User talk:Stardust8212/Futurama

Futurama

We just had an edit conflict...I will incorporate your stuff in a moment, thanks. House of Scandal 16:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The Robot Devil

Hiya. I just spotted your request on Talk:List of recurring characters from Futurama and thought I'd teach you how to change it yourself, if that's OK. (Give a man a fish / teach a man to fish etc.) When you are redirected, you must have noticed the little notice saying "redirected from wherever". If you click on that link, it takes you to the page you were redirected from. If you edit that page you will see it says #redirect [[blah blah blah]] so you can now change what it redirects to, or you could replace it with some text and start a proper article. At the moment "Robot Devil" redirects to Robotology and "The Robot Devil" redirects to list of recurring characters. I think they should probably point to the same page, whatever that may be. What you do is up to you, really! As a fellow futurama fan, I'd be happy to help if you start a new article, so let me know! Hope this helps. RupertMillard (Talk) 23:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I'm pleased it helped. RupertMillard (Talk) 00:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Futurama quotes.

Yes, I do think they should be removed. Regardless of what they add, Wikipedia explictly is not Wikiquote, and thus does not include collections of quotes.--Sean Black 01:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Sean. I'm with you, stardust. We should put the quotes back... Micoolio101 (talk)

Thanks for your support, unfortunately it looks like this is a battle we won't be winning. I do wish that if he was going to delete so much of everyone's hard work because it 'belongs in a sister project' that he had taken the time to transfer the information to said project and put a link in the article. That seems like a much more reasonable solution than blanking the page (at least to me). I guess that will have to be one of my future projects *sigh* Stardust8212 22:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Futurama

Hello Stardust8212/Futurama,

I noticed that you have recently edited articles to do with Futurama. I was wondering if you would like to join WikiProject Futurama. Please add your name to the participants list and drop a line on my talk page if your interested.

Cheers, Jasrocks 07:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Space Pilot 3000

I understand that the 3 articals should be kept seperate but as i have seen in previous articals on futurama unlike normal articals is that many times the references section is used for trivia or references to other media. Other articals use references to post links from where they got information and where related contect is found. Both are correct since both ways are references but im just trying to keep suit :P

BaconSquishy

Ok. There are other episodes that should be reverted than to the old format that i have editted. Sorry for any inconvieniance that i may have caused.

Bacon Squishy

Futurama Edits

Sorry about that! I'll be more carefull in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shealer (talk • contribs)

Amphibiosan

Some users had the auacity to BLANK the page with the Amphibiosan article on the basis of non-notability and no references. Do you know an admin. with an interest in Futurama that might become involved with what will probably be a conflict? House of Scandal 21:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict

We just had an edit conflict...I will incorporate your stuff in a moment, thanks. House of Scandal 16:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. I was doing endnotes and they were getting all messed up...I needed to save the edit in which I figured them out. I think I got all your edits re-inserted. I went with a 300 px image size as a compromise. Thanks again.

Futurama discussion

Greetings, my name is Sibin and I think we should have a lengthly discussion about Futurama articles, and series in gerenal. I would like to help to expand Futurama articles in any way I can.

If you feel like it, you can reach me at:

coola.m@gmail.com

Cincearly Sibin Grasic

CooLa.M 21:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

matt groening

Hey, thanks for letting me know. Yeah I guess it's just one of those things you have to deal with when you use a program and more than one vandal has been having his way with an article. LibLord 18:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Futurama edits

Thanks Stardust, I'm sorry about my brevity; it was about 1 in the morning where I live when I did those, and that is not conducive to clarity (or good editing, I should know better). I'll try to do better next time. Noclevername 17:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Roswell That Ends Well

Hi. About the quote box you removed: Farnsworth's line was there when I rewrote the plot summary (BTW, since you have more experience with Futurama on Wikipedia, any opinion on that rewrite?) and I set it apart to because that improved the flow of text and because it's one of his most famous ones (not to mention dang funny). Your removal deleted it altogether. Did I unknowingly violate some stylistical policy, and if so, what? --Kizor 15:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason I removed the quote is that there is an ongoing effort in the wikiproject to remove the various quotes sections from articles. I have been explicitly told that quotes belong on Wikiquote and while I argued against it at the time (see my talk page and this archive) I have since come to terms with the fact that consensus seems to be against me. As such I felt explicitly calling out quotes went against this effort and while I agree that one quote shouldn't be a problem I have seen how these things get out of hand. I agree that putting quotes directly into the plot summary also tends to hamper flow and if I had my way I would simply remove those as well however I've never gotten around to re-reading all the articles and removing them. I understand that some people have a different opinion on these matters however so I'm willing to put it back and see what happens if you'd prefer.

