Talk:Futurama

Archives
June 2003 – December 2004 February 2005 – May 2006

Another FA run

Hello editors :-) I've been eyeing this article recently, and I think it can be a FA with just a little more work. I was gonna put it up for another Peer Review (since it hasn't been done in a year), but wanted to see what you all thought first. Are there any objections for another PR? --lightdarkness ^(talk) 15:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. Another peer review is a great idea. Futurama is my favorite television show ever. Not just do I want to see it become an FA, but I want to go to WP one day and say, "Yes! Today's featured article is Futurama!" -- Kicking222 02:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• I concur, though it would be great if the article becomes a FA on the same day Futurama returns back to TV. Either that or when the Futurama movies come out, hopefully not too long now... Nic tan33 09:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Before a PR how about we fix some very obvious things so the PR focuses on the nit picky things that separate FA articles from non FA articles? Two big things I noticed is the page size (52kb), and only seven sources are referenced, but of those seven only two are properly referenced. See Lost (TV series) as an example. It contains 36 properly cited sources. If this article is going to have a chance at FA it's got to look a lot more like the Lost article in terms of references. As for the page size, we can cut a lot of content out of here that really isn't encyclopedic. The Galactic politics sections is massive. I'm sure it could easily be cut in half and still get the same message across. Futurama, References and Referenced is a non notable section altogether. At most a small paragraph under the cancellation section can be added. The list of Syndicated broadcasts can also go. It's basically a long section that says nothing. The Possible revival section doesn't need to include a time line of every little detail about a revival going back more than a year. Simply summarize the most relevant points. Finally, many of the links in the external link section do not meet Wikipedia's external link policy. So my suggestion is first we remove a bunch of content that isn't needed and cut down on other, lengthy content. From there we mark the remaining content that are original claims with {{citation needed}} tags and try to get a large following of people to find sources. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 11:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all the points made by Jtrost. In addition, it would be worth thoroughly copy-editing the article before Peer Review. For example, the opening paragraphs need some serious work:

• "David X. Cohen (also a writer for The Simpsons)." delete the "also" since Groening is not listed as a writer for The Simpsons (I know he is, but that's not what the article says)
• "The series is set in New New York City in the 31st century. " delete this entire sentence, since much of the series is not even on Earth and its repeated in the second paragraph.
• Fix the redlink to The Curiosity Company
• The last sentence of the opening paragraph is clumsily worded
• The second paragraph is basically a synopsis of the first episode. It doesn't describe the series as a whole. Consider deleting or replacing with a more general overview of the series.
• The third paragraph is POV and unsourced.

I think we're a fairly long way from FA status right now. I'll try and make some positive changes to help the article along the way - I'd love to see Futurama get to FA status. Gwernol 11:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have put in a nomination in the Article Improvement Drive, go vote for it if you're interested :) It's at the bottom of the list right now. --Lorian 19:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Translation of the Russian article which received featured status, for ideas of what to include. --Lorian 20:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for putting thise article on AID, Lorian. That is the perfect way to clean it up. Let's hope it gets enough votes. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 20:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Woah! A flurry of activity, glad there are other editors interested in fix'in up the article :-)!! --lightdarkness ^(talk) 06:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems like there is a lot of unneccessary information; way too many broad descriptions wind up citing specific jokes; even if it's not a copyright violation, it's not important information. An example, off the top of my head, is most of the section about 'Star Trek', which basically is just quoting "Where No Fan Has Gone Before" wholesale.

Other examples, just from browsing back through it:

• Do we need to know the three times robots were referred to as property for jokes? In general, I find there are many examples of "This is what the show says as a rule, but here is a list of every time they broke that rule" ... seems extremely unneccessary when dealing with a show which "is not above committing continuity errors if they serve to further the gags".
• It seems confusing and contradictory to cite one joke from one episode to show that French is a dead language, but then explain that there are several other jokes which contradict this. Doesn't that mean it's not canon?
• Multiple explanations that "Christmas" is now "Xmas" (something which the show contradicts sometimes, which is thankfully left unmentioned)
• The discussion of Nixon's election seems unneccessarily detailed.
• "Earth's moon is still mostly unsettled with the exception of some farms, but houses an amusement park (heavily parodying Disney theme parks even to the motto: "The Happiest Place Orbiting Earth"), and is the sole tourist attraction. Citizens of the 31st century have lost all knowledge of the lunar landing, mistaking Ralph Kramden of The Honeymooners for a typical 20th century astronaut due to his common phrase, "One of these days, Alice. Bang! Zoom! Straight to the moon!" " The first sentence is horribly written, and both sentences contain jokes from the show rather than information. I won't pick apart individual grammar in the various sections, other than to say that one of the problems with all the parentheses all throughout it is that people get confused as to tenses and sentences, and things wind up poorly written.
• minor point: we should pick either "intergalactic" or "interplanetary" within the Doop section and be consistent.
• "from the head of Richard Nixon, the ruling President of Earth." I don't think it's neccessary to explain this every time Nixon is mentioned; one explanation that Nixon's head on a robot body is the president and, after that, just say "President Nixon".
• The religious discussion has a lot of unneccessary info, including "(Dr. Zoidberg being among the few exceptions)", "destroying many video tapes," "[Robot Jews] believe that Robot Jesus was built and that he was a very well programmed robot, but he was not their messiah," (that just a joke copied from the show), and the large paragraph about 'Star Trek' does not fit chronologically, is riddled with over-information, and seems even more unneccessary when there's an actual page for "Star Trek references in Futurama".
• Discussing "cross-dressing" in direct relation to homosexuality implies a false connection between the two (even when preceded by "Though not gay"); this should be its own paragraph under "Gender and sexual norms", not lumped in between descriptions of which characters are gay. (If that's even neccessary at all.)
• The celebrity guest list could probably be complete. John Goodman only played Robot Santa the first time he appeared, did not come back the second time. And do we have a citation on "James Doohan refused to do it"? My understanding was that he was too sick to do it.
• Finally, why are there two different lists of recurring characters? Characters plus characters who are robots?

I was browsing through it last night and was really tempted to just edit a whole bunch of it, but then I saw the discussion page, so I wanted to bring up some of my problems before I dove in to fixing them. I love the show, and I think we can acheive a balance where the page can cite some jokes and be amusing, but it should not be overloaded with references which make jokes sound as if they were intended as facts. The webpage should not be a substitute for watching the show ... it should just make you want to.

ThatGuamGuy 16:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)sean (TGG)

One more... couldn't:

The ship is equipped with an autopilot(seen and heard in Bendless Love, mentioned in How Hermes Requisitioned His Groove Back), a huge cargo winch (first used in "Episode Two: The Series Has Landed "), a shipboard artificial intelligence (featured in the episode "Love and Rocket"), and is powered by Dark Matter engines (first seen in "Love's Labours Lost in Space"). In addition, the ship is armed with a single turret-mounted laser cannon first utilized in "When Aliens Attack", and two torpedo launchers first utilized in "Roswell That Ends Well" and also used in later episodes.

be better expressed without all the individual citations? I can't imagine that people even want thate detailed a description of the ship that early in the article, but if we're keeping it, why not:

The ship is powered by Dark Matter engines and is armed with a single turret-mounted laser cannon and two torpedo launchers. When required by [the plot of?] an individual episode, the ship has been equipped with an autopilot, a huge cargo winch, and an artificial intelligence.

If the only way the information is allowed to stay in is with all those citations, I vote to remove the information (which seems superfluous to understanding the show). But if it's in there, it shouldn't be a chore to get through.

Since I'm posting anyway, the first paragraph of the introduction is perfect; why are the other two in the introduction? And the characters list is too long by half; they each have their own page. I actually don't agree with people that "Bender Bending Rodriguez" is wrong, but I think maybe just apply a template where you say (for instance)

Bender (full name: Bender Bending Rodriguez) (voiced by John Dimaggio) - Bender is Fry's robotic roommate. He drinks alcohol constantly as fuel, and frequently engages in brazen criminal activity. Originally designed to bend steel girders, he is currently employeed by Planet Express.

Something like that; you don't need to know that he was built in Mexico or that he was named after 'The Breakfast Club'...

24.193.227.46 02:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)sean (TGG)

Resurrection of Futurama

That section needs serious editing. It sounds like it was copied and pasted off of another source. I'll do my best for now, but if someone else wants to chip in, that'd be great.

Please be aware that apparently the reporting of 13 new episodes is incorrect. Gotfuturama.com have said that the four DVD movies will each be split into four episodes each, to be aired on Comedy Central. This will in fact make it a total of 16. Does anyone object to the changing of this? - Timichio 19:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we just say that new episodes have been ordered without giving a number until one is definatively announced? TheHYPO 20:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not against that at all. For the time being, that sounds like the best idea. Better than people being mislead. Timichio 21:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What happened to Comedy Central? i thought that they had paid good money for the rights to air re-runs and the 13 new episodes. when did this get changed to the CW? aren't they like a third rate network, barely worth mentioning?68.255.228.81 16:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah i just checked, and this is some pretty extensive vandalism, as someone changed all instances of Comedy Central to The CW. Apparently they thought that they were being funny. If you look @ the refrences section, there's an article with a title similar to "Futurama gets new life on The CW" however if you visit the article, the headline of it clearly states Comedy Central, and not the remnants of The WB network. This page should be locked from editing due to vandalism.68.255.228.81 16:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the article, to it's non-vandalised state. the articleshould still be locked.68.255.228.81 16:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I can answer that question. Those comments were made by a long term vandal I'm currently dealing with. Just ignore it. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 14:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi-def

Since the new episodes won't appear until the distant future (2008), might anyone be able to confirm or deny a high-definition release? - Eyeresist 03:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Due to the large amount of citations required in this article, I was thinking. Could someone who has the DVD version, get clips from where it is being cited? That would solve the problem of most of the information being in the actual series itself. --Lorian 06:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a slightly related question... who added the tens of {{fact}} templates. It makes the article look really ugly, and the sentences that they are placed on can only be cited by the show? How are we to cite that? I went ahead and removed some of the templates from sentences that had more than one, and just left one at the end, but I think we should remove them all. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 15:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It just needs something like (as seen in [[Episode name]]) after the statement, or a short clip extracted from the DVD version. Sources need to be cited, cited the sources and there won't be loads of [citation needed] everywhere. --Lorian 15:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

If I could add my 2 cents, I agree with Lightdarkness that there are simply too many {{fact}} templates. Sure we could cite every single one of them, but the 'facts' come from different episodes and adding all of them could significantly increase the bulk of the article and/or provide too many spoilers. Also, how would one intergrate all the clips into the article? In any case, if the sources still needs to be cited, I would have no problems doing so. Any other opinions regarding this situation? Nic tan33 01:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This article needs more than just episode citations, it needs an entire rewrite. It's not necessary to cite every sentence with an episode because this article shouldn't include little details like that. This article should be a broad overview of the Futurama universe. I suggest everyone read "good" television articles on Wikipedia such as The West Wing (TV series), The Office (US TV series), and Lost (TV series). Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 03:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Jtrost makes a good point, a lot of the stuff in this article could be labelled as a sopiler, and compared to the Lost article, most of the sections are too long, which makes the article nearly 50KB... A rewrite sounds like a good idea, you've got my vote. --Lorian 06:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is how I would like to see the article look:

• Background (or Production)

• Prior to 1999 - talks about how production began
• 1999-2003 - how Fox picked it up, ratings, and an overview of how the show was received by fans and critics
• 2003 - present - why the series was cancelled, and where the show has been popularly syndicated after Fox cancelled it.

