Talk:Futurama/Archive 4

30th Century
I can't believe I'm having to explain this. The infobox is for information, not for extending jokes from the show. The actual name of the production company is 20th century. I can't think of any possible reason for the link or its text to show inaccurate information for the name of this company. -- Fyrefly (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, to Jacobite, you are the one who made the bold change here, although it was back in January. The stable version prior to that did not have any mislabelled links. -- Fyrefly (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The talk page is for discussing changes and improvements to the article, so, yes, I asked that you come here and explain your reasoning for repeatedly deleting that information. It was not ridiculous for me to request that you do so.  The piped link takes the reader to the correct article, so I fail to see the harm.  Every episode of the show has the 30th Century Fox logo, so we included that.  Why do you think it is such a big deal? --- The Old Jacobite The '45  16:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's inaccurate. The show is actually produced and distributed by 20th Century. The 30th Century is a running gag relating to the setting of the show. There is no actual division or group over there named 30th Century. Funny, but wrong. If 20th Century actually went and changed their name to that, then we should adjust.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all suggesting that discussing changes is ridiculous. You putting wrong information into the infobox is what's ridiculous. Also, "repeatedly deleting information" is just a flat-out lie. I didn't remove anything. -- Fyrefly (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with this compromise edit C T F 8 3 !  22:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can live with the current version (which is similar to the older, stable version) since it shows the real company without any mislabelling. I still don't see why a gag should be in the infobox at all though. -- Fyrefly (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am ok with the compromise edit, but I do not think that the piped link was "mislabelling". At any rate, I would much rather put this to rest than keep arguing about it. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  22:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Solar systems not galaxies
"Numerous other galaxies have been colonized or have made contact by the year 3000." Based on the context, the writer meant solar systems, not galaxies. Calling a solar system a galaxy is like calling a city a continent.CharlesTheBold (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Not the OP nor the original writer of that phrase but there are numerous references in-show to other galaxies. The Galaxy of Terror, for one. ~Lordloss210 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.97.87 (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:RELTIME
Broadcast section says "currently" instead of saying when. There is no indication that information is still valid. The wording "currently" is vague and an encyclopedia should strive for more specific wording. WP:RELTIME. Also much of that information needs citations to at least WP:VERIFY the information (leaving aside the fact that it probably fails WP:NOTABLE and the recommendations Manual of Style/Television). Failing basic verification is not the standard I'd expect of a Good Article (GA). (I'm also disappointed by how more and more of Wikipedia is locked, not even allowing edits with review.) -- 109.76.220.161 (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

September 6 end of futurama
futurama has finished on four

118.93.106.155 (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Regards, Celestra (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

What is this?
Journalist/critic Frank Lovece in Newsday contrasted the humor tradition of Groening's two series, finding that, "The Simpsons echoes the strains of American-Irish vaudeville humor — the beer-soaked, sneaking-in-late-while-the-wife's-asleep comedy of Harrigan and Hart, McNulty and Murray, the Four Cohans (which, yes, included George M.) and countless others: knockabout yet sentimental, and ultimately about the bonds of blood family. Futurama, conversely, stems from Jewish-American humor, and not just in the obvious archetype of Dr. Zoidberg. From vaudeville to the Catskills to Woody Allen, it's that distinctly rueful humor built to ward away everything from despair to petty annoyance — the 'You gotta do what you gotta do' philosophy that helps the 'Futurama' characters cope in a mega-corporate world where the little guy is essentially powerless".[53] Animation maven Jerry Beck concurred: "I'm Jewish, and I know what you're saying. Fry has that [type of humor], Dr. Zoidberg, all the [vocal artist] Billy West characters. I see it. The bottom line is, the producers are trying to make sure the shows are completely different entities".[53]

This is a very weird paragraph and I am not sure it needs to be included. There is nothing perceptible that makes Futurama more about Jewish humor than the Simpsons. The meat of these sentences is that the Simpsons is based on the nuclear family and Futurama is based on Sci-fi and a dystopian future. The rest of this reads like a Dennis Miller routine where noone knows who he is referencing or why. 68.153.29.9 (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

