Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Futurama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
WikiProject Futurama tasks:
Archive
Archives
Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Archival and restart this project

I've archived the talk page since no one had said anything for a month. I think we need to do something to get everyone interested in this project again. My suggestion is to revamp the front page, update the portal and really get going on the supposed "collaboration department." Who is still actively working this project? I've been a bit lax lately myself and would like to have a direction to work in along with other editors. Ideas? Perhaps an FA run for Futurama or a GA run for another article would get us revved up again. Stardust8212 20:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Season/Episode numbers

Something that has come up is the use of production seasons instead of broadcast seasons for episode numbering. Why does this project use production numbering when other shows use broadcast seasons? Surely uniformity would be good between these types of shows so shouldn't the broadcast seasons be used?-Localzuk(talk) 16:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attention- Task needing quick attention

I noticed today that the screenshot used in Xmas Story had been deleted. The deletion log [1] shows it was speedy deleted for not having a fair use rationale. We need to add fair use rationale for all the images currently linked in any Futurama article. If you have a little time please try to do just a few of these and the task can get done quickly. Also if someone could get another shot for this episode and any other which may have been deleted (I'd do it myself but I only have season 4 on DVD). If you don't know what a fair use rationale should look like then just copy what is used on another picture like this one. Stardust8212 16:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If someone were to hand me a fair use image for that image, I could just undelete it. I'd do it myself, but I'm about to head out for a few hours. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I've added the fair use for seasons 2-4 (bleh) they aren't great but their mere existence should at least prevent speedy deletion. If anybody here knows what they should say feel free to chime in. Also since no one has chimed in with a shot from Xmas Story I used the image currently used for Robot Santa since it was from that episode but it is SMALL and get stretched by the episode infobox, it would be nice if it was just a few pixels wider, but enough griping. If anyone wants to help with season one and any images in character pages and lists I'd really appreciate it. Stardust8212 23:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Just an update, I've been informed that Image:Futurama 102 - Episode Two The Series Has Landed.jpg has an acceptable fair use rationale so that would be a good one to work from. Stardust8212 03:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episode article organization-revisited

There is a LOT of discussion going on right now about what the inclusion criteria for episode articles should be (check out Wikipedia talk:Television episodes) and I think a few ongoing issues are about to come to a head. I'd like us to avoid getting wrapped up in that whirlwind by taking a few preventative steps now. The main issue right now is people wanting to redirect the episodes to the season or episode list pages which would result in a lot of lost content as far as this project is concerned. the best way to prevent this is to make sure Futurama articles are covering all their bases as far as the guidleine is concerned. Let's cover the bullet points on that and I think that should give us a good argument if a mergist comes along:

  • No original research and verifiable content - We must have secondary sources! This is the main issue the articles have right now. If you know of any source which discusses a specific episode please add the information to the article and cite it or ar least post a link on the talk page for other editors to work with. Perhaps some of the links used in the main Futurama article have some content that can be used.
  • Avoid excessive trivia and quotations - The quotes sections have finally been eliminated but we need to really take a hard look at all the articles and ask ourselves what is trivial and what is useful. I know everyone here wants the articles to be comprehensive in everyway but that is simply not a realistic way to handle this matter.
  • The article should contain:
  1. A brief summary of the episode's plot - Check, the current suggestion is that this should be about 250 words, some articles may need to be trimmed slightly
  2. The episode's relevance in ongoing story arcs, if any - This is generally covered in "Foreshadowing" and "Continuity" sections right now but shuld be fleshed out in some cases and changed to prose rather than lists
  3. How the episode was received by critics - This is what we are really lacking, IGN has a top 25 episodes list which I plan to include in those articles
  4. Information on production and broadcasting of the episode - We have this in some articles but it is largely unsourced
  5. Real-world factors that have influenced the work or fictional element - not clear yet if this would be what we call "Cultural references" but we're getting close

So, seeing as we keep reorganizing our articles I think as of now they should be covered like so:

  • Plot 200-400 words, try to reduce longer ones if possible
  • Continuity (includes foreshadowing and connections to other episodes and story arcs)
  • Production
  • Broadcast and Reception
  • Cultural references - try to keep them brief and not too wild with speculation. Consider how influential the work was and how similar they are and consider trimming the list if possible. If an outside source has also noted the parody factor please add that source!
  • All those extra sections like characters, products, inventions, cultural references or anything which isn't called trivia but may be considered as such by some readers
  • Trivia should be the last thing on the page and should be avoided if at all possible, try to integrate any meaningful facts into other sections and remove anything that is there only because someone thought "it was kinda interesting maybe"
  • External links, see also, references
  • Per Wikipedia:Television episodes#Things to avoid we should remove any quotes, song lyrics or goofs sections I've handled the quotes and lyrics already and will hit the goofs as I see them.

Please discuss any suggestions for how best to do this because I would really hate to see a lot of our hard work get trashed. I'd much rather have the people who want to get rid of episode articles come along and think "Now this is how the subject is supposed to be handled". I know The Simpsons has GA and even FA articles so I know we can do it! Stardust8212 21:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried this out on "Amazon Women in the Mood" which already had some notability comments (so it was easy) see the diff. The cultural references could probably use some more trimming and I only got the plot from 728 to 463 words but its a start. Does this seem like a good way to do this? Stardust8212 01:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Update: Tried it on a couple more episodes with no complaints. The hot issue still seems to be under discussion and it continues elsewhere if anyone else wants to follow the debate. Stardust8212 12:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad news nobody, as I'm sure any of you that are watching episode articles have realized my worst fears on this issue have been realized. Every Futurama episode article has now been tagged and could be redirected in fourteen days. If you thought I was over reacting before I hope this now shows that this is an issue we need to deal with immediately. This is the time for the wikiproject to come together and really work this issue. I'll continue to do what I can by myself but my current rate is only about one article a day and I don't have 72 days before this needs to be resolved. Please help me New Justice Team! Stardust8212 02:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a list of articles that don't yet fit the above criteria? I've looked over some random episodes and they're all properly proper, it seems... I'll work where I'm needed, of course. But where exactly would that be? The Good Ol' Country Doctor Ụšəг ŧª∫Қ 05:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Every episode of Futurama has been tagged so I'd point you at List of Futurama episodes. The articles that particularly need assistance are any that have no references, particularly from outside, reliable sources. You can see my ineffective attempt to protest the article tagging at Wikipedia talk:Television article review process#Two issues Stardust8212 12:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
You either need to give general sources that assert notability for all episodes or let them be redirected and work on the few that can possibly meet it. The Devil's Hands are Idle Playthings is the best episode here, and it isn't even close to being worthy. TTN 03:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Note to those still interested in this topic, there is an ongoing discussion here if you want to follow it. Stardust8212 16:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A new proposal for episode articles

