Talk:Behind the Laughter

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Behind the Laughter article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television: Episode coverage

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Animation Low‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Simpsons Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject The Simpsons, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to The Simpsons on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.The SimpsonsWikipedia:WikiProject The SimpsonsTemplate:WikiProject The SimpsonsThe Simpsons articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

edit

Collaboration: Featured topic Drive
Copyedit:
Merge:
Cleanup: Ralph Wiggum, Milhouse Van Houten
Shorten plot synopsis:
Free-use images: Jon Vitti, Pamela Hayden, Greg Daniels, Ian Maxtone-Graham, Jim Reardon, Alf Clausen
Reference: Bongo Comics Group, The Heartbroke Kid, World of Springfield
Expand: The Simpsons Theme, Bongo Comics, Mark Kirkland, Jim Reardon, The Simpsons: Tapped Out
Stubs: Neil Affleck, Bob Anderson (director), Wes Archer, J. Stewart Burns More...

Untitled

There's no spoiler warning. Is that because the ep is non-Canon? It can still ruin it for people who haven't seen it. 151.151.73.167 22:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It should also be stressed that since this episode in obviously non-canon, the line shouldn't be taken seriously." As opposed to the canon, which, although it is just the result of thousands of seperate jokes, should be taken DEADLY seriously. Recury 20:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The audio from the scene was reanimated in Simpsons Tall Tales." The audio was reanimated? That doesn't make any sense. --Loopus 06:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clip Show

This episode is not a clip show, as it was mentioned before in the beginning of the article. Examples of a clip show would include Another Simpsons Clip Show, for example, but I believe that this episode has 100% new material.

ok, rewatching it it's surely ain't all new, but i don't think it qualifies as a clip show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.134.135.234 (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canon?

What makes this episode "non-canonical?" Because the article says so?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.129.134 (talk • contribs)

It is based on events and truths that are never mentioned or even alluded to in any other episode. Equazcion 03:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia section

In the UK, "Behind the Laughter" was the last episode of The Simpsons shown by the BBC before Channel 4 began terrestrial broadcasts of the series in November 2004. It was shown on BBC Two on 20 January 2004, and repeated on 7 May. [1]
- So? Why is it more notable than the airings in other countries?
At the end of the episode (while the Simpson family is sitting on a small hill), the narrator states: "The Simpsons' bitter past was forgotten, and now the future looks brighter than ever for this northern Kentucky family." This is significant because it has been a long-running joke on the show to never reveal the state where the Simpson family resides.
- So? It's OR because there's no source
The "scene" from an upcoming episode, which was meant to be a joke, was in fact used in a later episode. The audio from the scene was recorded again for "Simpsons Tall Tales".
- So? That's like noting every part of an episode that makes it into a clip show.
Bart's complaint of "This script sucks, I've never said 'Cowabunga man' in my life," is a reference to this line often being attributed to Bart. While it could be found on Simpsons bootleg t-shirts during the series' earlier fame, it actually originated in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
- Pure OR.

There you go. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC note is trivia-worthy because, as the note says, the episode was the last to air before the switch to terrestrial broadcasting.
- Why is that worthy? So it was the first to air on terrestrial broadcasting. Who cares?
  - I originally added it, as well as lots of other UK notes about the show, to make the pages less US-centric (so it's not all just Fox this, Fox that) and because I thought they were interesting, as the BBC was millions of people's first experience of The Simpsons and it being removed from the channel was quite big news at the time. Don't mind it being removed, though, it was put there when trivia sections weren't the big deal they are now. Billy H 14:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Kentucky comment is notable for the reason stated in the note — This is the first time the Simpsons' state of residence is revealed. There's no reason to remove a comment because it's unsourced. That's what CN tags are for.
- The wording calls it significant. Why is it significant?
It's not simply noting a scene that makes it a clip show. It's a unique scene in that it was meant to be a joke but was actually used in a later episode.
- So?
Many people think that "cowabunga" originated on The Simpsons because of the t-shirt slogan, but really the phrase originated in another show. Again, worthy of citation needed tag, not removal.
- Of course it didn't start there, they helped popularize it and he has said Cowabunga in the show. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are not merely a list of stated events on the show. They are a list of facts that are not necessarily apparent to viewers. That's what a trivia section is supposed to be. I've removed everything else. Equazcion 04:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might not find these interesting, but that doesn't make them any less notable. As I said, they are facts that are not necessarily apparent to viewers. They are trivia. Whether or not they are interesting is a matter of opinion, and irrelevant. The cowabunga note might be worthy of removal if Bart really did say cowabunga in the show, but I don't personally remember him ever saying it. A CN tag can be added for the time being. Equazcion 05:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of these facts really say why they are notable. Why is being the first episode broadcast terrestrially notable? And an example of Bart saying Cowabunga in an episode: [2] -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the cowabunga item. The others say why they are notable - you just answer that with "who cares?" Well just because you don't care doesn't mean other people don't care. These are facts that if not pointed out would not be apparent. WP:Trivia says to avoid trivia sections that consist of lists of miscellaneous information. It further says to perform research to verify facts, possibly convert list items into paragraphs, and NOT to simply remove such sections. Equazcion 05:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would anybody like to make the trivia entries (Oh wait, they've been half-heartedly shoehorned into the Plot section) more verbose, please? They're just too concise and to-the-point. And we need to repeat that this episode is non-canon about 5 more times. (I'm not going to edit it myself, mind you. It'll be reverted because I cut out a segue sentence or somethong) 24.228.54.78 15:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Scorpion,