• Cast of characters
• Season synopsis

An overview of each season. Although each episode isn't a continuation of the previous episode, each season did have its plot points such as the introduction of Mom, Fry and Leela's relationship, Nibbler, etc...

• Setting

• The lead paragraph of this section will include a brief overview of what the world is like in 3000.
• Galactic politics - includes a synoptic version of what's already in the article.
• Linguistics - Again, a synopsis of what's already there

• Awards and nominations
• Futurama in other media

• DVD releases
• Comic books
• Straight to DVD movies
• Toys and video games

• References
• External links

Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 13:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice layout, though quite a bit of research will eb required. Problem with that is that I do all my reasearch on Wikipedia :D. Anyway, I think we should have someones user subpage where we can all work on the new article without effectively blanking the whole article with empty sections. What do you think? --Lorian 13:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest using Google for research. Anything from newspapers or sites like CNN or Yahoo News is great. Also I think GotFuturama would be a good source, and we'd be able to cite almost anything in this article from there. As for a subpage, let's create Futurama/New article. It makes more sense to develop it here instead of on someone's user page. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 14:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Done :) --Lorian

Love the structure... let's get to work! --lightdarkness ^(talk) 01:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Officially cancelled or not?

If it was officially cancelled, then what is to stop them from making more episodes after as well? Nothing, they did it with Family Guy. Not ordering any more episodes may not be "officially cancelled", but it is "effectively cancelled", and putting that it is not officially cancelled in the lead gives a false impression. Qutezuce 21:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Futurama was not owned by Fox. The Curiosity Company was making the show for Fox. Fox didn't want the show anymore. The Curisoty Company stopped making the shows.

Fox did not cancel the show, putting that would be false. --Lorian 21:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

So then putting "Fox never officially cancelled Futurama" is misleading as well, since Fox does not have the power to cancel the show. Qutezuce 22:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so replace "Fox" with "Futurama was" and " Futurama" with "". --Lorian 22:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not happy with the wording as it makes it sound like Futurama is still in some sort of limbo state, when in reality Fox not buying new episodes (and no other buyer found) effectively killed the show. Qutezuce 22:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

How about "Though never officially cancelled, Fox's decision to not purchase additional episodes effectively killed the show" or something similar? EVula 23:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Lorian 07:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that makes it sound like it could still be around... I think the current wording is fine. --Lorian 07:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I did some digging to find out the details of what "cancellation" means in the TV world. I came across this Variety article about Arrested Development, another show that Fox runs, which is produced by Imagine Television and 20th Century Fox (20th Century Fox is the studio that makes tv shows/film, Fox or Fox Broadcasting is the network that airs shows). This is similar to Futurama, which is made the The Curiousity Company and 20th Century Fox (remember the 30th Century Fox logo at the end of the episodes?). Midway in the article is the following paragraph:

Since Fox has yet to officially cop to canceling "Arrested," 20th can't formally make any deals with another net.

From that I would conclude that "cancelling" is an action that Fox Broadcasting can take, after which the production company can try to get another network to buy more episodes of the show. Another example is the show JAG, from the article:

JAG was first aired on NBC in 1995, but later canceled in 1996 after finishing 77th in the ratings. With a network change, rival network CBS picked up the series and aired it for nine additional seasons until April 2005.

Again, one network cancelled a show, and another network picked it up from the production company. So it would seem that "cancellation" is an action that a network can take that doesn't necessarily "cancel" the show, just cancels it from their network. Qutezuce 07:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

So, pretty much what I put then... Fox stopped buying the show, so the production team broke apart. --Lorian 07:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

How is Fox stopping buying of the show different from them cancelling it then? Qutezuce 08:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

To quote what I have already said, "Futurama was not owned by Fox." --Lorian 08:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

A few replies back I showed that "cancelling" is an action that the network takes, even if they do not own the show. Qutezuce 20:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"Just got the word seconds ago. FUTURAMA is not officially cancelled, though it is on a sort of hiatus. Turns out Fox, which hates the show as they do not own it and Groening does, has been giving it a sort of secondary status for the late few years, i.e., running it when they feel like it, dropping it when they don't." [1]

"FOX has decided not to pick up the animated series "Futurama," although the network stresses that the show is not cancelled."

"FOX's decision not to pick up additional episodes, led the production company Rough Draft to fire its animators" [2] Lorian 10:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, so that shows that Fox didn't officially cancel it when they decided not to buy new episodes, but did they officially cancel it in the time since then? Qutezuce 16:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, that was the last we heard from Fox about it, so no. Futurama/New article#2003 - present — Little write up about it. Fox let the show go out of production, but as the show was owned by Groening, they couldn't cancel it. So basically, the production team fell apart and the animators were fired. --Lorian^T_C 17:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Re-read the part where I say that "cancellation" is an action that the network can take regardless of the ownership of the show. Cancellation does not even mean that the show will die, the example of JAG above shows that one network cancelled a show and another network picked it up. At the time that Fox declined to buy more episodes they still had basically an entire season left to show, that might have had an effect on their decision to say that they weren't cancelling the show, as they would not want to say that they were cancelling a show that they still needed to show on their network (and their advertisers were paying to advertise on). There are numerous articles that state that Futurama has been cancelled, for example this article in Variety, so either all these articles got it wrong, or simply are refering to the show in its de facto cancellation. If Fox later cancelled Futurama officially (after they finished showing the remaining episodes) it may have gotten little press as by that time everybody assumed it was already cancelled. Without some hard evidence we are relying on your statement "AFAIK, that was the last we heard from Fox", which is a bit like saying "I haven't heard anything to the contrary, so this must be true." Qutezuce 07:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Lets just get rid of the bit about it wasn't officially cancelled. Fox stopped buying the shows, so Rough Draft fired its animators. I'm getting bored of this discussion. --Lorian^T_C 09:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution. I just want to make sure that statements we make in the lead section of a (potentially) featured article can be backed up fully. Qutezuce 08:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Women not allowed in armed forces

Some days ago I noticed in this section that the part that says "women are not allowed in the earth's armed forces" is incorrect, as they are only disallowed when Zapp Brannigan is in charge. It is an easy line to miss, but I thought I would add this point. It is no longer there, someone took it away even though it was fixing a mistake. A mistake which is still there!! I don't know that much about Wikipedia so I don't know what to do in this situation, so I have posted it here... --139.168.134.142 14:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Just put it back again and put after it <!-- Do not remove, see Women not allowed in armed forces in talk page --> or something along those lines. --Lorian^T_C 14:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! --139.168.134.142 14:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The psychology behind Futurama

Wouldn't it be beneficial to explain in a section what the characters do and why? Let me explain; Bender represents our ego; always seeks what is best for him, not caring (most of the time) about the other's ideas or feelings; Leela reprents the mother figure, caring, sensible; the way the episodes are set, ie. the way at the begining of each episode there is a problem set to be resolved, almost always some kind of moral dilemna, which the characters (reprensenting certain ideas and values) go about resolving in their different ways, or colaborating to resolve the problem -- thus helping the audience solve the dilemna themselves.--DragonFly31 12:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Might be good info, but I believe that falls under WP:OR. -- Ned Scott 08:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this kind of section would be appropriate. This is an encyclopedia, not a high school English essay. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 12:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought what I said above was instrumental to the reason it is pleasing to watch futurama; I would have also thought that it not fall under WP:OR as it is pretty evident, as well as important, information regarding the show. If this stuff above is true, it is because the whole show based its concept around it. --DragonFly31 15:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm fairly certain the concept the show was based around was humor, mostly satirical. Psychological motivations are a difficult subject with fictional characters. Either way, in writing encyclopedic articles, one has to remember to avoid speculation. Touching on this subject is very clearly WP:OR unless you can find a source that is credible, which in this case would probably need to be explicit information from the show itself (Nothing implied or speculative) or confirmed support directly from someone high up in the production staff. It's a nice thought, but it just doesn't seem workable. Thanks anyway -- Digital Watches 19:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Resurrection of Futurama

That section needs serious editing. It sounds like it was copied and pasted off of another source. I'll do my best for now, but if someone else wants to chip in, that'd be great. Xubelox 00:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact it is copied directly from the link at the start of the section. Qutezuce 06:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I just rewrote it and added two sources. It's a little bare now, but more can be added later. --SevereTireDamage 08:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone verify this with any kind of citation ?

"According to Attack of the Show! on G4, David X. Cohen and Matt Groening will produce 30 new episodes." Ranieldule 18:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for not promoting to Good Article

Hi all,

I am not promoting this article because I feel it does not satisfy the good article criteria. The article is very long — something that would not be a problem if it was comprehensive. Unfortunately it seems to spend more time recounting aspects of the Futurama universe than focusing on the humour of Futurama and Futurama as a television series. More needs to be said about the devices used in story-telling, the stand-out moments/episodes of the series, the writers of the series and the scientific humour it employs (see here and here). The article has a tendency to spend an inordinate amount of times on relatively minor points. I really feel this article could be improved if many of the details where left out. The focus should instead be on giving the reader an idea of Futurama the television series, not Futurama the fictional universe (that would be more appropriate for an article titled Futurama (fictional universe)).