Other than that I thought the rewrite seemed pretty good. Don't take my massive number of Futurama edits as indicating I know what I'm doing though. I edit because it's fun and I edit the same pages over and over because I'm obsessive, not knowledgeable. Stardust8212 16:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you for the explanation, and for the feedback. While I agree with your view, there's little point in tilting against the windmills on this issue, and having witnessed the kind of creep collaborative editing can cause, I see the others' point. The situation would be fundamentally different with quotes that are an integral part of their work, but since this is merely an awesome one I'll just re-insert it into the summary. --Kizor 02:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Futurama Cleanup

Good work on the cleanup after my trivia integrations on the Futurama articles. My main goal is to get rid of trivia sections on the episode pages, but to avoid stepping on toes, I have been deleting only obvious jokes and badly unsourced trivia, without judgment on anything else. I am glad there is someone behind me to finish up the leg work.TheGreenFaerae 10:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yea, personally, I would delete it all myself, but I don't want to get under anyone's skin by doing so, so a lot of times, I'll just rename. What I have seen, however, is a bogus name like continuity usually mtitvates other editors to take the initiative and remove it themselves.TheGreenFaerae 21:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Futurama

Would you mind specifying which Talk page please ? Because honest to god, there really should be no reason to mention something so general in an infobox that is the same for at least 99% of the Episode pages. Where it differs for 1 % (haven't even been able to find that), it should be detailed in the specific episode. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah i see it already. The way that these things are usually done is by naming the header "Original Airdate". reruns and international broadcastsdates are considered not encyclopedic information. Please see {{Infobox Television episode}} and it's friends. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant "The talk page of the page you are editting" I thought that was implied. Stardust8212 15:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I dunno how this is specifically speculatory:

"The later episode, Roswell That Ends Well implies that Fry is his own grandfather. As in this what-If scenario, Fry is never frozen so never gets the opportunity to mate with his grandmother. This unique version of the grandfather paradox could perhaps be the cause of the temporal rift."

I mean basically the grandfather paradox is where you go back in time and kill your grandfather causing a great big mess, and here Fry is killing is Grandfather (himself) by not going back to concieve what ever parent it was of his. And I use the word, "could" anyway. I mean, obviouslly when Anthology of Interest I was made the writers didn't even know Fry was his own Grandfather but this wouldn't be the first time we've refered to future episodes in Futurama's Wikipedia articles. And also someother stuff on the article seamed to speculatory to me such as sections regarding what was referenced such as Hitchhickers Guid to the Galaxy.

---

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steven X (talk • contribs) 05:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

It is speculatory because it is something you came up with on your own without it being implied explicitly in the episode. As you said yourself the writers at this point in the series had likely not even conceived that Fry was his own grandfather, because of that there is no way that when the episode was written they could have been planning to have the rift caused by the grandfather paradox. This is an original idea you had that was not implicit in the show, Wikipedia is explicitly NOT a publisher of original thought.

As for the other information in the page, some people do believe it should be removed unless it is specifically specified in either a newspaper/magazine article or the show's episode commentary or some other outside source. I personally believe that view is a bit too extremist but you wouldn't be the first person to think it should be removed. What you do based on that thought is up to you. Stardust8212 11:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Stardust...

...The image removal from episode lists is happening Wiki-wide with dozens of editors and admins. The debate has been going on on the Administrator's Noticeboard, the Mailing List, all over the place. The tide has changed and the majority view is that the images are not fair use. While, aesthetically, it's more pleasing, legally, its shaky. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Project Futurama

Hello. I only made a minor change to about 3 characters, but yeah sure, I'd love to be part of this project!

I'm pretty good on my Futurama so if there's anything at all you want doing i'll be glad. And if that means some strenuous research sessions infront of my TV then so be it.

Glad to be on the team Fenton Bailey 14:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know

IMDB doesn't fail WP:RS for basic facts about movies and shows as they are known to have good editorial control of these aspects of their site. The only part which fails WP:RS is the trivia and user submitted sections.

Can you also tell me why the DVD order is used rather the broadcast order like other similar shows such as [{The Simpsons]], South Park etc...? Localzuk^(talk) 16:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image fair use

That looks much better. Thanks for your help. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Futurama

Hey, I've noticed you're trying to get Futurama up to featured status and was hoping to help with anything that needs done. Besides a part-time job, I've pretty much got all free time. I've been trying to work on the Cast and characters section (a point brought up on FAC). Please let me know if you have any tasks that need done. I have a lot of knowledge through listening to the commentaries and could probably find citations for points about the show quickly through them. Just let me know. --WillMak050389 05:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

When the article was nominated I wasn't confident it was ready but I thought I'd work on whatever advice was given, looking at it now I think it's a lot closer to being FA than I realized. Like you I'm just working the FAC page as it comes up but the issues I mainly need help with are trimming, combining or expanding sections where it is suggested; adding citations where they are needed and just generally improving the flow of the text. They're all somewhat vague concepts unfortunately so I think having as many people as possible working towards those goals is our best shot. Thanks for any help you can provide and happy editing! Stardust8212 12:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: Futurama and citing commentaries

I think that'd be great. I only had Season 3 for a long time but i just got the first two as well so between us we can do every episode. And I'm on holidays so I have the spare time at the moment as well. I'll probably go through each season twice and take notes, then give them to you so we can both use them as reference. DXC makes lots of observations about continuity and callbacks/callforwards which I find are very interesting. Cheers. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 03:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through now and taken quite a few interesting notes. As soon as my home PC is working again (I'm at work now) I'll mail you a copy so we can cross-reference. Cheers, ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 02:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Futurama contributor

Why did yu delete Amy's calander from the Kif Gets Knocked Up a Notch page? --Simpsons contributor 18:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The contents of Amy's calendar are trivial and we should avoid adding trivia to episode articles. Stardust8212 19:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't like me, do you? --Simpsons contributor 18:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel one way or the other about you. I try only to edit based on content not the person contributing. I don't like the addition of trivia and synthesis to episode articles as both of these are not what wikipedia is about and I would have reverted the same information coming from any other user. It is important to remember that there is a current drive going on to eliminate many episode articles from Wikipedia because they violate various guidelines. I don't want Futurama articles to fall into this category and I am willing to take the steps necessary to keep these articles in a state acceptable to the guideline so as to allow them to remian on wikipedia. Stardust8212 20:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

About Futurama and Amy Wong contributions

Hi, Stardust 8212. I'm trying to make some minor adjustements to the Futurama and Amy Wong pages, but my edits are constantly wiped out. I think what I'm going, 'cause I'm an animation journalist and book author. So please, contact me (kumagoro@kumagoro.com), maybe I need to know some more about edits. Thanks. Kumagoro-42 02:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Why...

