  8. I love Ralph Wiggum! He's so stupid! The article is super good Qazwsx1
  9. Yep definetly. HOMR
  10. Agreed. This is a really good article and I'd like to see Little Ralphie get a time to shine. -- Mythigator 13:14, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
  11. i agree let it be locke97 9:23 july 5, 2010
  12. YES!!!!! Kev379 18:48, July 24, 2010 (UTC)
  13. Yep, definitely. ---Smiley12 was here at 06:14, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
  14. Totally. Rocking article TheSimpsons00:08, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose (0)[edit]

Neutral (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

Springfield[edit]

I can't believe this has never been a featured article!!!! It is definitely one of the best articles in the wiki!! It contains everything you need to know about Springfield, how it was founded, culture, economy, climate, transportation, districts and much more! It really should be a featured article ;) Gonhegon 15:20, June 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support (11)[edit]

  1. Seems fine and it is all in-universe. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 15:30, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Very long and comprehensive. - ThePlatypus 18:03, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Seems OK.    Effluvium    talk    contributions    email   17:49, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Yep --Smiley12 was here at 05:44, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
  5. A-okay locke97 10:04 july 5, 2010
  6. Gohnegon, it is THE best article on the wiki. Great info, and it should get an award for it. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.238.134 (talk) 18:45, July 24, 2010
  7. Giant article! — TheHomer (TalkContributions) 17:30, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Top article and think it should win. Josegiraffio Want to talk 20:34, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Very good one. -- SaganamiFan 19:25, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
  10. I vote for this one. Wikiboy96 17:53, August 30, 2010 (UTC)wikiboy96
  11. Great article. Very detailed. Kit Krap 23:17, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral (0)[edit]

Oppose (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

  • Also, different to the usual character articles nominated so it is a strong support for me. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 06:02, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Charles Montgomery Burns[edit]

A good detailed article, which has obviously had a lot of work put into it. Personally, I think it is one of the best on the wiki!    Effluvium    talk    contributions    email   15:46, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support (11)[edit]

  1. Looks great. I just cleaned it up and it now is fine. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 16:04, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
  2. I vote for it. — TheHomer 17:42, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
  3. I like what I see. - ThePlatypus 18:06, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Yeah. Seems OK. UFO Editor 18:44, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
  5. I like it. Would love it to be a featured article! Qazwsx1 17:35, June 29th, 2010 (UTC)
  6. I like it . let it be locke97 8:17 july 5, 2010
  7. It looks fine and should be featured. -- Mythigator 06:12, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Yesss!!! Ned Flanders 23 10:19, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Looks good. Waterboy 12 13:24, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
  10. Good, let's make it happen adria 3:47PM, August 23, 2010 (GMT+7)
  11. Great article, definitley deserves featuring Cronokinetic 18:49, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral (0)[edit]

Oppose (0)[edit]

Not clean enough. Didn't I clean this article already? There's too much of the article written in out-of-universe context.Ldude893 06:04, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

  • Where? I've looked through the article and found no out-of-universe content apart from the Behind the Scenes section (which I've explained below). Please tell me where the out-of-universe text is and I'll sort it out. Thanks!    Effluvium    talk    contributions    email   14:51, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • There was an episode title in the text in the second paragraph of the intro, but I fixed it. The article is fine now. -- Mythigator 06:14, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
Oh. Thanks, Mythigator!    Effluvium    talk    contributions    email   10:21, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Lenny Leonard[edit]

I read the article and I thought it should be featured Pokeman223

Support (7)[edit]

  1. OK. Looks good. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 15:48, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Seems alright.    Effluvium    talk    contributions    email   21:06, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
  3. it looks alright locke97 10:06 july 5, 2010
  4. >D'oh! ¡Ay Carumba! D'oh! (Talk Page This-Away!) 22:32, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
  5. My favorite article! Support it! The Critic Critisize me here!
  6. Yes!!! TheSimpsons Talk 20:20, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Yeah. Waterboy 12 13:24, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Deftinley!Lewleworange 06:56, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral(0)[edit]

Oppose(0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

  • Rest of the article seems fine but the appearences section is incomplete. Josegiraffio 19:21, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • The Strongest Support Ever! TheSimpsons Talk 00:53, August 8, 2010 (UTC)


Comments[edit]

