Talk:Hell Is Other Robots

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Hell Is Other Robots is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 9, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed November 14, 2007 Good article nominee Listed December 13, 2007 Peer review Reviewed December 22, 2007 Good article reassessment Kept January 31, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

Futurama Portal This article is part of WikiProject Futurama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the articles about Futurama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale. Mid This article is on a subject of mid-importance for Futurama-related articles. WikiProject Futurama tasks: edit  Here are some open WikiProject Futurama tasks: Ongoing Bring Futurama up to FA status. Keep Portal:Futurama up to date and update on a regular schedule. Needs attention All images linked in any Futurama article need to have a fair use rationale, this includes: episode articles done Character and list of character pages All miscellaneous pages (as linked in the Futurama template) All episode pages need to meet the standards of Wikipedia:Television episodes. A basic layout for how this can be accomplished is under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Futurama#Episode article organization-revisited. Examples of "Good Articles" include "Space Pilot 3000" and "Hell Is Other Robots". Expand Futurama Comics and its issues. Cubert Farnsworth Other Improve the voice actors' articles Change all references to episodes to be in-line citations. See Planet Express Ship for an example of how to do this. Please feel free to edit these tasks and to discuss these tasks. Hell Is Other Robots is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, an attempt to standardise coverage of Robotics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.   Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. FA This article has been rated as FA on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) Comedy Portal This article is within the scope of the Comedy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to comedy, comics, comedians, comedy movies, and the like. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation (see relevant arbitration case). Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. Scientology Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Archives

Archive 1

[edit] Episode review

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)

[edit] Spoilers in the lead

Because this is somehow controversial, here's a brief rundown of why I have removed (and am continuing to remove) the plot summary in the opening paragraph:

1. It's needlessly redundant. The plot is summarized perfectly well in the Plot section.
2. It's not vital to the reader's understanding of the topic. The reader doesn't need to know the entire plot before reading the rest of the article in order to understand any aspect of the article.
3. It's not what a lead section should contain. Basing this off of WP:LEAD, a full plot summary in the first paragraph does not "establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any" better than a single-sentence, spoiler-free plot summary would.
4. It's written like crap. In order to condense the entire plot into three sentences many of the more relevant points of the plot had to be glossed over, both giving an unclear impression of the plot and sounding rather awkward to boot.
5. It's a dick thing to do. Getting rid Template:Spoiler is one thing, but this crosses a line. We don't remove objectionable content when it is relevant to the article, but this is (as I've established above) badly written and redundant. It might be relevant to know that "wang", "dildo", and "cock" are slang names for the penis, but we don't stick that information in the lead of the article. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 12:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not written like crap at all. This article has went through the featured article candidates process and was commented on its good lead. May I also suggest you do not use terms like "its written like crap," as several editors have spent hours working on this article (including me), so terms like that don't help the working environment of the encyclopedia. The lead should fully summarise the article in question and cover all aspects. As for {{spoiler}}, that was deleted after large discussions and TfD debates took place months ago, so I suggest you actually quote where, from WP:LEAD that it says you should not have "spoilers" in the lead. Qst (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

1 From WP:LEAD "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." A concise overview of the article includes information on the plot of the article

2 See #1

3 See #1

4 I agree with Qst, it's not written like crap as evidenced by the peer review and FA processes.

5 I don't see it as being objectionable and I find your example irrelevant to this particular case. Slang names for the penis are not the bulk of the information necessary to understand the penis and thus would be trivial to include in the lead section whereas the plot of an episode, in an article about that episode, is not trivial. If we had an article on Slang terms for penis I would expectat the very least cock and dick to be included in the lead.

All that being said I think the final sentence of the lead summary "When Fry and Leela come to rescue him, the three escape safely." could reasonably be removed however I see no reason to remove the rest. Stardust8212 13:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think removing the brief plot overview from the lead is a bad decision. The lead for an article about a work of fiction should most certainly succinctly summarize the plot. --Laser brain (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

But you have been fighting to remove it above... Qst (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never commented here. --Laser brain (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry; just to clarify, my above comments was to Laser brain. :) Qst (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

But Laser brain never suggested removing the spoilers...? Yukichigai did and I suggested a compromise to remove one sentence but Laser brain never did... Stardust8212 15:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I also think the WP:LEAD is fine, and should not be changed from the version that successfully passed through the Featured Article Candidate process and was promoted to a Featured Article, save for minor copyedit and prose tweaking or typos correction. Cirt (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologise to Laser brain, I was under the impression that he/she was the user who kept removing the "spoilers" from the lead. Qst (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)