If any part of this paragraph could be salvaged, I'd argue that would be the part, but I'm not sure how it might best be phrased. Maybe: "Journalist/critic Frank Lovece in Newsday described the series as having a "'You gotta do what you gotta do' philosophy that helps the 'Futurama' characters cope in a mega-corporate world where the little guy is essentially powerless".[53]" Or, it could be cut. Just because someone said something doesn't require its inclusion. I don't know that Lovece's quote gives us a richer understanding of the series. In summary: I could go either way on this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried to delete this paragraph but since it contains a cited source, it apparently is taboo to remove it regardless of relevance. Maybe I'm wrong here but I really wish someone would at least read this paragraph and weigh in regarding whether its continued existence in the article is warranted 68.153.29.9 (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's an issue with taboo. You've done the right thing so far, posting your objection ten days ago, then coming back and deleting it when it went unopposed. I agree that the paragraph is far longer than it need be, if it need be at all. The only significant portion to me is: "...the 'You gotta do what you gotta do' philosophy that helps the 'Futurama' characters cope in a mega-corporate world where the little guy is essentially powerless".[53]"


 * Had I known of this discussion, I would have responded here earlier today, and you should have mentioned this talk page post in your edit summary. The paragraph should be left 'til there is some consensus here one way or the other.  Speaking only for myself, I find the paragraph informative and interesting. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  01:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Howdy, TOJ, I'm curious to know which parts you find interesting and informative, and can we cut the parts you don't? While sourced, it is simply opinion content, not factual content, and it is also a needlessly verbose paragraph that obfuscates its own point.  Isn't there any way we could take a less extreme approach and pare down the paragraph to the most "useful" parts and cut the rest?  Or could a different, shorter, sourced analysis of the humor be placed in its stead? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * All reviewer content is opinion - that's what they do. Roger Ebert give his opinions on films.  So does Frank Lovece.  Much like The Old Jacobite, I find the (entire) section interesting as a comparison between the two shows.  Whilst I would not object to modification perhaps to trim it a little, I would back TOJ and reinstate a simple removal en mass of the content. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, by "it is simply opinion content", I am suggesting that it is no more crucial to our understanding of the subject than any other critic's potentially shorter opinion. And more broadly, simply being sourced doesn't necessitate the item's inclusion in an article.  These things aside, two minor changes that might improve readibility: converting the quotation into  format, and also trimming the asides "(which, yes, included George M.)" and "and not just in the obvious archetype of Dr. Zoidberg". These seem to only complicate the message, and a well-placed ellipses would get us through the paragraph faster. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ultimately, no one has denied the fact that this section of the article is very unweildy. If we are editors, why not fix this, trim this, or eliminate it completely? Having a few back and forth conversations hasn't yielded any results. Can't we find a citeable comparison of the two series that more clearly illustrates the differences between the two shows? Perhaps, an example that doesn't mention the Jewish vs. Vaudeville angle would actually make sense (Krusty's character is actually Jewish as opposed to Zoidberg's supposed Jewish style comedy.) I am not going to blank the section again, but I would sincerely hope that someone would make it readable enough to justify the objections to me doing so.