I've put some further thought into this subject and I think the episode articles as a whole are improving though not nearly fast enough and most of them still don't seem to pass muster. I'm still looking for sources when I have time but they're starting to get pretty thin. There are a few pay to view sites I may yet try but well, I have to pay for them before I even know if they'll be useful. I've also come to a point in the improvement process that I've been trying to avoid for many months now but can no longer deny. The trivia needs to go. Wikipedia has a guideline about avoiding unsourced trivia (WP:AVTRIV) and let's face it, that's what the "Cultural references" sections are. I love those sections as much as the next guy (they're actually what made me into a steady contributor) but I can no longer pretend they are somehow ok. My proposal is to move the "Cultural references" sections from all the episode articles onto their talk pages with the exception of any sourced material. For example in "Hell Is Other Robots" I would move everything not sourced leaving the section sourced from the Pinsky book. The items that remained could then be made into prose which is much better than a list anyway. I'd like to hear the rest of the group's thoughts on this. I want to come up with a better solution but I am unable to come up with one. If a better solution is found later, then everything would still be on the talk page. Stardust8212 00:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Three days, no comments? I'm going to start being bold then, that tends to bring out the nay-sayers at the very least. Stardust8212 23:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I vote against it. Cultural References is what makes these articles great. And it's cross-referencing to other Wikipedia articles only are further enjoyable. I don't come here to read the freakin' plot. – mattrobs 02:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Right, Wikipedia is not for plot summaries. I agree entirely however one of the core policies of Wikipedia is also no original research and everything needs to be verifiable from reliable sources. We need to expand the articles from an out-of-universe perspective but we need to do it in the right way. Right now most of the cultural references sections are unsourced trivia magnets. If you have a suggestion to solve this problem and bring the articles in line with policies and guidelines without removing information then I would love to hear it. Stardust8212 02:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
How are these Cultural References any different from most of the unsourced references in the Simpsons episode articles? I'm all for the absence of original research, but if you delete the unsourced cultural references, there's nothing left (that's obviously an exaggeration, but you get my idea.) — mattrobs 03:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
They're no different than the ones in The Simpsons articles. Look at the episodes linked from The Simpsons (season 8). Almost all of those episodes have reached GA or FA status, they're some of the best work of Wikipedia. Now look at how they have done the cultural references, they're referenced! I think we should make the Futurama articles as much like those Simpsons episodes as possible and that includes taking the actions I suggested above. As for any Simpsons episodes that still have unsourced info, I suspect the Simpsons wikiproject is working on that in their own time, I'm only concerning myself with making Futurama articles the best they can be. Stardust8212 04:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Matt. The Cultural References are the best part of these articles, especially for people who may have missed things the first time around. You are seeing a problem where none exists, and your one-man crusade is ruining many of these articles. If you want to make it better, start looking up citations instead of deleting things and/or moving them to pages most people won't see. VictorTyne 18:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
In case you were wondering, and feel free to look at the article histories to confirm this, I am the only person who has added citations for these. Also, please familiarize yourself with the official policy on this matter. It is the burden of the person who wants to include the information to add reliable cited sources. I will be more than happy to help you add any sources you care to find to the articles, my own resources are beginning to run dry. Also if you think I am seeing a problem where none exists consider getting up to date on the goings-on at WP:EPISODE and the review process associated with it. There are people who would be more than happy to use this as evidence that all of these articles should be redirected. I'm doing everything I can to make these articles better and I plan to continue until someone suggests a better way to handle this, leaving it as it is isn't acceptable. Stardust8212 01:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I found this site, I don't know if it's new or old, but some of the cultural references are in there, but I don't know if it would be considered a legit source. Thoughts? jjthewonderboy 04:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
(reduce indent) As far as my understanding goes that (and fansites in general) is not a reliable source according to wikipedia policy. I'd suggest reading WP:RS and let me know if you agree. Specifically "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." Most fansites do not have such a reputation. Stardust8212 13:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Yup, I agree, thanks for the link, this is why I asked first. jjthewonderboy 19:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how cultural refrences are against WP:EPISODE... --Duke B. Garland 22:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple issues with cultural references sections that go against what is stated in the episode guideline
  • All discussion and interpretation of television episodes must be supported by reliable, published sources. - As stated above I have no problem with cultural references sections which are properly sourced however unsourced cultural references go against Wikipedia's basic policies of verifiability and no original research. I fully endorse the inclusion of any cultural reference information which can be cited to a reliable source.
  • Trivia sections are unencyclopaedic, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Relevant information should be integrated into the body of the article. - As they are currently formatted the cultural references sections are a hive for bad trivia. My proposal is to integrate the sourced information into a prose form more fitting of an encyclopedia.
I hope that answers your question, let me know if I could explain any more of my reasoning to you. Stardust8212 23:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
You did answer my auestion, however... I don't see how this is a thing that can/should be soursed. For example. If there is some joke in the video with referencing or spoofing something. Some people get the joke, some don't. There is the fact that such joke or cultural reference is present in the video. So is that a statement that needs to be sourced? It's a fact, not a statement. The only case i imagine that could be sourced is when somebody from production (like Matt himself) would say in some interview "That was a joke about <...> and that was a joke about <...>"... Quite stupid...
My impression is that you are overreacting lately. I've browsed through different articles and such stuff is quite common, even in topics quite far from tv shows. You're doing a great amount of good stuff in this project, but that's just... They are like the heart of the articles, the only reason i (or anyone) even would care to read them. They could be rewritten if you don't like the plain list, but should not be removed --Duke B. Garland 16:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