..did you made this revert? --Duke B. Garland 17:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

And At the end when Fry introduces anchovies to the crew, its obvious to see he still has a half full tin of them on the table, however when Zoidberg comes in, the tin disappears and Fry says there are not any more left. is not a continuity issue? --Duke B. Garland 09:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I would, but i'm honestly surprised with such a policy and don't agree with it... --Duke B. Garland 15:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I, Roommate

Hello, Stardust. Thanks for contributing clean-ups to I, Roommate. You stated "Plot synopsis should be brief and not contain detailed notes about episode events" - could you point me to WP policy for that? It would seem to directly contradict WP:Writing About Fiction - "Details of creation, development, etc. relating to a particular fictional element are more helpful if the reader understands the role of that element in the story. This often involves using the fiction to give plot summaries, character descriptions or biographies, or direct quotations." I thought the writer's (Eric Horsted) dialogue about the bathroom was hilarious, and adds to the article's description of Fry's predicament in the episode. Thanks! --GeĸrίtzĿ._..•˚^˚ 23:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to this edit which I must admit I was not able to effectively summarize in the constraints of the summary window. First of all, your point about WP:WAF seems to be taken out of context. The particular section I removed was not being used to explain "Details of creation, development, etc." it was merely a lengthening of the plot to include a specific joke from the episode (IMHO). Note that WP:WAF, quoting from Wikipedia's fair use policy, also states that "the amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible." To me this includes not quoting specific lines unnecessarily and reducing the plot summaries to a simple description of the events of the episode. Note that the guideline on television episodes also recommends that the plot summary be no longer than 10 words per minute. In the case of Futurama this is approximately 220 words per episode. In it's current form "I, Roommate" is 267 words, a bit long but better than most Futurama episodes as far as that goes. I have been more harsh than usual in enforcing these rules since the genesis of Wikipedia:Television article review process which threatens to do much worse than simply remove a funny quote from the article. For more discussion of my current views on episode article revision please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Futurama#Episode article organization-revisited. Stardust8212 00:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, well done. I certainly don't agree with some of those policies (adding some of the clever quotes here and there sure livens the narrative) but I have to respect them. It just seems that not including that particular exchange ("your bathroom ... my what-what?") is like writing about When Harry Met Sally without including the "I'll have what she's having" quote. And on those grounds (IMHO) I believe the dialogue you removed is valid and valuable in this article. Your thoughts? Thanks again. --GeĸrίtzĿ._..•˚^˚ 00:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gekritzl (talk • contribs).

I still disagree. I think this line is nowhere near as influential as the line in When Harry Met Sally though admittedly that was on the list of AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movie Quotes so you've picked a pretty tough standard to live up to. If you really think the line is absolutely necessary to express that living in a 2 foot by 2 foot apartment is uncomfortable (which I personally find speaks for itself) then feel free to re-add it but please consider the flow of the article as a whole and consider removing the excessive line breaks. Alternatively if you can find a source discussing the line in the context of production/writing then consider adding the source and the notes about the significance of the line to the "Production" section. As a side note, when the quotes sections were first removed from all the episode articles some months ago I wasn't too happy about it myself but I have since come to terms with the fact that I can't include all my favorite lines in the articles, so I do know how you feel. Stardust8212 01:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi - you know how I feel, that's cool - it was one of my favorite quotes, so tough to see it deleted. Of course that line is not as influential as the Harry Met Sally line - neither is I Roommate nearly as well-known as that movie. I merely meant that relative to the episode the line is significant and in the article, and helps establish context for the reader, as well as being significant in developing character - not just for that episode, but overall in the series, it develops Bender's character (he's selfish, and somewhat ignorant of human needs). Nor did I say the line was "absolutely necessary" (your words) - NOTHING in the article is absolutely necessary. It was largely opinion, and not WP policy that caused you to remove it, and I contend that WP policy seems to support my argument for keeping it, along with the other reasons I stated. --GeĸrίtzĿ._..•˚^˚ 12:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekritzl (talk • contribs)

