Talk:Futurama/Archive 2

message: I've removed the statement:
His rebellious personality and name are taken from the character John Bender from the film The Breakfast Club.
There was no source.  Can anyone back this up?  The word "bender" is a slang term for a drinking spree.  This sounds like a more likely origin.  If someone can provide a source for the deleted item it can be replaced.  CPitt76 20:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always assumed his name came from what he is, a bender, his job was to bend things. Just like someone who sings is called a singer. TJ Spyke 21:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, there's that.  But it is also possible that the creators got the name from somewhere else (like either of the two mentioned theories) and worked it into the story so that they can explain the name "bender".  Does anyone have any reference?  CPitt76 00:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also guess it comes from a drinking spree, especially since his alias while in the mob is "Blotto" -- a term for being very drunk. I'd assume they gave him the job "bender" after choosing the name (Url was also a name that was considered for Bender), to give him a mundane origin for it. Buddy13 04:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really think they just created a robot character and then figured out a job for it, so Bender's name came, they didn't think they'd make another robot which is exactly the same as bender later (Flexo). the thought was: name the robot after it's job. The Nanto 10:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMDB Trivia says "Creator Matt Groening admits to naming Bender the robot after John Bender, a character in The Breakfast Club." Not sure if that's right or not as IMDB is not very reliable.--ziekerz 04:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your second statement is correct, IMDB is not a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia (see WP:RS). Stardust8212 04:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Incorrect, his name is Bender Bending Rodríguez.  Explained in episodes Bendless Love and The Cyber House Rules.  Bending Unit #22 may be his model version or serial. --Svippong 12:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bender's Name

message: I've sandboxed an attempt at a section on the show's humour style, mostly emphasising on the borad range of styles that made it appealing to everyone and all the nerdy in-jokes that earned it a cult following. Have a look. Any suggestions, oppositions, etc? -Switch t 19:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good concept, but the content contains far too much original research to be included in this article. Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Outside references to the humor style would be good. CovenantD 22:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, it would be a good addition if proper references could be found. Stardust8212 23:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, um, does someone want to look for references about Futurama's comedy style? I haven't yet found anything, though there's a book out there on the series somewhere that I imagine would be a wonderful help. Somebody? ~Switch t 11:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks pretty good now, but should we really include the Klein beer bottles? We're only supposed ot have two fair use images per page, those already being in the cast and setting areas. Is there a free use picture of a klein bottle? Stardust8212 17:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. As far as I can tell (from a search for "two" and "2" respectively) WP:FU doesn't mention an image limit of two, but if that is the case the image can probably be replaced with one of the others from the Klein bottle article. Obviously the current one is desirable because it's from Futurama, but it can be done without. ~Switch t 18:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not actually sure where the "rule" comes from but it was brought up in a previous peer review/FA nom/GA nom, I can't remember at the moment which one...it should be somewhere further up this page though, that's the only reason I bring it up. Actually we should probably just get another peer review to see what needs to happen to become FA class, it'd come up there if it was a problem. Stardust8212 18:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Humor" section 

message: Isn't Futurama's comeback going to be similar to Family Guy's comeback in May 2005?
:It might be. Matt Groening has stated that it may be possible that a renewed series will follow the movies, if FOX agrees. This has not been confirmed, however. Currently all that stands are the four DVD movies.  The Good Ol' Country Doctor 01:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revival 

message: My wife told me that Billy West has opted not to do voice work in the upcomming DVD movies, and that the studio is going to hired Tom Green to voice Fry. Other actors will be brought in to voice the characters that West had preformed on the show. Anyone else heard this? --Fernwood 01:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read somewhere that he is confirmed to do the voice (should be linked in the article already) and he was one of the first people to leak the news about there being new movies coming out. Also he still lists on his website (billywest.com) that Futurama is his favorite show of all those that he has done. It is unlikely that he would opt out of the series knowing all of this, I think someone is pulling your leg. Stardust8212 01:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although an old issue, Tom Green has never made any mention of doing so. If he were to do so, he most likely would have let people know via his website before the wire services pick it up, or even when the 'official studio source' confirms it. Try  better grammar next time, and maybe we will believe you. Socby19 06:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Billy West Not Doing Movies? 

