Talk:Futurama/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Dates

The introductory part of the article said Fry was frozen after midnight but another part of the article said before. I believe the latter is correct and so have changed the intro to reflect this. Also describing 2000 as the first year of the twenty-first century is slightly contentious - some people argue that it was actually 2001, and similarly that the thirty-first century will not start until 3001. For this reason I would just say he got frozen shortly before the start of 2000 (rather than the start of the 21st century) and again have changed it to reflect this. MFlet1 (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Fry gets frozen right after midnight. Fact; watch the first episode; the countdown reaches zero, and he blow his ... thing (whatever it's called), trips over and falls into the tube. Due to the "variable" length of a year, he awakes around noon on 31 December, 2999. Making it technically about 12 hours shorter than 1000 years. I have seen some calculations that proves this (unfortunately, I cannot provide link at the moment). The Futurama writers refer to 2000 as part of the 21st century and 3000 as part of the 31st century. This is both reflected in commentaries and what is said on the show. --Svip^pong 14:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. But whether it's before or after, the article should obviously be consistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.129.200 (talk)

I agree entirely. But it simply means that the mention later in the article was wrong. --Svip^pong 18:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The professor's age

Continuity issues make it difficult to pinpoint his age, as the original text indicates "roughly 168". Here's the breakdown... According to A Clone of My Own the professor turns 160 in the year 3001 (2nd season). In Teenage Mutant Leela's Hurdles (season 4), he starts out 161 (ok, maybe its not his birthday yet) and ends up "even older." At this point, we can never be clear on his age. In Bender's Game (which presumably works out to the year 3008 or 3009), he claims to be 165 ("if I, a hundred and sixty-five year old man, don't watch it, who will?!"). Add to this the difficulty of future "as of" dating when the timeline is, at best, guesswork, I chose to change "roughly 168" to "over 160". If anybody has any objections, feel free to change it appropriately. If you don't mind, please also explain the rationale. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enharmonix (talk • contribs) 19:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

French language

French language is not actually dead in the future, only it seems the well known joke on how french culture is exctinct (The Times does it almost every year) has turned into "french language is dead".

David X Cohen confirms it is dead on the commentary of "Space Pilot 3000". He points out, during the second countdown, that in the French scene, instead of saying the French word for 7, they say "seven" (in the earlier countdown (set in 2000), they say "neuf", the French word for 9).

It is further emphasised with Farnsworth's universal translator, which can translate every language, but only into French (which Farnsworth refers to as "an incomprehensible dead language"). True, French appears at times during the show, written in the background ("Xmas Story"), Francophone people (little prince in "The Route of All Evil") or spoken (Bender as Napoleon in "Insane in the Mainframe"). But one could argue that French has a similar status as Latin has today. --Svip^pong 14:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A reference to "Godfellas" under Society and Culture

As an avid Futurama fan (and a Wikipedia newbie) reading the article, I arrived at the sentence:

"While very few episodes focus exclusively on the religious aspect within the Futurama universe they do cover a wide variety of subjects including predestination, prayer, the nature of salvation, and religious conversion."

... and I feel like the episode Godfellas warrants note at that point, with a link to its section in the Religion in Futurama page. It is a notable exception to the statement that few episodes focus exclusively on religion.

Any thoughts?

--Your Narrator for This Evening (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally, if youf eel it will help enhance understanding of the topic, it's worthwhile to add it in. If adding the information only serves to expand, but not enhance, understanding, it's not appropriate. In this case, whether the episode actually notably explains more about the Futurama universe's religious aspects is debatable, though it certainly introduces the existence of a God-like deity. Sorry I can't give you a more concrete answer.Luminum (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Originally I felt the statement was potentially misleading - but ultimately it is not inaccurate, and the religion page is linked several times nearby, so I guess no edit is necessary. Your Narrator for This Evening (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Another season

maybe we should add something about a possible 6th season, Billy West mentioned that Fox is considering it... source:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi920ztPFIQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.21.67 (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Unless you find a Reliable Source (ie: not youtube), this would be speculation and inappropriate for adding. DP76764 (Talk) 02:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Even we (the Infosphere) haven't added anything about the season 6 yet, though we have written about it in our article dedicated to the issue. Not unless I see a press release from FOX stating they have bought another production season, am I convinced. --Svip^pong 10:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

How about these:

http://www.inquisitr.com/25476/good-news-everyone-futurama-may-be-heading-back-to-televison/ http://io9.com/5282624/is-futurama-coming-back-to-comedy-central http://slashdot.org/submission/1016021/Futurama-Rumored-To-Return-On-Comedy-Central http://www.movieweb.com/news/NE37r766ggaf53 http://tvdonewright.com/2009/06/08/comedy-central-to-bring-back-futurama/