Look I already said I won't remove it if you put it back in. I'm just saying that I disagree with you that it is a)necessary b)explicitly supported by any policy or guideline (by the way WP:WAF is not policy, it's a guideline so I don't know what policy supposedly supports either of our arguments with the exception of WP:FU which I quoted earlier but I don't think is really the main issue here) or c)even the most interesting or significant line in the episode. As I said before if you decide that that line is necessary (absolutely necessary beyond any reasonable doubt) then fine add it back in, I don't care, I won't remove it again but please at least format it reasonably. I realize you're trying to do what you think is best for the article but please understand that I am too and sometimes(1 2 3 4) that means being the bad guy and removing things other people think are "hilarious". Stardust8212 12:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Stardust - I'm sorry, I missed where you said you wouldn't remove it if I put it back in - thanks. And I did really struggle with the formatting. I liked how it turned out, but I would definitely welcome another idea on formatting. If I restore it and you reformat it the way you think looks best, then we'll have collaborated successfully. :) Regards, GeĸrίtzĿ._..•˚^˚ 13:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekritzl (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Futurama Roll Call

Hello, you are currently listed as a member of Wikiproject Futurama though you may be inactive. This seems to be the case for many members so I am sending this message to help renew interest in working on these articles. If you are still interested in working on Futurama related tasks please visit the wikiproject page to see how you can help. If you have time please also join in the recent discussions on the talk page, in particular I would personally appreciate comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Futurama#A new proposal for episode articles. Thank you for your time, hopefully I didn't annoy you too much. If you would not like to receive messages such as this in the future then consider removing yourself from Wikipedia:WikiProject Futurama/List of participants. Happy editing. Stardust8212 00:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Space Pilot 3000, passed as GA

• Great work on the article! Feel like helping me get Hell Is Other Robots up to GA status? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 06:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC).

• Happy to help where I can, I haven't found as many sources for the reception section on that one though. Stardust8212 11:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'll see what I can dig up. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 13:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC).

• I was able to find good sources to improve/expand the article, and I took the liberty of putting it up as a WP:GA candidate at WP:GAC. Unfortunately, they're a bit backlogged over there, even though I've been pitching in and trying to do a bunch of GA reviews myself, as you can see, but for now it's a bit of a waiting game. Cheers. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 16:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC).

• Apologies, I've been at work since my last message, your edits seem good and it seems the time is right for the GA nom. I'll have a closer look tonight and tap my last resource (the Drawn to Television book) for any further info. Stardust8212 00:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• No worries, sounds great. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 01:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC).

• Rich Moore notes that "There was a religious person at the studio who refused to work on this episode because she didn’t like it’s content" -- Did they say anything more specific about that? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 02:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC).

• Not really, I think they made a couple one liner jokes at the persons expense ("Did they get fired? hahaha") but no other usable info, it seems notable but I was having trouble fitting it in somewhere. Remove it if you think it's not usable. Stardust8212 02:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• No, no, keep it, it's great, goes with the rest of the themes sect. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 02:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC).

• We've done some good work fixing up Hell Is Other Robots. I say wait a couple more days for stability's sake, and I'll resubmit to WP:GAC, if that's okay with you? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 04:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC).

• No complaints from me, I might have a bit more of a look at it over the weekend but it is looking better. Stardust8212 04:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Okay then, I'll wait until you've given it another look through, and then nominate it again. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 04:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC).

• Let me know when you've done all you can for the time being, and I'll nom the article again. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 09:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC).

• I think I'm done for the most part, I'll ping your talk page if I don't see the nom on the article talk in a day or so. Good luck, I'll be around if there's a hold this time. Stardust8212 01:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

re:This may be a dumb question

Hi. I removed the links without much thinking after I had clicked on the names and instead wounded up on the respective episodes' articles instead. This was not what I expected to see when I clicked on the names, so I just removed the links. I could have sword that I had at some point seen the principle of least astonishment mentioned on the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) page, but apparently it's not. I hadn't realised that this kind of linking had become commonplace, and in this case I'll of course go with the consensus. Still, this does seem a confusing way to link, and maybe it should be discussed on the Futurama project page, and maybe even as part of the Manual of Style.

By the way: If you reply, please reply on my talk page again, as I don't check my watchlist regularly anymore (not so much time for Wikipedia editing at the moment). — Mütze (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

...th century and others

Thanks for the clarification; I noticed the majority of instances in all types of article I have read to be superscripted... hence my edits. I was unaware of the wikipolicy page you mentioned but I'll now give it a read!AirdishStraus (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Nimbus-Futurama.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Nimbus-Futurama.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI

FYI, you may wish to grab some cites from here as related to Awards for Futurama episodes. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the heads up, I'm trying to find a ref for the 2001 Futurama Emmy nom, it may have been "Amazon Women in the Mood" but I don't have a RS for that. Stardust8212 00:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Futurama episodes

I'd like to help out with improving them, but I'm also trying to save the episodes of The Simpsons (I proposed that we merge some of them, but that wasn't very well received by other project members) so that is my higher priority right now. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If you ever need any opinions about what should/shouldn't be merged, feel free to ask. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC nom

I put Hell Is Other Robots up at FAC. Would you be willing to help address points if they crop up in comments at the FAC discussion? Cirt (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I'll watchlist the nom page. Stardust8212 14:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. One support so far, we'll see how it goes. Cirt (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Are you able to get screenshots from the episode? A point was brought up at the FAC - perhaps a better fair-use image would be a shot with Bender and The Robot Devil, as opposed to Fry and Leela? Cirt (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I can do it tonight (I'm at work) think about any specific scenes you might want an image of (Fiddle battle, escape from robot hell, one of the punishments, etc.) If you think of something which would be specifically useful I can get that, otherwise I'll use my discretion. Stardust8212 15:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

