Talk:Futurama season 6

Order
Better to list episodes in production order or airing order? C T J F 8 3 12:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The episode list is incorrectly ordered: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0149460/episodes#season-6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.24.103 (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For some reason who ever created these poorly decided to go in production order, rather than airdate order. C T J F 8 3  12:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

See the archive. There was a long, long debate about this. Production order is the correct and intended order according to the creators of the show, so we follow that order. It has also been shown that the DVD volume 6 will follow production order (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005QIOJWQ/ref=oh_o00_s00_i00_details). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been at wikipedia a long time and I've never seen a list sort by production order rather than airdate. It's extremely confusing. The fact that so many people have complained about this says something, but it seems like the ones who maintain this list aren't listening. -- Scorpion 0422  15:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, time to discuss reordering the episodes. C T J F 8 3  22:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Look at the archive 1 on this talk page as well as Talk:List of Futurama episodes. There have been very recent discussions on this issue. The broadcast order is extremely inconsistent and objectively wrong. The creators of the show have intended for the show to follow production order and all the DVDs/BDs consistently across all regions have been following the production order. If you watch the DVD commentaries (especially the DVD commentaries for the first four volumes), you would know that the intended and proper order is the production order. The broadcast order is wrong. In other countries, the show was actually aired in its proper order. Just because less than diehard fans often get confused the problems that Fox and Comedy Central have caused does not merit censoring facts.

Futurama, unlike many other animated shows, has a strong sense of continuity. That continuity is only seen when you follow production order. Back when Fox was doing their original run, they divided four production seasons into five broadcast seasons that were very much jumbled. They even showed an episode with Cubert before they aired the episode where Cubert was first woken up. Futurama is no Simpsons or Family Guy, there is a solid continuity that permeates through the series (especially true for the first four seasons); only the production order respects that, broadcast order does not. Attempts to bring back the broadcast order will just result in another short-lived vitriolic debate between people who don't really understand the show and people who do. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I notified most of the registered users in some of the recent discussions about this discussion. Past consensuses fell on the side of production order, so logically I ended up notifying more people production people than broadcast people Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

(Notified by Thegreyanomaly) IMDb is not a reliable source. The reason to go with production order has been discussed in length before. How a channel chooses to air a show is not that important, it is very temporary, differs from channel to channel and can change randomly in re-broadcasts. In almost all cases were it differs from the intended order, it is just a made up order by some scheduling guy at a desk; swapping episodes because that one is a halloween episode and the president messed up the schedule the week before by having a speech; cutting seasons short or putting them on hiatus because [insert random boring sport]-season has started again; other irrelevant scheduling choices; or just for the fun of it. In the case of Futurama, Fox aired the show out of order creating a slew of continuity errors etc, so far even that the seasons don't even match anymore. The DVD's on the other hand are far more permanent, and the production code coincides with the DVD order. As far as Scorpion0422 statement goes that (s)he never has seen an episode list ordered by production order; I have, quite a few actually, especially in the case of Fox, who don't seem to care much for continuity; I'm thinking about Arrested Development, The Inside, Firefly, etc.  X  eworlebi (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Can either of you provide actually cases of where the air date continuity conflicts with the production date continuity? Also, let's keep in mind WP:CCC.
 * Also Thegreyanomaly, your notification to Scorpion and myself is extremely bias and completely violates Canvassing. Also, your posting to other users, "warning" them of the debate is hardly neutral either. Perhaps you should work on your neutrality in the future.  C T J F 8 3  12:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

