Talk:Hell Is Other Robots/Archive 1

message: How is this a goof?  The Robot Devil removes Bender's arm on "level 2" before kicking him down a chute, the next time we see him (with his arm re-attached, the Beastie Boys sing that we have descended to "level 5".  There is no implication of the interim verse being levels 3 and 4, so it should be assumed that somewhere on one of these unshown levels Bender retrieves his arm.
Qupada 02:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but doesn't the fact that we don't see it make it a goof? Because a lot can happen between each shot, but it's what we see that makes it important or unimportant. --Scott73337 15:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a moot point. Wikipedia:Television episodes states that goofs should not be included unless they have been talked about in an outside source. Stardust8212 15:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goof: Bender's Arm 

message: Should something be said about the fact that "jacking on" is a take on "jacking off", slang for masterbation?  Just something that I thought should be mentioned in the "Cultural References" section. Ben.yarmis 03:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's generally best not to start explaining every joke from the episode. The cultural references is more about references to specific pop culture items. Just my opinion though. Stardust8212 03:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jacking On? 

message: *When Fry and Leela are about to enter Robot Hell, right after Fry presses the religious symbol to open the door, their reflections on the glass resemble the style in which the Simpsons were originally drawn in the Tracy Ullman Show.
*The Robot Devil's musical talent (which is once again demonstrated in "The Devil's Hands Are Idle Playthings") is seen in this episode when the Robot Devil plays a golden fiddle which according to Fry and the Robot Devil "would be weigh hundreds of pounds and sound crummy".
----
;Note
*I removed a "cite needed", because it's only a talk page, after all.  From the note above, it's self-evident now that this stuff will only go back in the article if new sources/cites crop up to verify some of this stuff.  Cirt (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscellanea

message: I think this needs a reasonable amount of work, so I am going to pop this down as a Fail, rather than an "On Hold" to give you enough time to proofread the article an update it.  I think after the corrections above, and tackling some of the issues that I've raised, it will be ready for GA status.
=== Lead ===
Little bit of editing needed here.  I don't feel that the lead adequately summarises the plot, since the summary consists of three short sentences.  I wouldn't expect a full exposition, but try toi rewrite this to make it flow a little better.  Note also the unnecessary comma in "Bender develops an addiction to electricity at a party, after attending a Beastie Boys concert."
The second paragraph is good, but is the Temple of Robotology really a spoof on the Church of Scientology?  From the episode, I would suggest that it is more of a version of a robot Baptist church.  In fact, quoting from the linked wikipedia page: "Robotology is a religion created specifically for robots, and draws elements from evangelical Christianity and Baptist denominations." - it is merely the name that spoofs scientology, but this is not clear here.
Some references would also be good.
=== Plot ===
"Robotology" does not need to be wikilinked again.
Do items enclosed in brackets need to be there?  The answer is not really, and they would be better incorporated into the text for readability purposes.
I would question that they bargain "for Bender's life" - Bender is never threatened with death, just punishment.
"Bender then promises to never be too good or too evil, just plain him."  - I know what you mean :)  But this doesn't work unless you know the line.  If you want, rewrite this sentence to quote Bender.
Overall, this sectionneeds a fair bit of proofreading - it needs to flow well through the story.  This may mean amending more than just the items I've suggested here
===Production ===
I don't feel that this tells me a great deal, particularly the last sentence.  I don't really know what that means, or in what context it is meant.  I suggest  to see what level of detail would be helpful.
===Other general points===
A lot seems to link to reference 4 - is there nothing else that can verify these statements?
In "Themes" - should the comment about the guy refusing to work on the episode not appear in Production?
I see a lot of short sentences throughout the articles that could use mergin or expanding for readability.  Watch the use of hyphens as well.
The article is pretty good, but just needs a little more work.  Any questions, please let me know on my talk page.
--Fritzpoll 17:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A few of the items could be linked to the "Drawn To Television" book but I didn't see a need to cite the same statements from two different sources so I excluded them as the Pinsky book (ref 4) has the most complete coverage of this subject. I'll have a look at where I can expand the robotology issues from these two sources to make the connection more clear. Thanks for your thorough review and hopefully we can get it up to expectations in the near future. Stardust8212 19:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, Stardust and I will do our best to address the above points, and re-nom this after some time has passed.  Thanks for the suggestions on how to improve the article.  Cirt 20:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review: Fail 

message: A lot seems to link to reference 4 - is there nothing else that can verify these statements?
In "Themes" - should the comment about the guy refusing to work on the episode not appear in Production?
I see a lot of short sentences throughout the articles that could use mergin or expanding for readability.  Watch the use of hyphens as well.
The article is pretty good, but just needs a little more work.  Any questions, please let me know on my talk page.
--Fritzpoll 17:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A few of the items could be linked to the "Drawn To Television" book but I didn't see a need to cite the same statements from two different sources so I excluded them as the Pinsky book (ref 4) has the most complete coverage of this subject. I'll have a look at where I can expand the robotology issues from these two sources to make the connection more clear. Thanks for your thorough review and hopefully we can get it up to expectations in the near future. Stardust8212 19:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, Stardust and I will do our best to address the above points, and re-nom this after some time has passed.  Thanks for the suggestions on how to improve the article.  Cirt 20:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other general points

message: Well done on these improvements. Alientraveller 21:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA pass 

