Talk:Culturally significant words and phrases from The Simpsons

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


PLEASE NOTE the definition of a neologism for this list: It must be a word or phrase invented by the show that has a definition. It can't be a gibberish or nonsense phrase. It can't be the name of an invented product, location, or person. It should also not be a spoonerism or other type of misspoken or invented actual word (such as adding 'ish' to an existing word).

This article is no longer about neologisms, it has been realligned to:

Words or phrases that were either coined on The Simpsons and then became popular, or coined by another source and was popularized by The Simpsons

Please ensure that only words and phrases meeting this defining characteristic are put into the article, and remove those that do not. --Mortice 22:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Worst episode ever[edit]

should be on here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 10:07:26, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

You forgot the periods: Worst. Episode. Ever. Lazybeam 13:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you know?[edit]

That this article/list alone was one of the Yahoo Top Picks of 2005 (HTTP:// And then the 'encyclopedian' & 'deletionist' segment got a hold of it. Shame, Wikipedians. 03:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

massive paring, external sources[edit]

This list needs a massive paring, I think. The simpsons contains a huge number of made up words, and we can't possibly document every one of them--the arguments over definition have proven the reasons behind the prohibitions on original research. What we can do, however, is cite sources besides the show that recognize words coined by the show, like the dictionary entry for cromulent or d'oh. Words and phrases that don't have sources outside the show supporting their status as neologisms need to be removed. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you only count words that have been use by news organizations or dictionaries you're going to end up with something like... 5 words. Point is that people use the phrase "Car Hole" and "Jebus" and "Unpossible" now even if it's not news people. I completely agree that the list is bloated and there are some words like Capdabbler or Dodgerock which have very little likelihood that anyone is really using them, but there are tons of words that people do use because the Simpsons is so huge and has infiltrated pop culture. The problem is that there's no way to draw the line reasonably at words that have invaded the language and words that the show simply made up that people didn't latch on to. Hence people argue that word X belongs on the list, and there's no real response. I'm quite sure "Boo-urns" has never been in any legitimate book or news item of any kind, but It's still quite a commonly used phrase realtive to a phrase made up on most other shows, for example. If you wanna try to sort this out? be my guest. I'm tired of having people yell at me every time I delete a word. TheHYPO 22:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless you can find those sources, though, how can you prove that people are using these words? The principles of wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth. Even if you personally know that everyone says "unpossible" or "jebus," unless you can cite another source to support that you can't verify the information. That's why I think only the words that have recieved external attention should be included in the list. I think I'll wait a couple of days for more comments and then I'll take off every word without a citation to verify its status as a neologism in use outside the show. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, that's the problem with your complaint. I can tell you how often on a weekly basis I hear it from people - I can tell you proof from a firsthand experience, but as for citable written proof, "how often people say something" isn't something significant that can be found in a written cite. If you wanna bring the article down to D'oh, Cromunilent and "Don't have a Cow, Man", feel free. Just expect a lot of complaints from a lot of people (not me, but others). Most people don't feel this list is a list of words that have entered OUR English language, but rather neologisms which are used as if part of the lexicon of the show - things characters say as if they are perfectly normal words or phrases, and therefore are neologisms on the show. Not in real life. TheHYPO 12:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If they're only used on the show, then it's textbook fancruft. The Simpsons may be the most popular animated show of the last two decades, but it's still fancruft. Most of these entries were only used in a single episode, too, so there's no point in including them anywhere besides the episode articles. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have fun. Don't forget to RfD all the redirects that redirect here based on ones you delete or you're gonna get people whining here that "x redirects here, but there's no entry for x... wtf" (see the various instances of this above) TheHYPO 16:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wondering why when I searched for Screamapillar it redirected me here where I could find nothing.

Explain to me how massive paring and cutting will help "build a comprehensive and detailed guide?" Even if you perceive a word to be fancruft, or if it doesn't fit some pedantic interpretation of neologism, it's not taking up that much space, is it? It seems like this Wikipedia entry would be enriched by having hundreds of words, even including those with questionable provenance, rather than a dozen or so "culturally significant" words and phrases. I just want to see what episode crisitunity is in. And now, instead of Wikipedia being a robust source where I can find this information, it's a thin and shallow source that is unhelpful.

That's what google is for. If you just google "Christitunity" and "Simpsons episode" you'll find it in the first 10 hits. Natalie 16:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beemobile, De-bigulator and Karmaceutucal[edit]

I have re-inserted these entiries, because they are in fact neologisms, according to Wikipedia's entry:

A neologism is a [word] or phrase which has been recently created -- often to apply to new concepts, or to reshape older terms in newer language form. Neologisms are especially useful in identifying inventions, new phenomena, or old ideas which have taken on a new cultural context. The term e-mail, as used today, would be an example of a neologism.

"Beemobile" was created as a parody to an old term, Batmobile, which adds excitement to the context of the scene. A "de-bigulator" is the name of an invention. "Karmaceutical" is a combination of two common words to create a new word.
There are several entries on this page which are not accually neologisms. I think so many entries distract from the actual meaning behind the page, so every catch-phrase and gibberish becomes a new entry.