CTJF, my notice to you and Scorpion was not canvassing you two were already here. Everyone else was given a one line notification, see my contribs. Watch the DVD commentaries, David X. Cohen et al. have clearly complained about Fox's order (the vol 6 commentary was recorded before season 6-B was aired, so they haven't complained about CC yet). Read the Infosphere, they have continuity information on every episode The continuity matters greatly. For example, before Bender's Game, they never threw away Nibbler's excrement, now they do all the time. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Canvassing isn't the issue, neutrality is. It's one of the requirements of WP:CANVASS "I would strongly suggest that you please stop". How is that a neutral notification? C T J F 8 3  21:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Do minor continuity issues matter? A character death would be one thing. What they do with Nibbler's crap is a pretty minor detail. After all, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. As well, many casual fans who check the list might be looking for the broadcast order. For example, I first became aware of this issue because I was trying to find out which episode I had last watched so I could pick up where I left off. The order here and the broadcast order were different, which concerned me and made me think that vandals had re-arranged the list.
 * A compromise would be if we could make the table sortable, but I don't think that's an option with this style of list. -- Scorpion 0422  20:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The list at List of Futurama episodes can be sorted. This can't be done here because of the episode summaries and the way tables work (it sorts per row so all the summaries would be last with the rows that start with the episode number first). The table here does clearly list the broadcast order and date.
 * The main reasons to go with the production order is because it is the order in which the show is intended to seen, it is the order in which it is sold on the DVD's. How Fox chose to air it initially is just a result of network bureaucracy, scheduling decisions and other nonsense which has no relevance to the show itself, the broadcast order also counts for few countries, In the UK and Australia for example, the show was originally broadcasted in the production order.  X  eworlebi (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

(X and I had an edit conflict) As was previously mentioned, they showed an episode with Cubert BEFORE they showed the episode where they removed him from his cloning tube. Also, you need to realize that this is an international website. Other networks in different countries used different orders. Production order, unlike broadcast order, is consistent world-wide and it is the only order that is permanent. If you put it broadcast order, then people outside of the US & Canada will become confused. The producers of the show have said that they disapprove of the broadcast and say that it should not be used. At the end of the day, the producers (who are the ultimate arbiters of what is true in Futurama) say that production order is right and broadcast order is wrong (except in the cases where the two match).

You are right this is an encyclopedia, an encyclopedia does not censor facts because it confuses people who are not in the know. Imagine if we dumbed down science articles because people not in the know got confused? We don't hide details. The best compromise would be to recreate List of Futurama episodes by broadcast order citing that some people are getting confused. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I shall quote the Manual of Style for Television "When detailing a show's international broadcasting, simply listing every channel the series appears on is discouraged, Wikipedia is not a television guide". In other words, the consideration for airing order should only be given to the country of origin.
 * Is listing by country order really be "censoring facts" and "dumbing down". I'd consider dumbing down to explain the entire premise of the series in the article. If anything, listing it by production order would appeal only to the super hardcore fans who care about minor continuity issues and not have as much use for the rest. -- Scorpion 0422  21:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously the issue repeatedly comes up, so the best thing for the project would be US broadcast order. C T J F 8 3  21:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How would the US broadcast even remotely be the best for the project? You say the issue comes up repeatedly, true, but what do you think will change if the broadcast order is used? Nothing, every person on the planet who bought the DVD's or will buy the DVD's in the future will wonder the opposite thing, that the broadcast order is inaccurate. Is there an actual reason you say this, I noticed that you haven't actually given one yet, besides implying it should be because it comes up every once in a while.
 * In the end the US broadcast order is entirely irrelevant, the show was aired out of order in just a couple of countries and just a couple of times. This is not the American wikipedia, it is the English wikipedia. The production order is the way the creators made, how they want it and how they sell it. It is a permanent order which won't change because of how a single network chooses to mix up the episodes for there personal reasoning. Who's going to go back in time to watch the show out of order on Fox in the US?  X  eworlebi (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is quickly degenerating into a bitch session about Fox and the Americanization of wikipedia. -- Scorpion 0422  23:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As Scorpion said it's an American show so it should go in American broadcast order. plus far more random users will be confused by this order then fans who have the DVDs. C T J F 8 3  05:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * CTJF, you are ignoring everything else that is being said in this discussion... We don't make decisions solely based on people getting confused. We don't remove facts and details to spare the average Joe confusion. That is not how Wikipedia works. As I and others have said, the broadcast order has no actual value. I strongly suggest you recreate List of Futurama episodes by broadcast order as it will serve your purposes Thegreyanomaly (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * so apparently you AfD'd that article... Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You quote the MOS, but that part has nothing to do with this issue, that is to prevent giant tables with every premiere of the show for every channel in every country (like this). It was written to prevent mindless floods of irrelevant and non-noteworthy information, the original broadcast is notable and is therefor clearly in the table, there's even an extra column with the order again if you missed the "original air date" column. Both are sortable at List of Futurama episodes, they aren't here because of technical limitations.  X  eworlebi (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're taking the section too literally. The point is that the article should be aimed towards whatever country it originates in. That's why articles on British topics use British spelling, why Simpsons episodes only list American airdates.
 * Reasons? Well, perhaps it's because its what's expected. I admit, I haven't seen every list on wikipedia, but when users look up an episode list, they expect to see it in broadcast order. Yes, there are some continuity errors. So? What happens if an episode airs out of broadcast order as a season premiere or finale? Then to say that whichever episode is the first or last of a season wouldn't be totally accurate. -- Scorpion 0422  23:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia we must take it seriously. And yes, giving merit to the broadcast order over the correct and intended production order is dumbing down the article and removing important details from the entry. Wikipedia entries do not cater to the average Joe, they do not ignore details. We don't care about what is expected, we care about what is true; in the Futurama-universe, according to the creators, the production order is the true order. As Xeworlebi has pointed out, if you want to see the broadcast order, you can do that on the full episode list. You don't seem to get it. As a American, I am going to say the broadcast order has no value. It is wrong, we have provided it on the full list if you would like to see it, individual episode articles can very easily list both the production order and the broadcast order (that is what they do on the Infosphere) and state it was the broadcast season premiere.


