Talk:Hell Is Other Robots/Archive 1

Jolt
When Fender asks Bender if he wants a jolt, this is similar to the slang name "joint", refrence to marijauna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.138.131 (talk • contribs)

Goof: Bender's Arm
How is this a goof? The Robot Devil removes Bender's arm on "level 2" before kicking him down a chute, the next time we see him (with his arm re-attached, the Beastie Boys sing that we have descended to "level 5". There is no implication of the interim verse being levels 3 and 4, so it should be assumed that somewhere on one of these unshown levels Bender retrieves his arm. Qupada 02:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but doesn't the fact that we don't see it make it a goof? Because a lot can happen between each shot, but it's what we see that makes it important or unimportant. --Scott73337 15:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a moot point. Television episodes states that goofs should not be included unless they have been talked about in an outside source. Stardust8212 15:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Jacking On?
Should something be said about the fact that "jacking on" is a take on "jacking off", slang for masterbation? Just something that I thought should be mentioned in the "Cultural References" section. Ben.yarmis 03:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's generally best not to start explaining every joke from the episode. The cultural references is more about references to specific pop culture items. Just my opinion though. Stardust8212 03:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Cultural references
As I recently brought up at the wikiproject (here) it is time we did something about the cultural references sections. I am moving all unsourced references to the talk pages for the time being in hopes of creating a better, more thoroughly sourced article. Please discuss this action at the wikiproject link above so as not to split it over 72 different talk pages. The information removed from the article follows. Stardust8212 02:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Great idea. I moved the unsourced "Miscellanea" section here below, as well.  Cirt 14:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC).

Cultural references

 * One of the five punishments on the wheel of fortune on level 2 of Robot Hell is "pleasant massage", which is a reference to the "Spanish Inquisition" jokes of Monty Python's Flying Circus.
 * Fender's head and body are amplifiers, the latter has a Fender logo on it.
 * When first entering Sparky's Den, Bender's eyes are cracked blue, resembling both those of a spice addict in the Dune universe, and the bloodshot eyes usually associated with drug addicts.
 * The Robot Devil actually performs an excerpt from La Ronde des Lutins ("The Dance of the Goblins") by Antonio Bazzini.
 * When Leela says, "Who would have thought that hell really exists? And that it would be in New Jersey?" she is perhaps alluding to the famed Jersey Devil, while Fry's response of "Actually..." is a continuation of the running joke that New Jersey is an unpleasant place to live.
 * In the Temple of Robotology, prior to Bender's baptism, there are two lines of BASIC on a banner above the altar:
 * 10 SIN
 * 20 GOTO HELL


 * The symbol of Robotology that is welded onto Bender's stomach is the symbol used in wiring schematics for a resistor.
 * The location of Robot Hell is under a ride called the Inferno, which can be slightly linked with the Robot Devil's ironic punishments and Dante's Divine Comedy. It also parallels the Dean Koontz novel Hideaway, in which a serial killer who believes himself to be a demon prince of Hell performs satanic rituals under a ride in an abandoned amusement park.
 * When Fry and Leela first enter the amusement ride The Inferno there is a heart on the wall with "H.S & M.B." in the center, a reference to Homer Simpson and Marge Bouvier of The Simpsons.

Miscellanea

 * When Fry and Leela are about to enter Robot Hell, right after Fry presses the religious symbol to open the door, their reflections on the glass resemble the style in which the Simpsons were originally drawn in the Tracy Ullman Show.
 * The Robot Devil's musical talent (which is once again demonstrated in "The Devil's Hands Are Idle Playthings") is seen in this episode when the Robot Devil plays a golden fiddle which according to Fry and the Robot Devil "would be weigh hundreds of pounds and sound crummy".


 * Note
 * I removed a "cite needed", because it's only a talk page, after all. From the note above, it's self-evident now that this stuff will only go back in the article if new sources/cites crop up to verify some of this stuff.  Cirt (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC).

GA Review: Fail
I think this needs a reasonable amount of work, so I am going to pop this down as a Fail, rather than an "On Hold" to give you enough time to proofread the article an update it. I think after the corrections above, and tackling some of the issues that I've raised, it will be ready for GA status.

Lead
Little bit of editing needed here. I don't feel that the lead adequately summarises the plot, since the summary consists of three short sentences. I wouldn't expect a full exposition, but try toi rewrite this to make it flow a little better. Note also the unnecessary comma in "Bender develops an addiction to electricity at a party, after attending a Beastie Boys concert."

