User talk:Geewunling/Futurama

I 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)

Those are TRANSFORMERS-ORIGINAL ITEMS(or, in the case of frijoles, a joke of dubious merit). There is a difference between that and an offhand jokey mention. TF-original stuff has the potential to get re-used in a greater capacity, especially nowadays (Tritanium MechTech weapons, anyone?). As for "drawing a line in the sand", we do that all the fucking time. --16:49, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Why are we basing article admittance on hypotheticals? —Interrobang 17:58, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

How would anybody who hasn't read or watched the relevant media know about them if articles didn't exist? I sure wouldn't have known what Xal was if that article didn't exist years ago; limiting the reader's scope of Transformers to only things that contain subjectively enough information isn't going to help anything. —Interrobang 16:00, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Why the hell would they be looking for "Futurama" or "O.C.P." on the TF wiki anyway? Where in the hell would they even get that idea, save for the page for the source of said reference? --M Sipher 16:49, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

...A big part of wikis is stumbling around and looking at random stuff. You could say this about anything that wasn't a main character or a series. —Interrobang 17:58, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

I don't think it's possible for you to have come up with a lamer, weaker justification than that. Do people routinely go the the Super Mario wiki and search for information on Harry Potter there? Is there a trend of looking on the World of Warcraft wiki to find out what connections it might have to Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Why don't we just make pages for everything ever referred to ever in any TF piece? Hell, if we're shooting for such random, unlikely occurrences as the scenario above, why not pages on everything ever? We never know when someone might come here and do a search for some Bollywood musical or cane toads. --M Sipher 18:13, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

I thought I was attacking your argument of "People won't search for X!" in regards to things that appeared in Transformers material, but if setting up straw men makes you feel better, then okay. —Interrobang 19:02, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Except people -notably TF creators who are not part of our editor base- WILL search for broad categories of amazingly obscure TF-original content, like deities, materials, planets, special weapons, excessively minor characters, etc. We know this for concrete fact. There's not going to be searches for whatever piece of external pop culture that might in an infinite universe have gotten mentioned once in TFs. There's no straw men being set up on my part, you laid it all out right there, flailing badly trying to justify page bloat that serves no purpose whatsoever. --M Sipher 19:12, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

I am completely unable to understand why people would have a problem with this page. There's a good number of references to Futurama in TF fiction (to the point I'd call it an epidemic), all of which get acknowledged on individual pages. What's against making it easy for the readers interested in these to get an overview of all Futurama references easily? It's not like this page treats itself as more canon than that (for instance, I refrained from adding any voice actors beyond the one with the quote). I wouldn't object to making this page bigger to deal with all (significant by numbers) references to external franchises by franchise, but I think going for a minimalist "only note individual references and let our readers figure out on their own if there are more" is just... counter-intuitive. Plus, I hate having so many same links to Wikipedia, as it makes this wiki more dependent on what happens over there. Geewunling 16:08, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Should we have a Shakespeare article to list all of the references to his works in Transformers? Because there are a lot of them. And how many pop culture references does it take before the source qualifies for an article to list them all? These are questions that should be addressed in conjunction with deciding whether to keep this article. Because it opens a door. --KilMichaelMcC 16:42, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

EXACTLY. --M Sipher 16:49, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

I wouldn't object to a Shakespeare references section (or article) either. Seems like there are enough to warrant such. Geewunling 16:58, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

I can't justify an article like this. I don't think I'd go along with a Shakespeare article either, because it's not germane enough to Transformers. If they were a part of the essence of a continuity's fiction, then it might be justified. Otherwise, such a page doesn't serve much purpose because I'd wager that very few people would be looking for a list of all the references to a particular entity. Conversely, things like O.C.P. and We Made It, are fictional entities whose names happen to be references. Thus, they are worthy of page or at least a collective page. Something like "Animated Continuity planets" or "Animated Continuity businesses". Those probably aren't the best names, but you get the idea. --Tigerpaw28 19:52, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Perhaps if "Futurama" the show, itself was brought up in TF media, then this page would make sense, much like, say, the Madonna page, but the fact that this is a list of different references to something totally outside of TF makes it seem like it's one too many degree's removed. I'm not against mentioning the references on their own pages. If someone typed "Futurama" in the search box, a list would still appear, but this is just opening up a floodgate since everything refers to something.147.140.233.16 11:02, 12 August 2011 (EDT)