 * You cannot compare the Simpsons to Futurama in this respect. The Simpsons has very little continuity, Futurama is completely different. Every episode is meant to take roughly 1000 years after it was produced. No one has introduced a policy-based rationale for changing the list. People getting confused does not cut it. I remember on Asia American people kept asking to remove the South Asian Americans as people who use false definitions (that don't include South Asians) can get confused, but that wasn't fair reason to remove them there. It isn't a fair reason to put in the incorrect, inconsistent broadcast order here. 24.205.190.245 (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC) (forgot to sign in) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, there isn't a policy to govern every little aspect of wikipedia. I can't find a policy that "this should be this way" just like how you can't find a policy that says "that should be that way". This is simply a content decision. Users like myself and Ctjf83 simply believe that the list should follow the same method many other shows use and list by their broadcast order because yes, that is what most other season lists do.
 * Either way, it's probably time to let others voice their opinion because we al just keep repeating the same points. -- Scorpion 0422  01:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure I'm not taking that section too literally, I actually wrote it myself for the reasons I explained, and it as added to the MOS for the reasons I explained. I disagree that people expect the broadcast order, I certainly don't, I expect the order in which I should watch the show. The article should not just aim to the originating country, besides the people who actually made it don't want the broadcast order, and it is sold and in syndication in the originating country in the production order. You say most episode lists follow broadcast order, I say most episode lists follow the production order which in most cases is the same as the broadcast order, a few it isn't, in which case we still use production order.  X  eworlebi (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break
The issue is broadcast order is wrong per the creators (who are the objective arbiters of what is true and false in the Futurama-world). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that runs on facts (when they are available). In this case the facts are that the the production order is the true order. We should not ignore facts. Focusing on an American broadcast order that is shunned by American producers really does not jive with the idea that an American show should use the American order. You are asking for Wikipedia to cater to the lowest denominator (the average Joe), but Wikipedia is not supposed to do that anywhere.