You may think I'm overreacting but as I've been following the recent debates I don't think I am. For instance the ongoing ANI discussion Potential problem conerning episode articles shows that episode articles are currently getting a lot of attention and my purpose is to improve them to avoid unwanted negative attention. There is still an ongoing effort to remove unreferenced an non-notable episode articles at Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review and all my efforts here are directed at helping Futurama survive this review by bringing the articles in line with policies and guideline. Also note that "I like it" is generally considered to ne be a valid argument in most deletion debates see WP:ILIKEIT (an essay, not policy).
Also, I am considering a revision to my plan. I still believe wholeheartedly that the lists of unreferenced trivia are not acceptable by wikipedia policy, nothing has yet convinced me otherwise, however I am thinking that I will only remove the unreferenced bits from the articles which have enough references to write a paragraph without them. For example in Space Pilot 3000 I was able to write an entire paragraph of referenced info so there's no reason to add the unreferenced bits back in but if there are no citable sources I will leave the list for now, obviously those pages will never meet Wikipedia's Good Article standards but maybe it will encourage someone else to do something positive with the articles. I can live with that for now but I still think it is a bad idea. Stardust8212 16:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Update: We seem to have attracted someone else who doesn't like these sections (diff), please note I did not ask him to come get involved in this issue, it was coincidental but does support the theory I am not the only one who thinks these are a problem. Stardust8212 15:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
If possible, you should try to stick any important cultural references into development. Even if some can be sourced, they really should have some relevance to the development to be included. There really is no need for a section that's just a list in paragraph format. TTN 22:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm using The Simpsons (season 8) as my jumping off point since many of those are featured/good status, I believe giving them their own section is how those articles handle it (see Homer's Phobia). I consider the ones that have been referenced to be notable enough for inclusion but I haven't found a better way to handle them. They often don't flow with production or reception notes and I don't want to bog down the brief plot synopsis (or hopefully brief) with excessive details to explain the references. I am always open to suggestions on how this could be handled better, as stated above I've started running out of them myself. Stardust8212 01:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Recently, I noticed the Cultural References section of the Mars University page did not include the scene copied from Good Will Hunting. I edited it to include it, but it was promptly removed. After reading much of Stardust8212's discussion on the issue of the section in general, I have a question to pose: How can one go about sourcing such information? It's something that would be immediately obvious to anyone who's seen both, but it's not like you can include the movie as a source. I really don't believe this is something that can be considered original research. Further, it's impractical to find a source like that used in Homer's Phobia, which is both (1) not something that exists for every TV show, and (2) reflects the same thing my addition does in this case: one person noticing a visual quotation. Certainly if it's a questionable reference, subject to interpretation, sources would be necessary, but not for something like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.159.45 (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
While I agree with Startdust that we must meet the requirements of the wikipedia page, I am somewhat at a loss as to how one would go about sourcing cultural references as well. Noticing that there is a cultural reference usually seems to be a fairly straightforward process. There are other articles, such as that on the Thorax which barely reference anything, even when it would seem that such definitions are appropriate (for example, that article is defining various terms in physiology, and references nothing). Therefore, there are two questions: first, how are the cultural references any different than that article's lack of reference, and second, how might we find sources to back up these references?Mad2Physicist (talk) 08:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The first question is easy, they aren't any different. The thorax article should be referenced just like any other article. The only difference I can see is that nobody is going to try to delete the article on the thorax no matter how bad the article is, because it's an inherently encyclopedic topic, people will try to delete/merge/redirect tv episode articles if they are uneferenced and in poor shape. Finding sources is difficult, I won't lie. The commentary track is usually good for a couple and sometimes there are a few articles that bring up certain aspects. For a couple examples of what to look for check out the references for the cultural references section of Space Pilot 3000 and Hell Is Other Robots. Stardust8212 11:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion, though it may not be feasible under wikipedia regulations: What if, instead of having "Cultural References" sections, we changed these to "Cultural parallels," and instead of actually claiming that there are references in the shows themselves, we instead simply list the parallel instances. For example in The Cyber House Rules, we might simply not that "Phaser eye surgery" involves the word "phaser" from star trek and also bears a strong resemblance to the term laser eye surgery. Since we are then not claiming that there is any actual reference, would we still need to have a reference? A reference is, of course, preferable when possible, but as discussed above, tracking down references for these (admittedly quite obvious) references is quite difficult.Mad2Physicist (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that sounds odd. I meant to say, "since we are then not claiming that there is any actual cultural reference, do we still need a source reference?Mad2Physicist (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I my opinion changing the name and wording would not change how they need to be handled and that they should, ideally, have a source. For example many people feel that changing the title of a section from "trivia" to "cultural references" does not change the content of the section from being trivia, occasionally people still add the {{trivia}} tag to them as is. Stardust8212 10:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, they would probably be seen as equivalent. Certainly either way, one would like to have references. The problem of course is that finding references is nontrivial and so will take some time. I notice that only on some pages the "Culture" sections have been moved to the "Talk" pages. I am unsure of the reason, but I at least would vote that they be moved there, rather than possibly being lost should there be some outside objections. As said above, the Cultural References are the best part of the pages, and it would be best to preserve their content until it can be restored to the main articles with sources. In the meantime, I will try to find some sources. It is too bad there is no "Futurama and Philosophy" book as there is for the Simpsons or Family Guy - those are always chock full of explanations of cultural references and would make great sources. (Sorry, forgot to sign)Mad2Physicist (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I think most of seasons one and two have been moved, mostly by me, but I never finished the rest of the episodes. I agree, finding sources is pretty hard but I am very happy to have some help. :-D Stardust8212 10:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This might not be an ideal source but it does have quite a bit of information, at least for some episodes: http://www.things.org/~jym/y3k/ Mad2Physicist (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Episode coverage

