Talk:Lisa Simpson

Lisa is vegan

Why does Lisa call the leather football a "non-vegan football"? Why doesn't she just call it a "leather football"? Yes, a leather football is technically a non-vegan football, but why would Lisa call it a "non-vegan football" unless she was vegan? This line confirms that she's vegan. 2601:282:C00:ABB0:C199:F161:2E17:1972 (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Vegan would be the correct term for an inedible object even if you weren't one yourself. 24.232.183.230 (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Doh 159.2.212.79 (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Lisa Simpson

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

There is a lot of cruft in this article. It was never been maintained. The article needs some revision + plenty of unreliable sources need to be removed, including the refbombs. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delist I was in for a surprise seeing this article, Bart Simpson isn’t even this long. Most definitely fancruft. 1989 (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Boneless Pizza!: As the recent primary contributor to this article, I've just come back to give it another read, coincidentally, and, after only just stumbling upon the talk page and the comment left on my talk, I couldn't help but wonder if I should chime in here, which I am promptly doing now. I shall now explain the reason for the recent developments on this article.

This character is generally regarded as being the most well-developed on the show, and is certainly one of the most culturally influential (even if still not as outright iconic as Homer and Bart). It therefore makes perfect sense for there to be a bigger article on her, and I have nothing but kudos for all those who have put in considerable effort over the years to make the article what it is today, including myself. Quite a few parts could be trimmed slightly though, I agree in hindsight, but it is important to keep note about this character's major aspects. (Also, I'm on a dynamic network, which means that I myself in particular have been unable to manage to keep the same IP for that long a time, most recently due to a power cut last week, meaning that I didn't catch the initial message, but most previous edits of mine to this article can be found here.) I was actively taking inspiration from Bart's article and the FAR for that for ideas on how to improve this article, though I didn't quite realize, apparently, how seemingly overboard some of the additions may have gone from the site's point of view.

That out of the way, I'm thinking about asking Xeroctic and Pallettown, who seem to be the overall main frequent registered contributors to the project as far as The Simpsons articles go, for some helpful ideas on what to do next, but otherwise I myself am moving towards keep rather than delist, as aside from its length and certain various copyedits that I agree now in hindsight could be implemented throughout, the article appears to still be in good shape. It is also well-sourced throughout, which probably accounts for much of the page size. Some copy-editing in the later parts of the personality and cultural influence sections could be of help. Trimming some of the reviews about this one's cultural influence to the most important points raised by each could also be helpful. Some issues relating to the detail of certain examples notwithstanding, I don't think the prose is too bad, but as soon as I know what exactly needs to be done to try and undertake some salvation aimed to improving the prospects of keeping the badge, I shall aim get on with it, because, paraphrasing what 750h+ said over at Bart's FARC, one would probably rather something never be at least a GA rather than it being a GA and seeing it get delisted, and so if it's an iconic person that just makes it all the more depressing.

To prove my point, I'll seek to make a start by aiming to trim down a few of the excess phrasings and examples again, along with some seemingly redundant citations, beginning later on today, though the size of many of the actual references themselves will still be challenging in their own right, due to virtually all of the web references having archived versions of the links alongside the original links themselves for the sake of posterity. Obviously, episode examples that basically summarise their plot in anything but a laconic way can be refactored or trimmed entirely, for instance. In short, I have a generally good idea of what needs trimming back down, and am willing to cooperate in every possible way.

46.208.36.42 (talk) 08:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi IP. Unfortunately, the expansions that you've made adds you additional work per WP:UNDUE. I wouldn't definitely gonna read this entire article since it's kinda obvious that are a lot of problems that are visible. Take your time or if you can't; just drop it. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 10:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

IP, i'm going to revert the article back to the way it was before. 4,000 words to 17,000 words is absolutely insane. Your edits have added so, so, so much cruft and have made the article a pain to look and browse through. Most importantly the "personality" section LITERALLY has more words than the ENTIRE Bart Simpson article. As for your comment where you state, perfect sense for there to be a bigger article on her, i understand something below 6-7k words but 17k does not make "perfect sense". The majority your changes do not belong an encyclopedia, and a lot of the article seems to be WP:COPYVIO. Simply, an article about a cartoon character does not need nearly 20,000 words. I would recommend, as per WP:ALTERNATIVE, trying out The Simpsons Wiki, or, as Boneless Pizza! mentioned, reading WP:UNDUE Thanks, 750h+ 19:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Boneless Pizza!: do you have any thoughts on this? 750h+ 20:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I don't believe it. I can't believe what just happened. And I did have plenty of trims of my own in mind. I'd say, after that, strongly keep the status after all, and perhaps, using my final edit to the article as a starting point, reworking many of the more useful elements of the content as it stood as of my final edit to the article on New Year's Eve back in to eventually elevate this article for future promotion when ready. There is no reason for me myself to continue here.

Goodbye, my friends, and I wish you all the best of luck with improving this article yourselves. It was good while it lasted...

Yours sincerely, 46.208.36.42 (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@750h+ Since this is GA not FA, the only remaining issues I think would be the unsourced claim at personality section. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@750h+: On second thought, I've decided to come back somewhat, even if only to make this follow-up comment. I felt emotionally overwhelmed by yesterday's wholesale blank that somebody else did, and didn't feel like taking part again at the time.

If not for that, I would have undertaken my own major round of trims of various apparent "trivia" and seemingly superfluous examples and references, reducing the page, as it stood on New Year's Eve, by close to a third of its previous size. While at that, I would also have improved the flow of some of the retained prose. The bulk of my planned trims would have been to the later parts of the personality section, after the part on family matters, and to the cultural influence and merchanise sections, to remove certain episode examples given in certain observations, collapse much of the role model reception down to mere citations and remove the specific roles in Tapped Out and Funday Football. Other trims elsewhere would primarily have been to tackle the apparent over-citation for some of the more interesting details.

That said, the first half of the article, right down to the end of the development section, had predominantly been made up of lots of outside documentation and commentary that is key to explaining why Lisa's character has developed so well, especially compared to most other characters.

Finally, if, on the other hand, I am not going to be able to be given the chance to prove myself that I had promised above, then there isn't much point in me staying around, and if so, will leave it in your trusty hands. 750h+, I applaud you for improving Bart's article vastly. I see that you are improving Homer's (or at least trying) at the moment, and, I'm sure, you could improve this one as well, as one of the best updaters around. (I, and I'm sure Xeroctic and Pallettown as well, would hate to see this page go the way of Maggie's. I really would.) 46.208.36.42 (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi IP. I think still has issues and the lead should be trimmed. Anyway, I do hope you're staying in Wikipedia further and learning it slowly. I also experienced this before like you did, but I eventually learned. It is really tough once you're still new, but it'll be worth it. I do hope you're having a good New Year! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

IP, while a lot of text was cruft, it is very impressive that you've squeezed out about every source there is on the girl, and i will take some of these sources into consideration when improving the article 750h+ 15:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)