Cedars 06:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I largely agree. This article focuses far too much on the universe of the show, while it is an interesting topic and should go into a separate article, it's way, way too much information for someone who comes to this page and wants to get basic information about the show's universe (as opposed to focusing on information on making of the show itself). Right now it does feel somewhat crufty, obsessing over culture and politics of the Futurama world and referencing episodes of the show for such. I mean, is the entire Galactic Politics section really necessary? Or even Timeline to Revival? The thorough detail about the Ship? I think many of these concerns are being addressed in the Futurama/New article, though. --SevereTireDamage 01:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Relationships

While relationships between characters are integral to the show, I think characterizing the relationship between Kif and Brannigan as a male-bonding friendship is incorrect. While Kif is sometimes influenced by Brannigan, his barely-suppressed loathing for Zap and his general ineptitude and Brannigan’s smug condescension towards his inferiors negate any notion of true friendly regard between the two. - 2 July 2006 20:44(UTC)

I agree. I'm removing it unless anyone disagrees. --Foot Dragoon 00:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Animated GIF

Do we really need that animated GIF? It slows down the loading a bit. --PJ Pete

2008

I feel it is not needed to have information in this article based on speculation. Please add what may happen, but try to say it in a way that does not seem like it has already happened. There have not been 85 episodes yet and I believe we should keep it at 72 until they actually produce them. --WillMak050389 05:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Futurama and Simpsons

Bart Simpson's shorts from a Macy's day parade baloon are used as part of the baloon to leave the sewer in the episode where Leela finds her parents.

in giant trashball episode, on the trashball, crew encounters pile of trash including Bart Simpson dolls, when doll string is pulled by Bender, Bart Simpson doll says "Eat my shorts" Bender replies "OK" and removes and consumes shorts from Bart Simpson doll.

in the 'Mars U' episode with Robot House! Fry has a flashback to Coney Island U. in the background is a carnival game gallery, with Homer and Bart dolls hanging as prizes... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.158.90 (talk • contribs)

Linguistics

While "ax" is now common pronunciation for "ask", it should be noted that "liberry" is not the common pronuncian for "library"--it is simply how Fry says it because he is stupid.

Actually he calls it "library" in an episode with the Brainspawn as well. According to the commentary, it was just a reference to another comedian saying something along the lines of "You know someone is a jerk when they say 'liberry'" Wafulz 19:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

New version

I looked at the main article, then I found the new version. It beats the quality of the actual article hands down in my opinion. Is anyone for just importing swaths of the new article version into the main? It will cut down the fancruft of the plot. Note: I do love this show, but I feel that someone who isn't a fan of it won't like the deep dive into the plot that the article has which this new article version seems to fix. Kevin_b_er 21:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, this article is absolutley packed with fancruft. --Lorian^T_C 21:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, we can slowly phase it in. Make sure that in your edit summary you put something about importing the rewritten article per talk and AID so people don't think you're blanking the content. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 11:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I imported it, the background section needs finishing, but it's better now. No more fancruft! --Lorian^T_C 12:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The more reputable references from the old version of the article (Variety, Reuters) are now gone. Also, Wikipedia cannot be used as a self-reference. Maybe the excessive detail from the old article should have been split off into a Futurama universe article. I think you may have been too hasty in the page move, as this article really isn't ready for prime-time either. --SevereTireDamage 21:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The extra information was unnecessary fancruft which shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all. --Lorian^T_C 22:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'mna go as far as to actually move the text/coding of the new article onto the old one. Hope that's okay, revert it if it's not. Digital Watches 22:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, did you actually do anything? --Lorian^T_C 22:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Er. It seems I didn't. I guess someone beat me to the punch. Sorry about that. --Digital Watches 22:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The article looks worse to me. The "fancruft" was what made the article a good article. It explained the world of Futurama and the series well in a nice way. Look at the Star Trek series articles. They have some "fancruft", but look good and I understand them without seeing some of those series. We need to put some of the "fancruft" back into the article. The article looks really blank and like it was rushed to be put in.--Icweiner 02:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles shouldn't have any fancruft. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 02:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. With respect, one man's (woman's) "fancruft" is the detail in a work that to somebody else is exactly what makes the work unique, interesting, and alive. It's the same issue as explaining Star Trek or Sherlock Holmes or (for that matter) Finnegan's Wake. Or the stats of a ball team. If the writers thought a reference was interesting enough to put IN (yes, there is Turangalila Symphony...) one may argue that it's notable enough for a really good encylopedia article to make it accessable, to those who missed it the first time. "Fancruft" is sort of a derogatory term, like complaining about too much screaching at an opera. :) SBHarris 03:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

But fancruft only applies to a small majority, while we're writing for the vast majority. Have a look at Wikipedia:Fancruft, It'll explain a lot of where I'm coming from. --lightdarkness

We're not writing for the vast majority. We're writing for the small minority who happens to be interested in the narrow subject of the Wiki, like people who care about, oh...Wyatt Earp, or Buddy Holly. Most people don't. Look at the Wiki on Dirac equation. Does it look like something the majority of people are going to ever read? The subject of relativistic quantum mechanics is of tremendous interest to those people who are interested in it, but not to those who those who aren't. In fact, it's pretty much closed to them and will always be. Our job here on Wikipedia is to help the student, but the nature of education is that it's just about useless except in cases where it's nearly superfluous. The student needs to bring huge enthusiasm, time, and some background. Otherwise, as in all subjects, collision of student and subject leads to waste of time. This is not always the fault of the subject. Wikipedia is FILLED with things I personally don't give a damn about. But it would be egotistical of me to go trimming at them. I leave them to the people who care. I work on expanding the things I do know and care about. SBHarris 17:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a crazy idea (that nobody will ever agree with) about having a "two-tiered" Wikipedia. I have observed that a lot of what I use Wikipedia for (e.g. finding out the common perceptions of certain sports figures regardless of truth, reading interesting fancruft, etc.) are not really encyclopedia-like uses. So while I understand the goal of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, to me a lot of its value comes from the NON-encyclopedia-ish stuff. It works for me as a central repository of common knowledge, a sort of Universal Wiki, if you will. With that in mind, I think it would be neat to have two tiers, where the first tier is really encyclopedia-like, and the second tier is just whatever. Search results would separate the two so you know what you are getting. In this case, the "fancruft" version of the Futurama article is a terrific second-tier article -- not really encyclopedia material, but packed with useful information. And yeah, I did read What Wikipedia Is Not. I don't care, this is what I wish it was ;p --14:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

(talk) 03:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that what makes cruft is completely subjective. Note that I agreed with the Good Article failing because the old article was definitely excessive. BUT, the Fancruft document above is NOT policy, it's just an essay - it's exactly as official as the Pokemon test. That said there's plenty of precedent (see Springfield (The Simpsons) for one notable example, but many video games, TV shows, movies, Star Wars, Star Trek, etc. have universe sub-articles) on Wikipedia that sub-articles can expand on what many would consider cruft, it's part of the width and breadth of this encyclopedia. But my problem here wasn't with keeping the so-called cruft (like I said, I supported moving most of it off the main article altogether into a single other article), it was replacing it with a page, in its current state, was in many ways worse than the crufty one. New sections are nice, but now we're lacking a lot of basic information that was in the old one and needed sourcing. --SevereTireDamage 16:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There are some incorrect statements in the article, such as there being a fifth production season being made when Fox "cancelled" the show. The show's funding was stopped by Fox and there was no 5th season in production. Devil's Hands was made after Fox put the show on hiatus. It was made to be closure to the series and openness for future seasons. There is other things in the article that need to be corrected, and why does backround talk about just the hiatus? Shouldn't it talk about series backround?--Icweiner 02:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

One page

How about we merge the two Futurama pages together?--Salvax 21:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

We already did, see discussion above. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 21:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

But there are still two different pages. How about one Futurama page?--Salvax 22:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean changing Futurama/New article to a Redirect to the main page? Sure, you can do that. There's not that much point, though, since the only pages that actually link to that page are this very talk page, User talk pages, and WP:FUTU. [3] --SevereTireDamage 22:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Take it to WP:MFD. It will be deleted. Viridae^Talk 23:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No. I mean to have only one page for Futurama incorporating both pages into one. Not a redirect.--Salvax 00:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If the merge has been completed please list Futurama/New article on WP:MFD where it will be deleted. There is absoloutely no need for a redirect, if one is created it will just be deleted anway.Viridae^Talk 00:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No need for a MFD, just say the word and I'll delete it. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 00:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well that makes it easier. If you are happy that the merge is completed, go ahead. Viridae^Talk 01:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

All set, if for some reason someone wants the text, let me know and I'll restore it. All of the text is now in the current article though, so we're all set. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 01:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Character Names?

Can I suggest a looking-atting of the character section? I don't think the 'A.K.A.' listings are right. They aren't also known as... I know the creator was intending to show how they are usually referred to (Phillip J. Fry as simply "Fry", but that's not an AKA... that's just "Usually referred to as". Frankly, since every character is refferred to by one portion of their name, I don't think they are necessary at all. If one wanted to, they could make note at the beginning of the section of how Leela, Fry and Zoidberg are usually referred to by their surnames as opposed to other characters, but if Hermes and Amy don't need AKA, Bender (Bender being his first name (shouldn't need it either. "Professor" being his title and job, "The Professor" isn't needed as an AKA, as that's what you naturally call someone in that position. Leela, Fry and Zoidberg are the only characters whose normal reference doesn't fall under standard practice, but either way, they are still called by part of their name, which I think is sufficiently clear (and I'm sure, expanded in their own articles) that the AKA's aren't needed in this one. Thoughts? TheHYPO 23:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Random sidenote, Leela doesn't go by her surname in the traditional sense. It's more like Asian or Bajoran names, where the family name comes first (yes, I'm a nerd). This is evidenced by the fact that she sends a letter to her parents, addressed to "Turanga Morris and Munda". Random sidenote. —Buddy13 03:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Season Synopses?