See the FAC comment. Just so long as it is something that is specifically discussed already in the article, even better if it were something not just in the plot section but discussed in other sections as well. We could actually have up to 3 images and still have fair use, that is about the norm on some of The Simpsons FAs. Here are some potential ideas:

1. Bender with Reverend Lionel Preacherbot and the symbol for Robotology.
2. Bender awakening to see the Robot Devil in Robot Hell.
3. Fiddle battle would be a nice one, as it's already discussed in the Cultural references section (that might be the best idea). Cirt (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Qst (talk · contribs) helpfully did a lot of work and noted his efforts on the FAC page. Could you perhaps address some of the other points? You are a bit more familiar than me with certain things like the DVD commentary. Cirt (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Didn't get to this until later than I expected. Some screen shots here, you can upload them or I will if you tell me which ones you like. I didn't like most of the fiddle battle scenes but I think there are some other good options here. I'm gonna work on the commentary now. Stardust8212 02:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think that link doesn't work so:Stardust8212 12:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Links removed since we're done. Stardust8212 02:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

FA

Congrats! Cirt (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but you did most of the hard stuff. Stardust8212 03:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't have done it without you and Qst (talk · contribs), and that's a fact. Cirt (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Futurama

While I wouldn't mind joining Wikiproject Futurama, my edits in regard to Futurama have only been very minor (i.e. removing speculation and such), although I wouldn't mind devoting a bit of extra time to cleaning up some of the articles if you guys need a Wikijanitor :P. Sillygostly (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Godfellas

Sorry if violating etiquette; new. I'm responsible for the discussion of Dschubba/Teshuvah that you deleted. I see the point that the "teshuvah" interpretation has a citable source; however, the word as spoken in the episode is far closer to "Dschubba" and, as it happens, I have seen the original script and know that it was in fact written (and intended as) "Dschubba". I don't know the principled way to discuss this in the article, but it seems clearly inappropriate that the mishearing (by an author (Pinsky) who was looking for Gospel references and whose authority is thus suspect) should be cited as pure fact simply because there is a reference for it.

(Note, BTW, that the episode transcript at http://www.futurama-madhouse.com.ar/scripts/3acv20.shtml has it far closer to "Dschubba".) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.147.215 (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is one of the flaws of the Wikipedia system. Often times what makes its way into Wikipedia isn't what is "true" but what is "verifiable". The way I see it the "Teshuvah" reference is verifiable as it has been published in a reliable source (since you're new I'll point you to Wikipedia's Policy and guideline on Verifiability and Reliable Sources). Now, the "Dschubba" may seem correct to us but we're not verifiable nor is Futurama Madhouse a Reliable Source. So what do we do? Discussing that there are two opinions on what the line means without a reliable source for one of them is essentially original research (See WP:OR, another policy). It's a bit of a bind. The only options are to include the reference with the citation or remove it entirely. I don't like the idea of simply removing the information because some people think it's wrong but it may be the best option. Stardust8212 02:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I figured on the basis of my superficial understanding of Policy. Would it be admissible to say something like "Pinsky(footnote) asserts that the monks visited by F&L occupy the monastery of "Teshuvah", which is the Hebrew etc etc"? Also, there may be several online transcripts in addition to the one cited, and I bet they're all closer to "Dschubba"; what -- if anything -- would make one of them Reliable enough to be cited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.147.215 (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Your rewrite makes sense and I think that is a good alternative. As for the online transcripts it really depends on the site they are on. Most transcripts will be on fansites or imdb which are not reliable in most instances. If we could find an "official transcript" that could be cited it may work or if the transcript was hosted by a site that was well known for accuracy of reporting or if the site was well known for being peer reviewed. It's kind of a sketchy gray world when you start trying to describe what is and isn't relaible. I've seen things I thought should be reliable and been told that they weren't and it's gone the other way as well. I think we really have to take each one on an individual basis. By the way, you can avoid the sinebot if you add four tildes ~~~~ to the end of each of your posts. Stardust8212 22:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I took my best shot at discussing the variant transcriptions; delete or modify it if you think it's necessary.76.89.147.215 (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the wording slightly but I think the meaning is still the same, also I think the cite at the end of the statement is sufficient rather than adding one after Pinsky's name. If you ever have luck finding another source for the alternate interpretation let me know, I'd be happy to help you with the citation templates or cleaning the article up (I'd like to eventually get it to Good article status which is why I am being so harsh about sourcing). Happy editing. Stardust8212 00:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Sorry for vandalising the Jurassic Bark page, my brother took over my computer again. Apologies if this isn't how you post comments. Naggers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.177.118 (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Futurama characters

Do those have much potential to improve beyond their current level (cruft with some mixed in real world details that can't hold an article)? I'm thinking about running through, gutting them down to the basics, and leaving the appropriate blank sections. It doesn't seem like it would be worth it if nothing will come out of it, though. TTN (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I ask myself that pretty often. I think there's hope for some of them: Fry, Leela, Bender and probably the Professor, Zoidberg, Amy and Hermes. The others I've been of the opinion for awhile that they could do with merging into the various lists of recurring characters. I have found that trimming the main characters tends to meet with some resistance, I've tried it a couple times with Bender and it's yet to stick. You can give it a try if you want to, I'm unlikely to do anything drastic myself, the arbitration situation is still too hot for my tastes, I mean the way they've pulled out the torches and pitchforks over Kww has just been ridiculous. Stardust8212 01:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted Bender. Hopefully, it'll stay. Did I get the part about the in-universe creation correct? I couldn't really understand what exactly it meant, so it is possibly wrong. TTN (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say the line about the creation that you left lacks the context to make it meaningful. The issue is in one episode Bender is shown emerging fully formed from a machine while in a second he regresses backwards through child-like stages. Cohen states that it is possible for both episodes to fit continuity because Bender could have progressed through the life stages inside the machine but these simply weren't shown in the first episode. It's hard to sum it up coherently in a single sentence, I'll have a go at it if it isn't reverted before I can think of a good wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stardust8212 (talk • contribs)