message: I've just gone through the first season listening to every episode commentary with this article in mind and I soon plan on doing seasons 2 and 3 as well. I've cited a couple of previously uncited sentences but I didn't hear any mention of the 30thC Fox logo (maybe I missed it). I also noted a couple of other interesting things that might be worked in, but external sources are always better if available. There should be a push to purge this article of uncited material. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 04:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing commentaries 

message: All four titles have been revealed on IMDB, apparently. I don't have an account there, but I've been told that this link will take you to the information's source if you do. The titles supposedly are Bender's Big Score, The Beast with a Billion Backs, Bender's Game, and Into the Wild Green Yonder. Nothing should be added to the article yet, of course, until public confirmation.  - The Good Ol' Country Doctor   ŧª∫Қ ↑¤ Мә 17:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Futurama Movies 

message: I was trying to find the Futurama category from :Category:Works of Matt Groening but it wasn't there, then I noticed it had been removed from :Category:Animated sitcoms as well. I checked and I saw that User:ProveIt had removed ELEVEN categories from the Futurama category, as well as doing the same to other animated shows' categories. I think this will make it very difficult for anyone to navigate using the category system. Is there a reason they have all been removed? What's the point of having sub-categories if they are going to be removed? 172.209.120.176 01:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the general idea is that categories should not be categorized with articles. For instance the article Futurama belongs in [:Category:Animated sitcoms]] with other articles but :Category:Futurama is not an animated sitcom, it is a category which contains articles related to Futurama, which is an animated sitcom. I'm not sure that made as much sense as it does in my head but the general idea is that only articles belong in those categories, not other categories. There's probably a guideline laying all of this out somewhere but I'm not familiar with it so I can't point you to it. Stardust8212 02:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of all main categories from [[:Category:Futurama]]?! 

message: We need a citation for the Futurama pavilion and how it relates to Futurama, the show.  - ТģØ(Đ {ŧª∫Қ ↑¤ Мә} 17:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Had a look around last night and couldn't find anything linking the two. Clearly the pavilion existed and was named Futurama but I find nothing which states beyond a doubt that the creators knew of this connection. I suspect they did, the show is chock full of such items, but I can't prove it. Perhaps someone could see if it is in any commentary tracks? There's another  in the section describing the 30th century FOX logo, I know User:SwitChar was looking into this one but I guess he hasn't found anything. Stardust8212 18:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it would never happen but...I found it! Google Book search is my best friend. Page 104. Stardust8212 16:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{Talkfact}} 

message: In the current FAC the issue of how many fair use images are appropriate has come up again. It was mentioned before in the #Failed "good article" nomination and I thought I fixed it. It came up again when the #"Humor" section was added. Currently the article contains fourfive screenshots (Title screen, crew, Fry's first view of the future, 30th Century Fox and Klein Bottles). Previously the article was trimmed down to only twothree images, the title screen, the characters and Fry's view out the window, and I think that is the way to go. We need to answer the question of how any further fair use images advance the critical commentary or if they are really only decorative. Thoughts? Stardust8212 00:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, although I personally would prefer that the 30th Century Fox logo stayed. After all, it really is one of the really unique features of the series.  - ТģØ(Đ {ŧª∫Қ ↑¤ Мә} 02:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there has been no further comment I went ahead and removed the Klein Bottles, perhaps taking action will inspire people to actually participate in discussion. I've left 30th century fox for now, depending on what else I hear at the FAC it might be able to stay but I can't be sure. Stardust8212 15:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also removed the DOOP logo. I know User:The Good Ol' Country Doctor thought it should stay but with the discussion at the FAC, both that it was not necessary and that the entire section was not particularly notable, it was becoming harder for me to justify (even to myself) that it needed to stay. If anyone thinks they can give a well thought out reason for it to stay then please participate in this discussion and the one at FAC. Cheers. Stardust8212 23:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, :Image:Futurama characters.jpg could probably go as well. It's kind of crappy (funky stretching and fuzzy), all of the characters are already visually identified on their individual articles, and the proximity of the image to the infobox means that it wrecks the layout a bit (getting pushed around). I've gone ahead and removed the image; that leaves us with just four FU images. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just coincidentally, the article Batman (which is FA) has sixteen fair-use images. I think I'll bring this issue up over there as well. I think the way to go, though, is leave the most necessary fair-use images—title screen, main characters (which itself could be better) and maybe another shot to summarise the series—and, rather than simply removing the others, finding free substitutes. It is a pity the graffiti was deemed non-free (though reading the policy they're right as it is a derivative of a copyrighted work), but there must be free images we can use to resolve the FU problem. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 07:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is interesting about Batman, I think it gets away with it because it was promoted in 2003, before the major FU crackdown. The issue with fair use vs free images I see is that if there was the possibility of finding free images then we wouldn't be able to use any fair use images (they would be deemed replacable) what kind of free images were you thinking of? The only thing I could think of is if we could find a free image of the panel at comic-con showing the cast/crew. That seems like a good addition to the article. I'm certainly open to any other ideas. Stardust8212 12:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use image issues, again 

message: How could PJs possibly reference the cancellation of Futurama when PJs was canceled LONG before? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 (talk • contribs).
:This may have been unclear, but I have fixed it (or at the very lest, attempted to) with this edit. --WillMak050389 05:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PJs 