Seeing as how Futurama episodes are almost entirely self-contained, and there is no specific season-long plot bases, Is there a point in splitting the plot synopsis into 4 seasons? It just seems to take up extra space for no real reason. One could watch the series from start to finish and have no idea where the seasons end and begin, unlike a show like, say 24, Lost, or something like that. I'd argue for merging the synopses into one general one. Also, the article has no spoiler tags. I'd say this section (particularly if merged together) would merit one, if not other sections of the article. TheHYPO 23:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it reads better as-is. I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative or a smartass, but is there a point in merging the synopses? You're right that the episodes for the most part are self contained, but I don't think the split is making the article excessively long.--CPitt76 00:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the whole section is pointless. Why use pointless information? It's not a matter of taking up space or the article being too long, it's just erroneous. -- Digital Watches 00:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. All the synopses do is basically list various plots of episodes from those seasons. The information is already divided into episode articles. It's unnecessary (and unnecessarily spoilering) to have it in this article. I renew my call to dump the section entirely, or simply rewrite it into a very short premise synopsis of the series, which already exists if you read the character's sections, so I think it just isn't necessary. It's stuff like that that keeps an article like this off the feature or good article lists. TheHYPO 01:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing it makes a lot more sense than condensing it. Let's go with that. CPitt76 18:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree completely with the removal of the entire section. Although it is true that most of the episodes are self-containted, there are some very clear and important continuations. Namely Fry's entire purpose, his relationship with Leela, and the various character's progression and growth over the course of the show. I do however, feel it is completely unnecessary to mention any individual episodes in this section. Diewelt 23:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "fry's entire purpose". There at most two episodes dealing with the issue of Fry's being the saviour of the universe... which is exclusively isolated to those episode and is rarely if ever brought up in other episodes. His relationship with Leela is 100% continuitous. I agree completely. But this is Futurama. Fry has his own article. The fact that he likes Leela is worth mentioning in his character section. Expansion (particularly since it is potentially spoilerish) is, in my personal opinion of course, best left to his article. People who just want to learn about the show in general are not significantly benefitted by a detailed chronology of Fry/Leela relationship. This is my own opinion, and I'm perfectly willing to bow to majority opinion on it, but I think that This is the kind of show that if I tuned in to episode 36, I wouldn't need to know anything in that section to follow the plot perfectly.

This might be contrasting to, say, Frasier where the history of Niles and Daphne's relationship is often referenced and the Niles/Daphne relationship is a major plot point in a significant number of episodes. All you really need to know to understand a fry-leela plot is that he likes her but she doesn't like him back. They rarely refer to past the history in plots, and there are very few episodes that are actually Fry/Leela as opposed to having a brief mention of the Fry-Leela relationship. As I said, It's definately worth a mention in their character sections, but the history of the relationship is it is not necessary and basically just adds spoiler info that isn't fundamental to understanding the show.

Finally, I'm not sure about character growth. Again, I feel the character's own articles are there for this reason. Futurama, IMO, should not be a summary of all info about the show available, but should rather be a page that someone who hears the name "Futurama" or sees one episode and wants to learn about the show can goto and get basic info about the show, it's history, it's basic story elements, and other vital info. If the people want to know how Zoidberg has grown - he's got his own page and I don't think it is crucial info. I semi-moderate the page The Simpsons and trust me, the page can get extremely bloated if every element of the series is explored (simpsons has entire sections just on the writing process, comedy style, etc, but even The Simpsons main article doesn't have anything other than occasional continuity mentions in the character sections. TheHYPO 07:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Language Evolution

Theres no mention of how the language has changed from todays normal. The most obvious example is the use of the word "axe" in place of "ask". Which If I remember correctly is used throughout almost the whole series.--Azslande 06:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be enough material to warrant a section on language. The one you provided is the only example I can think of, except for random things like Uranus now being called Urectum and Christmas now being called Xmas. Maybe this is better for the Trivia section.--CPitt76 23:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Simpsons connection

I just noticed in the Treehouse episode Treehouse of Horror VII where Lisa creates the universe in a tub, and it grows to a futuristic state, "tubes" like futurama's can be seen in the tub. I thought it was an interesting connection between the two shows. The episode aired in 1996. TheHYPO 04:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want a connection, why not the Bart Simpson doll on the giant ball of 20th century garbage, or remains of a Bart parade balloon being used by the sewer mutants? --66.36.135.192 02:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Because those are connections made to the existing Simpsons by the existing Futurama. The Treehouse reference was made years before Futurama existed, and thus wasn't a Futurama reference. I thought it was an interesting consistant element between the vision of future technology between the two shows which shared members of the creative team. TheHYPO 22:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of August 11, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: This is the biggest failure area. When encyclopedia's deal with fictional topics, they must be written in an Out-of-universe perspective. This is fictional and that should be reflected in the way the article is written. Phrases that are inappropriate include: "Many problems that exist in the world today are still present," "Earth has a unified government called the United States of Earth," "Over the last 1,000 years, there have been some advances with the linguistics of the Futurama world." Also, the awards section needs to reformatted. The two columns that don't match in legnth doesn't look polished.

2. Factually accurate?: Fair. Needs expansion, and no doubt with that expansion will need more references.

3. Broad in coverage?: There is nothing under Season 5. I don't know if that got blanked or not, but it needs to be corrected. More should be included also about the writers and creators of the show. Currently, there is a brief mention in the lead section, but I think there could be more about how the show was hatched, what voice actors are involved, animation, etc... I think the request for expansion on the background section is pretty accurate. Though Futurama doesn't have the age or pedigree of this show, see The Simpsons for an excellent example on what I'm talking about. Not necessarily that comprehensive, but at least touching on all the topics covered there.

4. Neutral point of view?: So far so good.

5. Article stability? Also fair. A couple fannish battles and vandal skirmishes lately. But it doesn't seem to be a chronic problem.

6. Images?: The image Image:Futurama-DVDs.jpg, though DVD covers, is not properly tagged. This is for a shot of the DVD cover and nothing else. This should probably be tagged a promo photo, but only if that is the case. I also question the PD claim on Image:Alien decoder.PNG, since the image creator didn't create that alphabet. This might be a problem. There are also three screenshots on the page, and no more than two are permitted.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Esprit15d 21:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As it will need to be adressed eventually does anyone have an opinion on which of the screenshots to remove? I would say the slurm poster one as it doesn't add as much to the article as the other two (the crew and the setting are more significant I would think). Any opinions? We might as well get it over with if we want to make another GA run someday.Stardust8212 14:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Since it has been over a month and no one has responded I took the initiative and did it, if you disagree please discuss here, don't just revert it. Thanks! Stardust8212 16:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

well technically

"...and "ask" is an archaic pronunciation of "axe.""

technically its: "aks"

also it's dubious as to whether this is a "modernisation" (post yr2k) because in the episode where they travel back in time and to area 51 leela says "fry's from this time, i'll act like him" and then uses the word "aks" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.112.175 (talk • contribs)

...I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make is. If anything, it can be safely assumed that Leela doesn't understand the difference between 1950s culture and 1990s culture, hence her inappropriate word choice. EVula 04:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, "I'll act like Fry" does not thus imply that every action and word she uses subsequently is then based on Fry's time. TheHYPO 18:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The official closed captioning(the one provided by FOX on the DVD) spells it "axe". What is your source for it being "aks"? TJ Spyke 21:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The captions should never be used as a reference. They are frequently wrong (e.g., the "fing-longer" is shown as the "thing longer"). —Buddy13 04:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the axe/aks thing too. Has this been settled? I'm pretty sure that "aks" is more correct since it is derived by transposing two of the letters that spell "ask" Tengchaw 23:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure it makes a big difference. Reasonably if we say "it is now pronounced axe" or "it is now pronounced aks" we're really saying the same thing as they are both pronounced the same way. If we said "it is written axe/aks" that would make a difference. Unless there is an official source (and the subtitles are really the closest thing we have, even if they are known to be incorrect at times) I don't think we can really settle on one or the other. How are other show spellings determined? Such as Ndnd or Lrrr having 3 r's instead of 2? Stardust8212 23:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't considered pronunciation v. spelling, but I would think that it should make a little bit of difference. I also completely ignored the earlier posts regarding the spelling in the subtitles (I know, I should have RTFA--I'm truly sorry). But if the subtitles have been shown to be unreliable (e.g., fing-longer), than shouldn't axe/aks be corrected? Tengchaw 07:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I should also add, in this case, aks/axe is clearly a reference to a current colloquial word (as opposed to Ndnd or Lrrr). If we accept that it's a reference to a contemporary word, than I think it's clear that "aks" is the appropriate spelling, no? Tengchaw 07:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

the axe/aks... (from late 20-th century urban America slang for the word ask...) this falls into the Futurama method of satorizing history/historians as in the flexo episode where Gerald Ford invented the 'automocar' and an Einstein impersonator invites a Hammurabi impersonator to 'disco dance' The writers demonstrating how easily history can be confused/distorted and our current trends will be distorted/confused as history in 1000 years...

Missing Annie Award Win

Hi regular posters!

I noticed that the page doesn't mention the Annie Ron Weiner won for "Fryrish." I can add it myself, but you guys seem to be working on getting this page cleaned up for a Good Article award, and I didn't want to mess around with portions that you don't want messed with. Officer 1BDI 07:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and add it. Speaking of which, it would probably be better to directly source each award's website for nominations and wins instead of citing IMDb. Thoughts? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 17:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe someone already added it, but Officer 1BDI remember to be bold. Also, I think we should cite one website for awards and not an nth number of imdb pages. --WillMak050389 02:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Bender's Name

I've removed the statement: His rebellious personality and name are taken from the character John Bender from the film The Breakfast Club. There was no source. Can anyone back this up? The word "bender" is a slang term for a drinking spree. This sounds like a more likely origin. If someone can provide a source for the deleted item it can be replaced. CPitt76 20:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I've always assumed his name came from what he is, a bender, his job was to bend things. Just like someone who sings is called a singer. TJ Spyke 21:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, there's that. But it is also possible that the creators got the name from somewhere else (like either of the two mentioned theories) and worked it into the story so that they can explain the name "bender". Does anyone have any reference? CPitt76 00:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd also guess it comes from a drinking spree, especially since his alias while in the mob is "Blotto" -- a term for being very drunk. I'd assume they gave him the job "bender" after choosing the name (Url was also a name that was considered for Bender), to give him a mundane origin for it. Buddy13 04:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I really think they just created a robot character and then figured out a job for it, so Bender's name came, they didn't think they'd make another robot which is exactly the same as bender later (Flexo). the thought was: name the robot after it's job. The Nanto 10:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Futurama Collector's Bag

This addition looks like a big advertisement for some website. I think it should be removed. All in favor... Stardust8212 23:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed it. It was clearly an ad. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 23:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

An ad? I did not include the Futurama Collector's Bag to "advertise" it as I have absolutely nothing to gain from doing so. I felt it was a worthy addition to the article for those interested in seeing the various ways in which Futurama is being released on DVD in region 4 and abroad. Sillygostly 05:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It's irrelevant really. The bag is just a package that contains the 4 existing releases. It's not a new release, it's merely a bundling of the old releases. It may be a valid point in an article on all futurama merchandise, but the main article should only deal with actual new collections of episodes (not a bundling of the sets already listed). TheHYPO 15:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

listen to all of the f'ing dvd commentarys and you will see that im right

why did my input about the 2nd alien language get removed? i heard it from matts own bludey mouth that their is a second alien language that looks exactly like the 1st one but you have to go back 2 letters from the original letter for the right one, but no i cant be right. wtf? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.148.243 (talk • contribs)

Is there a way to know which episode commentary this is from? I don't remember hearing this, but if it is true we could cite that commentary. --WillMak050389 02:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, list an episode; I don't remember hearing anything like that anywhere... Buddy13 02:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it because, if you "READ THE F'N ARTICLE", you'll see that the article already mentions the second language and its modular form not 2 sentances before where you put your edit. Also, your edit was very poorly written and didn't fit into the structure of the paragraph you crammed it into. TheHYPO 04:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

French?