The only part of the article which isn't in-universe is the "Behind the Scenes" section, where it explains how the character was created and designed. That doesn't need to be in-universe style. If anybody can inform me of any other sections which aren't in-universe, I'd be grateful as I can go and fix it. Thanks!    Effluvium    talk    contributions    email   20:05, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

This article is fine. There is no point in having an opposition because it's been fixed up. It deserves to be featured, and with opposition it can't. So is there any reason that is is opposed? Unless somebody says so, no. - 68.42.65.64 13:46, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

You're right about the article being fine now, but if I recall the procedure correctly, the person who stated the opposition also has to be the one who withdraws it. So right now we're waiting to hear from Ldude. For this month, though, it's a moot point as Ralph will mostly likely get the featured article nod due to having more votes. -- Mythigator 06:18, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Ldude. -- Mythigator 17:05, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Cecil Terwilliger[edit]

Cecil has always been overshadowed by Bob, but hopefully not for a chance at being featured article! This article is huge if you remember how he was in 2 episodes, a cameo in one, and a comic. A great, great article and since he is not well known would draw people's attention. - 68.42.65.64 00:50, July 4, 2010 (UTC) Oops, forgot to sign in. - ThePlatypus 00:55, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support (8)[edit]

  1. Yeah, looks fine.    Effluvium    talk    contributions    email   14:52, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
  2. I saw nothing wrong with it 8:48 jul 5, 2010
  3. Sounds like a great idea. 12:52, July 15, 2010
  4. All seems fine and is long. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 08:38, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Cecil is to cool. And the page is pretty good as well.
  6. Looks good to me. I really enjoyed the episodes and the comic he was in, and the article is well-written too. Kittykatmeow10 01:22, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Yes, very good I like him. ToyStoryFan123 13:45, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Got my vote. -- Mythigator 16:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutral (1)[edit]

  1. This isn't the best, but not the worst. TheSimpsonsRock 14:39, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose (1)[edit]

# Never heard of it or him or her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponds (talkcontribs)

  1. Thats really not a reason to oppose ----- It's Magic - Kingcjc 21:12, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

@thesimpsonsrock: He only was in 2 episodes and a comic book, so you shouldn't expect it to be so long, but seeing how long it is for those appearances is an accomplishment. - ThePlaypus

The Simpsons Movie[edit]

This is a massive article and it is a surprise it hasn't been featured already. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 06:59, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support (6)[edit]

  1. Was just about to nominate myself actually. Yeah, great article!    Effluvium    talk    contributions    email   21:20, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Very good article Wikiboy96 17:56, August 30, 2010 (UTC)Wikiboy96
  3. Great pictures, great info, great article. --Will k 05:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  4. Great Article. Doh5678 (Any Notices) • (My Edits) • (Wikipedia Page)
  1. Support --Silver Knight 07:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  2. Support, a great article. --George 13:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutral (0)[edit]

  1. Ponds doesn't have a stand on this matter.


Oppose (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

The Simpsons[edit]

A great, massive article. It is one of the best on the wiki and should be featured. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 08:37, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support (5)[edit]

  1. Totally <span style="font-family:Elephant">[[User:TheSimpsons|'''<span style="color:red">The</span><span style="color:blue">Simpsons</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:TheSimpsons|'''<span style="color:gold">Talk'''</span>]]</sup></span> 14:48, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Yup. A really good article. Effluvium
  3. Its "The Simpsons" page what could be a better representation of the Simpsons wiki than it's main page Lordsunflash]
  4. --Jeff (talk2me) • (UnSimpsons steward) 00:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  5. One of he best here! Doh5678 (Any Notices) • (My Edits) • (Wikipedia Page)


Neutral (1)[edit]

  1. I don't really know. It seems like a good article, but there just seems something wrong about it. --Will k 05:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose (1)[edit]

  1. Give the Simpsons Movie a chance. --Silver Knight 08:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Fat Tony[edit]

A big article for a character like Fat Tony. All appearances completed and never been featured before. Josegiraffio Want to talk 13:51, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support (4)[edit]

  1. I like it Effluvium 16:30, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Addded a quote. Very good article Doh5678 22:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  3. Definitely. This should be a memorial to him, since he was killed off. Dohayecarumbadoh 03:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  4. Should be featured. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 23:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutral (1)[edit]

  1. I'm sorry, but it hasn't got enough pictures. It has great info, though, but the key parts of a featured article is its pictures and its information. --Will k 05:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose (1)[edit]