Why did you undid my change noting etymology of Turangalila Symphony ? I already persuaded the author of first undo (see his talk page), that I am right: as the symphony name is derived from Hinduism concept of Lila, it means that also Leela character name is derived from that! It's just plain logic: this is the internationally understood meaning of the world "Lila", the divine, cosmical play. It definitely stroke me and other people as obvious, when watching Futurama. As the name of the symphony itself is only derived from this term, it simply makes sense to mention it. Even if it was not the original intention of Matt Gröenig, once you refer to the symphony, it also makes sense to refer to the origin of the name of that symphony itself. After all: why Leela is used as first name, and not as surname ? This is easily explained by the etymology of symphony's name. --XChaos (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I responded to this at the time on User talk:Mallocks#Turanga Leela. As I stated there I think it is inappropriate to include such information without a source stating that it was the intention of the creators. Fortunately because this is Wikipedia there is a link in the Turanga Leela article which goes to Turangalîla-Symphonie where those interested can read about the origin of the title of the symphony, which I notice that article does not give the same explanation for the title as you did and does not even mention hinduism. Also, persuading one person does not mean everyone else will agree with you which is why it is best in these situations to start a discussion on the article talk page and gain consensus. Stardust8212 13:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my forgetfulness

I completely spaced when it came to creating the talk page of Claudia Katz. So just saying thanks for doing that for me. I know it's no big deal, but still. -- Chickenmonkey 14:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Input requested

I was wondering what your thoughts are on creating a navbox template for Rough Draft Studios like I've done here. Thanks -- Chickenmonkey 20:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea and it looks good. My only comment would be to consider alphabetizing the list items except where other organization (dates, etc.) are obvious. perhaps there's a reason for the order things are listed in but it isn't always abundantly clear. Stardust8212 20:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made some changes and will implement it soon enough. -- Chickenmonkey 21:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Splendid, works perfectly for me. Stardust8212 00:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Futurama Politics

Dear Stardust8212,

I added some sections to the Politics in Futurama page. You deleted my sections entirely, claiming "too much in universe plot discussion."

I'm willing to concede that I may have included too much of the specific episode plots, but I see no reason that this should entail a full-blown deletion of entire sections. I would encourage you to consider what specificly you consider too much; then, we can work on improving those sections. I do believe that party politics, "animal rights," and free speech should have some sort of representation in those articles.

I tried to limit, as best I could, the content of my additions. The "animal rights" section was the hardest, as almost all of the dialogue seemed to have political relevance, and be something worth analysing. So, of my sections, it is the one with which I am least pleased. If you have any suggestions for consolidating that section and making it shorter, I'm be most pleased to hear them.

Conversely, I think I was most concise with my free speech section and my constitutionalism subsection. I don't think there is much that can be cut from either.

Hopefully we can find something that everyone finds accomodating. In the mean time, I simply wish to stress that I believe it to be a mistake to delete the entire party politics subsection or the entire "animal rights" section. Indeed, some sort of mention ought to be given to these topics.

Cheers,
allixpeeke (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you even deleted my free speech section; and quite quickly, I might add. Praytell, did you read my contributions before deleting them? What possible objection could be given to that section? Surely it is political. Surely it was concise.

Curiously yours,

allixpeeke (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I read enough of the contribution to see that it was a huge block of text consisting entirely of in-universe plot information with no citations for verification or to show that anyone outside of the Futurama universe had made any claim that these references were in anyway notable. Huge blocks of plot summary usually don't improve the article. To be honest I worry about that article a lot, I've seen too many Futurama articles get deleted for that sort of thing and the only way to keep them is to keep these details to a minimum. You'll notice most of the article (except the earth government section) is relatively well referenced to either reliable sources or at least the episode commentary. I would say that if you want to double the article size, as your edits nearly did then you need to lend the statements some amount of credibility by including citations.

Note that the political parties section in particular demonstrates "Using throwaway comments or jokes as a source of information", one of the specific problems with in-universe writing listed in the Manual of Style for writing about fiction and the animal rights section is almost entirely a plot summary, including way too many quotations, of a single episode. The key is, from the manual of style, to keep a balance between the primary-sourced in-universe information and the real world information from secondary sources. I would be happy to see a version of your text which maintained this balance. Stardust8212 03:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Stardust8212,

I cross-referenced my comments on the article's talk page. If you wish to continue the conversation there instead of here, I would hold no objection. In the mean-time, however, I shall continue the conversation on your talk page so as to ensure you receive my reply.

I find your response and your concerns reasonable.

Unfortunately, not being in possession of any DVDs containing the episodes I cited, I am unable to cite audio commentaries. (If you possess such DVDs, and would be willing to sacrifice your time to search them for appropriate citations, this would be appreciated. I do not, however, demand of you any such sacrifice.)