I'm not going to get into the debate again about what a neologism actually is because it completely depends on how wide or narrow you apply the term. De-bigulator was removed from the page because this was decided not to be a list of fictional inventions, products, places or names of things/people/etc. But all I have to say is that if you're argument is that this list has too many things distracting it that are really of little or no significance, I don't know why you are adding Beemobile or Karmaceutical back in. For heaven's sake, Karmaceutical isn't even a word. It's the name of a store. A word has to actually MEAN something to be a neologism, and the name of the store isn't a thing. It's never even used in a sentance. Beemobile is the name a guy who likes bees gives to his car. It's a nickname, not a neologism. It's not a "New word" that can describe something. TheHYPO 00:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand why there is a debate about the word 'de-bigulator' being in the article. It is certainly the name of a fictional invention, one which may also be applied to any device that causes a macroscopic object to be shrunk to microscopic size. This more than satisfies the requirements for being a neologism. Meanwhile there are entries like 'A wizard did it' that clearly deserve to be deleted. Karmaceuticals is the name of a store, but it can also refer to the products inside the store, those being natural or traditional medicinal products. So it does mean something and it can be applied to things in the real world. Beemobile can similarly be used to refer to a vehicle that real beekeepers drive. For all these terms, I think it is irrelevant as to whether they are 'brand names' or generic terms, because they can all be easily adapted to refer to generic things, and when they occur in the episodes there is not really any clear indication which of them they are. Anyway, whether they truly qualify as neologisms or not, it would be unfair to delete them while allowing about a hundred others that are much less deserving of mention in the article. So I say they should be put back in. Gorilla 322 00:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"one which may also be applied to any device" - but that's the point. Sure, we can APPLY it to any such device, but the show does not do so. In the show, it's applied to a specific invention. Because the name is generic, it could be applied to other such machines, like Kleenex is today, but it's still a brand name in reality. If the machine was called "The De-Bigulator 5000" I don't think we'd be having this discussion because it would not be applicable to any device but this specific device. Even without the "5000", that's basically the same case here. De-Bigulator is a specific machine. "a shrinking machine" might be a generic term and if it had been used. The problem is that we're getting into a debate of how it's used on the show, (not a neologism, just a product) vs. how it could be used in real life by you or I, even if it's applying that product name to something else. "Beemobile can similarly be used to refer to a vehicle that real beekeepers drive." Again, no. It can't. In the show, he says "To THE Beemobile". That means there is one such vehicle - his - and that it's a specific name he's given to it. now YOU as a fan of the show, might copy his name and genericise it, but unless there is cited evidence that this has happened in the real world, it's merely your theory. I could do the same thing If I wanted "Groundskeeper Willie: Any Scottish school Janitor". Sure on the show he's one character, but in real life, the name could be used to describe any scottish janitor. Definately a neologism. See how the argument doesn't hold up? I don't disagree that "A Wizard Did It" wouldn't be my personal choice on the list, and there are other such bad entries, but it doesn't mean that we should add more. At least A Wizard Did It has cited other uses outside the show. However, the entry itself is getting a bit bloated by outside facts that probably don't need to be there. TheHYPO 12:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TheHYPO 12:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This may be trivial, but I believe I remember hearing on an audio commentary that the origin of this word is not from George Meyers, as stated in the article, but they got it from Archie Comics. Anyone else remember where this is from? --WillMak050389 04:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Panaphonics redirects here...[edit]

however, it isn't being mentioned in the P-section. --Mikli 14:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hear ye, hear ye - the list is constantly being pruned for items that don't belong on this list. People sometimes make redirects for words to this list that are later pruned. Instead of mentioning it on the talk page, I suggest you simply list the redirect for deletion. It's a really simple two-step process: Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion#How to list a redirect for deletion

TheHYPO 22:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I did so. Thanks for the advice. --Mikli 09:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This one, pronounced "stick-to-it-tive-ness" should probably be added. From the episode from Season 8 - The Old Man and The Lisa. Early in the episode Skinner asks Burns if its important for success in business.

No. It's not a Simpsons neologism, it's been in common usage for at least three decades. Anchoress 02:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This word is found in Eugene Peterson's "A Long Obedience in the Same Direction". The first edition was published in 1980, and there he talked of his mothers use of the term. (p. 125 in the second edition)

I'm done with this page.[edit]

It seems people just want to turn this page into a giant mess, adding fancrufty entries and non-neologistic entries and facts about the entries that are simply untrue or uncorroborated. Can anyone show me that Gibby Gabby is based on Mr.T's Jibber Jabber? They are both pairs of wirds with different vowel sounds. That doesn't make them related. Frankly, if you want to turn it into a fancruft list of every word the series has made up, fine. It's not worth my time to maintain this page anymore. Just don't be surprised if the page ends up deleted as a pointless fancruft list with no real-world legitimacy. TheHYPO 13:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

b-o-o h-o-o. You'll be missed. Try not to throw a tantrum on any other pages! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
I just discovered this page, and I have to say, I agree. The Simpsons might have technically "created" all of these terms, but the vast majority of them aren't exactly integrated into the English language. I haven't even heard of 95% of them. --Foot Dragoon 03:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

go whine somewhere else, emos 23:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assal Horizontarology[edit]

I don't think the term means "sitting". I think it means "causing the ass to become horizontally enlarged" ie: fatter. I don't think that either definition is encyclopedic. Valley2city 17:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is why the entry has a warning to stop f#@#n' adding theories as to the meaning. But no one cares.

Proposal: Add a 'non-neologism' section[edit]

I can see lots of 'discussion' on this talk page about the listing of items on this page that are not neologisms but keep getting put on the page anyway. I'd like to propose that this page gains a section of "Non-neologisms", introduced as a list of items that are commonly mistaken for neologisms although they are not. To this list would be moved all the phrases and names and other items that are mistakenly put on the page.

The hope is that:

  1. It will retain 'encyclopedia'ness, in that readers will still find the content useful even if that came to the page looking for neologisms
  2. It will cause people browsing the page looking to see if their favourite phrase is there to not put the phrase into the list of neologism, because it's already on the page (albeit in the non-neologisms section)

However, since there's nothing new in the world, I'm sure other WikiProjects have grappled with this issue before and resolved it in other ways - perhaps by creating a new page for those other items (which would have the drawback of 'hiding' it from users considering editing this page).

My inclination would be for the non-neologisms to be only listed and not explained - many will be links to their episode articles anyway, and will achieve the side-goal of shortening the page and focusing on real neologisms --Mortice 20:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • If such a list were created, I propose that it be kept on the talk page, since the topic is already at the periphery of encyclopedic content. --Dystopos 21:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The list is already 90% fancruft and such a section would simply devolve it further. Here's a thought: Start a Simpsons wiki. Simpsons fans seem to want to hijack wikipedia and toss every bit of simpsons info onto it; This stuff belongs in a Simpsons wiki - not in a real-world wiki. As much as I love most of the catch phrases that the show has spawned, none if it is encyclopedically relevant to the real world. about 90% of the phrases on this list belong in the garbage. TheHYPO 03:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where'd frogurt go?[edit]

It's not in Treehouse of Horror III, and there's a #redirect to here from Frogurt; did it get removed at some point? --moof 22:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • From the intro to the article: "The following is presented more as a glossary of words or phrases invented by the show which one or more characters use in regular speech, as though intended as real terms. This does not include names of invented characters, locations, or products." Frogurt is a product, a product of the fictional "House of Evil", and not a neologism as such. I'll fix the redirect. --Dystopos 22:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since it was in use before The Simpsons, it isn't an invented product either. Anchoress 00:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got an etymology/cite, Anchoress? (random googling is not turning up much; almost all mentions are simpsons related.) --moof 03:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

40 Rods to the Hogshead?[edit]

I could swear it was to the furlong. I've seen this episode a few times and don't recall ever hearing the term hogshead. 11:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The quote is correct TheHYPO 00:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, 40 rods to the furlong wouldn't make sense as furlong is distance and hoghead is volume...--WillMak050389 22:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you mean it wouldn't make sense as a joke... because there actually are 40 rods to a furlong. --Dystopos 22:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, thats what I meant. Thanks. --WillMak050389 22:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


'Mazuma' is not a neologism at all; it's archaic British slang, and it comes from the Yiddish word 'mezumen,' meaning money.Bws2002 03:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This is not a neologism. It is, however, misspelled. There's even a wainscoting article. — Aluvus t/c 02:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Entry for BBBQ makes little sense, it explains one acronym in terms of another unexplained acronym. I tried to understand it, really I did but it is just bad explanation if it requires you had to have seen the episode to understand it. (Do not assume readers know BBQ is short for Barbeque or BYOB stands for bring your own beer.) If it is joke it needs further explanation (or maybe it was only funny in context), if it is a quote from the show it need to be marked as such. Horkana 5 December 2023

Why should it not be assumed that readers don't know what BBQ stands for? maybe it should be wikilinked (why don't you just do this instead of coming to the talk page and complaining) because that's what wikilnks are for - explaining potentially unknown terms, but if people might not know what BBQ means, why assume they even know what a barbecue is either? I personally don't even think BBBQ is a neologism. It's an acronym, and shouldn't qualify TheHYPO 08:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eating Food[edit]

I am not sure why this was removed, so here is my rationale for adding it in the first place.