  1. Boo! --Silver Knight 12:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Shelbyville[edit]

A great article! - ThePlatypus 17:18, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support (5)[edit]

  1. A great, long article and not a character! ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 09:30, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Yup    Effluvium    talk    contributions    email   22:21, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Good article. Josegiraffio Want to talk 14:34, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
  4. "What town was that"? "Shelbyville" said Principal Skinner All- "Cheering", Seriously, Shelbyville, should be featured, it is a funny, always mocked city in the Simpsons Mitchell.friedman 20:52, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Good Article. Featurd Quality. Doh5678 (Any Notices) • (My Edits) • (Wikipedia Page)


Neutral (0)[edit]

Oppose (3)[edit]

  1. BOO! --Jeff (talk2me) • (UnSimpsons steward) 00:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  2. I know this is may sound silly, but I oppose because of the infobox picture. I mean, half of it's on appearance, and the main image is blurry! --Will k 05:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  3. Yeah, the images are blurry. --Silver Knight 13:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Troy McClure[edit]

Long article with loads of references Doh5678 15:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

For (4)[edit]

  1. Great looking article. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 23:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  2. Well written article and Troy McClure is one of my favorite characters.FatHomer 15:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)FatHomer
  3. Very good article. -- Mythigator 18:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  4. Yup, fantastic article for an awesome classic Simpsons character - should be featured. --Effluvium 17:51, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Neutral (0)[edit]

Oppose (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

Michael Jackson[edit]

Easily our best guest star article of all time. Very detailed, long and has everything in there. Would make a great change from characters and locations. Amazing article. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 12:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Support (3)[edit]

  1. Cook879 16:20, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
  2. I agree. Awesome article. -- Mythigator 10:22, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
  3. Definitly a good article -- Nick97 12:05, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

Neutral (0)[edit]

Oppose (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

Star Wars[edit]

Massive article full of nearly every reference to Star Wars in the show. There could still be more but they are hard to find. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 03:00, 17 November 2011 (EST)

Support (3)[edit]

  1. --Will (Talk) 03:14, 17 November 2011 (EST)
  2. That's one heck of a list! --Nick97 (talk ~ contribs) 18:23, 17 November 2011 (EST)
  3. --Cook879 15:54, 30 November 2011 (EST)

Neutral (0)[edit]

Oppose (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

I know how hard you've worked, Solar, nicely done! --Will (Talk) 00:36, 18 November 2011 (EST)

Timothy Lovejoy, Jr.[edit]

A good, well-written article. Surprised it hasn't been featured already. The Solar Dragon 07:07, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

Support (3)[edit]

  1. Great article, and I must love that image! --Will k (Talk ~ Contributions) 18:01, 1 November 2011 (EDT)
  2. --Nick97 (talk ~ contribs) 13:12, 12 November 2011 (EST)
  3. Fantastic article, great grammar, information format perfect. Definitely featured article! --Freddie (Talk) 0:03, 16 December 2011 (PST)

Neutral (0)[edit]

Oppose (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

Nibbles[edit]

Fairly long article for a two time character who doesn't even have any lines. The Solar Dragon (Talk - Contribs.) 17:27, 24 February 2012 (EST)

Support (3)[edit]

  1. Great article. --Wk (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2012 (EST)
  2. I'll have to dig around my comics; I swear he's in a couple of those. Great article though. --Nick97 (talk ~ contribs) 18:36, 24 February 2012 (EST)
  3. Looks great.--Cook879 16:36, 25 February 2012 (EST)

Neutral (0)[edit]

Oppose (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

The Cool Moms[edit]

Lengthy article for a one time thing. Deserves to be featured. SolarDragonName.png (Talk - Contribs.) 02:27, 22 November 2011 (EST)

Support (4)[edit]

  1. Phinbart - just one of the huge Bart fans! 14:25, 24 February 2012 (EST)
  2. Good Doh5678 talk 13:15, 26 February 2012 (EST)
  3. I'm in favor, but I'll confess to being a bit biased because I've put a lot of work into it. -- Mythigator 14:47, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
  4. Go The Cool Moms! --Fred (Talk Contribs.) 09:58, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

Neutral (0)[edit]

Oppose (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

Moe Szyslak's bar rag[edit]