message: Shouldn't the original run be changed to March 10 - August 10 2003 (on hiatus until 2008)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.187.117 (talk • contribs) 
:"Space Pilot 3000" first aired March 28, not March 10th so I don't see any reason to change that. Also I am not personally fond of using the term hiatus in reference to Futurama because it implies that at the time it ended it was known that it would eventually come back. This is not the case for Futurama as far as I can tell. Because of the complexity of the show's status I think the infobox should be kept as concise as possible and what we have now "March 28, 1999 – August 10, 2003 (original run) Returning February 2008" seems to be accomplishing that. I would personally remove the text "(original run)" as I think that should be clear from the context but I won't push it. Stardust8212 19:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orginal run 

message: Is this section really necessary? I would argue for a resounding "no"- it's just a bunch of unnecessary trivia. I'm not going to remove the section on my own, but I will if others agree with me. So the show is referenced in a comic and a song and another TV show... does this add anything at all to the article? -- Kicking222 21:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see some value (or possibility for value) in this if it could be well sourced but we need to be a bit more strict with removing any unsourced "references". If it wasn't significant enough to be mentioned in a reliable source it doesn't need to be included here. Right now it's a magnet for unsourced trivialness. In it's current state it will be a huge detriment to any FA run. Maybe we could also preface it with something meaningful, I'll think on it. Stardust8212 23:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I trimmed a few items with no sources, I would have added  but I didn't want unsourced trivia to jeopardize the GA rating. Stardust8212 18:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "References to Futurama in popular culture"

message: I have just added to the "Recurring jokes and catch phrases" section Ken Keeler's belief that underpants is a funnier word than underwear. This is almost always put into effect on the show, even when Keeler is not the writer. I will cite it from a commentary in the next few days, but I ask it not be removed until I have the chance. I think this content - about the show or its setting rather than the characters - is what the section in question needs more of (perhaps it should discuss the use of catch phrases rather than their existence). I also like the opportunity it gives to link to inherently funny word. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 02:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Underpants'' vs. ''underwear'' 

message: what exaltly is the meaning by the word"futurama"?Vanyar 04:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the title 

message: There are parts of episodes that feature 3D-like, CGI-like, smooth animation (such as most scenes of Planet Express Ship flying). Is there any information on this? If so, we should add it to 'Production' sub-heading. — mattrobs 09:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CGI 

message: I'm not exactly sure, but do they still make Futurama episodes? Or are they just replaying the old episodes over and over again? Burn N Flare 01:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The show was canceled in 2003 but it was revived recently in the form of four DVDs which will be released starting in November. On a related note, does anyone have a source for the supposed air date of January 1, 2008. I doubt the show is really going to start that day. Stardust8212 02:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Futurama still in production? 

message: A pic should be added showing all of the main cast at least.  Alot of the TV show pages have this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.10 (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the related discussion at #Fair use image issues, again further up this page. The image of the main characters was removed due to fair use concerns. If you mean the cast as in the voice actors then I agree that is a good idea. Do you own such a picture which could be licensed for use here? Stardust8212 17:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well why not :Image:Billywestcropped.jpg, :Image:Katey Sagal2.jpg or even :Image:Matt Groening.jpg? 172.203.71.103 20:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any of those images would be thoroughly gratuitous. Images should serve to help illustrate the section they are in, which none of those images do. Why show what the vocal actors look like, when it has nothing to do with what their character looks like (which puts it at a different level than other TV shows)? If we could get a picture of the entire cast, that'd be different, but otherwise people can just go to each actors' article if they want to know what they look like. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with EVula, I guess I should have been clearer in my previous comment. Stardust8212 02:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pic should be added 

message: I've introduced a "Drama" section, but it needs a Leela's Homeworld commentary quote. Can anyone provide this? :)
DIRed14.2 05:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drama 

message: What happend to the opening gags. Like "Or is it" or "TOO HOT FOR RADIO"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Nitro (talk • contribs) 15:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean, what heppened to them? Are you talking about this article, or the series? They continued on the series until its end and will likely come back with the return. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 08:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening phrase gags 

message: Does anyone have a reference for when middle initials were given to Kif and Zoidberg? The articles here list them as Doctor John D. Zoidberg and Lieutenant Kif L. Kroker. I'm thinking that their titles were simply used by fans/vandals to create middle initials. - Quolnok 15:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure when they were given but I know the Zoidberg article was just recently moved to the "full name" without discussion. I may suggest a move back on that talk page shortly. Stardust8212 16:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: However, it is revealed to be Dr. John A. Zoidberg in Bender's Big Score during the introduction of the characters and according to the script.  For these reasons, the Infosphere, keeps his entire name as such Dr. John A. Zoidberg.  However, we cannot confirm Kif's middle initials, therefore we have left it out. --Svippong 10:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle Initials 

message: I took out the reference to Fox executives reportedly disliking the show, as Ain't It Cool News (the reference given) seemed to be half-kidding on that point, and didn't seem to have a source for it. Graymornings 23:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fox executives "not liking" the show 

message: I am interviewing Billy West, voice of Philip J. Fry, Professor Hubert Farnsworth, Dr. Zoidberg and Zapp Brannigan, next Thursday, November 15.  If you have questions for West, leave them on my talk page.  --David Shankbone 22:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Would you like to ask [[Billy West]] a question?