Someone gives an example that shows that french has died out (universal translator), stating that the Prof's translator only responds in French. However, this doesn't seem to prove that French has died off without more clarification. To me it shows that French exists... TheHYPO 08:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The professor says something along the lines of the universal translator only translating into an unitelligible dead language. Then it translates "Hello" to "Bonjour" and the professor complains that its nonsense. Not sure how to sum that up more clearly. Stardust8212 11:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I tried clearing it up. Anybody able to word that more elegantly is welcome to edit it. — Mütze 12:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, during Space Pilot 3000, during the first (2000) New Year's countdown, france is shown and they say their number in French. During the second countdown, when France is shown (this time with a hovering Eiffel Tower), they speak their number in English. A subtle hint, but still supports the idea that French has died out. However, contradictory information is also present. Zoidberg says a French phrase (I don't know French and wouldn't even begin trying to spell out what he said), I believe in The 30% Iron Chef. The restaurant orbiting Planet Amazonia was named "Le Palm D'Orbit". And finally, though I personally consider the comics rather low in the canon-scale, in Whole Lotta Leela, Leela says she's learning French. So, there you have it. I just confused the matter even further! Buddy13 19:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It's confirmed in the episode commentaries that French being a dead language is a running joke. Same thing with the owls replacing mice. WesleyDodds 17:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Although it may be a running joke, French is indeed still present in the show. Another example is when Bender speaks it in the robot insane asylum as part of his Napolean imitation. 199.126.137.209 05:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

What Zoidberg says is "j'accuse!", though maybe there should be accents. I think it means "I accuse (you)!", which is what the others were doing at the time (accusing Bender of bending things). The other appearances of French are as the name of a restaurant and when Bender imitates Napoleon ("Je suis Napoleon," "I am Napoleon"). Not really evidence that French is not a dead language, considering establishments can have Latin names, and people quote Latin phrases. Of course, this means it isn't "unintelligible", except maybe to the Professor. -Switch ^t 09:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Cryonics/Cryogenics

Does series every use the term 'cryogenic' in reference to fry's freezing? If so, it might be a simple evasion of the frequent edit to add something like:

cryonically frozen (called "cryogenically" in the series as is a common, but erroneous substitution)

Just a thought TheHYPO 11:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a misnomer. --Lorian^T_C 11:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the word... so I'm suggesting if the show itself ever uses the term cryogenics to refer to it, a note in the article >(though the misnomer "cryogenics" is used in the series)< or something of that nature. TheHYPO 12:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The company that Fry was delivering Pizza to was called Applied Cryogenics. However, one episode is titled "The Cryonic Woman", thus hinting that they knew of the misnomer. But the public at large still calls it "Cryogenics", so that's probably why they stuck with it... Buddy13 19:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to include information on the use of real scientific and mathematical principals as they are portrayed in futurama? I'm not sure how much we should include but it might be of interest if there was enough info. A point about the cryonics/cryogenics issue would fit well. Stardust8212 20:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There are a few references to real mathematical and scientific theories and paradoxes. Off the top of my head, I can remember the Professor complaining that "You changed the result by measuring it!", Bender being able to run through a diode only in one direction when converted to metaphysical subatomic matter, binary being written on a wall (in roblood maybe?) that when translated directly to decimal returns "666" (and scares Bender), an "Aleph-nul-plex" appearing in a parody of the "multiplex", two large books briefly seen in a closet labelled "N" and "P" respectively, "Strong Force" Crazy Glue, Klein's Beer sold in apropriate bottles, a robot-inhabited planet called "Chapek 9", and referring to Bender's DNA as "RNA". I'm sure there are plenty more, but we only really need one or two examples from each field that has had jokes referencing it. -Switch ^t 09:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly the sorts of things I was talking about. I think something about this would be a good addition to the article. Anyone wanna take on that task? If no one else does it I'll try to throw something together in the near future.Stardust8212 14:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I just remembered another double-joke; the stitch in Bender and Fry's apartment reads:

10 HOME

20 SWEET

30 GO TO 10

That appears at first to be a simple BASIC joke punning on "Home! Sweet Home!", but on closer inspection, that program would run indefinitely as "Home Sweet Home Sweet Home Sweet Home Sweet..." etc.

That in particular is probably too fancruftish, not to mention verging on OR (the intent of the error is debatable), but the article desperately needs more discussion of the series' humour, and the more obscure jokes referring to philosophy, physics, metaphysics, computer science, biology, and science fiction history are a large part of the reason the show garnered a cult fanbase. I'll try to make a paragraph discussing those elements of Futurama's style, and how combining that with low-brow humour and everything in between made it successful. -Switch ^t 16:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Audio Commentaries

I was wondering should we have an article(s) devoted to the audio commentaries of the show? Seeing as how this is one of the only shows to have ever episode of the series have an audio commentary to it and how they seem to be extremely interesting and reveal interesting details.CartoonDiablo 14:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)CartoonDiablo

An entire article dedicated to audio commentaries would be considered fancruft. If there are particular notable and encyclopedic parts of the audio commentary that are relevent to this article, you are welcome to add them as long as they are properly cited. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 15:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind I'm not advertising, but such an article might be appropriate for a Futurama-centric Wiki, such as my own or the other listed at the bottom of the Futurama article. Buddy13 20:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Futurama game

Is the game still available in stores?-66.169.124.10 16:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Depends on the store. It is still available from many online retailers, though. Just do a Google search. ♠ SG →Talk 10:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Depends moreso on the country. Some local video game distributors may have decided to discontinue the game. However, the game is still widely available at a budget price in Australia. And due to the new-found popularity of Futurama in Australia, I don't see any signs of the game being discontinued anytime soon on our shores. Sillygostly 03:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Awards section

I noticed redoing the awards section was on the to-do list, so I've redone it with a more compact style. I also used pipe syntax instead of pure HTML tables to make it simpler. If you don't like my changes, please revert. What do you think? ♠ SG →Talk 10:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty good, the only odd thing I see is that the "Nominations" Heading being centered over the two columns is a bit confusing, it is hard to tell at first glance if it it two columns of wins and one of noms or vice versa. I think it might look better if the heading was just over the first column rather than centered. It would just look better IMHO but I don't know how to do it. Other than that...good work! Stardust8212 17:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed! All I had to do was use a "text-align: left" CSS style. ♠ SG →Talk 21:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

smizmar?

[Smizmar] redirects to this page, but this page doesn't explain (or even use) the word "smizmar". (I can't remember what it means; that's why I searched for it in the first place).

It's a meaningless one-off joke word from Futurama. It doesn't mean anything. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the redirect should be changed to the episode the joke is in, I think the term might be explained there and it would be more appropriate, I'll see what I can do. Stardust8212 12:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It's in three or four different episodes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It can't be a one-off and be in three or four different episodes *wink-wink* Anyway, I redirected it to "Kif Gets Knocked Up a Notch" because it is the main focus of that episode more so than any other episode and the only episode where the meaning of the word is discussed in any episode (at least as far as I can remember). If you disagree feel free to change it to somewhere more appropriate. Stardust8212 15:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There should be a page with words unique to Futurama and other unique lingual stuff, like aks/ax instead of ask

Ladies, Gentlemen and Smizmars! in the Ultimate Robot Fighting league episode(i think?)the referee announces thusly. Smizmar is explained as the mating partner in Kiff's species; as a nonsexual mating parent/partner...but it is used in other episodes, sporadicly like a running gag...

Officially Back or Not?

Ok, I've read two things. First, that there are thirteen new episodes in production, to be aired alongside old ones on Comedy Central, in 2008. Second, that the four direct to DVD films are actually each being broken up into four twenty-two minute "episodes", making the total count at sixteen "episodes" and no new ones are being made at all (aside for the films).

I've read more of the former then of the latter, but what is the straight goods here? Chewbacca1010 19:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ron Popeil and specifics on which world the show parodies

Specifics are better and assist the article in my opinion, just trying to avoid undue conflict by asking for opinions of others here. Man in black seems to disagree. Chieftain Rosewater 15:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume this is in regards to your recent edit conflict? It might be helpful to give a little more detail for those who don't already know what you're talking about. I agree with the Man in Black that a lot of small "one-off" type jokes do not belong on the main Futurama page. Many of the minor details are discussed in the specific episode pages or character/item specific pages. For example Ron Popeil is discussed here. In the previous version of this article lots of people added small details from one-off jokes which they personally thought were important. The overall result was not a better more informative article but a hodge podge of random info which was poorly written, poorly organized and generally didn't read well at all. Much of this was removed in the new slimmed down version and for those of us that think this version represents a significant improvement it is natural to remove additions which are seen as leading back towards the older version. This at least explains my viewpoint, I would rather leave the Ron Popeil trivia factoid out. (Sorry, that was more than I originally intended to write) Stardust8212 17:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Season synopses

What is the benefit to the article of this section? It merely sums up a bunch of unrelated events and gags without really saying too much about the series. We already have articles about episodes, so this sort of business is redundant. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, kill it. Adds nothing to the article. EVula 16:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I said the same thing months ago, but noone listened. TheHYPO 17:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

On the bright side, though, at least you finally got to kill it. :-) EVula 18:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Amy Wong's second language

Can anyone verify that Amy Wong's second language is really Cantonese. My Cantonese is a little rusty (haven't spoken it in many years), but I do not think that Amy speaks/curses in Cantonese. Thanks for any comments 203.129.147.144 14:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC) (Steph)

