Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation/Futurama task force/Archive 2

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)

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)

I totally agree with you the Article should be numbered after broadcasting not production which is totally irrelevant. Many Sites that could be used as Reference do this in broadcasting order like http://uk.tv.ign.com/objects/824/824086.htmlDiaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The DVD releases use production order and seasons not broadcast order and seasons. Since many sources discuss the fact that the series was often preempted and broadcast out of order it makes sense to explain the intended order of the episodes in contrast to the order they were broadcast. This is the same method used by Firefly (TV Series). We should do what makes sense for this series, not change it just because other series do it differently and I at least think that the production order is what makes sense in this instance. Stardust8212 20:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is I find the TV and Production order very confusing. When I want to read about episode 1 of Season 2 in List of Futurama episodes it would be in Season 1 episode 10. The List doesn't mean the Futurama Season list they mean the DVD Volume List which is something else. If someone wants to create a Season Article for these Seasons they would use the TV-Order and mention that the DVD release has a different order, which would be less confusing. Can I at least change the name of the Season to Voulme.Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You need to bring it up at the talk page there and see if you gain consensus. Current consensus is to keep it the way it is, there was a recent discussion about making sortable tables but it didn't pan out and ended up with what is there now. Stardust8212 04:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 WikiProject Futurama Holophonor Barnstar 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Hell Is Other Robots promoted to WP:FA. Thank you so much to everyone who helped out at the FAC and with the article in general, including Stardust8212 (talk · contribs), and Qst (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Article reassessment to match new grading scale

For those of you not aware, the rating scheme has recently been expanded to include a new “c-class” rating and some of the descriptions of other classes have been revised. Since this projects rating system never really got off the ground and I decided the ratings of most of the articles it seems like it is time for us to do a run through and re-rate the articles. I have pulled together a little briefer on rating articles and I’m hoping to get some inputs on whether this sounds about right for rating. If we’re in general agreement about the rating scheme then it will be time to go through all the articles covered by this wikiproject and make sure their ratings are correct. In particular I would appreciate comments on whether the examples I've listed here are good examples of the classes or if there are better examples. Stardust8212 17:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• FA class

• FA class is reserved for articles which have gone through WP:FAC and passed. If you believe an article should be an FA but currently isn’t then nominate it! Examples: Hell Is Other Robots

• FL class

• FL class is reserved for articles which have gone through WP:FLC and passed. If you believe a list should be a FL but currently isn’t then nominate it! Examples: None so far.

• GA class

• GA class is reserved for articles that have been nominated at WP:GAC and been reviewed and passed by an uninvolved editor. If you believe an article should be GA but currently isn’t then nominate it! Examples: Futurama, Space Pilot 3000, Matt Groening

• A class

• WikiProject Futurama does not currently have an A class review process and thus it is unlikely that any articles in WP:FUTU will be rated as an A class. An article should only be A class if another project which does has a review process has reviewed the article and passed it. Examples: None so far

• B class

• A B class article should be close to a GA standard and should meet the B class criteria. The article should have a strong lead, be referenced to reliable sources and have in-line citations. While the article may still have minor issues it should generally be mostly free of cleanup tags. At this stage it may be reasonable to consider a peer review to prepare the article for a GA nomination. Examples: Godfellas, Roswell That Ends Well, The Devil's Hands Are Idle Playthings

• C class

• A C class article will have some references but it may lack some important in-line citations or sections needed to complete the article. The article will be more substantial than a start class but fails at least one of the B class criteria. Another typical aspect of c class articles is an excess of irrelevant material. Examples: Less Than Hero

• Start class

• Start class articles are generally too long to be considered stubs but may still lack much of the information you would expect to find in an encyclopedia entry. These articles may have significant need for cleanup and expansion, need references, pictures or an infobox. Examples: The Cryonic Woman

• Stub class

• A stub class article is very short and gives very little information about the subject. The article is likely to have few or no references, may not have an image or infobox, etc. Examples: Claudia Katz, Simpsons/Futurama Crossover Crisis II

Article groups that need reassessment: please strike through each item on the list and sign your name as it is completed.

• Season one episodes
• Season two episodes
• Season three episodes
• Season four episodes
• DVD movies
• Character articles
• List of Futurama crew A-M
• List of Futurama crew N-Z
• Voice actors
• Futurama Comics and any associated pages
• All entries in template {{Futurama}} not listed here

Based on the overwhelming response here I guess I'll go ahead and reassess them myself, anyone else who is interested is certainly welcome to help as well. Stardust8212 20:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Space Pilot 3000 FAC

I have nominated the article Space Pilot 3000 as a featured article candidate. Comments are welcome at the nomination page. Stardust8212 01:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The nomination did not pass at this time, anyone who is interested in helping the article pass next time is urged to go to the nomination page and check out the opposes. Stardust8212 20:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Article for each Season

Hello, I am wondering why there isn't an Article for each season of Futurama like many other shows? Is it prohibited or can I create them?Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Tinny Tim

I just created the Tinny Tim Article can someone Help out? Can I go on in creating Characters from the List of recurring robot characters from Futurama? Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not create any more articles from that list unless the content is supported by reliable third party sources, IMDb.com and GotFuturama.com do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. Without reliable sources there is no way to verify the notability of the subject. Unless a character is notable outside the Futurama universe, which very few are, then Wikipedia generally shouldn't have an article on them. Sorry if this sounds like I'm biting your head off but I just don't want you to spend a lot of time to create all these articles only to have to deal with seeing them all merged back later. I would recommend expanding the content in the list by adding sourced content to show that a character is notable and if you then feel like you have reached the appropriate standard to split into a separate article then discuss it here or at Talk:List of recurring robot characters from Futurama first to see if other editors agree. I strongly recommend you merge Tinny Tim back into the list and leave the page as a redirect for now. Stardust8212 23:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Futurama participants...WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises' scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on multimedia franchises. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help the project get back on solid footing. Also, if you know of similar projects which have not received this, let Lady Aleena (talk · contribs) know. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. You can sign up here if you wish. Thank you. LA @ 21:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Franchise naming convention discussion at WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Futurama participants...WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA (T) @ 22:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Futurama

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List of Futurama characters

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 14:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

LexisNexis

I'm new to Wikiproject Futurama, so I apologize if this question has been asked before, but are there active project members (students, journalists, etc.) who have access to LexisNexis? References from reputable print sources would go a long way towards improving the cachet of many of the episode pages, especially the episodes from the first two seasons when Futurama was most heavily promoted in the media. (Of course, nowadays the relative status of websites has gone way up, but the original series ran from 1999-2003.) Cy3 (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:10, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

External wikis

I notice that many Futurama articles link to The Infosphere, the Futurama wiki, but there also exists The Futurama wiki. Is either of them more "official" than the other, or is there a reason for preferring one to the other? Shreevatsa (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Futurama episode

Template:Infobox Futurama episode has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

3rd Opinion Request

Additional opinions requested at here regarding sourcing. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Featured portal candidate: Animation

Portal:Animation is currently a featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 23:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Revival

Attention everyone. I plan to revive the Futurama Wikiproject. If anyone has any suggestion on ways to make to re-work the Wikiproject, please post them. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Less talk, more walk I say. Get the sticky ball rolling, and see how many people you pick up along the way. I've already begun major overhauls of many of the articles, and I'll appreciate the help of anyone that wants to pitch in. If they don't, then I guess there isn't anything anyone can really do. --.:Alex:. 15:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great to me. --.:Zoidbergmd:. 21:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoidbergmd (talk • contribs)

I've been mostly inactive but am considering starting editing again. Is there a specific direction we want to get this moving in? We could maybe all work on some common goal? I've always thought we had a few articles that should be able to get to WP:GA status such as The Devil's Hands Are Idle Playthings or Roswell That Ends Well.

Hm. "The Devil's Hands Are Idle Playings" looks like its close to GA status. That could be the first article to work on. Also, I've been working on making a list of the Futurama cast members here if anyones interested. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

WIkiProject collaboration

After noticing that Proposition Infinity has passed GAN, I think that this project should have a collaboration on one article to work on to make it GA or FA status. Anybody have any ideas? GamerPro64 (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As I suggested above The Devil's Hands Are Idle Playthings and Roswell That Ends Well would probably be good choices. Godfellas would be another good possibility but it needs more production info. Some of the other season six articles are also looking pretty good and would probably make good collaborations. Stardust8212 18:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Lrrreconcilable Ndndifferences‎

The subject article was recently deleted due to a lack of sources and in accordance with WP:CRYSTAL. Just a reminder that we should not be creating articles for future episodes until such time as there is a reasonable amount of sourced information to add to them. That being said, I assume we will see about the same amount of information for this episode when it airs as there has been for the other episodes this season. At that point in time it will be appropriate to recreate the article. I think we should take this as an opportunity to get this particular episode listed as a WP:DYK item on the main page after it airs. I've had a couple DYK before and it isn't too difficult, I think we should do this to show we are capable of creating well sourced articles and not just regurgitated plot summaries with attached trivia lists. Anybody want to help me? Stardust8212 15:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know how it's done, and my internet is spotty right now, but let me know what I can do.Luminum (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I was surprised to see that ommision. I would have voted keep, as the basic details of the episode are known and are unlikely to change. WikiuserNI (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I was pretty surprised it was deleted as well, seemed pretty petty and not in the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL to me (it wasn't an event that was unlikely to happen, the episode is known to exist and the air date was only 3 weeks away) if it had been deleted for notability concerns due to lack of references that would have been a different story. So, I have a bare bones working copy saved to my user space, would it be useful to move it to somewhere in project space so we can collaborate on it more easily? It's looking like I won't be home when the episode airs but I will DVR and watch it later that night. All that really needs to be done is add the pertinent details and any reviews we can find once the episode airs, then the issues from the deletion discussion will no longer be valid and there will be no reason we can't move it to article space. Once we do that someone can nominate it at T:TDYK. Most of the work is the same thing that people have already been doing for each episode this season, the only hard thing will be coming up with a hook. Hopefully this will be a good episode for interesting factoids. Stardust8212 16:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• About DYKs: an article doesn't have to have been recently created to get on the DYK template. Before they air, the episode entires have about 100 words or so, but after they air they have much more than that. DYKs accepts articles that have gone through a major expansion, something like fivefold increase in text amount. This means if from 100 words, it gets to much more than 500, it will be easily accepted for DYK. Nergaal (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• I know but I don't like the idea of trying to get every episode into DYK, this one I want to try due to it's previous deletion. The idea of showing them it was a mistake to delete it appeals to me. If this one doesn't work out though I'd like to try again with episode #100 that is coming up. Stardust8212 17:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know if anybody at AFD cares about mistakes or not. DYK on the other hand is usually short on submissions anyways, so there is no such thing as having too many DYKs. Plus, the DYKs may be displayed at larger gaps if you ask for it. Nergaal (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of Futurama

How about a timeline of Futurama we can add to the List of timelines in fiction? I've noticed it's been made twice before and deleted for being nonsensical. Surely we can make an appropriate page for it? Sixequalszero (talk) 10:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on my memory of the last time this article existed the problem isn't so much that it's nonsensical but that it totally lacks anything which gives it an out of universe perspective to make it notable and there are not sources for this type of information which would keep the article from being Original research. The Original research issue will become even more of a problem were the article created now because the number of time travel episodes has been increased further complicating the timeline and requiring more interpretation. In my opinion trying to create this article is probably an exercise in futility but if it is something you think you can do I recommend creating a subpage (Example) for it and getting it organized before moving it to the mainspace. This will give you a chance to get the sources in there and see what you really have so it isn't a speedy deletion candidate. You might be able to contact an admin and get them to give you the deleted article text so you can see what to avoid. Stardust8212 13:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Futurama Timeline made in my userspace. Feel free to add more events, and please leave comments and opinions. Sixequalszero (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Updates to TV#MOS

I'm not sure how many people monitor WP:MOSTV or even WP:TV (the basic WikiProject for all of us), but we've been trying to get some feedback on additions to the TV Manual of Style. It largely has to do with the inclusion of "Overview" tables at the start of the page, the order in which season lists are presented (currently, there is no concrete order), and what is considered too much info for DVDs (i.e. should we be placing every detail about the box set in the article, from each interview to the aspect ratio, or should be keep it more generalized). Please see discussion at WT:MOSTV#Updates to the MOS. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Season Six episodes

Looking at several of the links and reports from sources, the most conclusive of which seems to be this interview with David X. Cohen, it seems like The Mutants Are Revolting is officially the season finale of Season Six. [4] You can find more links in reviews on the same episode page.

In the interview, though he considers the entire 26 episodes to be the full season, he explains that Comedy Central will be releasing the first 13 episodes as the sixth season on DVD and the last 13 as season seven. If that is the case, the DVD release seems to be the trump. I suggest that we correct the info box to mark the end of season six at September 2, and list the later episodes as part of season seven's box.Luminum (talk) 10:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree, I saw several mentions on Comedy Central that Mustans Revolting was the season finale. CTJF83 chat 16:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Support for Futurama Timeline

Looking for people to help create a quality Futurama timeline article, if you could please contibute or discuss it, please do so. Sixequalszero (talk) 05:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Futurama articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Futurama articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation help at Pierre Henry

Can someone who possesses the DVDs provide the quote for Christopher Tyng using Pierre Henry's "Psyché Rock" as the basis for the Futurama theme? Since this is an offline source, we could use an exact quote, and following info for the {{Cite video}} template:

{{cite video |people= |date= |title= |url= |format= |medium= |language= |publisher= |location= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |accessdate= |time= |id= |isbn= |oclc= |quote= |ref= }}

I'm guessing many of those parameters will be blank—there probably won't be a non-copyvio archive of the commentary online, for instance—but as much as applicable would help.

If you choose to accept this mission, thanks! / edg ☺ ☭ 16:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Which DVD is it on? Sixequalszero (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Good question. The now-deleted citation said Cohen, David X. 2001. "Commentary Track". Futurama, The Complete First Season. If no one here can find the quote, I would accept this as evidence the citation was mistaken (or made up).

In lieu of this, we could use a source for "Psyché Rock" (released in 1967) being the theme's inspiration. The resemblance is pretty obvious,[5][6] but I don't know of any reliable source that comments on it (other than those referring to old versions of Wikipedia's Pierre Henry article). / edg ☺ ☭ 20:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I recall searching for a direct quote of this or a reliable source a while ago and coming p empty. I'll see what I can find.Luminum (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well now, I googled "Pierre Henry futurama -wikipedia -torrent" and one result presented this, http://www.facebook.com/posted.php?id=2201869883, 'Tyng discusses the instrumentation for the Futurama theme in the Season 2 DVD commentary for "The Problem With Popplers."' I have just watched it and Tyng does discuss the instrumentation a lot, however I noticed no mention of Psyché Rock or Pierre Henry. The theme was barely mentioned during the end credits. Alas, the original reference says it was mentioned by Cohen in the first season. Sixequalszero (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It's good that we have the "Popplers" commentary ruled out. Thanks for doing this! / edg ☺ ☭ 01:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I remember a commentary discussion (early season, possibly first) where they discussed Tyng's work without Tyng present. They mentioned his use of Boobams. I don't remember any reference to "Psyché Rock".

If I recall correctly, the Futurama commentaries have occasional fade-outs during the discussion, which I imagined were blanked for legal reasons. It's possible "Psyché Rock" was mentioned, but someone didn't want to draw attention to a potential copyright infrigement. If this were the case, I don't see how anyone outside that production would know if happened. Which means we really don't have a source at all. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The most we could do here is simply say that the theme has been noted for its similarities to "Psyché Rock". I think this would be acceptable enough. --Dorsal Axe 14:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Article alerts

Are people interested in alerts for this project? Nergaal (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

As in AfD, GAC, FAC, etc type alerts? CTJF83 chat 03:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Nergaal (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please. CTJF83 chat 03:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes.Luminum (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Futurama/Article alerts should start getting updated soon. Nergaal (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Watchlist

WikiProject The Simpsons have a watchlist for monitoring changes so I thought that Futurama could also have one. I've made a draft in my userspace at User:RyukuX/Futurama Watchlist which lists a few Futurama articles and categories. Its still under construction, and you're more than welcome to help contribute to it by adding links. Once its complete it could maybe be promoted to part of the WikiProject. Ryuku 02:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

B-Class checklist for WikiProject Animation

Greeting, I am a coordinator for WikiProject Animation. A B-Class checklist has been added to the project banner, along with the work group text, including the importance function. The B-Class checklist will include 6 point parameters to assess against the criteria. If you have any questions, please discuss at our talk page. Thank for your time. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 21:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Rename the Professor

I started a request to rename the Professor at Talk:Hubert_J._Farnsworth#Rename CTJF83 12:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge input needed - Mom (Futurama)

Should Mom (Futurama) merge to List of recurring Futurama characters? Please comment at Talk:Mom (Futurama). D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Futurama at Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Archived some threads

I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Input needed

Not quite clear to me how active this project is at this point. In any case, more input is needed here regarding how Futurama episodes are ordered, if anyone is in a position to comment. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

RfD

Hi, I have nominated numerous questionable redirects to Futurama for deletion/retargeting at this RfD. 165.91.13.99 (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)