All the past discussions resulted in consensus for the production order. I have approached people both for and against production order, all with the same two sentences "This debate is re-emerging at Talk:Futurama (season 6). Just thought I should warn you ". I might have missed some of the people involved, feel free to call on anyone I missed. So far only one (Xeworlebi) has come forward, unless enough people come forward to give you a consensus for changing the order, there is no reason to continue this debate. I have a lot more important things to do, so like you I am sitting out until more people come. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to why wikipedia should not "cater to the lowest denominator (the average Joe)"? It's supposed to easily accessible to fans and non-fans alike. And is following an established style (listing by broadcast order) really "catering to the lowest denominator"? If we were doing that, then the article would be three times longer because we'd be explaining the entire premise and history of Futurama. -- Scorpion 0422  01:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Broadcast order is not necessarily an established style. It is case based, as many shows have no continuity or very little continuity, and thus in these cases the production order has no value. Shows that have continuity (e.g., House, 24, most live-acted primetime shows these days) are almost generally ordered in production order. Futurama has a strong continuity, but unfortunately Fox broadcasted it severely out of order. Xeworlebi has noted other series in the same boat as Futurama that also show production order. For the case of Futurama and shows with similar circumstances, broadcast order is not the established style; Futurama and the shows like it are clear exceptions to the "Broadcast order rule". The current format works for non-fans like yourself also, the full series list clearly indicates that Fox broadcasted the episodes out of order and the list is sortable so people can show them in broadcast order if they so wish. Wikipedia does not ignore details. Ignoring the production order is ignoring details. The article does not need to be three times longer to explain the whole series, we already have an article that does that, see Futurama. There is a continuum between too much information and trivia. The trivia belongs on sites like the Infosphere, the important information fits on Wikipedia. Using the correct, production order does not fit on the trivia end. Production order is key detail, not extraneous information.

Once again, this debate continues to be pointless unless new people choose to join it. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my question: "why wikipedia should not "cater to the lowest denominator (the average Joe)""? And, for the record, I'm not a "non-fan". I'm a fan of the show, just not a hardcore fan on the level that I am for The Simpsons. -- Scorpion 0422  02:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Because you are asking us to throw out fundamental details to the series. The series cannot be properly understood if you follow strictly in broadcast order. I love the Simpsons, but the Simpsons has minimal continuity (Hell, the only reason they kept Lisa vegetarian was because Paul McCartney made it a condition for him being on that episode). Rules that work for the Simpsons do not work for Futurama. Diehard Simpsons fans can use the broadcast order with minimal problems. That does not work for Futurama or Firefly or other shows with continuity that were aired out of order. Fox showed us Cubert before they even showed the episode that introduced us to Cubert... If I didn't have grad-school work to deal with (yes even during Winter Break), I could look up other continuity issues for you. I am pretty sure they even released some of the episodes on DVD in Europe and Australia before they ever first aired in the US, Europe, or Australia (this is one of those details they point out in DVD commentaries). I really think you should re-create List of Futurama episodes by broadcast order and put see also notices up on List of Futurama episodes. That would solve all the problems. If someone tries to AfD it, I would defend its existence. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * (Not a reply, per se; indented for discussion clarity) It is important to remember that Wikipedia is not a TV guide, so we are not obligated to even acknowledge "broadcast order" of television series. The reason we do is because it is encyclopedic to do so. The idea that we have an established style that includes listing television episodes in broadcast order is incorrect, as I see it. We have an established style of listing television episodes; it just so happens that most television series are aired in production order and therefore happen to be listed in broadcast order. In the instances that a series is not broadcast in production order, it is up to editorial discretion to determine what order best suits a given series. If there are continuity errors present in listing a series in broadcast order, then I would say it stands to reason that the series should be listed in production order. The fact that broadcast order and original airdate are also listed should be sufficient.  