message: These are notes from the episode commentary to assist people who don't have the DVD but would like to help. If you want more clarification on the notes please let me know and I will try to get you direct quotes. Other users who have interesting notes from the commentary but don't know where to add them to the article should also feel free to discuss them here. If you think something mentioned here should be included in the article please be bold and add it! Stardust8212 16:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I crossed out one that was already used in the article.  Cirt 17:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And a couple more.  Cirt 17:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Used another one.  Cirt (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another.  Cirt (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD Episode Commentary 

message: This article is currently undergoing a Peer Review.  Please see Wikipedia:Peer review/Hell Is Other Robots/archive1, and if you can, provide feedback on how to improve this article's quality further to WP:FA status.  Thanks, Cirt 16:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: I found a couple more sources and added them to the Reception section.  Of course, it can't hurt to always be on the lookout for more sources for that section.  Cirt (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, MASEM 07:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Sweeps (Pass) 

message: This episode, along with all other episodes from season one, is being reviewed to determine whether it currently satisfies Wikipedia's various policies in guidelines. All editors are welcome and encouraged to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Futurama/Season 1 review. Stardust8212 18:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode review 

message: Importance changed to low for Wikipedia:WikiProject Robotics after talk page discussion at that project.  Cirt (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: Hell Is Other Robots#Themes contains the sentence: While explaining to Bender his claim on his soul, he uses logic similar to that used by many Southern Baptists. I think it needs more information here. What kind of logic do many Southern Baptists use? How is the Robot Devil's logic similar? It's not clear to me. – wodup – 06:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For the time being I have attributed this to the sourced cite, will look into this further. Cirt (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If I recall correctly, and it's been a while since I sat down in Borders and tooks notes on that book, there really wasn't much explanation of which aspects were specifically being compared, my original notes just say he "speaks in a manner typical of inner-city African-American pastor stereotypes". Maybe somebody owns a copy and could check, otherwise I'll try to find it again sometime. Stardust8212 21:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southern Baptists 

message: featured? really? huh. good for us then.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnarcistPig (talk • contribs) 22:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the same when I saw it. Well, good for you!82.32.252.203 (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Yeah how the **** did this end up being featured--115.166.18.180 (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh wow. I never thought I would see a Futurama article become featured...  Until It Sleeps  05:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Way to knock it up a notch everyone!  BAM! Lugnuts (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How can something rated as Low Importance be a featured article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.45.134 (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the Featured article criteria. —TheLeftorium 17:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Grats futurama! --Jim Raynor (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: With no references in the opening paragraph, WOW Wikipedia is going down hill!LOL.--219.90.161.177 (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

text:  Wretched sinner unit! Lugnuts (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:LEAD. Cirt (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I did it says The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article. Have you even read it yourself. LOL.--219.90.161.177 (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: From WP:LEADCITE: Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Cirt (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Cool another area/policy of Wikipedia that contradicts another. I'm going to go around deleting references on other articles leads. LOL. Thank Cirt.--219.90.161.177 (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to go around deleting references on other articles leads. Yeah, good luck with that! Lugnuts (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I have, mostly they have been reverted, So Cirt is WRONG lol... Anyway I have found a better way to muck up articles. I change dates, and Names of people that don't have wiki-links. Seems to be working out just fine. I just keep creating user names under different IP's.LOL......--Gar57643 (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not one has been reverted so far.LOL......--Gar57643 (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  featured 

message: Here are a few consecutive sentences from the article:
Is it really necessary to add the same footnote after every single sentence? --Shreevatsa (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Cirt (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why? Shreevatsa (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because in the future other editors might move sentences around in the article, and then it would appear that a certain fact or sentence is unreferenced, and that sentence could get deleted from the article, or worse yet, the article's WP:FA status at that point could be in jeopardy. Cirt (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over-citation 

message: This episode was Futurama's only ever win at the UL television awards when it won "Best Directing in a animation or comedy series".
----
Could be added back into article when sourced. Cirt (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced, moved from article to talk page 

message: I have an issue with this quote:
"Pinsky writes in The Gospel According to The Simpsons, that while explaining to Bender his claim on his soul, the Robot Devil uses logic similar to that used by many Southern Baptists: "Bender tried to plead his case, without success. 'You agreed to this when you joined our religion,' the devil replies, in logic any Southern Baptist would recognize. 'You sin, you go to robot hell - for all eternity."
Am I to understand that as long as one can source something, it can be placed on a page without any review? These statements are false, whether or not they can be sourced. They represent a skewed perception of Southern Baptists from someone who has had no or minimal contact with the group.
I propose changing the quote to this (italics added):
Pinsky writes in The Gospel According to The Simpsons, that while explaining to Bender his claim on his soul, the Robot Devil uses logic similar to that used by many religious groups: "Bender tried to plead his case, without success. 'You agreed to this when you joined our religion,' the devil replies, in logic any Southern Baptist would recognize. 'You sin, you go to robot hell - for all eternity.
This removes the article bias while preserving the original quote. Hikui87 17:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The perspective is pointed out quite clearly to the individual that wrote it, cited appropriately, attributed as such to the author, and quoted in full so that there is no confusion. Cirt (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter if it's sourced, it's not true. In fact, most Southern Baptists believe that once you become a Christian, you're going to heaven no matter what you do. Quoting an uneducated source is fine, but the article doesn't have to take the same tone. If something is stated without quotes, you must assume that it is the material of the article and not the source. Hikui87 22:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is stated with quotes. Cirt (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Southern Baptists