Under the definition of neologism, the phrase eating food is a synthesis of old terms, which is used in a manner that is supposed to sound contemporary. Because eating and food are complementary words, as one directly implies the other, their redundancy is a new phrase that is supposed to sound original.
No where in any dictionary will you find eating food, n'or will one find it in any proper English text. One would not say "my holding box" in the same manner, unless one intended to make a new phrase from pre-existing terms.
I was the one who previously removed this. The edit by sheds some light - it makes it clear that 'eating' is an adjective, not a verb (as it would be assumed to be with a lack of context to imply otherwise), as in "food for eating". I'm still in two minds as to whether this complies with the definition of neologism
Any others care to chip in their views? --Mortice 00:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scrod basket[edit]

Ummm, a more realistic interpretation (bypassing the stupidity of a fish container) is analogy to the Midwest as America's/the World's bread basket, or California as America's salad bowl. This entry is one of the more egregious examples of the speculation/l;ack of citaiton for which the node is bannered.-- Belg4mit 00:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I think that kwyjibo is so popular that it deserves its own page/subpage.

Go Futurama! Sp3000 10:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia isn't about popularity. The word appears in all of 30 seconds of one episode of a 17 year show. Unless you can show some sort of actual significance in the real world, I don't see how it justifies its own page. TheHYPO 11:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a clothing store/tailor in San Francisco called Kweejibo; I just confirmed with them on the phone that they got the name from the Simpson's episode. Dunno if that's notable enough to mention, but the store's been around for at least a decade, since I bought a coat there ca. 1996. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nevermind! I can't read today or something; it's alread in there. D'oh! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Wizard Did It[edit]

Since this is an example of obscure/evasive/humorous reasoning (a childish excuse) rather than any sort of neologism, I have removed it and pointed redirects to the article Treehouse of Horror X which, through the magic of fancruft/original research, contains a full exegesis of the phrase as it relates to Rabbinical principles, Cervantes, and, in particular, the minor concepts which are not fleshed out in Terry Pratchett's Discworld books (but are given full treatment here, on the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.) --Dystopos 23:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I enjoyed this list when I first came upon it, and I have tried to do what I can to improve it, but I'm beginning to believe it's a lost cause. If it is to be at all verifiable as a list of neologisms and purged of original research, then it will likely consist of only one or two entries, at best. If it is not a list of neologisms, but merely a list of made-up words and phrases, then it hardly belongs to an encyclopedia. I suggest offloading this cruft to Wikisimpsons Central or another suitable site before some request for comment, article improvement drive, or deletion nomination gets this in their teeth. --Dystopos 23:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Car Hole (Hold)[edit]

I made an edit that was fair to both interpretations of this term and it has been removed. If one listens to Moe, he says "hold", and if one listens to Homer, he says "hole." The subtitles refuse to work on my DVD but it's clear to me who says what and that, whose transcripts are unofficial, is not the final authority of who says what especially since I've found errors in the past as well. The first few times I saw this episode I thought it was "hole" as well but since then I've heard Moe's distinct "d" at the end. I don't want to get into an editing war over this especially because mine laid out all the cards and offered evidence for both interpretations and a possible reason for Moe and Homer's differences while this new one provides none. Point me to a script and a voice over schedule that proves it was "hole" all along and I'll shut up. Until then, both interpretations, based solely on who says what and not, should be given fair shake.Levelistchampion 22:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I listened to it again and I didn't hear any notable 'd' at the end, but even if you did, and you might have - it makes no sense. There is no logical reason for him to say Car hold. The point of the joke is that "Garage" is too fancy for Moe, so he say something as low-brow literal joe schmo as possible - car hole. At worst, Moe's pronounciation is ambiguous. Homer's is clear. TheHYPO 16:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm listening to it with AB repeat on maximum volume and I'm still not convinced but I'm moving more to the center; I hear it half and half. A couple points. Yes, you're right, Moe is contrasting the French word (meaning "to dock" btw) with the word "hole" and it fits for the reason you say--I'd like to point out that a garage is not a hole but then again, a home is generally not a castle either. It seems obvious I know, but I'm just sayin'. Also--and this'll sound kind of silly, and it is-- but since Homer is not the originator of the term, and has time and time again proved his status as a moron, I hardly believe using him as evidence for the "hole" is accurate. See unreliable narrator. I'll leave this issue alone now since my conviction has gone from solid to shakey. Now I can return to the comfort of the gutteral "hole" instead of what I thought at the time to be Moe's literal translation of the word "garage."Levelistchampion 02:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's akin to calling the mouth one's a "food hole" or "word hole" or "pie hole" ("shut your word hole", one might threaten). My opinion is that it is not intended to be any parallel to french. It's merely the most 'low brow' way to describe a garage. Also note that both the recording technique and the general pattern of speech Moe uses is more likely to cloud the pronounciation of words than Homer's. TheHYPO 07:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Granted the Simpsons writers dropped off quite a bit after the departure of Brad Bird and Conan O'Brian, but they're still not so dull as to use "car hold" when "car hole" is actually funny. --Dystopos 05:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see how "car hole" is more intrinsically funny than "car hold" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).


I have inserted this twice, with definition and explanation, and both times it has been removed. WHY? - R. New, 15:22 GMT, 26th October 2006

I wouldn't worry for the moment, because there's a proposal that will probably end in the majority of items on the list being deleted. I think 'Poindextrose' is in the same family - it may well have been mentioned on an episode, but it's not a defining phrase of the show in the way "D'oh" is. Come back in a week and it will all be different...
BTW new entries on the 'talk' page should by convention be put at the end of the page - you put this at the beginning, I've moved it down here --Mortice 17:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's pretty clear. A fictional chemical is not a neologism. No more than a fictional model of car would be, or a fictional brand of food. A neologism should not be a PROPER noun. TheHYPO 17:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's slash and burn time![edit]

Since the AFD is clearly going to fail, it is time for the other option to be presented - the slash and burn.

