User talk:Stardust8212/Futurama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

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

  • 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 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)
  • 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).
  • 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)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.