I can't site the episode, but it is mentioned in the commentaries once or twice, though never by Lauren Tom herself. Buddy13 21:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

She does speak cantonese, she says 我要打死你 (translation: I will kill you) in one of the episodes and Bender repeats it. Go Futurama! Sp3000 01:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

30th Century Fox

30th Century Fox redirects here, yet there is no mention of it anywhere on the page. 206.165.101.124 13:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC) This was my comment, somehow I became logged out. JonoP 13:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well there isn't enough information about it for its own article and in the grand scheme of things its probably not even significant enough for a mention on this page, I can't think of anything encyclopedic to say about it. Stardust8212 18:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually the story is quite interesting and deserves a mention, the problem is finding a reliable source for it. EnsRedShirt 08:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a story? What is it? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The story is that the crew wanted to make a fake "30th Century Fox" logo for the end of each episode and asked 20th Century Fox to do this. They refused because they thought it would cost too much. The crew made it anyway and it turns out it only cost about 50 dollars to do, which the studio duly reimbursed them for. It's all discussed in one of the DVD commentaries, probably the first episode. WesleyDodds 01:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah. That is an interesting story. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not sure that's worth mentioning in the article, but it was a fun little read. Anyway, it makes sense that 30th C. Fox redirects here, even if it's not mentioned- if there's nothing to say (or nothing worth saying), it might as well be a redirect. -- Kicking222 22:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the likelihood of someone looking for 30th Century Fox not in conjunction with its use in Futurama is pretty low. If they look for it, they're probably expecting this page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be redirected to 20th Century Fox since it is actually a parody of the production company. 141.150.111.203 15:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It is only used in Futurama, so redirecting it would just cause more confusion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Article on hold (2 December 2006)

Sorry to everyone to have to do this, but I have listed this article as being on hold for the next 7 days. My reason for this is the existence of a "citation needed" tag within the 'DVD and future movies' section which needs an adequate reference to back up the fact. Once this has been done I will be happy to reassess the article again. Wikiwoohoo 21:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I see it listed as such on imdb but I'm not sure that counts as a reliable source. My suggestion would be that if we can't find a reliable source for that piece of information that we simply remove it, I don't think it would damage the article significantly to remove it. Anyone else have better luck finding a source? Stardust8212 01:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As no source has come forward I have removed the offending statement, please carry on with your review. Stardust8212 16:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! I have decided that the article in its present state is a good article. Well done to all those involved. Wikiwoohoo 21:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"Humor" section

I've sandboxed an attempt at a section on the show's humour style, mostly emphasising on the borad range of styles that made it appealing to everyone and all the nerdy in-jokes that earned it a cult following. Have a look. Any suggestions, oppositions, etc? -Switch ^t 19:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a good concept, but the content contains far too much original research to be included in this article. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 22:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Outside references to the humor style would be good. CovenantD 22:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it would be a good addition if proper references could be found. Stardust8212 23:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, um, does someone want to look for references about Futurama's comedy style? I haven't yet found anything, though there's a book out there on the series somewhere that I imagine would be a wonderful help. Somebody? ~Switch ^t 11:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty good now, but should we really include the Klein beer bottles? We're only supposed ot have two fair use images per page, those already being in the cast and setting areas. Is there a free use picture of a klein bottle? Stardust8212 17:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. As far as I can tell (from a search for "two" and "2" respectively) WP:FU doesn't mention an image limit of two, but if that is the case the image can probably be replaced with one of the others from the Klein bottle article. Obviously the current one is desirable because it's from Futurama, but it can be done without. ~Switch ^t 18:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure where the "rule" comes from but it was brought up in a previous peer review/FA nom/GA nom, I can't remember at the moment which one...it should be somewhere further up this page though, that's the only reason I bring it up. Actually we should probably just get another peer review to see what needs to happen to become FA class, it'd come up there if it was a problem. Stardust8212 18:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor edit... the science of P and NP junctions is properly electronics, not computer science (see the article on CS linked in the "humor" section) -- so I added the "and electronics", recognizing that Cohen studied CS in school and that there are many CS-inspired jokes on the show (that one just isn't one of them). :-) Chenel324 01:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't about junctions at all, it's about dividing computational problems into two classes, P and NP. It's interesting that electronics has a similar notation, but the DVD commentary makes it clear that the writers meant the mathematical terms.CarlFink 14:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section.

It states in the trivia section that Xiaolin Showdown makes a reference to becoming your own grandfather, and that this is in fact taken from Futurama. I see no reason why this should be considerred trivia as the storyline of becoming ones own grandfather is common in science fiction comedies today, there is even a song called "I'm my own Grandpa". If none of you have any objections I believe that part should be removed from the trivia section. Zimopia 19:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)zimopia.

This section of the article was completely removed earlier today so it should not be an issue. Thanks for keeping a watchful eye! Stardust8212 19:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"I'm My Own Grampa", for the record, has nothing to do with science fiction, time travel or time paradoxes. Regardless, the entire trivia section (such as it was - some mentions of Simpsons references and Xialoin Showdown) has been removed. -Switch ^t 20:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's back as of right now, and should really be re-removed. I don't know if that trips the three edit rule or not, not being much of a Wikipedian myself. I'll leave the work to someone else. --70.166.64.3 19:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR only applies to three reverts in one day. Reverting the same nonsense repeatedly over a longer period of time is fine. I'll remove it. ~Switch ^{t c g} 05:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Futurama Episodes

It seems like there should be a better way to deal with this rather than having a Top Level section header which contains nothing but a link. Perhaps it could be moved to the DVD rlease section as a short intro such as "Futurama consists of 72 episodes which have been released as four volumes on DVD..." followed by the table. I think it would be good to find a way to not have two sections one of which consists of a table with no explanatory text and the other which is just a link to another article, it would improve the article significantly in my mind. Does anyone else have suggestions about what to do about this. As usual I will go ahead with my evil plans if I don't get any opposing opinions in the next week. Stardust8212 18:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Is it worth requesting semi-protection of this page? --cfp 19:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've warned the anon editor to stop vandalizing the page; if it happens again, they'll get a block thrown up. If it still continues after the block, I'll protect the page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahh sorry, I requested semi-protection before I saw your comment. Didn't realise you had it under control. --cfp 19:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried requesting semi-protection, but they said there wasn't enough recent activity, which I beg to differ... --AAA! ^{(AAAA • AAAAAAAA)} 23:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahh well one way or another it's semi-protected now. It shows that the process isn't exactly flawless... Still we got there in the end, so we can't complain. --cfp 00:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the proper thing would have been to warn the user after the first time they vandalized the article; by the third time happened, they could have been blocked, thereby removing the need to protect the article. "Deal with the problem, not the victim" is my philosophy in such things. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Aye you're probably right. Still looking in the history I counted 8 different vandalising IPs, so blocking one individual may not have had much effect in any case. --cfp 12:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've reported the vandal(s) to WP:RFI for using sockpuppets to add UPN nonsense. Me and David Levy are currently taking care of him. --AAA! ^{(AAAA • AAAAAAAA)} 12:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The X-Files and Spanish Fry

If anybody has Season 4 of Futurama on DVD, could they watch Spanish Fry with commentary and let me know if anybody mentions The X-Files as influence, especially in the scene depicted in this image: Image:XfilesFry.jpg. Thanks in advance. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 04:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed the image to a link; fair use images aren't supposed to appear anywhere outside of the main article space.

As for your question, that's about as generic an image for alien abduction as it gets. That X-Files used it is no great surprise, and not necessarily a link between the two shows. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tweak. Didn't know how to link an image. Yeah...I guess it's pretty generic. If somebody still checked it out, that would be nice. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 06:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Galactic politics facts?

I was just reading the "Galactic politics" section and was surprised by some of the information in it. It states for instance "Much of the Milky Way Galaxy now operates under the Earth government's sphere of influence", is this really true? I never really got that impression from watching the show, certainly Earth seemed to be invading some weak planets, but does Earth really hold power over the Galaxy? For one thing the Earth was invaded many times by seemingly superior aliens, so they obviously aren't that Militarily dominant.

The second thing was the statement on the DOOP "The Democratic Order Of Planets (D.O.O.P.) was founded in 2945 after the Second Galactic War", where does this information come from? was it ever stated in the show? because I don't seem to remember it. --Hibernian 17:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember the date of its formation being mentioned, but it could be. As for the sphere of influence, I would probably strike it. Earth doesn't seem to be as dominant as Kif Kroker's race, for example. However, which of the invaders came from within the Milky Way? The Brainspawn didn't, I have no idea about the Decapodians, and the Omicronians almost certainly are from this galaxy (their plaet is shown as being outside ths galaxy sometimes, but if they're only 1000 light years away, that's not really possible. ~Switch ^t 07:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

TV resolution

What does this mean: "Television is a primary form of entertainment, though the resolution is in fact higher than 31st century reality." ? It's set in the 31st century, so how can TVs be higher resolution than they are? If it's a typo, and it's supposed to say "21st century", then it's an odd way of phrasing the sentence anyway. --DudeGalea 23:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a silly inference based on a mediocre joke. In one episode Fry says something akin to "But TV has better resolution than real life." I think we should simply change it to say, "Television is a primary form of entertainment" and explain it's importance in the show. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 23:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

why does alienese redirect here?

why does alienese redirect to the futurama? did they delete alienese? --kozmic|sk8r 10:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Found a link to this in the History of Alienese: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alienese. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 02:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

edits 1/25

I removed the 30th century fox logo as the article criteria states that no more than 2 screenshots should be used and that makes three. The cast and setting shots add much more to the article whereas the logo can be explained by a simple sentance. I removed the bit about "Bender is the oldest crew member" as it is a spoiler for "Roswell That Ends Well" along with being a one episode joke that is not character defining for Bender. Also until that point Bender is only four years old and the youngest crew member so the statement is somewhat misleading to a casual fan. Also over explanation of the plot of each episode should not be included in that section. Thirdly I removed the statement that the fonts could be downloaded on fan websites as that seems to be a rather unencyclopedic item and a bit too trivial for my tastes.

If anyone takes issue with these items I'd be happy to discuss. Stardust8212 20:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

wotz wrong with the fonts thing?