The WikiProject Television episode coverage taskforce have recently been working on a review process for episode articles. There are a rash of articles about individual episodes which fail notability, and are unlikely to ever reach such requirements. Many contributors are unaware of the specific guidelines to assess notability in episode pages: Wikipedia:Television episodes. We have expanded these guidelines to make them more helpful and explanatory, and we invite you to read the guidelines, and make any comments on its talk page. After much discussion, we have created a proposed review process for dealing with problem articles. See: Wikipedia:Television article review process. We invite discussion of this process on its talk page. General comments about this whole process are welcome at the episode coverage taskforce talkpage. Thanks! Gwinva 10:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Award

It has been in my attention that there is much to be accomplished by this WikiProject. It has also come to my attention that there is much that has been done by this WikiProject. And there are many people who have helped to achieve this. (I myself-- not so much. But I'll get around to it, I swear!) Anyway, I thought that, like other WikiProjects with productive fans, we might have our own Barnstar award. This is an idea right here, although by no means a final draft. I just knocked up the image haphazardly, and I expect it'll go through quite a few more revisions before it's all fine and dandy. But anyway... Comments, friends? The Good Ol' Country Doctor Ụšəг ŧª∫Қ 22:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The Holophonor Award
But only a few people in the whole universe can play that... And they're not very good at it! -Turanga Leela
Place congratulatory message here.
I like the idea, I think if people felt more appreciated they wouldn't get bored and drift away from the project (so much still to be done!) there are certainly people who deserved an award and I haven't given them one. There was a previous suggestion to have a "Member of the Fortnight" but I recently removed it from the main project page because as far as I could tell it had never been awarded to anyone. Stardust8212 22:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revisions to WP:FICT

Wikipedia's guideline on the notability of fictional elements has been recently revised. Check out the changes at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and the discussion on the talk page. Remember this guideline is what governs many of the articles regarding characters and items in the Futurama universe so make sure you're familiar with it so we can continue to improve Wikipedia's Futurama articles. Stardust8212 01:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Space Pilot 3000 peer review

Hey gang, I've nominated Space Pilot 3000 for peer review (here) after making many of the proposed changes from further up the page. Now would be a great time for everyone to have a look at the article and see what else could be improved. Thanks! Stardust8212 03:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Audio Commentaries as Citation

I noticed that there is a "citation needed" tag in the Production section for Hell is Other Robots. In this example in particular, I know that the "Fight for Your Right" portion can be cited in the audio commentary for the episode. How do we go about using audio commentaries as citing material? They could definitely be used to add information into not only the article linked, but also articles throughout the WikiProject/Portal. --Icweiner 03:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added some commentary citations. Have a look at Space Pilot 3000 for a look at how I've been doing it. Generally if you can just include which commentary it was in and who said it that should be good enough. Stardust8212 03:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Robot references

Hello, I need some help finding citations involving the show and figured this would be a good place to ask. I'm trying to clean up the article for the science fiction short story collection I, Robot. It seams as though this show has payed homage to it several times. I found a ref for the episode "I, Roommate" in the article for that page, but still need one for "The Cyber House Rules" and "Anthology of Interest II." DVD commentary will probably verify that at least one of these is a spoof/tribute to the Asimov book. Also, anyone who would like to expand the paragraph about Futurama references to I, Robot would be more than welcome; as it stands there are only three short sentences. Thanks. Sbacle 13:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trimming character lists

I've started a new possibly controversial discussion at Talk:List_of_recurring_human_characters_from_Futurama#Trim_list. I'd appreciate getting as many opinions on the subject as possible. Thank you! Stardust8212 23:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What also may be of interest to anyone interested in working on list of characters articles is this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Warcraft characters. I'm not sure yet how it will close but the fact that it has been nominated shows we need to be more careful about how the list of characters pages under this project are treated. If everyone in this project could take a little time to remove speculation and excessive detail and replace it with sourced out of universe information the articles would improve at an alarming rate. Stardust8212 20:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parentage with Comedy WikiProject

I was wondering if the Comedy WikiProject is a parent of the Futurama WikiProject? Is it so and should it be added? ISD 21:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I added it, we're pretty loose with the parentage here. Stardust8212 01:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! ISD 07:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project News

For those of you not following the ins and outs of every page in the project heres a quick update of what's been going on.

  • "Space Pilot 3000" and "Hell is Other Robots" have been promoted to good articles. For those of you interested in working on episode pages you should also be aware that there is a pending Request for Arbitration regarding the actions of some users in the realm of episode and character articles.
  • List of Futurama animals and List of fictional devices in Futurama have been nominated for deletion. Remember AFD is not a vote but if you have strong feelings about either article then consider leaving your comments at the discussion.
  • Futurama: Bender's Big Score will be released in the US on Tuesday and I expect there to be a surge of new editors or IP editors in many Futurama related articles including the various character pages and the main Futurama page along with the movie's page. It would be great if experienced users could help direct these efforts in the appropriate direction to keep the articles in line with policies and guidelines.

Well, that's the news update. Good luck and happy editing. Stardust8212 17:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review, Hell Is Other Robots

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 16:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Articles on AfD

Noticing various articles such as D.O.O.P., United States of Earth, Planet Express, and the like are subject for deletion. Recommending merging all of them into a single List of Themes from Futurama article. Any objections to that? KyuuA4 10:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:United States of Earth. Also, as far as making another "list of" article I think that would be a bad move, it would be better for a themes section to use sourced prose rather than just a list. Just my 2 cents. Stardust8212 14:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Create a Portal to go along with the WikiProject?

You may wish to create Portal:Futurama when/if there is enough good content, to go along with this WikiProject. Then you could add {{Portal|Futurama}} to the Template:FuturamaWikiProject, and it would sort of be a way to pull everything together. Check out Portal:The Simpsons for an idea. Better yet, check out Portal:Sustainable development - though unrelated, it is rated among Wikipedia:Featured portals. (Check out some other Featured Portals there too if interested.) Cirt (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

  • Oops, didn't see there was an existing portal. But you could still use the examples I gave above to work on upgrading the quality of the portal. Cirt (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Status of the episodes?

How are the the episodes developing? Is there enough material actually get most of them up to our standards, or it is just a few here and there? If not, I suggest an episode by episode "review" or something like that. TTN (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect it'll be something like 50-50 or 30-70 or some other ratio. I could tell you which ones I think will eventually reach the standard but I can't necessarily prove it. We've had some success getting Space Pilot 3000 and Hell Is Other Robots passed as GAs. Much like the Simpsons there is episode commentary for every episode but there aren't as many books and the like for a reception section. My on-wiki time may be limited with the holiday season fast approaching (as I'm sure will be true for many others) so I'd appreciate if we could wait to start any episode-by-episode analysis until at least after the new year. Stardust8212 17:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Would you be against a review starting at this point? It'll be as slow as you guys need, so don't feel any pressure or anything. TTN (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
While I can't honestly say I'm entirely for it starting (a big part of me hates to see them go even if the rest of me is a fan of policy enforcement as a general concept) I don't have any further good excuses to delay. I'll try to start up on a list of those which I hold out hope for and possibly ping a few other members of the wikiproject, the talk page here is rather stagnant most of the time. We should probably leave notes at Talk:Futurama and Talk:List of Futurama episodes as well. Stardust8212 23:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
That works for me. I'll leave notes on those two talk pages (I'll leave you to gather people). If you can just leave me a message when you're ready to start, that would be nice. TTN (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess I'm as ready as I'll ever be, I have my list together of the status as I see it. I don't know if any of the people I asked to participate in the discussion will or not as none of them have responded. Stardust8212 03:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
So, how do you think it should be done? Do you want to go slowly by trying to get some "outsiders" and setting up a subpage to go over something like ten a week, with in-depth discussion for each? Or do you just want to list them and discuss single cases as necessary? TTN (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure. I sorted based on a few criteria: WP:GA listing, episodes that won awards, episodes that were nominated for awards, episodes that got what could be considered "significant coverage" from secondary sources (probably the category most open to debate). Obviously some things will be in more than one category. Perhaps we should start with the first season (13 episodes) and see how that goes. Maybe we could work on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Futurama/Season 1 review and do a level 2 heading for each episode and discuss each individually, some will be pretty clear decisions I expect but if a lot of people got involved then discussing them all could become a huge mess. I would like to see a large group involved in this since it is clearly still a hot topic at AN/I and RfArb. It might be useful if some of the people who keep telling both sides to stop edit warring actually saw what happened in the discussion phase and participated themselves. Let me know if this sounds workable. Stardust8212 22:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Any method will be fine with me. TTN (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Are we ready to start? We can probably post something on the television wikiproject, the episode guideline, and some other places to garner attention. TTN (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and create Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Futurama/Season 1 review and put down my thoughts on the first 13 episodes. I'd been putting it off with the RFC, Arb case and proposed crit. discussions ongoing but we can see how it goes and see what comes out of those discussions and how it will affect this later. Stardust8212 16:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, if you want to wait for it to be over, that's fine. I didn't even think about that. Though, I really doubt its going to have too much of an impact on anything. After looking at it for the first time just a little while ago, the people there seem to be looking to "Stop TTN from being able to remove bad articles at all costs instead of working to create an environment where it is easy to actually discuss without having to deal with wikilawyering and people looking to keep their important articles at all costs." TTN (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I know what you mean, I'm keeping out of the arb this time because it's just more of the same bickering, anyway it doesn't hurt to at least have the discussions now though even if we choose to wait until after the case closes to act on them. Besides, it can only help you if you show you're engaging in discussion. Anyway, subpage created, hopefully we can get a few people to chime in. Stardust8212 17:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Borrowing info?

http://futurama.overt-ops.com/ has a nice wealth of information that Wikipedia could import. Lbgrowl (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Is any of it referenced to reliable sources? Do they have a content policy compatible with Wikipedia? Stardust8212 01:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
No, in short; the Infosphere uses a Creative Commons license with a non-commercial condition. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 11:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted 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 [2]. --Maniwar (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hell Is Other Robots

The episode Hell Is Other Robots has been nominated as a Featured Article Candidate. Comments are welcome at the nomination page. Stardust8212 14:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guidelines

[edit] WP:FICT has been revised

WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live [3] Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. Ned Scott 22:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Notability (serial works)

There is a proposal to split WP:EPISODE into a more general notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (serial works), and make the rest of WP:EPISODE just a MOS guideline. Please join in at WT:EPISODE#Proposed split of EPISODE and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (serial works). -- Ned Scott 22:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Class and importance ratings

I finally cleared all of the episode articles out of Category:Unassessed Futurama articles and I thought I should drop a note here with how I determined class and importance.

Class
  • Stub class was used if there were no references whatsoever or occaisionally if there was only one. The idea is that if all the unreferenced trivia in those articles were removed it would clearly be stub length with little more than a plot summary.
  • Start class was used if there were only a few references and no production section (easily available from DVD commentaries) or if there was only a production section but no references for broadcast/reception
  • B-Class was for articles that have a production section and reception section, both of which had inline citations
  • GA and FA are defined as with any other article on Wikipedia, A-class was not used since we don't have a currently active review system
Importance - For now I placed all episodes in "mid" importance except Space Pilot 3000 (pilot), The Devil's Hands Are Idle Playthings (finale) and Roswell That Ends Well (Emmy win). There may be other exceptions to this rule but they should be judged on an individual basis and I didn't feel comfortable trying to rank "this episode is more important than that one"

Everyone should feel free to reassess the articles as necessary especially if I've made an error or if you feel the article has significantly improved. Hopefully this will give people an idea of which articles need the most help and where they can easily show improvement and achievement. Stardust8212 01:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improve an article, earn a barnstar!

In order to encourage everyone to improve Futurama articles I am offering barnstars in return for improving articles to a specific standard. If you complete any of the following tasks I will reward you with a barnstar!

  • Create or expand an article on any person associated with Futurama and get it approved for Did You Know. This includes writers, producers, directors and voice actors.
  • Expand any Futurama episode article in category Category:Stub-Class Futurama articles to B-class status. The article must have both a production and reception section with in-line citations in order to be considered B-class.
  • Improve any episode or character article to good article status.
  • Improve any episode or character article to featured article status.
  • Improve Futurama to FA status.

This offer applies only to future work so barnstars will not be awarded for articles which are already at FA or GA status (sorry Cirt). If you think you have completed one of these tasks then please leave a message here or on my talk page with appropriate diffs and links. I'm hoping this will inspire people to work on these articles.Stardust8212 22:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article listing notable one-time characters in the Futurama series

I'm just curious as to why there is no article for notable (not just a character featured in the background or something) one-time characters in Futurama? I think of several notable characters off the top of my head that could be adequately covered in such an article and I'm surprised their isn't one. .:Alex:. 20:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A similar article existed at one point but was deleted after the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of secondary characters from Futurama. Stardust8212 21:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Space Pilot 3000 Peer review

I have listed Space Pilot 3000 for peer review. If you have time please leave comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Space Pilot 3000/archive2. Thank you. Stardust8212 21:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC on WP:FICT

A request for comment has been made to determine if the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) proposal has consensus. Since this project deals with many fictional topics, I am commenting here. Input on the proposal is welcome here. --Pixelface (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)