"I will not defer...I have come before you to resolve this attack on our sovereignty now. I was not elected to watch my people suffer and die while you discuss this invasion in a committee. If this body is not capable of action, I suggest new leadership is needed. I move for a "vote of no confidence"...in Chancellor Valorum's leadership. 68.153.29.9 (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what purpose the quotation served--we don't use sig files on Wikipedia--but if you have a take on how the review should be condensed, I'd be interested in reading it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * How would I condense the review? I would blank it entirely. Barring that I would use this quote from earlier in the article referenced here. "'The Simpsons' has an identifiable family in an identifiable world with everything regular people go through," believes author and longtime animation maven Jerry Beck, founder of CartoonBrew .com. " 'Futurama' has more of a student, single guy / single gal point of view." That illustrates much more clearly the primary differences between the shows' styles. The other quotes about Jewish vs. Vaudeville humor simply make no sense. If the author was an expert on various forms of humor or if the point he was making was clear to people familiar with both shows, I never would have raised the issue. 68.153.29.9 (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am in agreement with you. Two users expressed an interest in keeping the review, two thought it should be cut. However Chaheel Riens seemed inclined to trim it. That's pretty much where we are in this discussion. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * What does that mean though? Can I make it more readable without changing the source by inserting the relevant, meaningful, quotes? Or is it doomed to remain mumbo jumbo due to differences of opinion? 68.153.29.9 (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't particularly have an opinion on the matter, but if some editors are in favor of deleting and others are in favor of keeping and there isn't a clear consensus, than it seems to me that the best compromise is to come up with an alternate version that you feel will improve the article and post it here for consideration. DonIago (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2014
Calculon links don't link to actual Calculon anchor.

S3b123 (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * .  Little Mountain  5  19:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