I am going to tag everything that I cannot see any evidence has entered mainstream conversation/usage (and has been EVIDENCED by a third-party source) with a tag. Then I will attack those with my sharpest blade in a week if sources don't appear (which of course does not stop anyone else slashing them first).

--Charlesknight 18:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually why the hell am I going to do that - time to put WP:BOLD into place - feel free to add back any that have any real sources to them that show they have entered mainstream usage. --Charlesknight 18:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well done, Charles - I think your edits are in line with the majority of the AfD votes --Mortice 13:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lets change the name of this article[edit]

I propose we move the article to a better name, and that we should discuss the best name to use.

This is because:

  • It contains phrases like "Don't have a cow, man", which are great to have in a list of words/phrases, but are not neologisms
  • The name should reflect the new sense of the list - only externally referenced phrases, not 'every neat word anyone can think of' (and yes, we'll have to police this well)

So what would be a good new name?

  • List of culturally significant phrases from The Simpsons
  • List of original phrases from The Simpsons
  • List of neat stuff

Ideas? --Mortice 14:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of culturally significant phrases or something similar would be my choice. --Charlesknight 14:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I forgot to add - we should rewrite the bit at the top of the page too, but only once we've decided the philosiphy for inclusion --Mortice 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm all for sweepng cuts but...[edit]

The recent cuts are BS. And I say this simply because: You have no basis to make them. Why does "Chocotastic" remain, but Crisitunity or Retirony are nixed? Explain your logic, because it seems to be that the list is now totally arbitrary. TheHYPO 14:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well this is really really easy - a) I took a guess based on my knowledge of the show and popular culture; in conjunction with b) in line with policy, I removed any and all statements that did not have supporting evidence that they matched the criteria listed at the top of the page. Eemember it's upto an editor who wants something to exist in an article to show why it should be there NOT for other editors to provide evidence why it does not. You feel free to add back any you can find verfiable third-party sources that indicate that they have entered general usage/popular culture.

So which ones do you have sources for? --Charlesknight 14:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it should also be that the phrase is known or suspected to have entered the culture because of The Simpsons. I removed 'unpossible' because the backup reference was to Shakespeare, so clearly it's just a coincidence. I'm not sure whether or not the same is true of 'killbot' or 'smokesperson' - very likely just coincdence of wording (although I bet you can't easily separate the Simpsons writing team from the Futurama team) --Mortice 14:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see no evidence that chocotastic (chocolate, fantastic) has any basis in the real world due to the simpsons. It's far more likely that it was a coincidentally named flavour that is cited in the article. The article cites no evidence that indicates that the Simpsons is the result of the realtively easy-to-come-up-with term. TheHYPO 05:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
well BE BOLD and remove it then. --Charlesknight 06:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as what should be added, I'm staying out of this. But I think the ones on the list right now (Boo-urns, cromulent, d'oh, Don't have a cow, embiggen, jebus, kwyjibo, okely dokely, tomacco, and yoink!) are all worthy of inclusion. A re-titling is probably in order though, considering that "don't have a cow" is a phrase and yoink was not invented by the Simpsons. Natalie 17:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I raised the question of renaming the page (section above this one), but got only one responder so not much of a consensus. But perhaps I should be bold and move it along what seems to be a consensus of those that have responded. Anyone want to chip in a bid? --Mortice 18:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would say that, with the exception of "don't have a cow", the title would be accurate. It does say "List of neologisms on the Simpsons", not "List of neologisms from the Simpsons". A very brief paragraph noting that neologisms that were popularized by the Simpsons are also included would make that title extra-accurate. But if "don't have a cow, man" stays, than I don't really know what the title should be. Natalie 18:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think there's no reason to stick with the original 'neologism' theme - much better to have a page whose name is appropriate to its content rather than sticking with 'neologism' just for historical reasons, and would deter people from adding their own favouite neologisms. Would you consider "List of culturally significant phrases from The Simpsons" to be any better? It would require that all entries have external references, which is no bad thing --Mortice 19:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Don't have a cow" absolutely does not belong on the list. It was a common phrase long before the Simpsons. It goes back to at least the mid-1970s, if not further. Druff 16:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The idea was not that the page should be phrases unique and invented by the show (I've just corrected the intro to reflect that) but phrases for which people have an immediate association with the show, and have verifiable external references. If you think DHAC doesn't belong, remove it and justify in the comment, others will agree or disagree by their actions --Mortice 21:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too many indents. I'm okay with "culturally significant phrases", with some redirects and a good lede. What do other people think? Natalie 20:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A suggestion that may help[edit]

Perhaps a editors note (those ones that can only be seen in the edit window, not in the article) would prevent the well-meaning but mistaken additions. I'm thinking along the lines of "Please DO NOT add words or phrases to this list without..." and then whatever we want people to do before they add stuff. This would obviously not deter the crufty folks, but may at least point well-meaning people - those thinking "how could they forget _____" (especially those new to Wikipedia) - to the discussion, Wikipedia policies, blah blah blah. Natalie 17:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drafting the new heading text[edit]

I've started a user page drafting the new heading text in preparation for moving this page, and I'd appreciate any further thoughts on the best exact wording for the title of the page.

Come see and comment at User:Mortice/Culturally significance phrases from The Simpsons --Mortice 18:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Scotchtoberfest, from the episode Bart's Girlfriend redirects here, yet there is no information on it in this article. Could anyone add some information on it? Cheers JackSparrow Ninja 08:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edited so it redirects to Bart's Girlfriend --Closedmouth 12:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That may be a problem - a bunch of pages redirect to this page, but really shouldn't have a slot here. Natalie 14:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have re-moved the page to Culturally significant phrases from The Simpsons instead of Culturally significance, since the latter is not proper English. I would like some help in fixing the redirects and whatnot. Natalie 15:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The link in the Simpsons template at the bottom of articles is now a double redirect. I don't know how to fix templates. Natalie 15:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I think I fixed the template, but article with the template are still showing up as "what links here" on "list of neologisms". So I'm stumped. If someone who is a little better-versed in the the vagaries of templates wants to look, please do. Natalie 18:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the 'what links' to 'neologisms' list, there now seem to be hardly any pages except in alternative namepsaces or redirect pages - guess you were seeing a slow database update. BTW I changed 'neologisms' to 'phrases' on the template --Mortice 18:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent. Glad to know the template problem fixed itself. "Phrases" sounds great; I couldn't think of anything at the time so I just left it. Natalie 21:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge in the clowns[edit]