Chickenmonkey  08:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking WP:RFC to get 3rd party input. C T J F 8 3  11:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like there are now three of us in support of production order. Also given how young this discussion is, it would make more sense to wait a little while before and RfC is formally started. I would like to point out one more time, CTJF is not making any actual arguments and is just saying over and over again that we should use broadcast order. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My argument is lots of people are questioning it, and despite what you say, easibility for casual readers should be the priority. Also, you've only given 1 example of continuity errors with Cubert, without providing an episode. Too early for RfC?! It's 3 weeks old, and we only have fans or project members commenting. We need people unrelated to weigh in. C T J F 8 3  07:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not an argument. It is not based on any policy whatsoever. We do not remove facts and details because people get confused. Xeworlebi already pointed out the utter and complete flaw in your "people get confused" argument; every who owns the DVDs and many people in other countries that used the correct production order for broadcast will then become equally confused. You just ignored that comment basically saying that the people who own the DVDs or live in other countries don't matter... Easiness is not a priority of Wikipedia. The truth is the priority. The broadcast order is a nonsensical order that Fox made up for their own purposes. It serves absolutely no meaning. The creators shun it. Past Wikipedia discussions on this matter have consistently came out in favor of the production order. The articles all clearly list for casual readers that Fox aired the episodes out of order and that we put it in the production order (which is the correct and intended order). If readers fail to actually read an article (and thus get confused) that is not a reason to dumb down and article. As for the Cubert reference, I was citing one specific reference that has been cited in the past. I simply do not have the time to point out every single continuity problem that comes out of the broadcast order. This is a pointless discussion that was last had only a few months back. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 09:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll just throw my opinion in here. Keep it the way it is. Production order is a better way to go in this particular case, for all the reasons mentioned above. That should be four in favour now, no? SchrutedIt08 (talk) 09:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do people keep listing the current count? That's something the closer does, is weighs the arguments, not counts the fors vs opposes. C T J F 8 3  17:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Because your side keeps acting like it is the majority, when it is not; consensus has always gone against you. This is not an AfD, there is no closer. You called on an RfC when no one came forth to support your side. Also, if there were a closer, your lack of actual arguments is not going to benefit you and is going to make it look more like 4-1 than 4-2. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have asked an admin I know who edits TV show articles (specifically, Survivor) (User:Gogo Dodo) to come in and take a look at this discussion. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really have an opinion at the moment. I don't watch Futurama so I don't know the details of the issue very intricately (for example, the specific continuity issues are all unknown to me), though I do understand the general issue. I notice that the RfC has only been open for a couple days, so not all interested parties may noticed the RfC.  It is far too early in the RfC window to attempt to determine a consensus.  I suggest letting the RfC run its course and then see how consensus has formed. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This discussion, to be fair, is completely unnecessary and was brought about by two users (one who has left the discussion and one who hasn't brought forth any arguments of their own). The whole premise of this discussion, is that readers who fail to read this page and List of Futurama episodes get confused because they ignore the multiple disclaimers that production order is used. We just had this discussion here in July/August and at Talk:List of Futurama episodes in September. People aren't showing up to this discussion because we just had it. All the past consensuses resulted in production order. People don't want to show up to this debate because it is way too soon. I notified most of the people who showed up in the last few debates, only one showed up (Xeworlebi). No valid arguments have been brought up for going with broadcast order. We really should end this discussion; once again, it is unnecessary. The best resolution is to re-create, List of Futurama episodes by broadcast order. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just chill like Gogo suggested? You seem to be getting way too worked up over this. C T J F 8 3  22:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