International Broadcast Info
I recently inserted a section for reference to how the UK broadcast Futurama, was removed citing "inappropriate" - which it isnt, it provides information which is what wikipedia is for. i havent included other regions because i dont live there and thus do not know how they chose to broadcast the program, there is no reason why what i started out couldnt be adapted to create a reference table for international users to update the information from their country to (i dont have the information and am not entirely sure how to make such a table in Wiki). i feel its relevant information as i know from discussion with other fans that they dont understand the episode numbering vs. the USA numbering. at the VERY minimum the article needs a tweak to include text in the relevant section to note that internationally Futurama may of broadcast with different episode numbering to that of the original USA broadcasts listed. Wikipedia is not a site for JUST how things happen in the USA, articles are improved by adding international content. if i had the information of how it broadcast in every country and an idea of how to structure the table code in the page i would build it. Richard.frame (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If nothing else, you should provide at least one reliable source to satisfy WP:V, and ideally I'd like to see a source that discusses this in some manner that establishes it as a point of significance rather than just "this happened". Wikipedia isn't just for providing information. Among other things the information shouldn't be indiscriminate. I'd recommend looking at other articles on tv shows to see how they handled this. DonIago (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I don't wish to discourage you since you are new here, but there are numerous community guidelines that you are unaware of. One of them is that Wikipedia is not TV Guide and that the general television community prefers that only the airdates in the original broadcast nation should be included. And this guideline governs how information about broadcasts in other English-speaking nations should be presented. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with above. Why stop at UK, why not France, Germany, Australia, Canada, where ever else it airs. See the problem when we have 20 countries listed. C T F 8 3 !  23:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As the editor who first reverted this addition, I agree with the above. We won't include the details for every country where Futurama airs. And I suspect it's a lot more than 20. So details for the UK don't belong. HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Original run
The instructions at template:Infobox television for the first_aired and last_aired attributes requires simple dates and create the infobox tag "Original run" with those dates. There is no need to make this more complicated than what the infobox instructions require. Also original run is for the first airing of the series episodes. Second run is reruns. The fact that there was a significant gap between seasons 4 and 5 is detail best left to the article itself and need not be documented in the infobox. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Its standard protacall for TV shows that officially ended and later returned (see: Family Guy and The Tonight Show with Jay Leno and almost everything in Category:Television series revived after cancellation.) If the show was never cancelled but there was still a several year gap between seasons then you'd have a point, but because it was cancelled all that time it should remain as it was. Grapesoda22 (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec)I did a check at Category:Television series revived after cancellation and most of the series listed there, with very few exceptions follow what is documented in the infobox instructions. I notice that you are a major editor on your exemplars, Family Guy and The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, and also see there the improper use of the phrase "Second Run" as was used in this article. I don't see any indication that this is "standard protocol for TV shows that officially ended and later returned" and if it were it would be documented as such in the instructions at template:Infobox television. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know that it's standard for the infobox to be formatted this way. I see a lot of users trying to cram stuff in the infobox all the time--that doesn't mean it's the standard, or preferable way to deliver this information. I will say that adding "Original run" in a field that automatically produces "Original run" is absurdly redundant. And "Second run" is, as GP says, the phrasing we use for reruns. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * All I'm saying is I've seen it done many times before, its a particle that makes sense. It did have two different runs. Also, if the phrase "second run" isn't accurate another phrase could be used if we go in my direction. Grapesoda22 (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Other shows doing it wrong don't set a precedent that goes against the manual of style of which the template instructions are a part. If anything the other shows should be edited to conform, not used a justification for doing it wrong in other places. Also as I did note above, it is extremely rare that other shows that have large breaks in airing note that in the infobox. No compelling reason to do it here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The show was cancelled and stopped airing in 2003 on Fox. The show was rendered defunct for years until Comedy Central eventually bought the rights and aired new episodes in 2008, years after the last new episode aired. The article clearly states, "the series aired on Fox from March 28, 1999, to August 10, 2003, before ceasing production. It was revived in 2008 as four direct-to-video films" Saying the series ran from 1999-2013 doesn't acknowledge the (very) large time gap that passed inbetween the episodes original airings, nor that the show was ever cancelled, which could very easily cause confusion for readers who only read the overview and infobox, as the exact date of the premiere of the new episodes is not stated anywhere in the