I've proposed over on Can't sleep, clown will eat me that it gets merged in here, since this is now a much more focused page --Mortice 18:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 21:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also agree, "Can't sleep..." isn't notable enough for me to have its own article, but as long as it redirects here, it should be fine. --WillMak050389 22:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to copy these over to the Can't sleep, clown will eat me page so everyone sees them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Natalie Erin (talkcontribs) 22:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Overlord meme[edit]

Is there a reason why Overlord meme isn't mentioned on this page? -- Scorpion0422 21:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not that I know of. Perhaps it should, or they should be merged. Natalie 21:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i added the merge tags Sparsefarce 22:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support a merge of Overlord meme to this page for same reasons as for Can't sleep, clown will eat me. --WillMak050389 22:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not a phrase I've ever heard of. It would be preferable if the title of the section reflected the words in the phrase, rather than using the word 'meme' - perhaps I, for one, welcome our new overlords. It would also be nice if there were a (famouse?) citeable instance of the phrase, rather that just saying 'popular on SlashDot' (tho the link to the langauge log is good to see). Not sure why the page referes to a film that doesn't include the phrase. I guess I think for merging it would need to be reorganised as a paragraph explaining the phrase and explaining where outside The Simpsons it's been used --Mortice 22:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree with the proposed merge. The Overlord meme is a snowclone, and it's used as much more than simply a popular quote from the Simpsons. If the only use of it ever was the exact quote "And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords", I would agree with the merge, because then it is a significant phrase from the Simpsons. But since it always shows up as "X overlords" and not "insect overlords", I think it's a culturally significant phenomonen that happens to be based on a remark made on the Simpsons. Also, I wonder how many people hear the phrase and connect it automatically with the Simpsons. "Can't sleep, clown will eat me", yes. But the overlord meme, imho, is more universal than that. Kolindigo 23:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I never thought it should be merged here... I was just wondering why it wasn't mentioned... -- Scorpion0422 23:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then perhaps it shouldn't be merged. But it should be at least mentioned. Natalie 23:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It belongs in List of Internet phenomena right along with All Your Base Are Belong To Us, since where else except the internet have you heard it? 18:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the Simpsons, for starters, which is where the phrase originiated from. Natalie 18:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
a slightly varied version of it was used in one of the Grand Theft Auto games. I think it was San Andreas. Sparsefarce 18:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The line from GTA: Vice City is "I, for one, welcome our new Russian masters." Flatscan 18:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'It has also been recycled on the Simpsons, as when a party shift in Springfield politics prompted Brockman to say "I, for one, welcome our new Democratic overlords."' I have searched, but have been unable to locate the source for this. If this is correct, it needs a citation. --David Regev 04:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ditto. I have 95% of 95% of the episodes memorized, and can't think of where this quote would come from. JW 10:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also couldn't find this use of "democratic overlords" (or other "i for one welcome"phrasing) at or elsewhere. So, I've been bold and scratched it. - Ralphbk 13:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I was wondering if we should include some mention of Ahoy-hoy, even though The Simpsons didn't invent it, they repopularized it so perhaps it should be mentioned (But NOT merged...) -- Scorpion0422 23:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think a lot of things were taken out during the last major trimming, because the title of the page was neologisms. Now that the page has a different title, Ahoy-hoy belongs there (just like yoink!). Natalie 23:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great idea! --Mortice 00:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
with the normal qualification - if they are culturally significant, it will be no problem providing 3rd party sources that allude to that fact. --Charlesknight 11:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editors are suspected of being overly pedant, to the point of ruining this article (title corrected for thin internet skins)[edit]

This is a devolution for Wikipedia. I check this article from time to time to reference words from the Simpsons. I see that it has now been gutted by pedants. Perhaps this really is going to crap. Maybe I'll start going to Britannica so that I can get a glossed over shallow couple of paragraphs on a topic instead of an in depth article over even the most insignificant things. Cfpresley 03:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. Wikipedia's own policy is destroying itself. Muphy's Law states that no matter how many bad things you prevent, another one will occur. Wikipedia is protected from vandalism, trolling, and factual inaccuracies, but not from self destruction. Wikipedia policy should not bite the hand that feeds it. Pretty soon good editors will stop adding information that bad editors call fancruft. Ocicatmuseum 17:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am also rather unhappy by the gutting of this article recently instead of perhaps changing the name of the article to something that is more relevant to the content. Now I find the article almost useless with so few words. I also enjoyed looking up this article for many words and catch phrases used in the Simpsons. I would prefer to rename this article to something more appropriate rather than gutting it to fit the name "Neologisms" 21:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First off, it's not a great way to start a reasoned debate by insulting the people you're talking to - so I guess you don't want a discussion, just an argument. I don't know who you're blaming about obsession and editing, since lots of us have been involved, and many people contributed to the discussion which lead to this being done. Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of neologisms on The Simpsons, you'll see a few dozen people agree with the motion, so I don't see why you think your opinion is more important than those few dozen. Wikipedia doesn't want to be all things to all people, there are other places you can go to fill articles with fancuft --Mortice 13:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps I was harsh in my assessment and for that I apologize. I was frustrated at the deep cuts of the article, regardless of the cutter's rationalization. However I did call it like I saw it. Perhaps the editor was misguided yet well intentioned. I have edited my previous comment to make it nicer and more civil to those with thin skins. 06:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh no I wasn't misguided, all my actions have purpose. I slashed the article in line with policy. --Charlesknight 09:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for replying, Charlesknight. I respectfully disagree with your cuts, and in a way I do understand your reasoning, being I sometimes am overly analytical about the "letter of the law" ignoring the "spirit of the law". But sometimes following the "letter of the law" or as you might say, being "in line with policy" is not always the correct path to follow. 00:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well there is an easy way around that - people just need to re-add in all of the examples of words that they can reference with multiple third-party sources. Those they cannot, they should not put back in. For all the talk we see on this page, I've seen nobody actually attempt to do so - generally because they know they are unable. I will not removed anything that is well-sourced. There is really no way around it - if it's not in line with policy and guideline - then either people need to move to have policies and guidelines changed or they need to consider WHY the material they are trying to add is not in line with current policy and guidelines. I've spent the last couple of days looking at simpsons articles and I really think that the simpsons project needs to stop creating and adding new material and concentrate on the quality of existing articles - so of the episode guides have quote lists that seems to consist of a full transcript of the episode. This article is just a small element of a wider problem (and I don't want to appear as if I am singling out the simpsons wikiproject, it's common to all of the fan-based projects - it's enought to make a grown man cry when you look at some of the Magic the gathering pages or some of the Pokemon pages. --Charlesknight 10:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm a tad confused. Isn't reference to the name or season and episode number reference enough? One could easily watch the DVD release to verify the quote. Or are you referring to references of cultural significance? 17:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've always been a proponant of trimming this article for unnecessary crap (I was not the one who gutted it). There are some phrases that I think should be on this page and some that shouldn't. The problem is, someone else has another opinion on what phrases should and shouldn't be on here. I hestitantly agree with the sentiment that a list like this TRUELY belongs on a SIMPSONS wiki (which I can't believe there isn't one already). Only truely "famous" and "publically known" phrases should really be on here, but how do you judge that? "Me Faily English? That's unpossible" is one of the most quoted lines of my middle school career, but does it have any legitimate basis for being on this list? not really. Not without listing virtually every amusing phrase the show has ever produced, whether people latched onto it or not. TheHYPO 04:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The title of this thread is IMO a violation of WP:CIVIL - would the originator kindly consider changing it? Anchoress 06:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. I forgot that being nice Embiggens the..., hold on let me check wikipedia for the rest of that phrase.Cfpresley 23:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For those looking for detailed information on the Simpsons which goes beyond the scope of a general interest encyclopedia, I suggest WikiSimpsons Central. --Dystopos 17:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Verifiability and Original Research[edit]