Seems to be a lot of buzz about a new season.208.96.101.7 (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with these articles is that they're all referring back to the Collider.com article. If you read that one, it states that it's basically just a rumor for now, so not a reliable source. Right now, the comments by Billy West are probably the most reliable.Luminum (talk) 06:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And yet not entirely. But if we want to debate the reliability of the Collider source, then we should probably take it elsewhere, anyway, since I agree that we should wait for an official word. And this include us over at The Infosphere, whom are also waiting for an official statement from Comedy Central. The Futon Critic is perhaps your safest bet for a reliable source, as they only publish official statements (and noticeably has none of the current buzz). --Svip^pong 12:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's official now: http://www.tvweek.com/blogs/tvbizwire/2009/06/the-futurama-is-now-comedy-cen.php - 121.44.81.8 (talk) 05:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! I'm so psyched!Luminum (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolution edits; before this gets out of hand

I have twice now reverted edits by User:Wattlebird changing the SDTV remark to seasons 1 to 5, and HDTV to seasons 6 and onward, so in order to avoid more edit warring, I am taking it to the talk page.

Almost every where on Wikipedia where we deal with Futurama, we deal with it by production order, where there are four seasons (1-4) during the original run (produced in SDTV), and one newly released of the films (season 5) and of course the upcoming season (season 6). List of Futurama episodes keeps this method. This is a call out to Wattlebird to stop putting inconsistencies in the article. Thank you. --Svip^pong 10:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In comment to Wattlebird's summary "look at the collum on the far right. using your logic, the upcoming 8th season of family guy is actually only the 6th. so i am continuity-ing."

I assume you mean the broadcast code column. But that is just for the readers. Notice the series overview, there are only 6 seasons, including the upcoming one. Season 5 is the four films, evident from the series overview. Note the infobox on the Futurama article, it says that season 5 to present airs on Comedy Central, so you are uncontinuity-ing. Please reply to this, so this doesn't turn into a edit warring. --Svip^pong 23:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

not true

NIBBLER He is revealed in "The Why of Fry" _ this is not true he was revealed in many episodes before by leela —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuggy098 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

He is actually revealed in "The Day the Earth Stood Stupid", what is revealed in "The Why of Fry" is his connections with Fry. --Svip^pong 14:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Production vs broadcast reckoning

I am not going to contest Wikipedia's choice of using the production seasons as the actual seasons, this is also the general consensus among fans. But some casual fans or viewers are not familiar with this. And on several occasions have I reverted edits to the "Where No Fan Has Gone Before", where a user have changed it from the 11th episode to the 12th episode of the fourth season.

Issue is, that episode was the 11th episode of the fourth production season, but the 12th of the fourth broadcast season, which may cause a lot of confusion.

Pay attention to its opening:

"Where No Fan Has Gone Before" is the eleventh episode of the fourth season of the animated series Futurama.

On the Infosphere's article for the same episode, have we approached this specific problem, to avoid any confusion to start off with:

"Where No Fan Has Gone Before" is the sixty-fifth episode of Futurama, the eleventh of the fourth production season and the twelfth and last of the fourth broadcast season.

My point is, there might need to be some revising on the introductions to Futurama episode articles on Wikipedia. Our format has so far caused no contradicting edits. Although, that does not say a lot, since we are a lot less visited than Wikipedia.

--Svip^pong 20:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, the infosphere's solution on the episode pages was to only list preceding and succeding episodes (instead of the whole list) and in cases like this split and show preceding (broadcast) / preceding (production). Jon (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Err... my argument was more about the introduction of the articles rather than the list. But our solution now include both methods, we have the preceding and succeeding episodes (in both orders) as well as a list of that entire production season. We make it clear in the introduction, if it is so, that the episode was part of a production season and a broadcast season.

Wikipedia's articles are not entirely clear which reckoning is used in the introductions, which may confuse some readers, whom thus edit these statements, this is a concern I am addressing. --Svip^pong 22:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Awards and nominations - a split or a rewrite? (Or both?)

Currently, we have the Awards and Nominations listed in under the "Impact" section in a bullet-system, and it does not really suit the article. Should we rewrite this into a smaller section in prose and create a "see the List of Futurama Awards and Nominations", or should we attempt a list/table approach as seen on the various artist discographies around? T-roland (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Theme music references

The two references provided for influences on the composition of the theme music are unacceptable. The one for Fatboy Slim's influence is an unsupported and misspelled assertion by an admitted novice DJ. The article referenced for the influence of Psyché Rock is merely quoting Wikipedia for the information in question and is thus a circular reference. Cstaffa (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Casting of new voice actors

While searching for sources about this I found that the text was taken word by word from [1], so unless the user who inserted it either is Ms. Margaret Lyons or has her permission to use the text, this is a copyright violation. When it's brought back to the article, the paragraph should be rephrased (citing a reliable source would be good, too). --Six words (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

On a related note. This article is going to be up in arms right now with speculation. Unfortunately, Margaret Lyons is wrong. She claims that Futurama will not return with its original cast members, when they can still go up to the new audition to get the job. Besides, this method has happened to The Simpsons before. They still got the same cast, right?

