Talk:Snake Jailbird

Should we move this to Snake Jailbird?

Well? --Maxamegalon2000 01:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Just did. -Platypus Man | Talk 02:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Super. Thanx! --Maxamegalon2000 03:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• do we know for sure that "Snake Jailbird" is his correct name, and that "Snake" is not just a nickname? Perhaps his title should be "Prof. Jailbird aka 'Snake'" or "Prof. 'Snake' Jailbird"? I don't think he's ever been called "Snake Jailbird" in the official canon. ScottSwan 20:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

what's the "prof" bit about anyway?

Car?

I believe Snake drives a 1969 Dodge Charger, a parody to "The General Lee" from he Dukes of Hazard. In the video game, Snake's Little Bandit plays "Dixie" just like "The General Lee did in The Dukes of Hazard.--ShadowJester07 02:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

could we put a table on the right-hand side with info, etc? --Jontsang 18:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Accent

Always sounded like a standard 'Valley' accent to me, where are they getting the English aspect from?

Image

Problems with the current image. Its tiny, it is not clear, Snake does not were brown so it not a good representation of the character, and most importantly it has no source whatsoever, meaning it cannot be used. The other image is all of these, so it should be used. Gran² 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What other image? -- Scorpion 20:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The image keeps being replaced as the same file but this is the better image. Gran² 20:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but it's not official artwork. -- Scorpion 20:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes but it looks it. And the image of Lionel Hutz isn't offcial, because the original one was terrible. So I don't see why we can't use this one. Gran² 20:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Treehouse of Horror

Can character development be taken from Treehouse of Horror episodes since they are not part of the show's continuity? 166.82.206.146 19:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say no, halloween episodes are all non-canon.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:12, 10/15/2007

Request for administrative assistance

Can we put a temporary edit ban for unregistered users in place for 24 hours due to the fact that on tonight's Simpsons episode Snake tells his girlfriend that someone is vandalizing his Wikipedia and almost following that vandals did start vandalizing the page. Simon Bar Sinister 00:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

An admin already did it, but it's a given that some with accounts try to vandalise it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia mention

Just a funny note to everyone: On todays new The Simpson episode, Oct.14th 2007, snake jailbird says something along the lines of: "Yo, some idiot on wikipedia edited my profile, can you go get him for me?" Pretty funny. Maybe we should add this as a reference on the article? Just a thought. I'll get the exact words when the show comes out tommrrow on fox on demand. 68.2.225.8 02:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Exact words: "Hey, baby, listen carefully. Someone's been editing my biography on Wikipedia. I want you to kill him." --Kostia 04:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And no, it isn't worth mentioning here because it is a one-off joke and Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

He hates having people edit his Wikipedia entry. That should be in there. Evan1975 05:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Why, because it's irony because this is Wikipedia? If it didn't mention Wikipedia, nobody would care, but since he did, people think it's huge. It's a small detail with little to do with the overall character. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually disagree that it's a small detail. It's actually an outside world reference to wikipedia. --74.15.235.210 (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because he mentions Wikipedia, people think it's huge. I see no reason to argue with them. What "people think" is important. If this keeps getting placed in the article then that's a sign of consensus and it should probably be there. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:36, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

Most of the people are adding it for the "lololol I'm editing Snake's bio, he's coming to kill me!" value. A trivial, non-notable cruft statement is a trivial, non-notable cruft statement, and it doesn't matter how many anons think it should be added. A considerable amount of people also think The Simpsons should contain the words "greatest show ever" in the lead. Should that also be done? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's not try and read peoples' minds. If you're citing notability, notability doesn't limit article content. The opinion that the statement is trivial is one of opinion and a whole lot of people seem to disagree with you. "greatest show" shouldn't be in the article because policy tells us directly that it shouldn't be there. We have no policy prohibiting this. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:45, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Scorpion. It is just a one time quick joke, and we don't list those, if we did these articles would never end Ctjf83 ^talk 02:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you both need to watch the 3RR Ctjf83 ^talk 02:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we don't normally list them, but that doesn't matter. I've reverted this before too. But now, if enough different people are adding the same exact thing over and over again, that's a sign of consensus that it should be there. And without a policy against it, we have no reason to remove it. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:49, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

First off, that generally only applies to registered users, because who knows with IPs? They could be meatpuppets, sockpuppets, etc. Now, go and look at some of the good character pages like Troy McClure, Sideshow Bob, Waylon Smithers and Ned Flanders and you will see that they do not go into detail about such insignificant one-off jokes, unless it is a large part of their character. However, in this case, the mention seems out of place, because it doesn't really have anything to do with Snake's overall character. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Generally only applies to registered users? I've never heard that one before. You're making up your own rules. Yes I'm aware of the reasoning -- as I've said, originally I wouldn't have agreed with this being here either and have even reverted its insertion myself. But a lot of people seem to think it belongs there, and it's always the same couple of people doing the reverting. Scorpion, I know you've been doing this a long time and everyone appreciates the work you've put in on The Simpsons, but you're getting a little too ownery about it. It feels like no one can do anything unless you approve of it. It might be nice to let things go once in a while. It isn't the biggest deal in the world if the odd statement stays in, even if it may really not belong. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:03, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

I've been in two other arguments with you (that I can remember), and every other time you have ended it with a bad faith statement like that. Two other users agree with me, and you single me out as the one with ownership issues? And it seems to me that there quite a few things that are done without my "approval". I just happen to be one of the most "vocal" opponents of adding useless trivia. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with part of that (sorry scorpion), like he said, and IPs have been doing, they just do it so they can say "ohh come kill me Snake" Like I said earlier, if we put in every one time quick gag, these articles would go on forever. The only reason people are putting it in now, is cause the episode aired again tonight, in a week, no one will mess with it anyway...BTW, u both need to AGF Ctjf83 ^talk 03:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Good faith doesn't mean what you guys think it means. I'm not accusing anyone of purposely engaging in harmful activity. I'm suggesting that, without realizing it, it is possible to inadvertently assume ownership of an article or project. People tend to throw around this term a lot to mean a lot of different things, but there is nothing "bad faith" about making a mistake, which is the only thing I'm accusing anyone of doing. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:14, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

Fine you both need some civility...apparently I use them interchangeably Ctjf83 ^talk 03:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any incivility either, by him or me. I'm seeing a disagreement that hasn't been resolved yet. That's it. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:23, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that WP:CONSENSUS applies to IPs. On the other hand, I'm also sure that most IPs are unfamiliar with our policies.