Perhaps a reasonable compromise on the political parties subsection would go as follows: (A) We eliminate the description of the third parties and organisations, (B) Replace the descriptions of third parties and organisations with a mere list of the third parties and organisations, (C) keep the analysis of the two establishment parties, and (D) Include (if you or any use wikipedian can find it) appropriate citations indicating that it was indeed the intent of the show to claim that there is no difference between the two establishment parties.

Would you agree that such a compromise would be beneficial for the article?

I maintain that my free speech section was concise, but find myself in agreement with you that it would be nice to add some sort of external citation. Again, perhaps if you have the audio commentary available to you (I do not), that could be one source. But, another might be to articles about real life organisations similiar to F.A.R.T. in their goals, and real-life campaigns against notable shows such as Married With Children, Beavis & Butthead, and South Park, assuming some can be found that make reference to "Bender Should Not Be Allowed on TV." (I know of no such campaign against Futurama itself, but if you do, that example would be all the better.) Any suggestions there? Know of any such articles we could use?

I'm looking over the problematic "animal rights" section. If we are to truncate it, the question becomes: What do we remove? We couldn't remove mention of M.E.A.T. We could, however, remove mention of popplers, although it would be difficult. We could definitely remove mention of the three placards being held by the protestors. I originally included the lion-on-tofu information because I considered it as exemplifying the show's view that Leela was right in her claim that eating meat is natural, although I guess we could remove that as a throw-away joke. The problem is, we would not be able to remove the three divergent views on "animal rights," as that is the very crux of the episode and of the political message it promoted. Unfortunately, that makes up a great deal of the section, which would make our truncation all the more difficult. Of course, discussion of that section is meaningless without some sort of external citation, so I'll try to find some sort of article this week on that episode—hopefully.

To reiterate, I find your concerns valid, and understand it to be your objective to keep articles from needlessly being deleted. Since this is your primary concern, it is not to say that you reject my concern that an article titled "Politics in Futurama" ought to include some mention of, for example, free speech and "animal rights." If you agree with me that it is a valid goal to include some sort of mention of these two political objectives in this article, I hope (but certainly do not demand) that you will assist me in locating appropriate citations, as well as rewording the sections and subsections I authored so as to eschew throw-away jokes and over-elaboration of plots.

Sincerely yours,

allixpeeke (talk) 07:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to help and I do have the DVD commentaries available, please let me know the specific episodes you would like me to check and I will try to work on it. I can't guarantee there will be anything useful though, they tend to get distracted and not always cover the points which some people think are important. I often search for secondary sources for episodes, it's not easy to find much useful information, maybe a plot summary and a review here or there. For example, a google news search for "Bender Should Not Be Allowed on TV" yields no hits[1]. Stardust8212 11:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Futurama cultural references

Stardust, was there a consensus decision to remove all the "Cultural references" sections from the Futurama episode pages? I think those were the best written part of those articles. Owen× ☎ 02:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I found this discussion, but there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus there, is there? Owen× ☎ 02:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Best written? It was an unreferenced list of trivia. Anyway, my goal is not to remove all cultural references sections but to remove all items in those sections which can't be referenced to a reliable source. For example, I have no intention of removing the cultural references sections of Space Pilot 3000 and Hell Is Other Robots because they cite sources and have been rewritten as prose. This is the same technique being used by the Simpsons wikiproject. As for the discussion, I don't know if there was really a consensus, I don't know that I'd really call it much of a discussion, people were shockingly disinterested in the whole affair, I expected a lot more people to show up to yell at me, actually. What specifically brings this up at this point? I haven't even been doing that work for a long time, or it feels like a long time, maybe a month ago? Stardust8212 03:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this was almost two months ago. I noticed it yesterday when I saw this edit and thought--hey, this was already included in the Cultural references section, and soon realized that section was now removed from several Futurama episode articles.

The unique characteristic of Futurama is that its humour is primarily based on caricaturing current day topics by "extrapolating" them into a futuristic farce. So while the Cultural references section in many of the articles isn't well written, it has far more encyclopedic value than the plot summary.

I agree that the prose style in the two articles you mention are superior to the list previously used. Finding citations for each cultural reference may not be an easy task, but I don't think the lack of such citations is reason enough to remove these items from the article altogether. The fact that "Raging Bender" is a parody of "Raging Bull" or that "let's all go to the lobby!" is a reference to the 1950s animated snipe is obvious to any adult North American viewer, but is a worthwhile and important piece of information for younger or foreign readers. I don't see this as 'trivia' any more than I see the plot summary as fluff. If you think about it, unlike The Simpsons, Futurama is really a collection of cultural references wrapped in a story line, so the list format isn't necessarily a poor choice.