This story on Hitfix has a good description of it. --Svip^pong 21:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This might be a hoax/stunt. An event at comicon involving the VAs seems to support that idea. I'll edit and source later if I get a chance. 66.193.18.4 (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

A little something for the revival section

While I would not recommend it as a source, I do think that infosphere:Recasting ploy covers up the whole ordeal with the cast, that some people might consider interesting when reading about the revival of the series. --Svip^pong 12:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Character list

I looked at this page and was a bit shocked by the long list of characters on the main page. Characters like Fry, Leela, the Professor, and Bender are considered the main cast (by the creators in commentary at least) and characters like Amy, Hermes, and Zoidberg could be considered strong enough secondary characters to be on the page, but some of these characters like Kiff, Zapp, and Nibbler don't seem to need to be on the main page. Would anyone be opposed to dividing the character page into main characters (Leela, Bender, Fry, Professor), Secondary characters (Zoidberg, Amy, Hermes) and leaving Kiff, Nibbler, and Zapp to the "Characters of Futurama" page?Luminum (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a slight disagreement over Kiff and Zapp, because they appear en numerous episodes making a lot of plots and subplots. But I personally have no problem on Nibbler. His character may have made the single event which triggered the whole events of the series, but he only serves in about 3 episodes. An important, but minor character nonetheless. --> RUL3R^{*flaming | *vandalism} 07:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they appear in numerous episodes, but they don't appear as frequently as the other cast members. Regardless of plot, I would think featured characters should be those whose presence is so numerous that a viewer should be told about them. Technically, to me, that really just constitutes the characters who get billed as the primary cast. You can look at the revival sequence where all the important characters are billed (with exception to the joke character). Kiff, Zapp, and Nibbler aren't listed.Luminum (talk) 08:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Fry, Leela and Bender are considered the "major primary characters", while the Professor, Zoidberg, Hermes and Amy are considered the "minor primary characters". Zapp, Kif, Mom and to some extend Nibbler (though debatable) are considered "major secondary characters".

Reasoning: Fry, Leela and Bender are the only characters to appear in every episode. The Professor, Zoidberg, Hermes and Amy have very few episodes where they do not appear (e.g. the Professor is not in "The Why of Fry", Amy is not in "Roswell that Ends Well", Zoidberg and Hermes are not in "Mars University"). Zapp, Kif and Mom all have an important relationship with one of the primary characters. While Nibbler is certainly important, he is not that important. My recommendation would be the listing being Fry, Leela, Bender, Professor, Zoidberg, Hermes, Amy, Zapp, Kif and Mom. In that order.

Note: The usage of these terms stems from my work at the Infosphere. --Svip^pong 09:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

True that the major secondary characters may have "important relationships" with at least one of the main characters, but would your average reader NEED to know about them when they read this page? I don't think so. If they wanted to, they could read about them in the "Characters of Futurama" page instead. I suggest, again, keeping the "main characters" and "minor primary characters" and removing the others and leaving them on the character page.Luminum (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

original run

it says original run 1999- present on the box on the right, i think that is wrong as its original run was 1999-2003 when it was cancelled and not picked up by another network during the next broadast season, and then with it being revived in 2007 with benders big score. So maybe someone should edit that, i would but i dont know how to edit the box —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.69.182 (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Depends on your usage of the term. In Wikipedia standards, it means the timeframe when new episodes were shown. For Futurama fans, it means when the four original seasons were shown. Since this term varies from TV show to TV show, Wikipedia has decided there is a single standard for all of these; "original run". --Svip^pong 00:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Tripping the Rift?

I don't really see what this has to do with Futurama or why it's listed in the "see also" section, but I haven't watched Tripping the Rift. Tuxedobob (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It's another science-fiction animated show.Luminum (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

More specifically, like Futurama, it also parodies aspects of the science fiction genre/setting. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Cast template

Considering that Tress MacNeille is actually billed as part of the starring cast and both Maurice LeMarche and Lauren Tom are guest stars, shouldn't Tress MacNeille be added to the main cast template? I'm not even sure Frank Welker should be there, considering that his voice talents are sparingly used only when Nibbler speaks (beyond doing animal sounds).Luminum (talk) 05:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually, as of Bender's Game, LaMarche has been upgraded to a regular and Phil LaMarr, Lauren Tom AND David Herman have been upgraded from guest stars to "Also Starring." So I kind of agree, but would there be enough room for them all? - Jasonbres (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen the movies in their episodic form to know if they;re actually billed in the "Starring" credits at the end, though I know that to be "true" in the opening introductory sequence. I think there's room for all of them.Luminum (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are three sources labelling the main cast of Futurama as John DiMaggio, Billy West, Katey Sagal, Tress MacNeille and Maurice LaMarche:

• http://tv.ign.com/articles/100/1009858p1.html
• http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/674841
• http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118006765.html?categoryid=14&cs=1

The sources are there. --Svip^pong 02:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Comedy Central ratings

Currently, the season six premiere ratings, on Comedy Central, are listed twice (I added them to the "Ratings" section and an ip editor added them to the "Revival" section). Obviously, they shouldn't be listed twice. My question is, should we: place them in the "Ratings" section, place them in the "Revival" section, or create a separate section devoted to "Comedy Central ratings" (or some other title)? I would think it's best to place them in the "Ratings" section, but any of these choices could work. I do think, however, the ratings of the episodes should be limited to just the premiere (two) episodes, with any further ratings placed on the season or episode articles. My thinking, in adding the premiere ratings to this article, was to demonstrate how the show "debuted" on a new network. Obviously, that's just my one opinion. Does anyone else have an opinion on this?

I bring this up now, because I think it's best if we get a handle on how we're going to handle the ratings before they actually happen.  Chickenmonkey  00:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

My personal view would be to mention the ratings in the Revival section if you wish to discuss Futurama's chances of remaining on the air (that is; CC ordering more seasons), but leave it for the Ratings section to discuss the actual numbers, but not their possible consequence. For instance, in the revival section, you could use CC's own press release stating it was the best Thursday primetime in the history of the channel and so forth, while in the ratings section you have the numbers instead. --Svip^pong 11:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Owls

Owls have replaced rats as the common pest species. Presumably a joke to owls being the first species to go extinct in Philip K Dick's "Do androids Dream of Electronic Sheep" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.119.243 (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

And this pertains to the article how? Adding trivia like this, without a source, would be original research. DP76764 (Talk) 15:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was more interesting than the 'French is extinct joke' - surely the point of an encyclopedia is to cross reference things like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.119.243 (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. And the French joke is referenced to one of the creators, so it is appropriately mentioned and significant. DP76764 (Talk) 17:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That being said, if you can link the owl joke, which appears frequently, to some creator commentary, particularly that it's based on something (I seem to recall that it is), then it's worthy to add. If not, then like Dp stated, it would be OR.Luminum (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I found the owl bit interesting, and it wouldn't surprise me if some idiots decided to remove it in their quest to destroy wikipedia. Is it any wonder why I don't bother contributing anymore? No. No it's not. Leave the info in. Stop being a retarded deletionist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.26.171 (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Weekly ?

Reading the Broadcast and Ratings sections, and the archives of this talk page, it looks like the show frequency was/is weekly. Shouldn't it say so somewhere in the intro ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Substitution cypher

The substitution cypher is missing the 'point, up arrow' for '?'. Anyone care to add it? Sixequalszero (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image

A user wishes to change the infobox image from File:Futurama title screen.jpg to File:Futurama.png File:FuturamaPromo.png. This proposed change should be discussed, before going forward.  Chickenmonkey  17:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the new one with the characters is best. Why is it important to show the title card, which is on screen for seconds, when the characters are on screen the whole episode? It would be best if we could find an image with all the main characters, but this will do. CTJF83 chat 17:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Intertitle should go in the infobox as it is customary, characters can go in the cast and characters section. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 22:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Standards are that the title card is the main image. The main image states the name of the program as the program has elected to represent itself. In that sense, it represents the show in a standard format. The image of the characters isn't even all of the main cast. Keep the current title screen.Luminum (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You have to consider the readers of this article; specifically people who do not know what the topic is about. The logo means absolutely nothing to them. Having a picture of the lead characters, who are identified with a caption underneath, is far more illustrative and educational to the reader than a simple logo. This would also provide consistency with articles such as The Simpsons, Family Guy, King of the Hill etc. as they use logos and pictures identifying the character in such a manner instead of title cards for the same reasons. Using the title card, featuring merely the logo, as a lead image is nothing more than decorative fluff and even more against standards. If the article is to ever get beyond GA, that image has to change. --.:Alex:. 01:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Then hopefully we should find an image that has the name of the show and its main characters, rather than the proposed options, which were a random image of the title and a random image of only three of the main characters with absolutely no context. I'm inclined to vote for an image like that on Family Guy than any of those options, which are sloppy. By the way, King of the Hill is consistent with this page and American Dad!. I propose that the title card stays until a suitable image is found.Luminum (talk) 05:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

They aren't random images. They are promo images. Besides, Family Guy uses seperate images for both the logo and the characters. We are definitely not going to find an image with both the logo and all of the cast in it. Yes, it would be nice to have the whole PE crew in an image, but really, Fry, Leela and Bender are the lead characters in every episode without fail and it's the next best thing. Certainly better than not having it at all. There is a context, as they are the faces of Futurama. The lead section describes Fry. The reader can swoop their eyes over to the image, and be able to immediately indentify who Fry is. --.:Alex:. 15:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Another option may be to place File:FuturamaPromo.png in the Cast and characters section, which will cause it to be placed directly beneath the infobox and has the added benefit of being a picture of the characters in a section about the characters.  Chickenmonkey  16:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