All of these minor character articles are already collections of originally-researched trivia. They quite regularly include one-off jokes, sometimes under the guise of building an biography. "Who would suspect me, Professor Jailbird," "He was once held captive," ect. ect.

In addition to the Wikipedia bit, the episode implies that he killed his lawyer, which is at least as important a biographical detail as most of this other OR fancruft. Just put that that in biographical terms "In [the episode] Snake demanded that his girlfriend kill whoever is editing his Wikipedia article, to be disposed with his attorney, who he had also apparently killed." (Or whatever.) Cool Hand Luke 08:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You're not actually saying that trivia is okay here because other character pages have it too? I never said the article was perfect - in fact, it currently fails the WP:FICT guidelines - I just said the bit in question is rather trivial. Does it really matter that he mentioned Wikipedia? Homer's article doesn't mention all of the products and brands that he's mentioned over the years. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 08:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to follow that guideline, feel free to nominate this article for deletion. If not, I don't see anything wrong with the edit, especially because users keep adding it in. It's as verifiable as anything else here, and couldn't be undue weight in an article where we devote a section to his full name—which has almost never been uttered on the show over 17 years. Cool Hand Luke 09:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not undue weight, it's insignificant detail. What does it have to do with his overall character? Saying "In the episode "I don't wanna know why the caged bird sings" Snake while incarcerated is heard ordering his girlfriend to arrange the death of whomever is editing his wikipedia entry" is out of place with the article. IPs may be for it, but they don't know much about Wikipedia policy, namely Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. As for merging the article, I`m beginning to think that it wouldn`t be a bad idea, because while I was cleaning it up, there was very little important information there, so perhaps the page could go into the Recurring page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 09:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that he killed his lawyer and demanded to kill a Wikipedian is undue weight, whereas Mayan coins and 10 Habits of Highly Successful Criminals is encyclopedic gold? I agree the article should be merged, along with most of the rest, but as long as they're separate, there's no sane reason to exclude this datum while including the rest. Cool Hand Luke 09:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of the material in Simpsons bios goes under the assumption that the show is built on a solid foundation of consistency, so they're filled with statements that say "In (some episode), (this and this) happened, meaning that we can conclude (a conclusion)". Just because these facts would tell us something about the character doesn't make them any less trivial than any other one-off statement. It's all original research. Even this article's name is original research. Simpsons articles are basically the fans having fun, but since there are so many fans (Jimbo included), they survive. I say, if that's what they are, then so be it -- but then you can't go making a ruling about what's trivial and what's not, when so many disagree with you. This is basically a decision of which cruft should be included and which shouldn't be. If most people think something should be, you really don't have a leg to stand on policy-wise. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:44, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, but how many of the good Simpsons character articles are like that? I think that if it improves an article, and the bit in question goes against guidelines, then it shouldn't matter how many IPs think it should be included. For example, a dozen different users have added a "The Sideshow Bob episodes" section to the Sideshow Bob article, even though it is a GA. Would you suggest threatening that article's GA status simply to placate a handful of anons? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 09:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, but Snake Jailbird is no GA. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:55, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, most Simpsons articles are like that. My first choice would be to stick with the guidelines and plow it all under, but there's a slim chance that will happen. In this case, I think it would be best for the encyclopedia if we ignore them; that's basically why these articles exist in the first place.

The distinction we've set up between "one-off jokes" is arbitrary anyway. He once said he was paying off his Middlebury loans while he was robbing someone. That was a one-off joke, but the article makes an original conclusion to write "biographical" material. We can do precisely the same thing here. Based off of this one-off joke, (1) someone edited Jake's biography, (2) Jake intends to kill said person, (3) Jake intends to dispose of the body where his lawyer's body is. Certainly the fact that he's a murderer with plans to kill again for trivial reasons is as important to his character as attending Middlebury. Cool Hand Luke 10:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Jake? A lot of your rationale seems to be "The article sucks, so instead of attempting to improve it, let's just add more questionable things." The fact is, he's a minor character, so all we really have to go on is minor things, hence why it should be merged. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 10:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. The article sucks as a result of people condoning an ignorance of policy. If the article exists because we've taken a relaxed attitude towards the rules, why complain when people follow that lead while making additions? It doesn't suck any more or less as a result. The rules were ignored, so we can't complain about them getting ignored in the future. But I agree with a merge. We should do that, like, now. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:22, 31 Dec 2007 (UTC)

Yes. If we're going to have this article anyway, another bit of trivia doesn't really make it better or worse, because it's more fundamentally at odds with policy. Cf. Luke 6:42. If we have it, we might as well satisfy the curious people who think this joke should be mentioned. I'm in favor of merging, of course. Cool Hand Luke 18:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There don't appear to be any objections so I've gone ahead with the merge. I removed the conclusions based on one-off scenes in episodes (except for the character's last name), but left everything else, which seems to be plenty in comparison to the other bios at List of recurring characters from The Simpsons. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:41, 2 Jan 2008 (UTC)