Talk:Everyone Poops

message: Is the spoiler warning really neccessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.97.177 (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.111.145 (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoiler warning

message: This edit, altering one unsourced trivial claim to another (less amusing and thus less credible) unsourced trivial claim, reminded me that all of this is, well, unsourced and trivial, even when aggrandized as "parodies" rather than the dread "references in popular culture".
Therefore, in the next edit, I removed the whole lot.
If sourced, credible, interesting information about non-trivial parodies can be added, go ahead and add it. -- Hoary (talk) 05:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Another trivia removal

message: The infobox conflates the original book (when it claims it was published in 1977) and at least one specific US edition of the English translation (when it gives the ISBN). It names the book that this book was "followed by" but doesn't indicate what "follow" means in this context. And most amazingly it gives the book as a reference for the number of pages in the book.
I can't fix this myself as I don't know how it should be fixed. Also, I'd be inclined simply to remove the infobox, which I don't see has helpful even if made consistent. -- Hoary (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right about that. I'm whittling away the inconsistencies...don't worry, I'll get them. Thanks for the comments...I'll use them when I fix this. BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 16:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think it needs any more clarification now? Any suggestions? Thanks! BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 05:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's much better now. Good. However, how is that other book "next"? -- Hoary (talk) 05:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's a chronological sequal per se, but the article (The Gas We Pass) says that this one was the prequal. I think it has to do with the ordering of the My Body Science series. Do you think it should be kept? I really have no opinion one way or the other. BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 06:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Prequel in which sense? Particularly as this book is pretty much storyless. (Also, I don't rush to believe anything that I read at Wikipedia.....) -- Hoary (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's gonna go now. *Goodbye, little so-called sequal! Be free!* BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 06:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good good. -- Hoary (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox confusions

message: Of a different kind. . . .
: However, the text inconsistently states that because "[a]ll living things eat", "[e]veryone [p]oops"
I'm lost. Where's the inconsistency? -- Hoary (talk) 05:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. Removing that :) BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 06:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistency

message: On the title image of the book is pictured an apple. This is misinformation since apples do not "poop".85.210.79.231 (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did read an amazon.com review at which point someone brought up that fact. However, I haven't been able to find any credible sources about a 'controversy' surrounding this. Do you have some? BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 20:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

text: The book never states that apples poop. Apples cause poop and are therefore relevant to the illustration. Or perhaps the illustrator extremely dislikes apples and thinks that they taste like poop. Why must it be a "controversy"? -- 67.42.107.14 (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Since we've gone nearly a year without any sources being located, no action need be taken in the article; any "controversy" is duly omitted. —C.Fred (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: I have just removed a "popular culture" trivia section. 
Here's what I removed:
#Everyone Poops was directly referenced and a main plot point in "The Speech" an animation by Mark M. of Sick Animation (that's my own crude addition of links), with a reference pointing to the animation on sickanimation.com.
#Everyone Poops is referenced in [. . .] × 3. No reference to any of them.
#The Simpsons episode "Margical History Tour" features "Everyone Poops: The Movie" in the library. No reference.
Comments:
#I think that "is referenced in" is a fancy way to say "is mentioned in", but I'm not sure. Well, so what if something is mentioned?
#There are very many episodes of The Simpsons. They "feature" many things. So?
#The Speech isn't about this animation. (It's instead an obscure essay about scifi.) So this "The Speech" doesn't get an article in WP. The article Sick Animation has for over one year started: The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.
-- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Third trivia removal

message: How was the book received? How popular is it? What do critics say? SlowJog (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception?