Talk:Maggie Simpson

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. It 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.

GA review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Maggie Simpson/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Fengrímur (talk · contribs) 16:03, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jishara (talk · contribs) 20:50, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I'll review this one. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

@Fengrímur: - Hey! My comments are below. Ping me when you get a chance to get it all updated. You have seven days, as per normal. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

yo @Fengrímur: just following up. Totally fine if you haven't gotten to it yet, but I just wanted to send this to make sure my last ping didn't slip through the cracks. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 13:27, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Understood, I'll take care of it. Fengrímur (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

great. ping me when you're done. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

@Jishara: I'm not convinced the remaining episode examples and guest credits are necessary for 3a. The article already covers Maggie's unusual intelligence and voice production. Criteria 3a and 3b require coverage of the main aspects without unnecessary detail. The earlier voice discussion also explains the concern about cataloguing speaking gags. Could you explain why the proposed additions are essential? I've addressed the rest. Fengrímur (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

The guest credits part I think is important because it shows that she has in fact talked more than that one word, as currently the only thing you mention there is that she's said one word in the series continuity and that's a bit incomplete. I felt it might be cleaner to show that through guest credits, and Game Done Changed is also kinda there for that. The Smart and Smarter appears to be the main part the series actually addresses her intelligence so I think it'd need to at least (or the content in it) be mentioned since there is a bit about her intelligence. Future, alternate dimension, etc, can be lumped in together but just like a brief mention that there have been maggies outside the shows continuity as well, etc, as that appears to happen enough to be major. Thanks for your updates on everything else. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Hey, just following up - let me know. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 05:45, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello, sorry, I've been quite busy! I'll get to this very soon. :-) Fengrímur (talk) 12:52, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Could you please take another look now? I believe I’ve properly addressed the relevant points. Fengrímur (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Mostly there - the Smart and Smarter part doesn't appear to be there which makes the intelligence section seem to be dated (or maybe I'm just missing it, I'm not very Simpsons-familiar). Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

@Jishara: I held off on that because the section already covers her intelligence with several examples. I'm still unsure what "Smart and Smarter" adds to the overview beyond what's already there, given 3a and 3b's balance between coverage and unnecessary detail... Fengrímur (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Seems like (to me) it's the main time the show addresses it? I'm not super familiar so take it with a grain of salt, but the citations you list there seem to be more sorta passing while that episode is dedicated to it? Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

@Fengrímur: eh it's more of a nitpick, anyway - looking back at the section it's probably fine as it is. Approved. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, grammar, and understandability): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, lists, and tables):

   Order is a little all over the place - you're talking about her critical reception, including in specials focusing on her, before mentioning the specials focusing on her. MoS is followed, and

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Reference section is present and effective. No areas are unreferenced. Highest copyvio is 9%, with unrephrasable phrases and titles. Spot=-check of 15 sources shows no problems. International Business Times should be swapped out for a different source.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Doesn't seem complete - just from a quick scan, I dug up Lindsay Lohan voice-acting her in 2025 and Jodie Foster also voice-acting her in 2025, as well as Amy Sedaris and James Earl Jones. The intelligence section doesn't mention anything from Smart and Smarter. There's also no mention of Future Maggie, alternate-dimension maggies, Game Done Changed, and probably more. Please update. It is focused on Maggie, though.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   It seems to have solid critical reviews, both positive and negative, and that works.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable, no sign of editing wars

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions and alt text):

   Images are tagged with rationales, and are appropriately used, but there's no alt text and the rationale lists Maggie as "him".

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

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.

Middle Name

In S12E16 "Manger Things", Homer reveals that Maggie's middle name is Lenny (for a similar reason to why Todd Flanders' is Hommer). https://tvshowtranscripts.ourboard.org/viewtopic.php?f=431&t=43210 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-52613-08 (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

S12E16 episode is Bye Bye Nerdie, not Manger Things, which is S32E16.

This website (https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=the-simpsons&episode=s32e16) also says the same thing. Iggy Swan (Contribs) 21:12, 30 September 2026 (UTC)