--kozmic|sk8r 10:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It's unencyclopedic, meaning something I wouldn't consider to belong in an encyclopedia. Also the focus of the article is the television show, why and how it is significant or notable. Saying that the font can be downloaded from a fansite does not give more insight into the show nor does it explain more about the importance of the language itself. Just because something is unequivicably true doesn't mean it belongs here. Or at least that was my reasoning. Of course this is the encyclopedia which can be editted by anyone so I don't have the final say in the matter by any means. Stardust8212 22:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, instead of mentioning the font in the article proper, a link to such a font set could be added unobtrusively at the end, in the "External Links" section? Would this be more acceptable? Just a thought. 71.56.86.252 09:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Numbering of the episodes

According to a possbily broken collection that I have access to, it seems that there is another numbering scheme. For example, my collection's Season 1 contains only nine episodes, the remaining four are placed at the beginning of the Season Two. And some episodes' order is swapped as well... Is it another naming scheme (from other country, fex), or just some error that got spread over the network? Jkt 00:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really sure but could it be the numbering scheme from the order they were aired? I believe they were aired as five seasons but meant to be four so maybe it's that numbering scheme? Not sure what differences there would be from that. Just an idea. Stardust8212 02:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

4 seasons. The fifth season only contains episodes that never originally aired. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 02:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup talk page and peer review?

Hey all, I cleaned up the talk page by merging the peer review, failed FA and GA boxes into a single box (I got the idea from Talk:DNA, hope nobody minds, if you do feel free to restore the old version. I think there may be a failed GA and a peer review possibly missing from the list but I don't know when/where they are right now, if I track them down they can be added pretty easily. The talk page should probably be archived again as well but I haven't figured out how to do that yet. Anyway, does anybody else think it's time this article goes through peer review again? I'd like to see it promoted to Featured status before the new material is released (vague goal, I know). Stardust8212 00:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the opening paragraph wrong, re: 30th Century Fox? Doesn't the series take place in the Thirty-FIRST century? I'm not totally certain, but I believe this may be the case. Keen Machine 20:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The logo is a direct spoof of 20th Century Fox and is correct. -th1rt3en 21:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What about Scruffy?

Does anyone think Scruffy should be included in the character list? Goldfishsoldier 00:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Stardust8212 04:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

He's a thrice-off joke. He appears in as many episodes as the guy with a mumuu with a 9 on it and the censor bar couple, just for some perspective. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

True, but at least Scruffy had some lines, and some funny jokes tied in with him. Vicious203 17:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Mom, Zapp, Kif and even Cubert play more significant roles in the series than Scruffy and those are still not considered major characters. If we listed every character here that had some lines and a joke we'd be recreating the various lists of recurring characters and it would just bog down the page without adding anything useful. Stardust8212 18:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Science humour

I just wrote the page Science humour. The final section is "Humour in science fiction". I mentioned Futurama, Douglas Adams, etc. Could you please head over, and help develop the article? Cheers, samwaltz 18:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS ALL WRONG!!!!!!

THERE ARE FIVE SEASONS OF FUTURAMA, NOT INCLUDING THE NEW ONES!!! if u look at wen they are aired, they are out of chronological order!!!!!!! it makes no sense!!!! SUM ONE FIX THIS!!!!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.166.42 (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Be Bold and fix it yourself DXRAW 04:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather you didn't fix it yourself, because you're wrong. There were five airing seasons of Futurama, but only four production seasons. Four were made, but they were aired out of order and, as a result, in five "seasons." Only four seasons were made. In most countries, they were aired as four seasons. They were released on DVD as four seasons. That the broadcasting company didn't care to respect the wishes of the creators has no impact. ~Switch ^{t c g} 05:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Direct-to-DVD news

Here's an article on several new direct-to-DVD Futurama movies that will be released soon if you want to include it in the DVD section. I'm sure you could look for other sources if necessary, this was just the first place I spotted it. --Nehrams2020 19:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Lauren Tom and Phil LaMarr

How come they are listed as guest stars? Their characters (Amy Wong and Hermes Conrad, respectively) are on the show as much as the others. Why are they guests stars instead of normal stars?

It's how they're credited. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

But what I want to know is WHY they were credited as guests and not normal cast members. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.62.231.2 (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Ratings

I added a section about the show's ratings (or what I could find on them). I couldn't find much of anything, but it's a start I suppose. Chickenmonkey 15:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Cryonics/Cryogenics... again

In the article, "cryonically" and "cryogenically" continue to be swapped back and forth. I see that this was discussed some time back, but I don't know if it was agreed upon what should be said in the article (it apparently didn't stick if it was). The correct term would be "cryonically". Many things can be speculated: perhaps they used "cryogenics" instead of "cryonics" by accident (not likely given the circumstances, but possible), perhaps the "Applied Cryogenics" name was a false front to hide the fact that the company was practicing "cryonics", perhaps the lab really was a cryogenics lab, perhaps it was a cryogenics lab when it was named. Another possibility, and what I believe is the case, cryonics is an application of cryogenics, so perhaps naming the company "Applied Cryogenics" was a clever use of words by the writers. No matter what the case, the proper word to use when referring to Fry's freezing is "cryonically". Chickenmonkey 11:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, when refering to the company name is likely the only appropriate time to call it cryogenics. I think this is the same conclusion we had before. Stardust8212 15:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Currently, I'm viewing a few sites to see if it's "cryonically" or "cryogenically". So far I've found nothing, but I'm still looking.
Anyway, why can't we just add both? Such as: "The series follows the adventures of a former New York City pizza delivery boy, Philip J. Fry after he is cryonically (or "cryogenically", which is said in the show) frozen at midnight." We still should at least point out that they say "cyrogenically" instead of "cryonically" in the show. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 01:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

But they don't say he was "cryogenically" frozen in the show that I ever recall (correct me if I'm wrong) the only reference in the show is that the company is named "Applied cryogenics". Cryonics is a way of applying cryogenic technology so the name is not technically incorrect, however when referring to how Fry was frozen the correct term is cryonically. Or well, I think that's correct, I'm relatively positive, but it's not my area of expertise. Stardust8212 02:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I also don't remember them ever referring to a freezing (Fry's or anyone else's) as "cryogenic" in the show. In the episode summary of "Space Pilot 3000" on the back of the DVD it says "After an accidental cryogenic freezing, Fry awakens at the dawn of the year 3000". I still wouldn't include "cryogenic" or "cryogenically" in the article, but I dunno. Chickenmonkey 10:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that's what it says on the DVD cover, then I'm for to keep it "cryogenic". --AAA! ^(AAAA) 10:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This question has been killing me too. Since the show says cryongenics, that's my opinion. --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 10:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How about this "The series follows the adventures of a former New York City pizza delivery boy, Philip J. Fry after he is cryonically frozen in a cryogenics lab at midnight, December 31, 1999, and is revived one thousand years in the future"? Chickenmonkey 10:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah, because that might sound confusing. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 11:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the point is, it can be described as a "cryogenic" freezing. Factually, it can be, but cryonically is more descriptive. It's like saying something is "blue" or saying it's "baby blue". Both are correct, but one says more. So I don't think "cryonically" should be replaced by "cryogenically". I'm sure there's a better way to say it than how I did, though. Chickenmonkey 11:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd compare it more to "coloured" or "blue", but the point is the same. I don't understand the rationale for including "cryogenically" either. I mean, he was cryonically frozen. Even if the show says "cryogenically" - and a DVD blurb doesn't count in my opinion - that's not reason for the article to. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 13:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a suggestion here but would it be wrong of us to simply avoid the issue completely and say he was "frozen for 1000 years" just leave this bit out entirely? Yes it would be slightly less informative but the details of how he was frozen are sketchy at best and it's not really integral to the plot. This is clearly a more hotly debated topic than I initially realized. Alternatively, are there any sources besides the box which refer to this one way or another? Stardust8212 13:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I find the box a good source, actually. But so far, I haven't found any sites. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 14:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The word is "cryogenically". Look at this video of Billy West. He says it about 14 seconds in. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 02:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well... the entire situation is a hard one to clarify. On one hand, the chamber Fry is frozen in may have been a cryogenic chamber so his freezing could be referred to as "cryogenically" in that respect (why Billy West may have used the term, or he might have misused it); which, those chambers, whether they're cryogenic chambers or cryonic chambers, are shown to have been used cryonically (the scene where the cryogenicist points to the sign "You can solve all your problems by freezing them" then frozen people are shown). Then again, the title of an episode is "The Cryonic Woman" which seems to show that the writers can use words (which isn't surprising given the education the writing staff has). The only time I can recall anything close to "cryogenically" being used in proximity to freezing is when Pauly Shore explains how he came to be frozen (something about his interest being peaked by cryogenics; which he could have searched for a cryogenics lab, found Applied Cryogenics, and they offered to cryonically freeze him). Really, the bottom line is either term can be used and either term would be accurate, but cryonically is more accurate and less confusing to a reader. Chickenmonkey 03:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the box said cryogenically, and Billy West in the video said cryogenically, then I'm voting for "cyryogenically". Why not do this: use "cryogenically", and link it to "cryonics", so it would be like "cryogenically", or [[cryonics|cryogenically]] ? --AAA! ^(AAAA) 06:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Billy West is not a scientist and the box was not written by a scientist. Unless quoting directly (in which case a {{sic}} template should be used), there's no reason to use jargon incorrectly. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 14:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Recurring jokes and catch phrases

I'd say much of the information contained in the "recurring jokes and catch phrases" section shouldn't be in this article, as most of it is charater-specific information that would be better served in their individual articles. Chickenmonkey 14:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 14:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree, the information is mostly already in the character pages. Stardust8212 14:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As the original author of that section, I see your point. Realize I was trying to mirror a similar section from The Simpsons which includes a lot of information already listed on character pages. Obviously, the Simpsons universe is more dense so I didn't have as much to choose from. Feel free to edit the section at will, but perhaps an understanding of my motivation will make you see it in a different light. Hoof Hearted 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What happened to Futurama?

How come there hasn't been any new episodes recently?

Pece Kocovski 05:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a "hiatus" - a stop in production. --The preceding comment was signed by User:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 07:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

But note that it is scheduled to resume on Comedy Central in 2008. Hoof Hearted 18:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Setting section

This:

"Futurama's setting is first and foremost a backdrop, and the writers are not above committing continuity errors if they serve to further the gags."