message: Apparently Futurama: Bender's Big Score was 20th Century Fox's first Carbon neutral DVD release. I think this is an important note but I'm not sure where to add it. Source. Stardust8212 02:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carbon Neutral DVD 

message: I still think that Fry was "cryogenically" frozen instead of "cryonically" frozen. Most, if not all sources say that he was cryogenically frozen, and I haven't seen one source saying that he was cryonically frozen.
I've made a few google searches, and these were the results for "cryogenically frozen", and these results all describe Fry being frozen (see here for example). Then I did a search for "cryonically frozen", and the only results I got were Wikipedia's Futurama entry, and "The Cryonic Woman" episode title. Nothing else said he was "cryonically frozen".
The offical episode summary of Space Pilot 3000 said he was cryogenically frozen (as in the DVD's, not the Wikipedia article), and even the Futurama crew said cryogenically. One user said that they aren't scientists, so it should be "cryonically". Well, they are scientists. They created Futurama, and would what they are saying, otherwise a spell checking person of some sort would've corrected them before they released (not really, of course, but you get the idea).
This encyclopedia is built on sources, and saying he's cryonically frozen is ignoring the sources, which isn't what wikipedia does. I have read other books and comics that weren't related to Futurama, but were related to Fry's situation, and they all said "cryogenically frozen" (I can even upload a screenshot of a simpsons comic page if you want). Also, I'd like you to read The plot section of the first Austin Powers movie, where it says "he places himself in a cryogenic freezing chamber". And Cryonics in mass culture also says "cryogenically" a few times. Even a few other articles related to Futurama also say "cryogenically".
Judging by all these reasons I've listed, the word should be changed to "cryogenically"; even "cryogenically" would suffice. I am not going to change it now, as I don't want it to turn into another revert war, but I do want it changed to "cryogenically". This is all I ask. Thank you. --AAA! (AAAA) 03:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed the same trend in the media but was avoiding bringing it up, I wrestled with the same issue working on Space Pilot 3000. I honestly think our best course of action is to just say he was "frozen" and be done with it. "frozen at a cryogenics facility" or "frozen at Applied Cryogenics" are also good options. I'd just like the constant switching back and forth to end and if that can be accomplished by playing games with the wording then I'm all for it. Stardust8212 03:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a side note I decided to archive the talk page, previous discussions on this topic are now at Cryonics/Cryogenics and Cryonics/Cryogenics... again. Stardust8212 04:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to my dictionary (Oxford English), cryonics is "the practice or technique of deep-freezing the bodies of those who have died of an incurable disease, in the hope of a future cure," and cryogenics is "the branch of physics dealing with the production and effects of very low temperatures." l'aqúatique talktome 01:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if about 100 other articles, sources and external links say "cryogenically frozen" (such as the links I've given above), we might as well keep the Futurama articles saying "cryogenically" as well, unless you want to change all those articles to "cryonically frozen" and as ignore the sources. As I've said before, the "cryogenically" link would suffice, as it gives the word most commonly said and known, but will still link to the right definition of the word. --AAA! (AAAA) 00:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been thinking about it, and I'm taking Stardust's idea (just say "frozen" and leave it at that, but with a link). It's nice and neutral and won't cause any more edit wars. What about "cryopreserved"? --AAA! (AAAA) 00:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The comment above by l'aqúatique talktome provides correct definitions, as can be confirmed by looking at the definitions on the Wikipedia cryogenics page. Just because the terms have been misused by others doesn't mean that they need to be misused here. Having a link from "frozen" go to "cryonics" does not, at least, promote the common misuse of the term "cryogenics" to mean "cryonics", although from a technical point of view it is misleading, because "frozen" no more means "cryonics" than does "cryogenics". My first preference would be to restore "frozen in a cryonics lab", even though that is slightly misleading. But "cryopreserved" would be completely accurate, even if less informative, so I would find that to be an acceptable compromise if others find it more acceptable. --GirlForLife (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry to drag a lame edit war back up, but... 

message: A proposed deletion template has been added to the article United States of Earth, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy).  You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of United States of Earth.  Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just moving this from my talk page, it was apparently given to me due to my move of the page earlier then someone cut/pasting the content over the redirect, thus spliting the edit history. Anyways it's back at the wrong tittle, has been for a while now, and someone wants it gone. - Quolnok (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Multiple pages in  have been PRODed or listed at AfD. Interested editors should have a look through the template to see what all has been listed and if they can fix the articles to address the concerns. Stardust8212 04:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States of Earth 

message: There should be noted under ratings during the 7:00 EST time slot, if there was a NFL doubleheader that Sunday it always cut into most of Futurama on the East Coast. GWatson • TALK 09:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fox Sunday NFL Doubleheader. 