What good does the logo do? It doesn't help someone who hasn't seen the show understand anything. CTJF83 chat 16:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It represents the show in the same way the show's creators chose to represent it. Honestly, either option works; I just felt there should be a discussion. In the end, this article is about the show and not just its characters. File:FuturamaPromo.png is a good image, but I would think File:Futurama title screen.jpg better represents the article--and the show--as a whole.  Chickenmonkey  18:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The logo identifies the show, just like the icon of a program represents that application or a logo of a company represents that business. I see no problem in having them both, and have an image of the cast in the cast section were these are normally found. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 18:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Just noting that FA The Simpsons and GA Family Guy both have character photos at the top of the infobox. CTJF83 chat 19:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That's good for those articles, but we're discussing this article.  Chickenmonkey  19:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not a valid argument. Besides, both of those articles are clearly better than this one, so I think we ought to be taking some cues from them. --.:Alex:. 03:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It's fine to use other articles as examples, but just because another article does something doesn't necessarily mean this article has to do the same thing. There doesn't, at this time, appear to be a consensus to change the image.  Chickenmonkey  03:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

And it works both ways. This article doesn't have to be different for the sake of being different. I have put forward arguments for using the image explaining that those articles do so in a similar manner for the same reasons. So far, there has been little argument for usability of the title card image, other than "It's the title card", "It's customary" etc. I even uploaded the horizontal logo so there is still a logo in some form! The point is, it doesn't matter if the title card "represents" the show. It means absolutely nothing to the casual reader who wants to learn about the topic. "Infobox templates are "at-a-glance", and used for quickly checking facts". Frankly, the title card doesn't further the reader's understanding and is essentially used for decoration, which invalidates it's use via WP:NFCC. I like the image, but that doesn't mean it's suitable as a lead image. The readers come first. --.:Alex:. 04:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No one is advocating the article being different for the sake of being different. Your arguments are valid, but so are those put forth by others. The titlecard represents the show, as a whole and as the show represents itself. You're right; the infobox is meant to be at-a-glance. At-a-glance, the titlecard tells the reader what the article is about: "Futurama". This article isn't merely about the characters of Futurama; it is about the entirety of Futurama. There is a section in this article dedicated to the characters of the show; I believe that image would be better suited being placed there.  Chickenmonkey  04:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(←) Just noting that GA article Futurama has the intertitle in the infobox, and has had since 2005. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 19:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm just saying characters help you better understand a tv show, not the title screen, that just displays the title, again. CTJF83 chat 19:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Only if the interest in the reader is about the fiction itself. There are plenty of readers that may come to the article to understand the media impact, or the show's history or its accolades without having to know who Fry, Leela, or Bender are. That is why the intertitle image is generally the best as the general image for any TV show; it's the most generic representation of the show without need of further understanding. --MASEM (t) 04:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point. It's fallacious to assume that a reader will come to Futurama only because they want to understand the characters. Just like other shows (and dare I say, more so for its additional scientific/mathematics accolades), Futurama has aspects to it that a user may care to know about without wanting or needing to know about its characters. The title card is neutral for the show as a show, in a out of fiction manner, which generically covers everything about the show—the fiction, the production history, awards, and other aspects. To change the page merely because the characters better represent the show is a valid, albeit fiction-biased position. It's cool if the proposed logo image is a promo, but I really don't see the point of swapping out the title card for the same thing sans a background and all in one line. The background for the title card isn't overly distracting, and it's used in every episode of the show (re: representing the show as the show represents itself), not mention being iconic of the show's opening (fittingly enough to be used as the close-out image when staff thought the last movie could be it for Futurama). To change it presumes that a reader only really cares or should care mostly about or knowing about the characters, which may not be the case at all.Luminum (talk) 07:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not at all about assuming readers want to only know about the characters. It's about providing context of the image featured in the infobox to the lead section of the article. The current image has barely any context, and serves as nothing other than decoration. It provides no information to the reader, despite being in the infobox. In fact, the title card image would be better placed in the "Opening Sequence" section, if anything, as to illustrate the "blue lights" mentioned several times and to allow it to be used for some form critical commentary. --.:Alex:. 08:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The logo has nothing to do with understanding the show, it's the logo, it represents the show. Nor is the infobox image there to aid the lead. Just like a logo of a company says little about the company itself, it is how it represents itself. An image of the characters is better suited in the characters section, were one would expect one to be. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 09:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the FA list, television series FAs run the gamut of main images, from logo-only (House (TV series), Degrassi: The Next Generation), characters-only (The Simpsons), logo character composite (Family Guy), and title card (Aquaman (TV program), Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons, Carnivàle, Cold Feet, Firefly (TV series)). So if the argument is that it will affect reader knowledge at first glance and will also hinder the chances of the article making FA, I'd say that it's not a concern and that the title card issue is moot. It's not detrimental. If we're going to look at TV series FAs as a standard, there seems to be no preference on what the main image should be of those four possibilities. I think that reduces this discussion to a consensus vote with no real difference than a cosmetic change. I'm sure it's obvious how I'd vote, but in addition, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." BTW, that's an excellent suggestion about using the title card for the "Opening section". In fact, having images that serve multiple uses is encouraged, so if we kept it on the main article, we wouldn't have to unnecessarily add another image to illustrate the concept or vice versa.Luminum (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright for File:Alien decoder Futurama.svg