... was recently removed as being "opinion". I certainly believe it's true and I think it can be cited (and perhaps written more clearly). I thought I would place it here so anyone else, if they might remember where it can be cited from, can put it back in or I'll do it when I get a chance to search for a cite. Chickenmonkey 03:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that has been discussed at least once in the audio commentaries. I only have access to season 3 on DVD though. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 10:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Emmy Wins/Nominations

It looks like this article has the show winning every emmy it was nominated for, but imdb lists only three wins. I don't know enough to say "imdb is right and wikipedia isn't", so I thought I'd mention it here, and hopefully someone who knows better than me can correct the article or me. --Bsteger 04:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The article only lists three Emmy wins, the other five are under the subheading "Nominations" if you could suggest a more meaningful way to represent this please do. I personally find it relatively straight-forward and a lot nicer looking than what was there before (it was changed some months ago, I believe). Stardust8212 04:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, an editor had changed all the Emmy noms into wins. I reverted it. I believe that's what Bsteger was referring to. Chickenmonkey 04:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I must have been looking at the recently corrected version then. Timing is everything, good catch. Stardust8212 05:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

{{fact}} template on Anthology of Interest

I'm not sure what Heycos is looking for in this edit. If the stories are set up as hypothetical, do we need a reference saying they're non-canon? Are we splitting hairs as to what canon means since one could argue that since the frame tale is "real", at least the telling of the stories "really" happened? Do we need a citation that Leela didn't actually murder the rest of the crew and Bender didn't ever become human? I've searched for an authoritive source that says the Anthology of Interest episodes are non-canon, but I can't find anything more than fan sites and blog threads. Finally, I will point out that The Simpsons Halloween episodes contains no such reference. Hoof Hearted 14:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't need citation. If the stories are fictional within the series, obviously they aren't canon. "The stories are all self-contained, introduced in a frame tale story, and considered non-canon". There's nothingin that sentence that could be contested. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 09:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible addition to Opening_sequence section of main article

I have a very knowledgeable musician who has told me that the main musical theme of Futurama is taken from the french musical - Pierre Henry & Michel Colombier: Messe Pour Le Temps Présent.

The theme is reputed to come from the song Psyche Rock I'm trying to locate a copy. Can anyone corroborate? Progman3K 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It's on iTunes. This BBC page [4] says that the theme was inspired by Psyche Rock, but it also links back to the WP Pierre Henry page which says the same thing, and it's unsourced (so it's possible the BBC just took unsourced info from WP). I can't remember Christopher Tyng ever talking about the theme itself in any of the DVD commentaries he did.CelebrityApe 08:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Futurama the Return

I can't wait until Futurama returns, becuz i love watching the show on Adult Swim. I've seen every episode and i can't wait until a direct-to-video movie will come out. Futurama is going to be a new ride at all Universal theme parks, right after the Simpsons ride is made. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.93.96.105 (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Primary image

I noticed that User:Hucz recently changed the image in the infobox to an image of some of the primary characters instead of the title screen image. I believe having the title screen image is standard and this image is somewhat redundant to the image of primary characters shown below, but I wanted to make sure this was not discussed previously before I changed it back. --WillMak050389 20:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've not seen any previous discussion of changing the image and I agree that the title screen is a better option. As cast photos go the pre-existing picture is superior as it shows all the primary characters rather than the selection of primary and secondary caracters from the new addition. Stardust8212 21:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Entertainment Weekly blurb

In the May 11, 2007 issue of Entertainment Weekly Futurama was ranked #21 on a list of the 25 best sci-fi movies and TV from the past 25 years. Article here. I'm trying to come up with the best way to include information like this in the article and coming up blank so I thought I'd alert everyone else in case they wanted to throw it in there somewhere. It seems like a notable distinction considering Return of the Jedi and all three Star Wars prequels were deemed unworthy of the list and it beat out Quantum Leap and Doctor Who. Stardust8212 23:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It could go into the award section.

Revival

Isn't Futurama's comeback going to be similar to Family Guy's comeback in May 2005?

It might be. Matt Groening has stated that it may be possible that a renewed series will follow the movies, if FOX agrees. This has not been confirmed, however. Currently all that stands are the four DVD movies. The Good Ol' Country Doctor 01:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Billy West Not Doing Movies?

My wife told me that Billy West has opted not to do voice work in the upcomming DVD movies, and that the studio is going to hired Tom Green to voice Fry. Other actors will be brought in to voice the characters that West had preformed on the show. Anyone else heard this? --Fernwood 01:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I've read somewhere that he is confirmed to do the voice (should be linked in the article already) and he was one of the first people to leak the news about there being new movies coming out. Also he still lists on his website (billywest.com) that Futurama is his favorite show of all those that he has done. It is unlikely that he would opt out of the series knowing all of this, I think someone is pulling your leg. Stardust8212 01:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Citing commentaries

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

The Futurama Movies

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

Removal of all main categories from Category:Futurama?!

I was trying to find the Futurama category from Category:Works of Matt Groening but it wasn't there, then I noticed it had been removed from Category:Animated sitcoms as well. I checked and I saw that User:ProveIt had removed ELEVEN categories from the Futurama category, as well as doing the same to other animated shows' categories. I think this will make it very difficult for anyone to navigate using the category system. Is there a reason they have all been removed? What's the point of having sub-categories if they are going to be removed? 172.209.120.176 01:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the general idea is that categories should not be categorized with articles. For instance the article Futurama belongs in [:Category:Animated sitcoms]] with other articles but Category:Futurama is not an animated sitcom, it is a category which contains articles related to Futurama, which is an animated sitcom. I'm not sure that made as much sense as it does in my head but the general idea is that only articles belong in those categories, not other categories. There's probably a guideline laying all of this out somewhere but I'm not familiar with it so I can't point you to it. Stardust8212 02:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

We need a citation for the Futurama pavilion and how it relates to Futurama, the show. - ТģØ(Đ {ŧª∫Қ ↑¤ Мә} 17:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Had a look around last night and couldn't find anything linking the two. Clearly the pavilion existed and was named Futurama but I find nothing which states beyond a doubt that the creators knew of this connection. I suspect they did, the show is chock full of such items, but I can't prove it. Perhaps someone could see if it is in any commentary tracks? There's another {{cn}} in the section describing the 30th century FOX logo, I know User:SwitChar was looking into this one but I guess he hasn't found anything. Stardust8212 18:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image issues, again

In the current FAC the issue of how many fair use images are appropriate has come up again. It was mentioned before in the #Failed "good article" nomination and I thought I fixed it. It came up again when the #"Humor" section was added. Currently the article contains fourfive screenshots (Title screen, crew, Fry's first view of the future, 30th Century Fox and Klein Bottles). Previously the article was trimmed down to only twothree images, the title screen, the characters and Fry's view out the window, and I think that is the way to go. We need to answer the question of how any further fair use images advance the critical commentary or if they are really only decorative. Thoughts? Stardust8212 00:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC) EDIT-left out one fair use image from the list, now added. 15:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, although I personally would prefer that the 30th Century Fox logo stayed. After all, it really is one of the really unique features of the series. - ТģØ(Đ {ŧª∫Қ ↑¤ Мә} 02:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Since there has been no further comment I went ahead and removed the Klein Bottles, perhaps taking action will inspire people to actually participate in discussion. I've left 30th century fox for now, depending on what else I hear at the FAC it might be able to stay but I can't be sure. Stardust8212 15:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've also removed the DOOP logo. I know User:The Good Ol' Country Doctor thought it should stay but with the discussion at the FAC, both that it was not necessary and that the entire section was not particularly notable, it was becoming harder for me to justify (even to myself) that it needed to stay. If anyone thinks they can give a well thought out reason for it to stay then please participate in this discussion and the one at FAC. Cheers. Stardust8212 23:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, Image:Futurama characters.jpg could probably go as well. It's kind of crappy (funky stretching and fuzzy), all of the characters are already visually identified on their individual articles, and the proximity of the image to the infobox means that it wrecks the layout a bit (getting pushed around). I've gone ahead and removed the image; that leaves us with just four FU images. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Just coincidentally, the article Batman (which is FA) has sixteen fair-use images. I think I'll bring this issue up over there as well. I think the way to go, though, is leave the most necessary fair-use images—title screen, main characters (which itself could be better) and maybe another shot to summarise the series—and, rather than simply removing the others, finding free substitutes. It is a pity the graffiti was deemed non-free (though reading the policy they're right as it is a derivative of a copyrighted work), but there must be free images we can use to resolve the FU problem. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 07:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That is interesting about Batman, I think it gets away with it because it was promoted in 2003, before the major FU crackdown. The issue with fair use vs free images I see is that if there was the possibility of finding free images then we wouldn't be able to use any fair use images (they would be deemed replacable) what kind of free images were you thinking of? The only thing I could think of is if we could find a free image of the panel at comic-con showing the cast/crew. That seems like a good addition to the article. I'm certainly open to any other ideas. Stardust8212 12:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

PJs

How could PJs possibly reference the cancellation of Futurama when PJs was canceled LONG before? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 (talk • contribs).

This may have been unclear, but I have fixed it (or at the very lest, attempted to) with this edit. --WillMak050389 05:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Orginal run

Shouldn't the original run be changed to March 10 - August 10 2003 (on hiatus until 2008)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.187.117 (talk • contribs)

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

"References to Futurama in popular culture"

Is this section really necessary? I would argue for a resounding "no"- it's just a bunch of unnecessary trivia. I'm not going to remove the section on my own, but I will if others agree with me. So the show is referenced in a comic and a song and another TV show... does this add anything at all to the article? -- Kicking222 21:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Underpants vs. underwear

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

About the title

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

It isn't a real word. IN the USA, in the middle of the last century, there was a fad to add "-orama" to the ends of nouns. GM added it to "future" to name their exhibit at the World's Fair. Thus "Futurama".CarlFink 18:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

CGI

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

• Here's a huge e-mail response to CGI in Futurama from Rough Draft Animation Studios. Someone might like to use it as a reference. — mattrobs 10:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well someone add something on CGI. — mattrobs 03:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Be bold. Stardust8212 03:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
      • No, you be bold! Alright, I'll be bold. — mattrobs 04:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Futurama still in production?

I'm not exactly sure, but do they still make Futurama episodes? Or are they just replaying the old episodes over and over again? Burn N Flare 01:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The show was canceled in 2003 but it was revived recently in the form of four DVDs which will be released starting in November. On a related note, does anyone have a source for the supposed air date of January 1, 2008. I doubt the show is really going to start that day. Stardust8212 02:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)