message: Not sure if you doyens of Futurama want to include this, but some of Bender's alcoholic preferences are in fact programming languages, eg; "Ye Olde Fortran". Nerdy. Rolinator (talk) 10:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nerd in joke apparently missed? 

message: There is a problem with this ref. It is to a blog site (that alone is a problem), but the real problem is that it is only viewable to people invited to view it. That is not acceptable as a source and should either be changed or a warning added. The sentence should also be changed because the only high definition DVD is HD DVD (Blu-ray Disc is not DVD and does not have the approval of the DVD Forum), and Fox is not supporting HD DVD. Maybe it should be changed to "high definition media". TJ Spyke 01:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref 55 

message: A couple of things in the series, most notably the idea of Martians being Chinese, and Suicide booths (complete with the main character thinking it's a phone booth and getting in line) seem to be lifted straight out of Robert Sheckley's 1950s SF novel "Immortality Inc." Is this worth mentioning?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.178.141.139 (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Sheckley 

message: the article says that there are 9 seasons to Futurama. I think that's incorrect, but I don't know for a fact. It also says there have been 9,999 episodes. I know thats false. Unfortuneately, I can't edit that, so would someone plz get to it?[[User:SxeFluff--SxeFluff (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was blatant vandalism, User:Ccs4ever fixed it. To fix things like this in the future consider reading WP:UNDO. Stardust8212 14:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  episodes...vandal 

message: Some mention should probably be made of how with the exception of Bender, Amy and Hermes, most primary characters' first names are rarely ever used and not even revealed until later episodes. --NEMT (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I will mention it in the characters section. Polarbear97 (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  first names 

message: I am moving this discussion from my talk page to this talk page, as this is the more appropriate place for it.  User Stco23 has been claiming that there are additional seasons of the show than what this article has previously reflected.  Here is what he claimed on my talk page:
I hope that Stco23 can elaborate on this point, as the way it is presented thus far is rather vague.  I believe that we should keep this page consistent with List of Lost episodes, which breaks down the seasons by production codes, making four seasons.  Can we please weigh in on this issue here and make a decision instead of having an edit war?  Thanks! Jtrost (T | C | #) 04:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding of the situation as I've seen it pop up on occasion at the episode pages is that there were four production seasons which due to delays and timeslot issues were originally broadcast as 5 seasons. The common practice on Wikipedia has been to organize the episodes based on the production rather than broadcast seasons, in part I assume due to their DVD release as four volumes rather than five. I don't think ratings in other countries are the reason they were broadcast as four seasons there but I won't speculate on that particular point. Is this the best practice? I don't know. Is it important to make it clear in the article that there is a difference between production and broadcast seasons? Absolutely. If this is not currently clear in the article then it is time we re-evaluate this practice and possibly consider the issues brought up with the recent deletion of List of Futurama episodes by broadcast order (AfD). I'm interested in opinions on this matter as I have seen other users suggest that the articles be organized by broadcast season and I think we need to consider that issue. Stardust8212 05:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I don't care if we list four or five or six seasons.  The quality of the articles will not change at all.  What matters to me is that everything between the articles stays consistent.  Perhaps we should ask for opinions at Wikiproject:Television and see if an issue such as this, where production and broadcasts seasons have conflicted, has occurred before. Jtrost (T | C | #) 23:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of seasons 

message: We'll be starting a review of each episode to see which ones need to stay and go. The main discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Futurama#Status of the episodes? TTN (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments on the status of the season one episodes are welcome and encouraged at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Futurama/Season 1 review. Thanks. Stardust8212 17:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode review

message: Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here . Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia, including this one. --Maniwar (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centralized TV Episode Discussion 

message: In the lead, the following sentence appears: "he is accidentally frozen, seconds before the start of a new millenium, on December 31st, 1999" whereas the character description for Fry says "was frozen just after midnight on the early morning of New Year's Day, 1 January 2000". This issue has arisen on the page before. I just want it cleared up. I don't have time to watch it right now, but if I recollect correctly: the masses of people count down to "one," then Fry blows the noisemaker, then he falls and topples into the freezer. I took this as meaning he blew the noisemaker when the "clock" went to zero and he fell in the freezer shortly after the new year began. What should be done? --WillMak050389 20:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "The series follows the adventures of a former New York City pizza delivery boy Philip J. Fry after he is frozen as the new millenium begins, and revived a thousand years later in the year 3000"? The 'thousand years later' phrase couuld just as easily go too. Ged UK (talk) 11:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about "The series follows the adventures of former New York City pizza delivery boy Phillip J. Fry after he is frozen on the night of December 31st, 1999 and unfrozen in the year 3000."  Would it still technically be considered the night of the 31st even though it was about 5 seconds after midnight?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.217.141 (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy 