A pretty lengthy article for a bar rag. Full history and quote too. I think it looks good. ☆The Solar Dragon (Talk - Contribs.)☆ 16:48, 30 January 2012 (EST)

Support (3)[edit]

  1. I do, indeed, like this article. --Fred (Talk Contribs.) 01:59, 20 March 2012 (EDT)
  2. I didn't care much for the episode, but the article is well-done and an offbeat topic to boot. Definitely worth featuring. -- Mythigator 08:50, 2 April 2012 (EDT)
  3. I dig the article, and absolutely loved the episode —Preceding unsigned comment added by -HAM- (talkcontribs) 14:17, 29 May 2012

Neutral (0)[edit]

Oppose (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

A9000 Robots[edit]

Massive article which I worked hard on, although it came together surprisingly quickly. Massive for a one time thing. SolarDragonName.png (Talk - Contribs.) 18:00, 19 March 2012 (EDT)

Support (5)[edit]

  1. Amazingly fast and detailed.--Cook879 18:04, 19 March 2012 (EDT)
  2. About as much info as you could possibly fit in there. --Nick97 (talk ~ contribs) 18:25, 19 March 2012 (EDT)
  3. You've done it again, Solar... but even better! | SimpsonsFR.pngSimpsonsFA.pngSimpsonsFN.pngSimpsonsFD.pngSimpsonsFO.pngSimpsonsFM.pngSimpsonsFN.pngSimpsonsFO.png | Talk | Contributions | Edit count | 01:21, 20 March 2012 (EDT)
  4. Amazing. --Wk (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2012 (EDT)
  5. Sure. Why not? --Fred (Talk Contribs.) 09:56, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

Neutral (0)[edit]

Oppose (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

The Simpsons: Tapped Out[edit]

Great article that's only been around for a few weeks! Deserves to be featured, even Randomno said so! Phinbart - just one of the huge Bart fans! 11:34, 4 March 2012 (EST)

Support (4)[edit]

  1. I feel that this section has come a long way, it's pretty much 99% completely functional besides some late game building costs. Remember, it's a video game and when/if they fix it's many bugs it may get updates as well which will add extra content, so these sections may never be 100% done. DrNick 15:05, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
  2. --Cook879 15:50, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
  3. The article is pretty much complete. Besides, June is a whole month away, so there's a fair bit of time for the article to be improved further. --Nick97 (talk ~ contribs) 09:52, 3 May 2012 (EDT)
  4. It's okay now I think. The Solar Dragon (Talk - Contribs.) 17:12, 9 May 2012 (EDT)

Neutral (1)[edit]

  1. I want to know if the extras tab will be deleted, first. | SimpsonsFR.pngSimpsonsFA.pngSimpsonsFN.pngSimpsonsFD.pngSimpsonsFO.pngSimpsonsFM.pngSimpsonsFN.pngSimpsonsFO.png | Talk | Contributions | Edit count | 02:52, 3 May 2012 (EDT)

Oppose (1)[edit]

#Gameplay incomplete. Appearances need to be in alphabetical order and be completed. Extras is one line, therefore incomplete. Quotes is incomplete. References are most likely incomplete. ☆The Solar Dragon (Talk - Contribs.)☆ 11:38, 4 March 2012 (EST)

  1. This article gives more visits to this site. But I don't think it should be featured because the people who find the article, gets it from searching on google. FatHomerTalk 06:40, 8 March 2012 (EST)

Comments[edit]

Itchy & Scratchy animation cel[edit]

Feel it's too good for comprehensive. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 15:54, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

Support (3)[edit]

  1. I thought it would be a fine comprehensive article back when it was nominated for that designation. I see no bars against it being featured. -- Mythigator 19:22, 9 July 2012 (EDT)
  2. Great article. -- WebkinzManiaTalkContributionsEditcount 10:13, 10 July 2012 (EDT)
  3. --Nick97 (talk ~ contribs) 10:24, 10 July 2012 (EDT)

Neutral (0)[edit]

Oppose (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

Rejected[edit]

Santa's Little Helper[edit]

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

Support (0)[edit]

Oppose (3)[edit]

  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  

Neutral (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

Hans Moleman[edit]

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

Support (0)[edit]

Oppose (2)[edit]

  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)

Neutral (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

Bleeding Gums Murphy[edit]

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)

Support (0)[edit]

Oppose (3)[edit]

  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)

Neutral (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

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[edit]