You complained about notability not being established, but then removed a statement that explicitly explains why the Kentucky statement was notable. Why?
- It's OR
  - It's not OR. Read the reference.
Why not describe the scene we're talking about? Just saying "scene from a future episode" doesn't adequately tell people to what we're referring.
- Again, you don't know if was specifically a joke. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then remove the part that says it was a joke. And check the reference.

After reading the BBC reference, I changed my mind about that item's notability, and removed the item. The episode was only the last aired because it was the last episode of the season.

Equazcion (Talk | Contribs)

00:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot points that mimic trivia section

The plot points I removed only state the trivia section list items, in list form -- only using different words and no bullet points. The facts are not integrated into the plot section at all. It's essentially a trivia section without the "Trivia" header.

Equazcion (Talk | Contribs)

00:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

To Scorpion

Scorpion, I hope you'll try to do the actual work it takes to improve articles in the future, instead of taking the easy way out and simply removing sections that have issues. I mentioned a few times how you could get rid of the trivia section in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, but you never once attempted to do it, so I finally did. You're welcome.

Equazcion (Talk | Contribs)

01:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have 20+ Simpsons episode GAs and an FA to my credit. How's that for improving articles? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Your past record for improving articles doesn't detract from the poor manner in which you handled this one.

Equazcion (Talk | Contribs)

01:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Kentucky/Missouri

Just to clarify the change in location for reruns: It seems FOX changed the state to Missouri only for reruns occurring on that network. Most syndicated airings still have the Kentucky line. This is according to comments at the SNPP capsule.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:59, 09/24/2007

Oh. Well…my edit still works, then. o.o—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 05:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I wasn't asking you to change the edit. It was just FYI. :)

Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:26, 09/24/2007

My understanding, re the Kentucky line, was that the "family" of The Simpsons come from Kentucky (under the conceit carried in the episode that they are a real family playing roles), but that doesn't necessarily state where the show is set TimothyJacobson (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good point. I didn't think of that. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:02, 21 Jan 2008 (UTC)

uh what about the question mark on the dvd that plays about five or six different locations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.163.48 (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Coleman Knighthood

Contrary to what was written the UK can [and does] award a Knighthood to a non-British subjects, such as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. 86.140.120.178 (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did that actually occur though? I don't seen any links or sources that say Coleman did. Iamwisesun (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of Gary Coleman's knighthood or lack thereof, the statement in the article that only british subjects can be knighted has to go, as it is quite untrue. After all, prominent American knights include President Esienhower, a Knight of the Bath. LordShonus (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia removed

I took out the following line from the lead: "This is the last episode of The Simpsons to use uppercase closed-captioning." I can't imagine anyone who cares about that - it must be the least interesting piece of trivia I've seen anywhere on Wikipedia. Terraxos (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couch Gag

Is there a couch gag in the episode? When I watched it, the episode begin with the titlecard and cold opened to the narrator. --.:Alex :. 15:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

meryl streep spitting

how about meryl streep reference during oscar? w_tanoto (talk) 05:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clip Show

Why is this episode listed as a clip show? It's definitely not. Andy Pipkin (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I removed the template. The leftorium 17:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simpsons Christmas Boogie

Can someone verify that Matt Groening was referring to "Taking Care of Christmas"? I believe this is an error because it quite clearly takes the instrumentation and style of "Boogie Oogie Oogie" by A Taste of Honey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:2960:4E9:69E9:10FF:9966:ED76 (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]