message: "Carbon-neutral" status is a misnomer.  There is not such thing as "carbon-neutral", only "carbon-deffered."  One cannot pay someone else to carry the blame and then call yourself blameless.
:I wouldn't consider this to be POV, it's a simple restatement of the source material. Specifically, the original article  states "As the studio's first carbon-neutral release, the carbon impact of the production, manufacture and distribution of the Futurama Bender's Big Score DVD was directly assessed and actively reduced. For the unavoidable emissions, the studio used high-quality, verified carbon offsets." We already link to the article Carbon neutral which is where the actual meaning of the word should be explained. I'm not sure how we can word the current version of the article any differently without straying into the realm of original research or an extensive discussion that simply doesn't belong in an article about a television show. Do you have another source which described the DVD as carbon deferred? If so I would be happy to integrate any onformation from such a source into the article. Stardust8212 13:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about: Futurama Bender's Big Score was the first DVD release for which 20th Century Fox implemented measures intended to reduce the total carbon footprint of the production and distribution processes.  They refer to the changed processes as "carbon neutral". nman64 (talk) 09:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to your wording with a slight expansion to explain that carbon offsets were used. I also removed the disputed tag since nobody objected to your wording. I suggest that if anybody thinks there's a better wording that they be bold. Stardust8212 17:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV: Carbon-nuetral 

message: IMDB now lists a release date for the second Futurama film: March 18, 2008.  However, I have looked trying to find a reliable source to confirm this, but as of yet have been unsuccessful.  If anyone can confirm this, please edit this article and Futurama: The Beast with a Billion Backs to reflect that information. Excited as every other fan to get some confirmed release dates on the 3 movies. Thanks. FluxFuser (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date for The Beast With a Billion Backs 

message: The article says that Futurama was never oficially cancelled but in the Bender's Big Score commentary, they say that it was, and explain how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sly99 (talk • contribs) 
:Moved to end Ged UK (talk) 11:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Officially Cancelled

message: from 28th march 2008-present. sound funny to anyone?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.231.82 (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  original run 

message: This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I've commented out a few uncited statements in the 'Popular culture' section - which really should be incorporated into the rest of the article if possible, and there are a few minor referencing gaps and dead links (click here to check the links). The lead could possibly be expanded slightly too, although it is an adequate summary of the article at present. However, 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, EyeSereneTALK 13:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps (pass)

message: Our wiki theinfosphere.org have been granted an interwiki link (infosphere:).  I apologies for our recent downtime, but these issues have now been sorted.  Also I was thinking of perhaps linking to our in popular culture article from the "References to Futurama in popular culture" section (yes, I am one of the sysops there).  --Svippong 21:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Infosphere interwiki link. 

message: I've suggested that the newly created Old Freebie page be merged here, since it lacks the notability to survive on its own.  --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend simply redirecting it to Politics in Futurama, there's nothing that needs to be merged. Alternatively it could be redirected to A Taste of Freedom as that is the only episode that heavily features the flag as a plot point and might be the desired outcome if someone were to search for that term. Stardust8212 22:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, redirected to the episode.  Thought I'd let you guys work it out, since I'm not into the show.  --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Old Freebie]] page 

message: I just reverted this for the second time but I'm starting to question a couple things myself so I thought I should bring it here. Reading through Wikipedia:Layout it seems to me that:
*We don't need to link The Simpsons and The Jetsons in the see also section
*The Wikinews link actually belongs in the External links section
*There should be a link to Portal:Futurama in the see also section but if there is nothing else in the see also section it makes the formatting look bad.
I'm open to suggestions on this and I think I'll go revert myself and suggest we discuss it here. If everybody else likes the current setup then maybe it's fine to leave it that way and just add the portal link and move the wikinews link. Stardust8212 21:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikinews link is not an EL (see WP:LINKSTOAVOID, #13), but a "See also" - this has been brought up in other articles.  Wikinews, a sister project of Wikipedia, does not conform to EL standards, but it does fit in with See also section.  This is why we can actually wikify Wikinews stories.  --David Shankbone 21:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what got me all confused because looking at the code it looks like a wikilink but looking at the page it seems like an EL and looking at Wikipedia:Layout#External links it seemed to indicate that links to sister projects (quotes, news, etc.) belonged in the EL section. Mindboggling, so I came here for opinions. Stardust8212 21:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  This might be worth bringing up the discrepancy between the two.  I think "See also" is a better section since it's all Wikimedia-related (as opposed to Wipipedia or Wikia).  But I think this is one of those areas where some of us are operating under one guideline, and others under another...haha.  Which, happens a good deal on here.  If you raise the question somewhere besides here, let me know. I used to do Wikinews interviews as ELs, but then I was really taken to task for that.  --David Shankbone 21:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section 