Two of Wikipedia's cornerstone policies are that article content must be verifiable and must not be original research. (See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research). With regard to the content of this article there is little hope of meeting those policies. The change in name does not open the door to re-adding the entire list of non-standard words used in The Simpsons. In fact it complicates the issue because a list of "neologisms" can be verified by appeal to contemporary dictionaries while a list of "culturally significant phrases" is almost entirely subjective. Which culture are we talking about? World culture? English-speaking culture? American culture? Pop culture? Geek culture? Simpsons geek culture? or just you and your intimate circle of Simpsons greek friends who like to argue over "Car Hole" vs "Car Hold" and would like to enjoin Wikipedia as part of the battle? In my opinion this list can never bridge the gap between being a useful reference for fans and being a verifiable, encyclopedic topic for Wikipedia. The best tack, in my opinion, would be to move it to WikiSimpsons Central or another Simpsons wiki and summarize the effect of the Simpsons on English usage in a paragraph or two of well-written prose, rather than an unmaintainable list. --Dystopos 17:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much, Dystopos. That article to which you've linked is more along what I wish this article was. 21:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that the article should have references, and perhaps editors should hash out criteria for what merits inclusion, but the words and phrases listed currently strike me as legitimately significant. For the record, it's always difficult to decide what is significant. The whole idea of determining what is "notable" versus "non-notable" material presents the same difficulty. Croctotheface 06:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's not forget that this article was initially titled Neologisms from the Simpson's, or something to that effect. Why was the decision made to make it Culturally significant? I found a gem of a policy called Ignore_all_rules that states that rules can be ignored if it improves wikipedia. Did not the original list of neologisms improve wikipedia?Cfpresley 17:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No, they did not. For the reasons described above. They are perfect, however, for a Simpsons-specific wiki - for the reasons described above. --Dystopos 17:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll repeat my comment from earlier - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of neologisms on The Simpsons which is a vote for changing the article, the large majority of votes being to keep but shorted the article. If your view was the majority view, that would not have been reflected in the vote. Your argument for 'improving wiki' would be against the majority opinion --Mortice 20:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not support the current name of the article (see above). I do support weeding out unverifiable claims, original research, unmaintainable trivia and minutiae that do not fall within the scope of a general interest encyclopedia. --Dystopos 21:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From what you said above, I think you think that the page shouldn't be here at all. That's a reasonable point of view, though I think summarising major phrases is a good activity for an encyclopedia, and the page failed RfD. Or if you think it should be rewritten to not be based on a list - go for it.
I thought the 'neologism' name was inappropriate and suggested a few alternatives, only one of which got any interest, but we can re-discuss and move the page again if you have better ideas --Mortice 22:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My basic view is stated above. If the article comes up for deletion again, I will participate in the process. I have neither the interest nor the relavent resources to enable me to write the type of article I can envision as being encyclopedic on this topic. Maybe there's a published article out there just waiting for us. If not, our time is probably better spent elsewhere. --Dystopos 22:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm doing research for The Simpsons article and I just want you to know that you could use this article as a source. --Maitch 16:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter[edit]

Along the lines of the Overlord Meme, this phrase would be appropriate for the new focus of this article. —pfahlstrom 04:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And the evidence that this is culturally significant to members of the general public is? --Larry laptop 09:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Over 20,000 Google hits for variants of this phrase using your-ideas to-subscribe-to-your-newsletter -wikipedia -everything2 (a significant spread despite the shortcomings of the Google test, and double the results for a similar search for okely dokely). Not having been an avid Simpsons fan, I myself first encountered the phrase (as a "fascinating" variant) elsewhere and proceeded to look it up. As I am no expert, I leave it to someone else to identify a suitably notable example before including it in the article. —pfahlstrom 19:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
right that's no source at the moment - so it doesn't go in. --Larry laptop 19:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's exactly what I said. —pfahlstrom 21:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where did all the good stuff go[edit]

I stopped paying attention to this page for a couple of weeks, but where did all the neologisms go? I was looking for a canonical list of neologisms from the Simpsons and they've been wiped out. What gives? You know, seeing as it survived AfD and arguments for "pruning" it...Valley2city 02:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even though it survived one AfD it is not sure that it will survive another one in its old format. Wikipedia pushes articles to be verifiable now and the old one didn't cut it. With that said, the current version also needs a lot of work. The article has these inclusion criterias:
  1. The phrase or word should originate on the show.
  2. The phrase or word should explain how it is used in real life. This should be supported be a citation.
You can readd neologisms if it is in line with these criterias. --Maitch 14:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Craptacula! Lugnuts 18:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Insignificant Nothing Missing[edit]

The word Embiggens also appears on a seal when Lisa visits the library, in the town hall, and other places throughout the show. It reads, "A Nobel Spirit ... Embiggens the Smallest Man." Of course, this is in the exact same context as the original citation.

Also, I think 'Yoink' should be taken off this page.