overview nor infobox. JoelAtkinson51 (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with including it in the infobox. It accurately describes the situation as it relates to the series, and the series, more than most, gained a lot of real world attention for its revival on another network, both financially (being the largest financial purchase between networks at the time) and in entertainment news. If, as suggested in the earlier 2014 conversation, it's an issue of proper terminology, then let's hash out an understanding of the correct way to describe it and go from there.Luminum (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are a few considerations. The infobox, as structured, is built to accept a start date and an end date, with useful Start date and End date templates that make the parsing of this info simpler for computers. When you ask Google "when did XYZ series start and end", the results, much of the time, are based on these Wikipedia dates. The additions proposed by Joel and others include a lot of confusing extra information, for instance in this version we can plainly see the parameter produces a default "Original airing" lead, followed by a confusing "Original series" date range, followed by a "Revival series" date range. An argument has been made by Joel above that people will be confused if we present a normal Start/End date range, but I find it more naturally confusing that people who are looking for a simple range, will find an oddly organized exception that will require them them to look elsewhere in the article for the full story anyway. I don't see it as an improvement that we cram all this data into the infobox. On the other hand, we might be able to present it a little more clearly in the lead section, which is intended to summarize key information found elsewhere in the article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cyphoidbomb. While there may have been breaks in the series, these are best dealt with in the prose where there is space to adequately describe the breaks, which the infobox is not, and cannot be, geared up to do. In reality, every series has large gaps, sometimes years, between seasons and all we do is list the date the first episode aired, and when the last episode aired. People seem to think it's fine to jam up infoboxes with every piece of information that seems relevant but that's not the case. Everything goes in the prose section, which is summarised in a few paragraphs in the lead, and with the most important points summarised even more briefly in the infobox. Getting into detailed explanations there is not appropriate. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In theory, I agree with AussieLegend here. However, a simple addition of a "revived" field in the infobox template itself will enable this be in the infobox in a correct way, which will then have an original showing date and (if cancelled and renewed) another set of dates.--Gonnym (talk) 10:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Simpsons as a related series
I read through the template and the discussion on the talk page for the television box, and I recognize that this may be a more ambiguous case, so I don't mind debating it with Cyphoidbomb and any others who wish to provide input. My reasoning here (though I cannot speak for those who originally added The Simpsons), is that the show regularly depicted various Easter Eggs in Futurama that were from The Simpsons, likely as a nod to how Futurama was the highest profile project created by Groening following The Simpsons. Things like the appearance of Blinky the Three-Eyed Fish, Bart Simpson merchandise that the characters talk about, references to Homer and Marge carved on a wall, Simpsons toys appearing in the show's backgrounds, the show appearing in the opening sequence, Bender making a cameo in the Simpsons episode "Future-Drama", cameos by Matt Groening as The Simpsons creator, the appearance of other Simpsons characters in Futurama crowds, and the much later direct crossover episode "Simpson-rama", and many, many more. While I agree with the general discussion that a single crossover is not enough to make two series "related", in Futurama's case, its real-world relationship to The Simpsons has been an ongoing reference within the series since its beginning, and both shows occasionally used the other as a platform for jokes about the other, usually as it related to Groening as the creator. I would treat this differently than, say, the crossover episode between The Simpsons and Family Guy, which was a one-off.Luminum (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll also note that the situation with The Simpsons and Futurama is probably most similar to American Dad! and Family Guy. If there is rational belief that American Dad! and Family Guy should be considered related, then I would apply WP:OSE from a stylistic/precedent standpoint. Both sets of programs are not spinoffs, but have included several crossovers and references between programs, with a shared high-profile creator (Groening and McFarlane, respectively).Luminum (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I opened the discussion at Template talk:Infobox television specifically because of situations like this. The  parameter is for remakes, spin-offs, adaptations for different audiences, etc. The wording very clearly points to downstream products and the "etc" is there for the cases where a product is obviously related but doesn't fall into the "remakes, spin-offs and adaptations" category. The instructions explicitly say that the field is not for crossovers. One of Wikipedia's core policies is WP:V which requires that all content added to Wikipedia must be verifiable by reliable sources. If you want to add the Simpsons as a related series you need to find reliable sources that explicitly refer to Futurama and The Simpsons as related series in a way that satisfies the requirements of the infobox. You can't add it based on your own gut feelings as that is [{WP:OR|original research]] and not permitted. If you look around you'll find references in many shows to many other shows and that's no basis for determining related series. South Park has made numerous Simpsons references bat that series is not related. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * During an episode where they visit a theme park (not Luna) in the background there are stuffed Simpsons dolls as prizes for one of the try-your-luck games. During the voice-over commentary David Cohen specifically states that they're toys because in the Futurama universe The Simpsons is a fictional TV show.  Not sure whether that clears up, or confuses matters - The Simpsons exists within Futurama, but only as a fictional element.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * AussieLegend: I appreciate your concern, but I do understand WP:V and WP:OR. I use the terms "I feel" because I'm stating ownership of my perspective. Since this is the beginning of this dialogue, I didn't feel like rifling through and citing every bit of commentary when discussions about the Simpsons and Futurama are brought up by the creative team, nor did I feel that this is an issue that necessarily required that serious of a defense. I want to see what the general arguments against inclusion are before I decide if I agree or disagree. I'm perfectly happy to defer to consensus here, but only wanted to highlight that this was not an instance where a single gimmick crossover was being used as justification (i.e. The Simpsons/Family Guy crossover). The series has had consistent cross references to The Simpsons, but admittedly, mostly as in-jokes or Easter Eggs to the viewer, rather than substantial demonstration of direct relationships. However, unlike shows like Family Guy and The Simpsons, which refer to other shows largely through specific pop-culture commentary and/or specific episode focus, the Futurama references to The Simpsons are of a more ubiquitous quality, appearing consistently throughout the show, making them sister shows. . Clearly, "Related" is not intended to convey the same spirit as the "See also". "Related series" and "Related topics" are apparently very different, so I'm fine with removing it.
 * As a bit of contribution to the overall issue, looking at the discussion on the same topic at the template, it seems there is a lot of confusion over why the field isn't being interpreted as literally as possible. I would suggest that the description for the field be made as unambiguous as possible to help solve this problem. If the consensus is to restrict the field to only those specific circumstances, then make use of the word "only". As it reads now, the description states "remakes, spin-offs, adaptations for different audiences, and so on (etc.)", which is more ambiguous than application espoused here seems to allow. For example, sister shows would fall between spin-offs and unrelated shows sharing one-time crossovers.If sister shows are to be excluded, then it would be helpful to indicate that, or expand the crossover exclusion to be more comprehensive.Luminum (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There are numerous ways that Futurama is "related" to The Simpsons: art, style of humor, cameos, etc., but the parameter is not asking for every literal relative (Life in Hell? Billy West's article?) because that's what a See Also section is for. The parameter only cares whether it is a spinoff, a remake, etc. Surely we're going to reference the stylistic similarities is the article and provide more than ample ways for readers to wind up at the Simpsons article. That's fine. The parameter is not used for this purpose. Maybe it should be renamed "iterations" or something? I dunno. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, just to clarify my own post - I believe that the two are not related. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Noted. I was just stating my own general perspective, not replying directly to yours. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it provides a lot of clarity to state that the "Related" field and the "See also" section have no spiritual similarity or purpose. The "See also" section implies related topics, which seemingly cross with "Related series", but this appears not to be the case in application. I assumed the two to have similar purpose. But if not, then I accept the definition provided, support removal, and suggest taking steps to make it less ambiguous (as described above). Thanks for the clarification, U|Cyphoidbomb.Luminum (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that any substantial connections could simply be mentioned in the article prose. But if you can find a lot of connections/overlaps and references to support them, maybe a separate article similar to Comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars could be created and included in the navigational templates for both series? —Flax5 16:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Production order - source for consensus and reliable sources?
We could very much use the participation of additional editors, particularly those familiar with the decision to use production order for Futurama-related articles, at Talk:List of Futurama episodes. We're aware that there's claims of consensus, but we're having trouble locating where that consensus was established. Additionally we very much could use sources for the production-based episode order; if the best source is the episodes themselves that's one thing, but if that's the feeling then it would be good to have that verbalized. DonIago (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Genre
Why was Category:Black comedy television programs removed from this page? This show has a dark sense of humor.--2605:E000:7D08:800:4C32:7C9:4EF9:9EAD (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably because there's no context in the article that describes it as a black comedy, and we're not interested in users' opinions about what the general tone of the series is. We also don't want unsourced genre, which is basically the same thing. Labels are subjective. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Critical acclaim?
shouldn't the show be listed as receiving universal critical acclaim? i'm yet to ever (dispite looking) see a single negative review (except by FOX) of the show as a whole. For a show that held the world record for 'most critically acclaimed show of all time' just the word acclaim sounds far too light. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Futurama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ifmagazine.com/feature.asp?article=3955

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Futurama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120407151100/http://www.ema-online.org:80/awards/21st-awards/ to http://www.ema-online.org/awards/21st-awards/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100907171942/http://ifmagazine.com/feature.asp?article=3955 to http://ifmagazine.com/feature.asp?article=3955

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

"Joke caption" mentioned in "Opening sequence"
It's a good thing you reverted the edit, Jasonbres: it made me double-check it. I found a screenshot and got the correct caption: "Painstakingly Drawn Before A Live Audience" See: Futurama Madhouse (2nd image down in the left column)

This also agrees with that shown in Anthology of Interest I — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyCullum (talk • contribs) 22:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Futurama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080416100052/http://www.rottentomatoes.com:80/news/1648183/ to http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news/1648183/
 * Added tag to http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/06/its-official-futurama-returns.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002020911/http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/entertainment/archives/2013/09/20130928-084628.html to http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/entertainment/archives/2013/09/20130928-084628.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216141740/http://www.medialifemagazine.com:80/news2002/feb02/feb11/4_thurs/news7thursday.html to http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2002/feb02/feb11/4_thurs/news7thursday.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Futurama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rottentomatoes.com/news/1648183/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://entertainment.tv.yahoo.com/entnews/va/20060622/115104459800.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ema-online.org/awards/21st-awards/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1%2C1002%2C271
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/06/its-official-futurama-returns.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615043537/http://www.ugo.com/tv/futurama-david-x-cohen-interview?page=3 to http://www.ugo.com/tv/futurama-david-x-cohen-interview?page=3
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.frcr.com/library/la_weekly1.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2002/feb02/feb11/4_thurs/news7thursday.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090215100510/http://www.craveonline.com/articles/filmtv/04647510/rhymes_with_raining.html to http://www.craveonline.com/articles/filmtv/04647510/rhymes_with_raining.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Futurama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6XkLfWR73?url=http://www.ema-online.org/ema-awards-recipients to http://www.ema-online.org/ema-awards-recipients
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713224755/http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Nebula2004.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Nebula2004.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080406004938/http://www.2snaps.tv/9812689 to http://www.2snaps.tv/9812689

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Futurama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160113172623/http://www.locusmag.com/2004/Reviews/04Cook_Futurama.html to http://www.locusmag.com/2004/Reviews/04Cook_Futurama.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/2012.09.06-081508/http://www.omniglot.com/writing/futurama.htm to http://www.omniglot.com/writing/futurama.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Futurama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605180836/http://www.comedycentral.com/press/press_releases/2009/061009_futurama_returns.jhtml to http://www.comedycentral.com/press/press_releases/2009/061009_futurama_returns.jhtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117931802.html?categoryid=14&cs=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Distribution/Home Media video release info
Someone should move the article's scattered video distribution information into a new section, 'Home media', and add additional release info. Ref:


 * http://theinfosphere.org/Blu-ray_Disc_releases
 * http://theinfosphere.org/DVD_releases
 * http://theinfosphere.org/Niche_medium_releases

Hei Liebrecht 17:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Futurama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110926204153/http://www.ugo.com/tv/futurama-facts-you-never-knew to http://www.ugo.com/tv/futurama-facts-you-never-knew
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130209112538/http://www.wgnamerica.com/shows/futurama to http://www.wgnamerica.com/shows/futurama
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100327195215/http://tv.ign.com/top-100-animated-tv-series/8.html to http://tv.ign.com/top-100-animated-tv-series/8.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Request to add category: Television series revived after cancellation
Request to add category to series page for hub "Television series revived after cancellation" due to more recent revivals of TV series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGAB312 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Disregard. Missed the category that would make this redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGAB312 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

30k frames?
Because the show is animated at 12 fps, for a Futurama episode to have 30,000 frames would require said episode to run for about 41$2/3$ minutes, when most episodes of the show only run about 22 minutes. MightyArms (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Futurama for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Futurama is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Futurama (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 23:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Now that the show is back in production...
Do we need the "Do not change to 'was'" note?--CreecregofLife (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * It's a hidden comment - no need to remove it as it will become relevant when the show is cancelled again. Barry Wom (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thank you--CreecregofLife (talk) 06:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Adult sitcom?
Should we make the show an "adult animated" sitcom in the lead section? RapMonstaXY (talk) 10:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think there's an argument to be made for it by looking at the age ratings. On Amazon Prime in the USA, two of the seasons are rated TV-14. In the UK, most seasons are rated 12 and a few episodes are rated 15 (meaning they cannot be legally rented or purchased by anyone under 16). So it's certainly not a children's show. Barry Wom (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Given the various nude scenes and the depictions of the characters' sex lives, I am not that surprised it is not a children's show. Dimadick (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * To classify it as an adult sitcom if sources have not explicitly described it as such seems problematic to me. If teenagers can watch the show (TV-14 doesn't preclude all minors), is it really an adult sitcom? More to the point though, is it necessary to describe it as such? I'm not sure what problem emphasizing that it's an adult sitcom solves? DonIago (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Rockbottom NeoManhatten
Futurama, should have the subtitle as above Matt Groening.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E0:8F1D:3E49:F875:4326:3A2D:37A6 (talk) 00:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

??? MAureliusAugustus (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)