File:Alien decoder Futurama.svg is marked as public domain. It is clearly a derivative work of the alien letters that appear in the show, which are not (as far as I know) public domain. Has this been discussed before? Staecker (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I recall discussing this issue before, and I thought there was a long discussion where everything was explained...I can't find that. I did find at least one other place where this issue was discussed before Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Futurama/archive1 where I asked what the file should be listed as and I was told it was in the public domain because it was a font (Template:PD-font). Looks like at some point the template on the image was changed but PD-font should still apply, I would think, what is or isn't public domain isn't my area of expertise. Stardust8212 13:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts, any raster image of fonts is not eligible for copyright while a SVG, like this one, is. Since it's on Commons, you should probably start a discussion there. In case it's deemed a copyright violation, we can replace it with File:Alien decoder.png which falls under the aforementioned ineligibility. Regards SoWhy 13:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

season 5 issues

I am confused why the movies are listed as season 5 yet the episodes that sites like this are not in the episodes at all? It seems the movies should be listed seperately and the seasons marked as 6 as it is. The aired shows other sites list as 5 are missing....unless I am not finding them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnerclark (talk • contribs) 13:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved new topic to bottom of page Stardust8212

Futurama episodes on Wikipedia are listed by Production Season not Broadcast season. The page you linked to is Broadcast season 5, those episodes are included in List of Futurama episodes under production seasons 3 and 4. Stardust8212 14:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I see now how they are listed, but as most people go to look up an episode by broadcast it seems listing them by production code would be confusing..as I was. Seems counterproductive to list them that way as I look for broadcast and so do most other people. Gunnerclark (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ya, who decided to list these by production instead of airdate?! That is a very odd way of doing it, and I've never seen any episode lists done like that. CTJF83 chat 00:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Television air date is already listed in addition to production season. What defines a season is subject to a ton of different definitions. The studio views the entire production season as the official season, while broadcasters may consider the run to be the season (season three and four were broadcast differently, but collected in the order of the production season). Cohen addressed this mess in an interview. Anyway, production season seems to be the most objective definition, since it isn't subject to real-time changes. Anyway, to add my two cents, I don't search by airdate. I search episodes by title. Do most people really look episodes up by broadcast? Is that from a study?Luminum (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Just seems more logical to me...I know an episode aired in May, yet I have no idea when it was produced. CTJF83 chat 02:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Normally we go by airdate and when the DVD is released the DVD order, which are usually the same, or maybe one episode different. In the case of Futurama, Fox made a mess of it. They released a DVD set which follows the production order, that is the one we're following. Also the production order is the intended order. The show was aired completely out of order by Fox, which for a bunch of episodes makes no sense in continuity. The broadcast order is in the tables, and you can sort the table by it, and there is the unfortunate List of Futurama episodes by broadcast order which was created by the people not accepting the communities decision to go by the more final order, which is the DVD's, rather than the one time only broadcast order. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

What I want to know is why, in two separate tables listing the DVD that comes out on the 21st of December, 2010, do they have different numbers of episodes listed as being included. The first table says 26 episodes will be on the set, the second table says 13. Why is this? I'm too upset to include a signature. 10:00, 22 November 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.17.136 (talk)

13 will be on the Volume 5 DVD. --Dorsal Axe 11:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

DVD scratches criticism

I'm not sure why this section has been allowed to stay in the article. The referenced reviewer doesn't mention actually receiving a scratched DVD or even hearing that other people got scratched DVDs. He simply makes a wild guess that scratching will occur. How is this worthy of encyclopedic recognition? -- Fyrefly (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. I've allowed it to stay because it's sourced, but really, this would be more appropriate as a listed mention in a much larger section about released media criticism. There's nothing in the article that outright states that scratching has happened, only that it could. The criticism is there, but not much else. If there was more to the criticism section or the specific issue was elaborated on by additional sources, I'd feel better about keeping it.Luminum (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Simpsons and Matt Groening

My opinion is that notation of The Simpsons next to Groening's name should stay. It is true that a user can click Groening's name to learn more about his background, including his success with The Simpsons, however, the notation in the lead serves a useful purpose. It is brief; it not only quickly contextualizes Groening, but also contextualizes Futurama. When the show was in development and before its debut, it gained press and buzz for being the first show pitched by Groening since The Simpsons. This is supported by reliable sources provided in the article ([2], [3], [4] and [5], to name a few). It is not redundant and quickly provides notable information, therefore I see no reason for its removal. Feel free to discuss.Luminum (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The newly created account said to "click on his name" in an edit summary: but he also tried to erase the same information from Groening's page.[6] I have given the editor a 3RR warning and will file a report if he reverts again. Doc talk 22:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've put in a solution that should satisfy everyone - we can mention that Groenig developed the show while working on the Simpsons within the lead (since its stated in the article), thus avoiding broken prose while still attaching The Simpsons to this article. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me: this editor clearly has a problem with The Simpsons, calling it an "inferior television show" and trying to deny Groening credit for creating it in the diff I provided above. POV-warring. Doc talk 22:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well done, Masem. I'm cool with that. Doc, that is a good thing to know.Luminum (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Re-airing

I think the part in the beginning about the show being picked up by Comedy Central needs to be removed. I can find no mention of that whatsoever anywhere (including the cited links). I have searched the Comedy Central website, and tv.com for episode listing. The last episode was aired in 2003, when they were still part of Fox. I will remove that part. Whoever finds a reliable link indicating that this actually happened can re-insert it. Fuzzbuzz (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know, maybe Comedy Central's site or its list of episodes airing. Or maybe this article telling that Bender's Big Score is going to air as episodes on Comedy Central. But of course, that would be hard to find using something as simple as our archive of Futurama news. --Svip^pong 00:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty of commenting it out, instead of removing it, cause it is actually true, but the sources, are, however, not very accurate, that is true. So once some new (and better) sources are found, leave it commented out. But it is re-airing on Comedy Central, and new episodes are being aired there! --Svip^pong 00:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find it on The Comedy Central website because (I just realized), I'm in Canada. It takes me to the Canadian version of the website, which has no reference to Futurama whatsoever. So, I'm unable to find reliable sources. If you say the Comedy Central website lists it, that's pretty reliable as far as I'm concerned. Fuzzbuzz (talk) 08:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Odd. Specifically because I don't even live in Canada or the US. I am a crazy European. O_O! Apparently, Comedy Central gives me the US site when that happens. No way of switching from the Canadian site to the US site? --Svip^pong 12:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Re-air dates are irrelevant in an encyclopedia, especially considering the worldwide nature of Wikipedia (i.e. NOT America-centric). This is not a TV listings magazine. Mrstonky (talk) 11:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Themes

I think the "Themes" section needs some work, so as to actually deal with some of the overarching themes of the show. At this point, some of the content is pretty trivial. I removed the following paragraph from that section, added by a new user, and bring it here for discussion:

The economic system is still capitalism, mainly represented through Mom, the planet's leading industrialist and former love of Prof. Farnsworth. Partly robots (like Bender) are paid salaries where others like "Robot 1-X" are owned by their employer. There is also regular machinery, although the border between conscious and unconscious machinery is not further explained (thus leaving out the philosophical and scientific complex of qualia and the hard problem of consciousness). Despite the fact that computer science and robotics have evolved tremendously Futurama features full employment, so there are still supermarket-cashiers , bank-tellers and so on. Jobs are assigned through the "Fate Assignment Office" Turanga Leela formerly worked for .

In addition to being poorly-written, most of this is trivial information, not revelatory of the themes of the show. Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 00:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, I do not support including that particular material. It feels very WP:OR-y and only uses primary sources. If decent sources were found to back the theories up, it might be worth including. DP76764 (Talk) 00:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If you think this part is "poorly-written" then please go ahead and do it better. Besides economy is a major part of the setting, so I don't see any reason why it should be left out if there is also an paragraph about culture, religion, history, government and politics. And about the sources: I linked plenty of sources directly from the series. The facts given are solid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sha900 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You're not quite getting the source issue. If you click on the sources link in the response above yours, you'll see that secondary sources are much more desirable than primary sources. Nobody doubts that Mom appears in the show or that she's a capitalist, but for it to have a place in the article you need to show that sources other than the show itself have recognized this theme. To be fair though, this is not the only section under themes to have very weak sourcing. The robots section, for instance, has only primary sources. That needs to be handled as well. -- Fyrefly (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The themes section, in general, is pretty weak and needs work. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 18:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Theme

"A remixed rendition of the theme is used in Season 5, which features altered instruments and a lower pitch. Season 6 also uses this remix, but it has been reduced again in pitch and tempo." - This is completely NOT TRUE. There were no changes in pitch EVER - the Futurama opening theme has always been played in E major. Granted, the tempo was slightly downgraded for Season 6, but the pitch remains the same throughout all episodes, movies and game. I guess the person who wrote that must have been watching S1-S4 in PAL (which is faster) and S5 in NTSC.--85.89.183.237 (talk) 10:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I've amended the notes on the theme in the 'Opening Sequence' section to include a credit for co-composer Michel Colombier and the influence of Fatboy Slim's 1997 remix of "Psyche Rock". Dunks (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Why were these details removed? They are clearly pertinent. I have reintroduced them. Mrstonky (talk) 11:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Neither reference seems to confirm what is being said. Whether it may or may not be pertinent is not the issue. It is unsourced and at best original research. Meowies (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Citation is not required for Psyche Rock. Listen to the track and dare to tell me they're unrelated! The arrangement is very unusual and Futurama ninics it closely. 87.194.150.80 (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