message: I put in the article that "fry is also in love with leela", why people keep changing it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.162.68 (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because that wasn't all you were doing. You were also inserting a very poorly written unnecessary bit. Besides saying he is in love with Leela (while it may be true) isn't really warranted in a section where all we need to say are the most important aspects of the character. faithless (speak) 06:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I have always thought of "in love" to apply to a mutual aspect, which is clearly not the case in this relationship.  Fry indeed has a crush on Leela, as evident in several episodes, including the first film (and I am not saying it'll stop there).  If you want to apply something to Fry, apply that he has a crush on Leela, but is unable to reach her or something. --Svippong 09:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  fry in love with leela 

message: I'm not sure if the Bender's Big Score Annie Award should be listed in the main page with the other Futurama awards, or only inside the Bender's Big Score article. --javoec (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Bender's Big Score Annie Award 

message: What happened to the paragraph about the opening sequence being changed because of the 9/11 Tragedy, I think that it is important to mention this since the open sequence is a significant part of the show and any changes should be noted. Simon Bar Sinister (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't say for sure since I don't remember that part of the article very clearly but I suspect it was removed due to lack of a reliable source for the information in accordance with the verifiability policy. If I'm mistaken and there is a reliable source covering this topic then it is certainly reasonable to include it, post a link here if you find a source available online and I, or someone else I'm sure, would help you integrate the information back into the article. Stardust8212 20:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Having studied the opening sequence in all episodes and films, I have not noticed any difference, except the obvious differences in the first film's version.  But that is purely because it is a film and not a regular episode.  So if you have a source claiming that, then that is not a reliable source. --Svippong 11:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Sequence 

message: A user has been adding information that 13 new episodes will be aired on Comedy Central starting in 2008. The sources being cited are all from 2006 and refer to events happening at that time. I am under the impression that all of these items are referring to the four movies which were announced at that time, not a seperate set of episodes. Has there been any verification that these episodes are seperate from the movies which are being divided up and aired episodes? If so could someone please point me to a reference that actually makes this assertion? I am specifically referring to this edit where there is no indication that the source is referring to any new works outside the 4 DVD movies. Thanks for your input. Stardust8212 15:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I had undone it twice and I just wanted to make sure I wasn't doing something completely crazy. Stardust8212 17:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  new episodes 

message: Is there anything that supports the title "The Wild Green Yonder" as opposed to the "Into the Wild Green Yonder", which even have been suggested by David X Cohen himself (see appropriate talkpage for more information)?  I see no source, I only see a source suggesting the opposite (i.e. "Into the Wild Green Yonder"). --Svippong 10:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The title of the last film 

message: One of the problems with Wikipedia's semi-insistance that article content be derived from other sources is that it becomes difficult to add new observations. Here's an example...
I don't care much for animated short subjects. I have many problems with them, one of which is the way toons can -- if they wish -- do pretty much what they like. (Note Roger Rabbit's ability to "materialize" stars or birds circling his head.) A particularly egregious example is an MGM cartoon in which two bears go fishing and the fish whip out saws (where they came from is never explained) and cut holes in the fishing boat. This is not funny, if only because the bears seem to possess no such ability -- one can't they materialize a huge net to catch the fish? etc, etc, etc
Bender appears to pay homage to this toon ability, because whatever he needs at the moment seems to be available inside his chest cavity. Someone should mention this and discuss it. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a discussion of this (in a reliable source) it would be very welcome at Bender (Futurama), I know at one point the article discussed Bender's use of Hammerspace but I don't think it was ever cited. I'm not sure we want to go into that much detail about Bender in the main article when he already has his own article, I may be in the minority in that opinion though. I'll have a look around for any sources but even if they discuss Bender's ability it is somewhat unlikely that there will be one discussing its relation to classic animated shorts. Stardust8212 12:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

text: This is just a comment: I've always seen Bender's chest cavity as having a more scientific/mathematic explanation, such as being a hypercube, though there's no sources that I've found to agree with my opinion either. -- Chickenmonkey X  sign?  13:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I have no problem discussing this in the Bender article. But here's the problem... Why is my discussion of this point unacceptable? Why is a "reliable source" needed for a point of observation? Do I have to be an expert on cartoon history to post something? WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of the anonymity of the internet we wouldn't be able to use your observations even if you claimed you were an expert on cartoon history. The relevant Wikipedia policies are Verifiability and No Original Research, essentially the goal of Wikipedia is to be a tertiary source which summarizes what has already been written about any given subject. This means original ideas/theories cannot be included in the article and anything which is likely to be controversial or questioned by others needs to be stated in a reliable source before it can be written here. It's perfectly acceptable to bring it up on the talk page of course, now you have at least two more people looking for the information to improve the article. So anyway, it's nothing personal, it's just Wikipedia being Wikipedia. Stardust8212 01:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above: Wikipedians cannot add their own observations.  However this whole subject (the contents of Bender's chest) has a bearing on Futurama's setting in a fantasised future, which allows the writers to playfully invent technology - for jokes & problem-solutions.  Characters loose limbs & get them grafted back on, travel by all sorts of improbable means, & have other abilities because of the technology of the imagined thirty-first century.  Cartoons have often used this kind of non-sequeteur inventiveness, as WilliamSommerwerck mentions, but Futurama uses science fiction rationalisations to justify it.  The writers, producers & actors have certainly mentioned this in their episode commentaries (which are an acceptable source for Wikipedia, since they show what the people involved in the show think, rather than viewer opinions).  I listened to the Beast With a Billion Backs commentary yesterday, & there was certainly some mention of the creators (David X Cohen in particular) wanting all explanations of plot events to be 'scientific' rather than traditional 'cartoon magic' solutions.  Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bender as toon 

