User talk:Geewunling/Futurama
From MediaWiki
Jump to navigationJump to searchI am not sure I see the point of a page to collect all the Futurama references in Transformers. Futurama itself hasn't actually appeared in TF fiction, unlike, say, The Honeymooners. --Monzo 14:53, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
- Agreed. And honestly, I'm seeing this as a sign of a problem that's been really blatant these last few days... artificial, ugly bloating of article count. We're seeing cute wink-and-nudge offhand references get articles that imbue no information whatsoever that can't be done with a Trivia note on the page they came from. It's one thing for a one-note TF-original character to get their own page, but we're talking about pages for offhanded pop-culture references from the margins of things! At least the TF one-note character is much, much more likely to be relevant again to some piece of fiction, enough to justify a page. I really think we need to look at some culling here. --M Sipher 14:59, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
- As an author who delights in off-handed and hidden references, I have to agree. O.C.P. and We Made It are probably not page-worthy. I think, as a good rule of thumb, if we have nothing to say about X other than 'X exists' then X usually shouldn't get an article.--Jimsorenson 15:04, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
- We're arguing against making individual pages for tiny details in OUR OWN WORKS. What does THAT say? --M Sipher 15:15, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
- I dunno, I'd say O.C.P. and We Made It are article-worthy, but not Futurama, since it's never been directly brought up in Transformers fiction. --Detour 15:19, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
- I tend to agree with Jim on this one. Unless it's somehow extremely notable and, say, linked from a handful of other articles, any page comprising less than a picture and/or a couple paragraphs should probably folded into something else.Shellspark 15:32, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
- I'm somewhere in the middle with Detour: while many of these minor mentions could be pages, there hasn't been a direct mention of Futurama so it shouldn't have a page of its own here. --Khajidha 15:35, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
- I don't think you guys realize how much things on this wiki are (or were, before the Almanacs reused them) here just because somebody mentioned it in a throwaway line or they showed up once (E'Brutoc, Frijoles, Xal, Jabbi-Ko, Orga, Ciech, Airachnid's specimens, etc., etc.). The resistance against those that just happen to be references is silly. All that should concern us is whether they exist in the Transformers brand; drawing a line in the sand about who gets in the article club is pointless and wastes our time.
- On-topic: I don't think articles like this should exist. —Interrobang 15:44, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
- For what it's worth, before the AAII, I'd argue that E'Brutoc, Xal, Jabbi-Ko, and Orga should not have existed. Ciech I think still shouldn't exist. I don't have an opinion about the specimens, and Frijoles seems legit to me.--Jimsorenson 15:47, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
- I'm somewhere in the middle with Detour: while many of these minor mentions could be pages, there hasn't been a direct mention of Futurama so it shouldn't have a page of its own here. --Khajidha 15:35, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
- We're arguing against making individual pages for tiny details in OUR OWN WORKS. What does THAT say? --M Sipher 15:15, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
- As an author who delights in off-handed and hidden references, I have to agree. O.C.P. and We Made It are probably not page-worthy. I think, as a good rule of thumb, if we have nothing to say about X other than 'X exists' then X usually shouldn't get an article.--Jimsorenson 15:04, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