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

Support (0)[edit]

#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)[edit]

#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)[edit]

#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)

Comments[edit]

Carl Carlson[edit]

Great article! Featured, No. Got to be featured, yes. --TheSimpsons Talk 20:32, August 6, 2010 (UTC)


Support (0)[edit]

Neutral (0)[edit]

Oppose (3)[edit]

  1. I don't actually think it is long enough for a FA. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 09:34, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
  2. No. Not quite ready to be a Featured Article.    Effluvium    talk    contributions    email   22:21, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
  3. The Lenny article is long enough to be featured, this is much to small. Seeing how he's in at least half the episodes, it should be much longer. - ThePlatypus 01:00, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

D'oh[edit]

An article that should soon be featured. D'OH! - ThePlatypus 15:27, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support (0)[edit]

Neutral (0)[edit]

Oppose (3)[edit]

  1. Strong Oppose. A featured article can NOT be featured again. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 15:30, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
  2. I agree with Solar, if its already been featured, big no-no.    Effluvium    talk    contributions    email   18:49, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Sorry...I didn't realize it had already been featured...can it be taken down? - ThePlatypus 14:06, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
It will be taken down at the end of the month. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 15:19, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

World War II[edit]

Quite long, all it needs is a few images. | SimpsonsFR.pngSimpsonsFA.pngSimpsonsFN.pngSimpsonsFD.pngSimpsonsFO.pngSimpsonsFM.pngSimpsonsFN.pngSimpsonsFO.png | Talk | Contributions | Edit count | 06:30, 16 February 2012 (EST)

Support (0)[edit]

Neutral (0)[edit]

Oppose (2)[edit]

  1. Appearances incomplete for one. No images for two. I also feel that there is more information to be added. The Solar Dragon (Talk - Contribs.) 14:23, 24 February 2012 (EST)
  2. I agree, Solar. --Fred (Talk Contribs.) 09:59, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

Comments[edit]

  • Also, without an image would be a defeated reason for making it featured. --Fred (Talk Contribs. Editcount) 04:08, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

Greyhound puppies[edit]

Look at the detailed history. It spells featured to me. WebkinzMania 17:57, 5 May 2012 (EDT)

Support (1)[edit]

  1. You have very weird sight, then. I suppose it could be featured. | SimpsonsFR.pngSimpsonsFA.pngSimpsonsFN.pngSimpsonsFD.pngSimpsonsFO.pngSimpsonsFM.pngSimpsonsFN.pngSimpsonsFO.png | Talk | Contributions | Edit count | 08:45, 7 May 2012 (EDT)

Neutral (0)[edit]

Oppose (1)[edit]

  1. The article is currently on two separate subjects. The puppies of SLH and STF and the puppies of SLH and Rosa Barks. These two should be split from each other. The Solar Dragon 17:11, 9 May 2012 (EDT)

Comments[edit]

Season 1[edit]

A great article on the first season of the show. A few tweaks needed but it's OK! ~ Phinbart (talkcontribs) 05:32, 20 May 2012 (EDT)

Support (1)[edit]

  1. Sure. I wish the other seasons can be featured too. Maybe eventually. WebkinzMania 08:05, 20 May 2012 (EDT)

Neutral (0)[edit]

Oppose (1)[edit]

  1. It's not ready for "prime time" yet. The writing in the supplemental information is a little stilted and has some redundant portions. I thought I had fixed this already, but apparently it got un-fixed at some point. It could also still use a little work in the episode summaries; specifically, guest voice information. I think this would be a good article to feature, just not quite yet. -- Mythigator 15:08, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

Comments[edit]

Withdrawn[edit]

Springfield's State (Withdrawn)[edit]

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)[edit]

  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)[edit]

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

Oppose (0)[edit]

Comments[edit]

  • 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)[edit]

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)

Support (0)[edit]

Neutral (0)[edit]

Oppose (4)[edit]

  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[edit]

  • 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)

Ya Hoo! (Withdrawn)[edit]

Massive article for a little thing like Ya Hoo! Very detailed. Doh5678 21:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

For (0)[edit]

Neutral (0)[edit]

Against (2)[edit]

  1. Although a great article, it is not long enough to be featured. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 05:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  2. I agree with Solar. I think it's more appropriate for a Comprehensive nomination. -- Mythigator 12:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Oops! wrong page. Withdrawn. Doh5678 17:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)