Kysle 06:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do you think yoink (of all things) should be removed? It's probably the second-most pervasive after d'oh. The seal you are thinking of is the seal of either the town or the Historical Society, I believe. A Noble Spirit Embiggens the Smallest Man is the town motto. Tha article should make mention of the fact that the word is a parody of Jefferson's coining of belittle though, shouldn't it? ~Switch t 06:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only because the title of the article says "from The Simpsons" ... and 'yoink' isn't from it. But, I guess the saying was given more popularity because of the show (or so I assume). It just seems a bit misleading as is. After reading it, I said to myself, "Wow, Yoink came from The Simpsons?!" (except, maybe not that incredulously) Kysle 06:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yoink is from The Simpsons though. Coined by Simpsons writer George Meyer. Says so in the article, with source. ~Switch t 07:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh. Kysle 07:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Embiggens, don't have a cow, eat my shorts, ¡Ay, caramba![edit]

Are there reasons why embiggens, don't have a cow, eat my shorts and ¡Ay, caramba! aren't on this page? -- Scorpion 16:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Don't have a cow", "Eat my shorts" and "¡Ay, caramba!" wasn't coined by the show. Embiggens could not cite real life use. --Maitch 17:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe Eat my Shorts and don't have a cow weren't invented bty the show, but they were popularized by it. -- Scorpion 17:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The premise of this article is that the phrases or words should be coined by the show. --Maitch 17:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, now I get it. Was "Meh" really invented by the show? -- Scorpion 17:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know. I think it was added recently. I don't watch this page so closely. It doesn't have a citation, so we can always get rid of it. This could actually become a good article if someone was willing to work on sourcing. This article is a great ressource. --Maitch 17:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ahoy-hoy definitely didn't originate on The Simpsons yet it remains in the article. "Don't have a cow, man" and "Eat my shorts" are at least as deserving. ~Switch t c g 17:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article used to be "Culturally significant phrases from The Simpsons" containing phrases that are culturally significant because of their appearance on the show, not necessarily needing to be created for the show. I think it should be moved back to being phrased as so because it fits the description better. That way, Ahoy-hoy, despite being created as a word before The Simpsons, would still be allowed (as long as their is a credbile third-party source metioning its appearance on the show, of course). --WillMak050389 20:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you move it to "Culturally significant phrases from The Simpsons" then you will have to loose "D'oh" since that it is not a phrase.--Maitch 21:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, something to that effect, a title not specifically keeping it at words/phrases created for the show, but words/phrase made more famous by the show, regardless of origin. --WillMak050389 02:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about Culturally significant words and phrases from The Simpsons? That should satisfy everyone. ~Switch t c g 05:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would be more appropriate than the current title. Any concerns or questions about it from anyone? --WillMak050389 13:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although I'm a bystander, I have to add my voice of assent to this. Rintrah 14:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moved. ~Switch t c g 07:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would be the article before it was nominated for, and survived, AfD just recently. It's much better now. ~Switch t c g 13:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not much better it's much worse. this article was referenced in the front page of the Globe and Mail. Rally, come on. And besides. Embiggens is used very commonly among all walks of life, be he wrestler, stereotypical nerd, or that odd kid in the corner, from my experience at least. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]


According to Wiktionary, wiktionary:Cromulent was coined by Rowan Atkinson, not by David X. Cohen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yama (talkcontribs) 12:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Both cromulent and embiggens appear in the Blackadder third season episode Ink and Incapability, which aired 24/09/1987, almost a decade before Lisa the Iconoclast. Since the words appear near each other in the dialogue of Blackadder and the Simpsons episode (twice), it stretches belief to think this wasn't a fairly obvious intentional reference, rather than something newly created by the writers. Section should be removed, or at least heavily edited, but as I'm not really involved in the page, I'll leave it as a suggestion to those who are. Evil Timmy 09:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While Blackadder does make up many words in this episode, embiggens and cromulent are not among them. The script of the episode 17:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


We missed this one, it has been used over various episodes, I would add it to the entry although I do not have enough information on the word and which epsiodes it came from. If anyone could help me out, it would be great Diizy 22:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not just saxamaphone, it's the -ama- infix is one of the only infixes in English and was invented by writers of the simpsons. 23:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chuz-Wozers or similar spelling[edit]

In the episode where Bart annoys the Australians and is sent to be 'booted' he takes with him a Bull-frog which is released. Later in the episode an Australian discovers a Bull-frog who at this point is over powering the population and names it - despite the objections to Marge - "Chuz-Wozers". But before addition, I believe some discussion should take place on the spelling, and as to whether it has a cultural significance, since it has been used, although to a lesser degree than the article words, but that could be of the varying spelling. I wish I could remember which episode it was in.

yet another Matt 19:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bart vs. Australia. To add this to the article you would need a reliable source showing its significance. --WillMak050389 02:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Has anything changed since the Neologism edition of the article?[edit]

When we decided a couple of months ago to wipe the slate clean on the extensive list of neologisms didn't anyone foresee that this would start to build-up again with arbitrary terms? I personally refer to the previous incarnation of this page, but how do we ascertain which terms are "culturally significant"? Everything smacks of regionism. Valley2city 06:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was involved in the change and tidy a few months ago, and yes I said at the time that we would have to decide a 'defining characteristic' for (words and) phrases that belong on the page and dispatch anything that didn't belong. My suggestion then was "(words and) phrases that have developed a referenceable identity beyond the show", I think my thought was that it would not be necessary for the word or phrase to have been invented by the show, but only to have been popularised. The introduction to the article attempts to summarise this concept, and the hope was that editors would take that to heart and not allow phrases that break that defining characteristic to survive on the page.
I've been remiss in monitoring the page, but now I'd like to reassert the above and so delete the following sections:
  • Meh
  • Panaphonics
  • Hungy
The test I'm applying is that when I read these words I don't associate them with the show, whereas the others I do (or I read a justification in the section about the word).
I hesitate from deleting these in case someone tells me that the page philosophy has changed, but if there's no complaints I'll zap these three --Mortice 23:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The working definition for "Culturally significant" seems to be either the word or phrase was coined on The Simpsons and then became popular, or the word or phrase was coined by another source and was popularized by The Simpsons. "Boo-urns" doesn't seem to fit either of these. According to the section's text, mistaking people's names for "Boo" existed and was "popular" before The Simpsons. The particular instance of "Boo-urns" is not described as having been used except for by an indie rock band. I suggest we find some examples of the use of "Boo-urns" or remove this section.--Nonpareility 20:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quite agree, I think I'll zap it (please recover it if anyone disagrees)--Mortice 22:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Boo-urns had at least a source. I would wish that someone would use this source to make this article decent. --Maitch 12:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