A citation is still needed. 'Listening to it yourself' is original research. DP76764 (Talk) 22:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Theme is influenced by "Fatboy Slim - Psyche Rock (1997)" influenced by "Pierre Henry & Michel Colombier - Psyche Rock (1969)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.64.59.3 (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Citing the youtube video and saying they sound similar is not sufficient for a reference.CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Continuity

Original crew is discussed, saying that first they were killed by a wasp, then later by bees. It is revealed, however, in Season 6 that they were actually still alive and inside the belly of a whale. This should be included in the section about continuity. I'd rather someone else edit the page. I think it's important and more up to date. 76.177.221.10 (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it's just trivial, there are many examples. CTJF83 00:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Problem with notes

I've noticed a problem with note number 58 including what appears to be a boilerplate welcome to a new user in the text. I tried to find a place to edit it out, but I couldn't find it. Could a more experienced editor please fix it? 85.138.128.15 (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it. Here's the ref: <ref>{{cite web | url=https://twitter.com/#!/Kitchelfilms/status/164409657446764544 | author=Eric Rogers | date=2012-01-31 | title=Kitchelfilms | work={{w|Twitter}} | accessdate=2012-01-31}}</ref> And this was the source of the trouble: work={{w|Twitter}}. I have never seen that before, and it is clearly not formatted correctly. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 19:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

International Broadcasts - UK & Ireland.

Hi, Comedy Central UK does not Own or Air Any Futurama In UK OR Ireland /// Note it also points to the US Comedy Central not UK Version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganWalker (talk • contribs) 10:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Seasons? Volumes?

Hi there,

how 'bout a list of the seasons, say in table format, with the start and end dates and number of episodes, with, of course, each entry pointing to the relevant WP article ?
And how 'bout the same for optical discs "volumes"?
Thanks in advance, --Jerome Potts (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This is all found at List of Futurama episodes -- Fyrefly (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Renewal

I suggest we change the title of the section "Revival" to "Renewal", since "Revival" implies that Futurama was somehow alive. RUL3R (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Just be bold and change it ;-) SoWhy 19:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I did so a couple of days ago, and it was reverted, so I am here to discuss what the consensus is... RUL3R (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Revival

1. An instance of something becoming popular, active, or important again - cross-country skiing is enjoying a revival

2. A new production of an old play or similar work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.167.64 (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete alphabet

The Alien alphabet is missing the question mark; it looks like an up arrow with a dot at the bottom. You can see it in season 6, ep 6, in the letter Leela receives via the tube, 3rd line, last char. Please update the alphabet. --Anonymous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8BA8:E140:213:CEFF:FED8:7684 (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Genres

I restored the long-standing genres to the infobox. Before they are changed again, there should be a discussion here first. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 03:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yours look fine to me. CTF83! 03:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

accidentally frozen

Someone should remove "accidentally" from the descriptions of Fry's freezing. I don't feel comfortable about doing this. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC) I've decided to do this. If someone objects, we can work it out. WilliamSommerwerck ([[User talk:WilliamSommerwerck|talk]]) 11:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he was accidentally frozen. He tripped and fell in the freezing thing and then the timer started, thus being accidentally froze. He didn't "purposely" freeze himself

agreed. It may have been purposeful by nibbler, but that is a plot revealed much, much later. For all intents and purposes, to the casual watcher, Fry finds himself in the future by accident, not because he froze himself to do it.Luminum (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

But continuity in the show has it that it wasn't an accident at all. Even though he didn't purposely freeze himself. Someone else did... o_o --Svip^pong 14:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Explaining that in the beginning would be confusing, since Nibbler would need to be introduced ahead of time. Like I mentioned above, to the casual viewer, Fry made his way to the future by accident. He wasn't trying to get to the future and he wasn't trying to freeze himself. What other characters orchestrated is a plot issue that should be explained later (if appropriate.)Luminum (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with it not being an accident. He was pushed.Nessymonster (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Would putting "accidentally" in quotes be too spoiler-y? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsochar (talk • contribs) 10:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It was no accident. He was frozen on purpose. Go ahead and change the article.Veteranken (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Both times he was frozen were on purpose, so "accidently frozen" is inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DinoFight (talk • contribs) 03:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

How about using the word "unexpectedly" inplace of "accidently"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.212.211.94 (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

He might have literally been frozen by someone else, but like Luminum said, the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to give a scope on who the character is, not some trivia that showed up in an episode.Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 01:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)