Talk:Lrrreconcilable Ndndifferences

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

J. J. Abrams[edit]

Didn't this episode feature the face of J.J. Abrams? Lots42 (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but so far, no reliable sources have pointed the reference out as being notable. So if there's really nothing about it that seemed noteworthy to any third party sources, there's not much reason to add it on the page.Luminum (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The guy himself is noteable. I think this merits a brief mention. Lots42 (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Only if his appearance in the episode was also notable; if that is the case, reliable third-party sources should be able to support that. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Right. President Obama could make an appearance in a cutaway gag on Family Guy, but just because the President is notable, doesn't make the appearance notable on its own.Luminum (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think any television show would dare imply the President has done gone and got himself murdered and his face ripped off. 8-) Lots42 (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, is Whedonesque's acknowledgement of the Whedon gag a sufficient enough source to include that cultural reference in the article?~ZytheTalk to me! 00:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Who or what is Whedonesque? If they are a site or publication, it depends if they are reliable or notable. If it's a person, say, the screen name of Joss Whedon, which has been proven to be real, then yes.Luminum (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
It's his endorsed weblog. Usually he makes official statements through there, which are directly linked as reliable. It is also a site where the (closed membership) draw attention to Whedon-related news. As such, one piece concerned the Futurama namedrop. Thoughts?~ZytheTalk to me! 13:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I would take it as a reliable source for information about Whedon. Since it's supposed to be his endorsed webblog, any info about him or work he's doing or commentary about anything else that comes out of it, I would take with reliability. But the post about the Futurama shout out isn't his statement about anything, just a user (even a high ranking one) pointing out a bit of interesting facts. It seems more like the reliable aspects of the site would be the official news, which would be notable because they come from Whedon himself, but surrounded by any manner of fan interest, which lacks notability because it can come from anyone. Sort of like user comments on a news site. The news is reliable, notable content, but the user comments are not. that's my opinion of it, anyway. ::shrug::Luminum (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
This was why I enquired. I assumed as much, I just didn't know where any archived "which bits of Whedonesque are WP:RS" discussion was located.~ZytheTalk to me! 19:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lrrreconcilable Ndndifferences. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)