No one has shown up for a week now. It is pretty clear this discussion is dead. The consensus seems pretty clear for production order based off those who showed up for this (unnecessary) discussion Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * First, housekeeping points: RfC's generally run for 30 days, so stopping this now is wrong. Some people don't even see RfC's for quite a while (for instance, I saw this one because RfCBot notified the talk page I have watchlisted). Second, RfC's don't have to be officially closed, though they can be if the issue is particularly contentious.
 * However, in this particular case, I don't see that contention, especially since I'm going to add my voice (as an editor, not admin making an official "closure") that production order seems to be obviously correct here. The only valid argument I see in favor of broadcast order is that the minority of users who come looking at this article who are 1) from the US and 2) somehow have an intimate memory of the original air dates will be confused. That's barely even an argument, if I may be so bold.  If I want to stay on that level, what about all of the US users who saw the show entirely online or through the DVD collections--they'll be confused if they see the info in the original air date order. Then of course, as many others have pointed out, literally everyone else in the world who has seen them in their broadcast order will be equally confused.
 * Of course, none of this really matters, because that's not how we make decisions on WP. The question is, what do reliable sources do?  In this case, basically every "source" other than the original Fox broadcasting information lists the articles in the production order. The show creators have explicitly stated that the broadcast order is "wrong".  One of the reasons that the WP:MOS is a guideline is that editors are expected to make judgments that, in some cases, the guideline doesn't apply in special circumstances.  There's no doubt in my mind that this is such a highly specialized case that even if the WP:MOS applied here (and I'm not sure that it does, because I the think Xeworlebi is stretching it beyond what it actually says ), the "correctness" of the production order requires that we use that in this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe I misunderstood you, but I explicitly said that the MOS that was quoted here did not apply, as it is about something completely different. The part that was quoted was actually written by me and implemented in the MOS with consensus for reasons not at all applying in this case. It is basically an explicit mention of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:N, etc. If someone was adding a broadcast column for every country with the air date for every other country in the world, then that part of the MOS would be a valid point to remove it. As far as I can recall I said nothing else about the MOS here.  X  eworlebi (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thegreyanomaly, this is what is going to happen. This request will fail to gain sufficient support to warrant changing the article (again). It will die out or be eventually closed, and in a couple of months the same will happen. When it does, the same arguments will be made, it may or may not be elevated to RfC again, or any part of WP:DRR. But there is no rush to speed this though. In any case I disagree with recreating List of Futurama episodes by broadcast order, this was deleted for good reason, being redundant to List of Futurama episodes since you can sort that one now. This is the type of dispute that will keep being an issue, especially for those who are confused after not reading the lead.  X  eworlebi (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoops! My apologies Xeworlebi; I remembered your name, and that you had mentioned the MOS, but misremembered who sad what. I've struck that portion of my sentence.  Qwyrxian (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that the order of airing may change from country to country and from airing to airing, but the production order isn subject to change. I would stick with production order. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Broadcast order seems awfully US-centric. Production order appears to be the most consistent and logical answer in this case. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 08:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I just don't see how following order of broadcast would solve the problem. In fact, it would probably make things worse since other regions would be just confused as people seem to be now. I notice the UK DVD release brands this season "Season 5", just to make things more utterly confusing, and would horribly contradict any attempt to categorise the episodes by broadcast season/order. The only consistent order with this series is the order of production. The order of broadcast is really just specific to individual regions, and should be noted as such with the relevant articles.
 * While we're at it, I would like to seek clarification and perhaps a change for the Broadcast section in the Manual of Style for Television, as I personally do not feel Scorpion's interpretation of it here is true to the original intention of that particular guideline. -- Dorsal  Axe  11:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The broadcast section of the MOS pertains to the broadcast section on the main article, in this case Futurama (which currently isn't what it should be, and goes against the MOS). The specific MOS for episode lists is at #Episode listing. Anyway a discussion about the MOS is better held at the MOS talk page, and FYI the discussion for that specific line can be found at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 1 (open the collapsed "Accepted and implemented").  X  eworlebi (talk) 12:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I would like to suggest that you make the entire List of Futurama episodes sortable. You don't have to make a section for each season. Just make a table similar to User:Lemonade51/Sandbox. --Maitch (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the MOS says we should make a section for every season. Making a single gigantic table only makes the page less clear. And what you suggest won't work with the way episode lists are set up. Every part that one would have to sort is already sortable on the main episode list article. Next to having a popup the page can't really be any more clear, unless you don't bother to look at it in the first place that is. I thus see no reason to change to the way either article is setup episode list wise.  X  eworlebi (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is always a way to do things technically if people are willing to compromise. I have read MOS and don't believe that it is set in stone you have to have section header if there is good reason to not do it. Anyway, I will stay out of this heated debate. Just wanted to mention another approach than either/or. --Maitch (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Futurama (season 6). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing 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 18:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Futurama (season 6). 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://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/06/its-official-futurama-returns.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100907171942/http://ifmagazine.com/feature.asp?article=3955 to http://ifmagazine.com/feature.asp?article=3955
 * 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
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100817235109/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/08/06/thursday-cable-jersey-shore-on-top-project-runway-futurama-stan-lees-superhumans-more/59373 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/08/06/thursday-cable-jersey-shore-on-top-project-runway-futurama-stan-lees-superhumans-more/59373

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) 20:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Futurama (season 6). 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
 * 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
 * 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)