In any case, if these articles need improvement, I don't think removing the section will hasten the work on them. You'll find many more editors willing to copyedit and reformat than ones who will recreate the content from scratch. Few, if any, will go search the article history to retrieve this content. For now, I'm going to add a link to the Cultural references section of the last version of the article which still had it, next to your Unreferenced tag, unless you can think of a better solution. Owen× ☎ 15:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I disagee with you about these needing to be referenced but I don't really feel like having that same argument again. I've found that often things which one user thought was an obvious reference to X another user thought was an obvious reference to Y. For example, I was involved in a dispute about whether the title of the episode "I Second that Emotion" was a reference to the song I Second That Emotion, something I thought was ridiculously obvious, or if it was a reference to the "common" saying "I second that motion". Which one is right? How do we decide what is sufficiently obvious to not need verification? I've asked this question multiple times and nobody has ever been able to give me a good answer so the best line in the sand that we can draw, or that I can come up with, is verifiability, at least that's my view. Also, in all cases where I have removed the cultural references I have pasted them onto the talk page with a note pointing to the wikiproject talk page for discussion. Nothing is lost. I know there are some users who have simply removed the list without this courtesy (Future Stock comes to mind) and some users are trimming the cultural references sections of items which they personally find to be unlikely. Admittedly by following the whole big sticky mess of the two episodes and characters arbitration cases I may have become somewhat over-sensitized to the whole issue but I honestly felt that my actions were both in line with policy and in the best interest of preserving the articles in this age of merging and redirecting episode pages. I honestly think that people seeing their favorite part of an article "disappear" are the ones most likely to take action to save that section and the best action they can take is to find references. I actually think if I could get a few more people to add appropriate citations from the episode commentaries then we could preserve at least part of the cultural references sections on each article but I seem to be the only one taking on that task and I work SLOWLY. Heck if every "member" of the wikiproject would do just one episode we'd be done already! Well, that's getting off topic, I am, as always, open to suggestions on how to improve the articles but this was the best idea I could come up with and it's obviously not working very well. Stardust8212 16:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Stardust, I don't think anyone is accusing you of going against policy. You have probably done more for the Futurama Project than anyone else. Regarding situations like the "I Second That Emotion", I've come across a similar one and dealt with it this way. I guess more people are familiar with WrestleMania than with The Good Book... In cases of doubt or disagreement, include both options, and let the reader decide. If consensus eventually builds up for one over the other--fine, but no consensus will ever build up if neither is shown.

Which brings me back to our original topic. I think both of us want the same end result: a well-written, thoroughly-referenced review of each episode's cultural references. Keeping the list in the Talk page, or linking to an old revision, will probably limit the number of editors working on this to one or two. Keeping the list in the body of the article may get us an occasional extra helping hand. But more importantly, the question is whether it's better to have a comprehensive list of unreferenced but apparently correct observations (and I have personally reviewed all 72 articles for accuracy), or to have nothing at all until a proper citation is given. I think most Wikipedia readers would prefer the former. Also check out this proposed policy. I believe most of the Cultural references items fall under this category. Owen× ☎ 18:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for chiming in here, Stardust. I watch your talk page because you're so heavily involved in Futurama editing.

Owen, I'd say "cultural references" fall outside of "when a source may not be needed" as they are not knowledge taken explicitly from the work. "Cultural references" inherently involve knowledge of outside information. Therefore, for example, you couldn't simply use the episode Raging Bender to cite its title coming from Raging Bull. There would need to be some outside reference to that fact (such as dvd commentary). "When a source may not be needed" is more intended for the actual plot of a work and not analysis of such. While it may be true, even obviously so, the more important thing for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

My understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is that "cultural references" fall under the majority header of "things that need to be sourced". -- Chickenmonkey ^X  sign?  19:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) That is an interesting read, it will be interesting to see if it gains consensus. As I've said, it becomes a bit of a hazy ground as far as what is obvious and what isn't and often comes down to personal opinion. That aside, there does come a point in article improvement where the list needs to be removed, Space Pilot 3000 and Hell Is Other obots would neer have become GA's with their original lists intact and it would have been a definite block to Hell Is Other Robots' FA, those have been trimmed significantly from what was originally in the article. There are a few other articles which I hope to improve to similar status (Godfellas, Roswell That Ends Well and The Devil's Hands are Idle Playthings) and trims will have to be made to achieve this.

To be honest, I don't think leaving the CRs in the article will encourage people to add references, the articles where I haven't removed the lists have seen no additions that I can recall but then again, the ones where they were removed haven't seen much in the way of sourced additions either (additions yes, sourced no). The best compromise I can think of is to leave the lists in place for articles where there is not sufficient information to write a sourced paragraph. In this way every article would have some CRs just the vast majority of them would be unsourced speculation, it's not what I'd prefer obviously. A good test for this might be something like Mars University, though two of those refs are pretty weak as neither of them specifically mentions the episode, just the original work it's referring to.

And ChickenMonkey responded while I was writing this and I agree with him and of course he along with anyone else who stops by are certainly welcome to lend their opinions. I often feel like I'm operating in a vacuum at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Futurama since of the 11 topics I've started on that page only 3 have gotten responses so I've nearly given up on getting advice there. But keep your eyes peeled for an exciting new discussion about how to adapt the addition of C-class to the grading scheme, coming to watchlists near you this weekend! Stardust8212 19:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Futurama - The Luck of the Fryrish episode page

DVD commentary citations checked and added, as well as a very nice review from Torontoist. Cy3 (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Great work. Stardust8212 14:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Futurama revival

Hello. WikiProject Futurama is being revived. Since you are listed as a participant here, you have received this message to make sure you still are. If you like to help update the WikiProject, please discuss here. Hopefully you can stay with us and continue to work on Futurama-related articles. GamerPro64 (talk) delivered by MuZebot 06:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)