Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation/Futurama task force

	Animation portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This page is supported by the Futurama task force.

/Archive 1

Archival and restart this project

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

Season/Episode numbers

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

Attention- Task needing quick attention

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

If someone were to hand me a fair use image for that image, I could just undelete it. I'd do it myself, but I'm about to head out for a few hours. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the fair use for seasons 2-4 (bleh) they aren't great but their mere existence should at least prevent speedy deletion. If anybody here knows what they should say feel free to chime in. Also since no one has chimed in with a shot from Xmas Story I used the image currently used for Robot Santa since it was from that episode but it is SMALL and get stretched by the episode infobox, it would be nice if it was just a few pixels wider, but enough griping. If anyone wants to help with season one and any images in character pages and lists I'd really appreciate it. Stardust8212 23:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update, I've been informed that Image:Futurama 102 - Episode Two The Series Has Landed.jpg has an acceptable fair use rationale so that would be a good one to work from. Star dust 8212 03:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episode article organization-revisited

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

No original research and verifiable content - We must have secondary sources! This is the main issue the articles have right now. If you know of any source which discusses a specific episode please add the information to the article and cite it or ar least post a link on the talk page for other editors to work with. Perhaps some of the links used in the main Futurama article have some content that can be used.
Avoid excessive trivia and quotations - The quotes sections have finally been eliminated but we need to really take a hard look at all the articles and ask ourselves what is trivial and what is useful. I know everyone here wants the articles to be comprehensive in everyway but that is simply not a realistic way to handle this matter.
The article should contain:

A brief summary of the episode's plot - Check, the current suggestion is that this should be about 250 words, some articles may need to be trimmed slightly
The episode's relevance in ongoing story arcs, if any - This is generally covered in "Foreshadowing" and "Continuity" sections right now but shuld be fleshed out in some cases and changed to prose rather than lists
How the episode was received by critics - This is what we are really lacking, IGN has a top 25 episodes list which I plan to include in those articles
Information on production and broadcasting of the episode - We have this in some articles but it is largely unsourced
Real-world factors that have influenced the work or fictional element - not clear yet if this would be what we call "Cultural references" but we're getting close

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

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

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

I tried this out on "Amazon Women in the Mood" which already had some notability comments (so it was easy) see the diff. The cultural references could probably use some more trimming and I only got the plot from 728 to 463 words but its a start. Does this seem like a good way to do this? Star dust 8212 01:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Tried it on a couple more episodes with no complaints. The hot issue still seems to be under discussion and it continues elsewhere if anyone else wants to follow the debate. Star dust 8212 12:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad news nobody, as I'm sure any of you that are watching episode articles have realized my worst fears on this issue have been realized. Every Futurama episode article has now been tagged and could be redirected in fourteen days. If you thought I was over reacting before I hope this now shows that this is an issue we need to deal with immediately. This is the time for the wikiproject to come together and really work this issue. I'll continue to do what I can by myself but my current rate is only about one article a day and I don't have 72 days before this needs to be resolved. Please help me New Justice Team! Star dust 8212 02:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a list of articles that don't yet fit the above criteria? I've looked over some random episodes and they're all properly proper, it seems... I'll work where I'm needed, of course. But where exactly would that be? The Good Ol' Country Doctor ^{Ụšəг ŧª∫Қ} 05:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every episode of Futurama has been tagged so I'd point you at List of Futurama episodes. The articles that particularly need assistance are any that have no references, particularly from outside, reliable sources. You can see my ineffective attempt to protest the article tagging at Wikipedia talk:Television article review process#Two issues Star dust 8212 12:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You either need to give general sources that assert notability for all episodes or let them be redirected and work on the few that can possibly meet it. The Devil's Hands are Idle Playthings is the best episode here, and it isn't even close to being worthy. TTN 03:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new proposal for episode articles

I've put some further thought into this subject and I think the episode articles as a whole are improving though not nearly fast enough and most of them still don't seem to pass muster. I'm still looking for sources when I have time but they're starting to get pretty thin. There are a few pay to view sites I may yet try but well, I have to pay for them before I even know if they'll be useful. I've also come to a point in the improvement process that I've been trying to avoid for many months now but can no longer deny. The trivia needs to go. Wikipedia has a guideline about avoiding unsourced trivia (WP:AVTRIV) and let's face it, that's what the "Cultural references" sections are. I love those sections as much as the next guy (they're actually what made me into a steady contributor) but I can no longer pretend they are somehow ok. My proposal is to move the "Cultural references" sections from all the episode articles onto their talk pages with the exception of any sourced material. For example in "Hell Is Other Robots" I would move everything not sourced leaving the section sourced from the Pinsky book. The items that remained could then be made into prose which is much better than a list anyway. I'd like to hear the rest of the group's thoughts on this. I want to come up with a better solution but I am unable to come up with one. If a better solution is found later, then everything would still be on the talk page. Star dust 8212 00:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three days, no comments? I'm going to start being bold then, that tends to bring out the nay-sayers at the very least. Star dust 8212 23:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I vote against it. Cultural References is what makes these articles great. And it's cross-referencing to other Wikipedia articles only are further enjoyable. I don't come here to read the freakin' plot. – mattrobs 02:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Wikipedia is not for plot summaries. I agree entirely however one of the core policies of Wikipedia is also no original research and everything needs to be verifiable from reliable sources. We need to expand the articles from an out-of-universe perspective but we need to do it in the right way. Right now most of the cultural references sections are unsourced trivia magnets. If you have a suggestion to solve this problem and bring the articles in line with policies and guidelines without removing information then I would love to hear it. Star dust 8212 02:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are these Cultural References any different from most of the unsourced references in the Simpsons episodes articles? I'm all for the absence of original research, but if you delete the unsourced cultural references, there's nothing left. — mattrobs 03:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episode coverage

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

Proposed Award

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

		The WikiProject Futurama Holophonor Barnstar ^{^{^{But only a few people in the whole universe can play that... And they're not very good at it! -Turanga Leela}}}
Place congratulatory message here.

I like the idea, I think if people felt more appreciated they wouldn't get bored and drift away from the project (so much still to be done!) there are certainly people who deserved an award and I haven't given them one. There was a previous suggestion to have a "Member of the Fortnight" but I recently removed it from the main project page because as far as I could tell it had never been awarded to anyone. Star dust 8212 22:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]