message: I feel it's best to bring this here since it's unclear. The PJs manhole cover appears in both I Second That Emotion and The Luck of the Fryish. Its appearance in I Second That Emotion came first and, thus, is the one being referred to in the article.-- Chickenmonkey X  sign?  01:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: PJs manhole cover

message: Shouldn't the Cast and characters section include Zapp Brannigan & Kif Kroker?
They may not appear in every episode, but they appear in a many & can be considered major characters, especially in light of the Amy & Kif romance, & the fact that either or both of them play a major role in the plot of several episodes.  Also Kif & Zapp are both the subject of a Wikipedia article (as are the other seven major characters listed here), which lesser characters are not.
Also: since the section is for cast as well as characters, it seems an injustice not to mention Maurice LaMarche and Tress MacNeille, both part of the regular cast, who voice so many of the minor characters in the show.
Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They are major secondary characters, but they are not primary characters.  Alternatively, you could split cast and characters up in two sections, "main characters" and "recurring characters", like in the Firefly article. --Svippong 13:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast and characters 

message: "Many robots live in apartments specially constructed for robots, with rooms the size of a typical coat closet and closets the size of typical rooms."
Is this actually the case?  I thought the joke was that Bender actually had a full-sized apartment, but only ever used the vestibule inside the front door because he thought the rest was a closet.  91.109.132.246 (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be in favour of removing this sentence.  It seems to be a joke from that episode only - no other references to robts having huge closets.  Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think there is.  Consider the isolation chambers they get in Insane in the Mainframe.  Though, I am still in favour of removing the sentence. --Svippong 23:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not really a reference to huge closets, though.  Anyway, I have removed the sentence.  91.109.132.246 (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bender's Apartment 

message: techinally zapp has been a member (and ending up a captian) for planet express in brannigan begin again. i dont know if thats worth mentioning but the sentence "Zapp Brannigan is not a member of the Planet Express crew" is incorrect 82.24.175.199 (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is not, as "is" is present tense.  And as the series is now, and by the end of said episode, he is no longer a member, those making the statement entirely accurate.  And no, it is not worthy of a mention.  Only in the article about the episode itself, Zapp's article and/or an article about Planet Express.  He is technically a "former member".--Svippong 13:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When referring to fiction, it is usually correct to always talk in the present tense.  You never know when someone is going to watch an episode. Oren0 (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose, but when using the present tense, you refer to what is common.  Or likely what is now (as in, the last episode/work/etc. (chronologically)).  For instance, Vergon 6 was a planet, before it was destroyed (or collapsed) in episode 4.  You would not say to me "it is a planet", cause you know it is gone in continuity.  Therefore, while using the present tense for fiction, it is best to use for the current state of events in said fiction. --Svippong 17:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Zapp Brannigan is not a member of the Planet Express crew" 

message: Is this article at our wiki worth mentioning? --Svippong 15:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubbing 

message: This article mentions Family Guy as another Fox show that was "short-lived" and then revived.  It may be true that Family Guy was in trouble and was revived (I am not a follower of that particular show), but "short-lived" by definition means that the show is no longer being made, which is clearly untrue as there are new episodes every week.  Perhaps "in trouble" or "fading" or any other word implying a weak show that needs a boost to remain a viable program?  Just a thought...    Wolf 63.76.209.49 (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Family Guy, like Futurama, was canceled by FOX, but the fan base for Family Guy was large enough to have it revived by the network whereas Futurama, in a similar manner, was allowed to create four new DVD movies because of the amount of fans, these movies are being chopped up and used for new episodes of the show. Both shows were originally "short-lived" in a sense, but have now come back. --WillMak050389 16:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family Guy Reference? 

message: Hi, I don't know if everyone updated their watchlists when the recurring characters articles were merged but there are some discussions at Talk:List of Futurama characters which could use some more participants. Please come offer your opinions on that talk page. Stardust8212 14:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ongoing Futurama related discussions