Talk:List of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes

Please create a link for Treehouse of Horror XX. NewYorkCity101 (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It already exists 2600:4040:2838:FA00:6C7B:ABEE:BE4B:F515 (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

The external link section seems a bit crowded to me, but I think the rationale is to link to each episode separately rather than asking the reader to drill down to each one, there being no convenient list of Halloween episodes on either site. I suggest that the Martin and Wood episode guides be provided by way of inline citations so that they may be removed from the list of external links. The Fox guide I would simply trim to link only to the main guide itself, because it's a primary source and can properly be used as a source.--otherlleft 20:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

Before this turns into another Template:Treehouse of Horror edit war ... Should segment links be included anywhere on Wikipedia for the individual Treehouse of Horror segments (not just the episodes)? Or is there a ban on section links that I am unaware of? Fixblor (talk) 09:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, unencyclopedic, and for reasons laid out by Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs) at Template talk:Treehouse of Horror. -- Cirt (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think its wise to keep the discussion in one location at Template talk:Treehouse of Horror. -- d'oh! _[talk] 10:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion here is for the inclusion of links on this article, not about the template. If you wish to cite the template's discussion as a similar consensus, if it relates in translation, fine. But I think the question of the validity of including section links for this subject is worth "double-posting" in this case, as the main argument thus far on the template discussion is directly related to the purpose of templates, not lists within articles. Fixblor (talk) 10:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Aw okay, just your original proposal says nothing about this article and the way you told me about this discussion on my talk page led me to believe this was about the template. -- d'oh! _[talk] 13:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support, they're actually links to the episode articles, which take you directly to the section for the segment being referred to, which is reasonable. It's not like we're giving every segment it's own article. Digifiend (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You can neither support nor oppose an either-or question': having said that, section links need to be decided on a case by case basis and should broadly be non-controversial. Arguments for the template, I can see in either direction: but I will note as a watcher rather than a fan the segment titles might just mean something to me, whereas "X" "XII" are about as informative as SmackBots BRFA's. Rich Farmbrough, 14:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC).

Comment on editing Whilst this discussion is going on, please refrain from editing the relevant section of the article, or we're liable to descend into the edit war that's trying to be avoided. I've watchlisted this page and will protect the page and/or block editors as necessary. Thanks. Please leave this comment at the bottom of this section ie comment above it unless you actually are commenting on this message. Thanks. GedUK  10:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep links So all you're doing is linking the segment names that are already listed on the page? What's the problem with that? It doesn't make the page any longer or less organized in the layout. I do oppose it in the template though. CTJF83 chat 16:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• WP:OVERLINK says you should avoid having too many links to the same page. I really don't see what the issue here is, especially since there are already links to the episode in each row. So what's the point of having three other links to a relatively small page. Is it really that hard to scroll down a tiny bit? Also, at one point, there was an effort (not by me) to not have a section for each segment in the THOH pages , but the users gave up because IPs kept re-adding the sections. So if anyone ever tries that again, it would render the section links unnecessary. -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 18:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Now guys, we all know that it's kinda too early to talk about THOH XXX just yet. It's just that it's not airing until next year in October 2019 as the 666th episode of The Simpsons. I wonder if its production code will be YABF19?

The clip "The Terror of Tiny Toon" from THOH IX seems like a parody of Pleasantville (film), which was released the same weekend that THOH aired. I see that there are no citations for the parody column, but there are citations in the "Written by" column. Do the DVD commentaries referenced indicate what show the THOH clips are a parody of? This source indicates a reference to Pleasant from the episode, being on the other side of the television screen (where Bart and Lisa end up on the other side of the screen in "The Terror of Tiny Toon"). I don't know if The Simpsons Archive is a reliable source but it is at least noteworthy for Wikipedia. Is the source from The Simpsons Archive sufficient to reference "The Terror of Tiny Toon" as a parody of "Pleasantville"? Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

"Starship Poopers", also from THOH IX, seems to contain a parody of The Jerry Springer Show. It is different from other parodies, in that it explicitly refers to the Jerry Springer Show in the episode, and only part of the clip is a parody of the show instead of the entire clip. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 02:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I think that episode Thanksgiving (spinoff) should not be in the list because it is not part of Treehouse of Horror series. --Patriccck (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the text about the episode in the article is enough. --Patriccck (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Is it really likely that XVII is based on the ~4 minutes of surviving footage of The Golem (1915)? I'm going to edit it to reference the fully surviving sequel The Golem: How He Came into the World Carlinmack (talk) 13:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

Should the "Parody of" column include or exclude title-only references?

On July 25, 2022, User:Shivertimbers433 added a note to the "Parody of" column header, stating that "Properties are only listed if a significant portion of the segment's plot is dedicated to parodying it, and has been cited by the show creators or a review published by a reliable source. Excluded are title-only references and brief jokes." However, this seems to be a unilateral decision rather than a consensus, and I am opposed to the "title-only references" part of this, so I am therefore bringing it up for debate.

My argument in favor of including title-only references is that readers are likely to want to know where the title of each segment comes from, and so unless it happens to also be parodied by enough of the main content, then readers will be unable to find that information here. Even if other one-off references are excluded (which I am fine with), I think title-only references should be exempt from that because titles generally bear much more importance and get much more attention than brief snippets of main content.

The main argument I assume for excluding them is that they could cause confusion and clutter, but if we agree on a uniform, concise formatting for them, I don't think that shouldn't be an issue. For example, a possible format could be "<main references>; title only: <title-only reference>", but I'm open to other formats.

Solomon Ucko (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Sollyucko Please read WP:RfCBefore. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu Oh oops, I'm not very familiar with starting talk page discussions and I guess I misunderstood the scope of Wikipedia's RfC process. Is there a way to un-mark it as an RfC, since it's just an initial discussion? Solomon Ucko (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to our bot engineers simply removing the "rfc" template is enough now, and it should disappear from the relevant lists after a few hours. I've done that for you! Aaron Liu (talk) 14:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Sorry for the trouble. Solomon Ucko (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Opens up list to way too much clutter and pretty trivial. Oftentimes the title is a joke in the beginning that has nothing to do with property being parodied. Do we really need to mention "Dead and Shoulders" is a reference to Head & Shoulders? -- Shivertimbers433 (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that could be helpful, since someone who hasn't heard of Head & Shoulders might have a hard time figuring it out otherwise. And it's only at most one per segment, so it shouldn't be much clutter. Solomon Ucko (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

FTR, I did in fact add that to the article and User:Hyperba21 later removed it, citing the note. Solomon Ucko (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

The lists of episodes doesn't include explanations for title references on specific seasons, only plot summaries. I don't see why it's necessary to include them in this article. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

1. WP:OTHERCONTENT: Perhaps they should also include it. (In fact, I do think they should.)

2. There is a convenient space to put that information here; less so there.

3. According to (unfortunately, unsourced) statements in The Telltale Head#Production and Bart Gets Hit by a Car#Production, few episodes other than these show their titles on screen, so they're more prominent here than in general.

Solomon Ucko (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

If desired, I think such references should be added to the articles for the individual episodes, not the list here. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2025 (UTC)