What about Skittlebrow from the episode "[Bart Star]"??. Homer asks Apu for the "beer with candy floating in it". Apu says homer must have drempt it. So, instead Homer orders a couple bags of Skittles and a Six-Pack of beer. Tungaro 00:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've known people to make Skittlebrau, and I've often done it myself (tip: you need to pour the beer into a glass). But I don't know of it appearing in any other media. ~ Switch () 03:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It would be great for someone to add "m'eh" to the article! Fuzzyblob 01:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been thinking about this, and I agree concerning both "Meh" and "Hungy". I think they meet the inclusion riteria as I understand them. ~ Switch () 05:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See the above section "Has anything changed..." for rationale for them not being in the article.--Nonpareility 06:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's the thing though. I'm now challenging the "referenceable" part of the inclusion criteria. I don't think the words have to be associated with The Simpsons to be included. Just as an example, I don't associate yoink with The Simpsons any more either. But it should surely be included. I think if the word was popularised or invented by the series, regardless of how much it is associated with it, it merits inclusion. ~ Switch () 08:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you're misunderstanding "referenceable". It doesn't mean that the word is popularly associated with The Simpsons; it simply means that you can point to a reliable source to prove that such as word is "culturally significant". This is Wikipedia policy and it prevents this article from become a cruftlist like it was previously.--Nonpareility 14:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Meh"'s cultural significance, and the fact that it was popularized by The Simpsons, can be sourced. [1] —Celithemis 03:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent, add Meh to the article with that source.--Nonpareility 04:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think we understood each other. "The test I'm applying is that when I read these words I don't associate them with the show, whereas the others I do" - that's the rationale in the section you pointed to. It's that I was challenging. I dpn't think "referenceable" is a necessary part of inclusion criteria as it applies to all of Wikipedia, not just this article. It's implicitly there regardless of this article's specific criteria. ~ Switch () 10:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's an unhelpful test, yeah. But I think we're all agreeing that the criteria are (a) does the word or phrase have cultural significance or use outside the show, and (b) was it invented or popularized by The Simpsons. —Celithemis 11:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jebus in Family Guy?[edit]

Did "Jebus" appear first in Family Guy?

In the episode "Holy Crap", some of the priests going over Scripture in a back room notice that Jesus is spelled "Jebus". This episode aired 9/30/1999. But the Simpsons episode where "Jebus" appeared aired 9/14/2000.;ep_title;1

What's the story here?

Brian Tiemann 00:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Embiggens and D-branes[edit]

“Embiggens” has since also found use in studies of D-branes from superstring theory.[3]

I downloaded the linked paper and was disappointed to find that the word "embiggens" appears only once, in a header. I was expecting a sentence something like "We refer to this transformation as 'embiggening'. If we embiggen Equation 5, we find...". Can anyone find evidence that this word now has a meaning in this field, rather than just being a humorous reference in a header? — ciphergoth 18:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Fishbulb and Goggles[edit]

Could we add "There's your answer, Fishbulb"? (phrase from In Marge We Trust) and "The goggles do nothing!"?--Wraithdart 04:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And where in the world are these world used, besides there original instatnces?? Ashura96 11:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The goggles are an enormous internet meme.

This article is much better than it was[edit]

I last looked at this article a few months ago, when it had become a list of just about every Simpsons quote I had ever heard parroted by fans. Now it's a sensible, referenced article about a specific aspect of The Simpsons in wider culture. Well done. BreathingMeat 10:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


'HA HA' this has got to be a significant phrase its used all the time--McNoddy 09:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. It's not unique but the context and new particular significance of the phrase makes it's culturally significant in my opinion. Rhetth 00:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why You Little![edit]

Why does it redirect here? First of all, Bugs Bunny had the phrase way before Homer. If you don't believe me, watch the short "Falling Hare." Second of all, it isn't even mentioned here, so something needs to be done about this.

Fair use rationale for Image:Nypost surrender monkeys.jpg[edit]

Image:Nypost surrender monkeys.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Utterly useless insignificant article[edit]

The section title says it all. An article on ankle fetishism would be more relevant than this. Wikipedia should not be an air filter that holds trash and lets decent content flow away, it should be a fine gallery of useful, high quality pieces of Encyclopedic literature. Canada-kawaii 01:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Except for the fact that The Simpsons has influenced American speech to an undeniable level. "D'oh" is in the OED. "I for one welcome our... overlords!" is a joke spread so deeply among geek culture it's a permanent fixture. Ankle fetishes, however, aren't nearly as widepsread, nor as accepted. This is a perfectly cromulent article. I'm removing the notability tag. Also, this article was already nominated for deletion and the vote failed. Wikipedia is supposed to be MORE than a simple book online, it's meant to encompass so much more than would be feasible to put into a set of printed books.Grey Hodge 03:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mmmmm... (food item)[edit]

Should this be added? It's used so often in the series that it's instantly recognizable as a Simpsons reference to just about anyone. I'd put it up there with "d'oh" in terms of amount of real life use, when used with Homeresque inflection. Otherwise you're just saying your beer tastes good.

eyes goggles[edit]

Other then a couple of lolcat photos, there is no citation to support the fact that this is a culturally significant phrase. Unless someone can provide a news article or something of that nature, I'll remove it. A couple of what are the equivalent of blog postings don't establish notability.--Crossmr 03:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The fact that millions of people use it both across the Internet and in real life does in fact make it notable. Further, this entire article is about this exact type of item, small funny words and lines that people take pleasure in using outside the context of the Simpsons. This is a list of the most widely used of such items. Further, when words like d'oh make it into the OED based on use, I think that Wikipedia could occasionally use the same standard. I see no need to be a wet blanket and apply the rules to a pedantic extreme. Please review [2] and [3] and have your sense of humor checked. Grey Hodge 07:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Memes from the Simpsons[edit]

I'm no dedicated member or anything, but I don't think internet memes are culturally significant. I don't really think geeks trying to be funny with recognizable phrases affect pop culture in general.


Does anyone else use the word malparkage in their everyday life enough for this to qualify for inclusion in this article? (malparkage being parking illegally or at least, parking badly, since mal is the french prefix meaning bad)

Flickr shows 3 photos that show evidence of malparkage: malparkage on flickr

there's also this quote from

In "The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson" Barney had left Homer's car illegally parked at what was believed to be the World Trade Center. Homer then received a letter regarding this violation: "Dear motorist, your vehicle is illegally parked in the Borough of Manhattan. If you do not remedy this malparkage within 72 hours, your car will be thrown into the East River at your expense."

This could be a reference to George Orwell's Newspeak, featured in his book 1984, where mal is a prefix for mistake, bad, or wrong. The following is a Newspeak quote from 1984 asking the protagonist to fix an error in Big Brother's speech on Africa: "times 17.3.84 bb speech malreported africa rectify"

but I havn't checked the "dear motorist" quote for accuracy nor whether the Orwell reference is valid.

Mzandrew 19:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

764 ghits = cruft Eleland 20:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incorrect redirect?[edit]

Should "Boourns" really redirect to this page? Perhaps it should redirect to the episode in which that quote is found, because I didn't find any mention of it on the current version of this page. 06:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


The word "Jebus" -- Homer's ignorant pronunciation of "Jesus" -- merits mention on the page. It's actually gained wider usage than a lot of the other words/phrases on this page. (There's even a non-Simpsons-related "Jebus Loves Me" t-shirt.) May I add it? 04:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is getting ridiculous[edit]

The page is called "Culturally significant words and phrases from The Simpsons". NOT "words and phrases from The Simpsons". So, each entry must SHOW why it is significant. And, having a section with a few later mentions of the word in the show, as well as some of the pre-Simpsons usages does NOT illustrate why it is culturally significant. -- Scorpion0422 17:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]