Talk:Maggie Simpson

"Margaret"

Yes, "Maggie" is one of several nicknames for "Margaret". It does not follow, however, that everyone called "Maggie" is actually named "Margaret", especially in a cartoon.

Is this discussed either in-universe or in a reliable source? - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this was confirmed in "Mother Simpson" :

Homer: I don't like your attitude, you water-cooler dictator.  What do you have in that secret government file anyway?  I have a right to read it.
Bureaucrat: [spinning monitor around] You sure do. 
Homer: [reading] "Wife: Marjorie.  Children: Bartholomew, Lisa" -- aha!  See?  This thing is all screwed up!  Who the heck is Margaret Simpson?
Bureaucrat: Uh, your youngest daughter.
Homer: [mocking] "Uh, your youngest daughter".

Also in Home Sweet Homediddly-Dum-Doodily

Homer: Well, wait a minute!  OK, I'm not going to win "Father of the Year".  In fact, I'm probably the last guy in the world who should have kids. I - [the judge looks at him sternly] Er, well, er, wait...can I start again? Fathering children is the best part of my day. I'd do anything for Bart and Lisa!
Judge: And, er, Margaret?
Homer: Who?  Lady, you got the wrong file.
Marge: [whispering] It's Maggie!

Shivertimbers433 (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Maggie Simpson.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Inspiration for Maggie

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bristol/content/features/2002/animated_encounters/groening/groening_answers3.shtml

"She was based on Popeye's baby Sweetpea, if you remember from the old Popeye cartoons." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.50.141.7 (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

"Suck Suck"

How much of a copyright nightmare would it be to include a sound file of her "suck suck"? Americanfreedom (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Future Maggie?

There are episodes that project into the future, where Maggie appears as a young adult, speech and all. Shouldn't there be a section on this? Koro Neil (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, these should absolutely be mentioned. And there is no way this article leaves out Lindsay Lohan. I see nothing on this page that would keep her out of the article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:39, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

This was the Voice section before I trimmed it, and people were already discussing the same issue years ago. Obviously that is a discussion from 2007, but I don't particularly want to watch the old list reassemble itself one guest appearance at a time.

As for Lohan, I just don't think the fact you could find sources on her — by itself — makes it worth mentioning in an article about Maggie Simpson. Only Taylor's case is important enough to justify the space in such a concise article, which is why it was kept.

See WP:ONUS. Fengrímur (talk) 06:56, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

My opinion is that the voice section before it was trimmed looks like it should. I has taken me a number of years to realize there are other places for such detailed lists besides Wikipedia, but I've always regarded Wikipedia as the standard place to include such information. If Wikipedia doesn't include them, there's no standard place to look for this information.

Given how much Maggie speaks here, I can't honestly go along with "I just don't think the fact you could find sources on her — by itself — makes it worth mentioning in an article about Maggie Simpson".— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:29, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Maggie Simpson

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Result: Delisted. Queen of Hearts ^talk 19:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Lead isn't really summarizing the entire article properly, including its impact + poorly usage of primary sources + poorly cited + citations aren't formatted properly + the reception and merchandising section is the worst and should be expanded + and axe this "Maggie Simpson in" section, and should be at "appearances". Overall, the article is in bad shape. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• What exactly is the problem with the lead? It seems fine to me. I don't see an issue with the citations not being formatted properly either, but if there really are issues, just fix them rather than GAR the article. The "Maggie Simpson In.." section seems perfectly relevant - it's separate from her normal role in The Simpsons TV series but clearly important and Maggie-centric appearances.
• The relevant complaints here are too many primary sources (in the "Role in the Simpsons" section) and the Reception & Merchandising section needing a rewrite, IMO. Which will be some work but is probably doable. (The real trick will be distinguishing "stuff that the entire Simpsons family does and thus Maggie is tangentially a part of" vs. "No, this is really directly a Maggie thing".) Have you considered notifying Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons? Fixing this up will probably require someone who owns / knows the various Simpsons books. SnowFire (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  That Wikiproject is dead. This article was sent out to GAR because of the significant issues for it to be a GA and not for a nominator to fix themselves. The fact that the lead (Zero mentions about its reception/discussion about the character) and the citations that aren't formatted well would be fine for you is a red flag. But not only that, but the reception needs to be expanded aside from being rewritten. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 08:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  Boneless Pizza, kindly refrain from calling it a "red flag" that I don't see your point when you are the one making the point vaguely. It's not on you to fix the issues, no, but it IS on you to clearly delineate the "significant issues" and not just assert they exist. Be concrete here. What exactly is your complaint about the citation formatting? Because I don't see any major problems.

  There's nothing really significant in Reception currently (About.com? Listicle crap?), so having nothing in the lead seems fine. Like I said above, I agree with you that section needs a full rewrite with much better sources than it currently uses, but am not sure it needs expansion compared to its current size. It's obvious why: Maggie is a baby. She's surfing along with the rest of the Simpson family 95% of the time. Even if the Reception section is rewritten, I doubt there will be much more than a sentence to say, probably something like "Maggie only rarely gets her own moments but critics like it when she does."

  I suppose if you can't be bothered, I'll make the Wikiproject notification instead. If the project is really dead, then it's harmless anyway. SnowFire (talk) 09:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hmmm, I guess I just overly exaggerated about the citation format; it seems to be not that much (I probably mistaken it with other articles, so I apologize for the "red flag" stuff). It was the lack of authors in several citations. But anyway, the article still contains a lot of issues. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 09:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delist. Seeing as nobody has seemingly responded after the notification, I would not object to delisting if nobody is working on it. (Given that there's quite a bit of media published on The Simpsons, this wouldn't necessarily be a super-quick cleanup, we'd want someone who's read the literature to rewrite the Reception section.) SnowFire (talk) 04:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.