The second paragraph is good, but is the Temple of Robotology really a spoof on the Church of Scientology? From the episode, I would suggest that it is more of a version of a robot Baptist church. In fact, quoting from the linked wikipedia page: "Robotology is a religion created specifically for robots, and draws elements from evangelical Christianity and Baptist denominations." - it is merely the name that spoofs scientology, but this is not clear here.

Some references would also be good.

Plot
"Robotology" does not need to be wikilinked again.

Do items enclosed in brackets need to be there? The answer is not really, and they would be better incorporated into the text for readability purposes.

I would question that they bargain "for Bender's life" - Bender is never threatened with death, just punishment.

"Bender then promises to never be too good or too evil, just plain him." - I know what you mean :) But this doesn't work unless you know the line.  If you want, rewrite this sentence to quote Bender.

Overall, this sectionneeds a fair bit of proofreading - it needs to flow well through the story. This may mean amending more than just the items I've suggested here

Production
I don't feel that this tells me a great deal, particularly the last sentence. I don't really know what that means, or in what context it is meant. I suggest to see what level of detail would be helpful.

Other general points
A lot seems to link to reference 4 - is there nothing else that can verify these statements?

In "Themes" - should the comment about the guy refusing to work on the episode not appear in Production?

I see a lot of short sentences throughout the articles that could use mergin or expanding for readability. Watch the use of hyphens as well.

The article is pretty good, but just needs a little more work. Any questions, please let me know on my talk page. --Fritzpoll 17:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A few of the items could be linked to the "Drawn To Television" book but I didn't see a need to cite the same statements from two different sources so I excluded them as the Pinsky book (ref 4) has the most complete coverage of this subject. I'll have a look at where I can expand the robotology issues from these two sources to make the connection more clear. Thanks for your thorough review and hopefully we can get it up to expectations in the near future. Stardust8212 19:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Stardust and I will do our best to address the above points, and re-nom this after some time has passed. Thanks for the suggestions on how to improve the article.  Cirt 20:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC).


 * Addressing points from the GA review
 * 1) The Lead/Intro does not need to have any citations - it is merely meant to summarize the rest of the article - which should already be adequately cited. Cirt 20:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC).
 * 2) "Temple of Robotology" - Multiple good sources seem to state that this is a spoof on "Church of Scientology". Cirt 20:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC).
 * 3) Note also the unnecessary comma in "Bender develops an addiction to electricity at a party, after attending a Beastie Boys concert." - ✅ - Comma removed. Cirt 20:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC).
 * 4) In "Themes" - should the comment about the guy refusing to work on the episode not appear in Production? - ✅ - Info moved to Production sect. Cirt 21:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC).
 * 5) "Robotology" does not need to be wikilinked again. - ✅ - Removed some duplicate wikilinks from the plot sect. Cirt 21:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC).
 * 6) "Bender then promises to never be too good or too evil, just plain him." - ✅ - Fixed this sentence so it's more understandable. Cirt 21:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC).
 * 7) I would question that they bargain "for Bender's life" - Bender is never threatened with death, just punishment. - ✅ - Fixed this sentence as per suggestion from above. Cirt 21:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC).
 * 8) I've expanded the production section with more details from the DVD commentary and put a bit more detail which hopefully explains that confusing final sentence. ✅ Stardust8212 04:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

GA pass
Well done on these improvements. Alientraveller 21:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! We appreciate it.  Cirt 23:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC).

DVD Episode Commentary
These are notes from the episode commentary to assist people who don't have the DVD but would like to help. If you want more clarification on the notes please let me know and I will try to get you direct quotes. Other users who have interesting notes from the commentary but don't know where to add them to the article should also feel free to discuss them here. If you think something mentioned here should be included in the article please be bold and add it! Stardust8212 16:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Commentary by: Matt Groening David X. Cohen Rich Moore - Supervising Director (Directed this episode) Eric Kaplan - Writer Gregg Vanzo - Supervising Director John Dimaggio - Bender


 * Moore - Opening Cartoon is Betty Boop
 * Cohen - Big Bboys fan, only two appear (not Adam yauch), Waited 3 days w/ Ken Keeler to hear from them to be ready to record in New York but were unsuccessful, Adam Horowitz did Adam Yauch’s Voice
 * Moore - They didn’t want to do Fight for your right to Party
 * Cohen - Drug related issues are an example of what they can get away with with robots but not humans
 * Cohen - Phil Lamarr as robot preacher
 * Vanzo - Fry is wearing his “Charlton Heston” outfit
 * Moore - There was a religious person at the studio who refused to work on this episode because she didn’t like it’s content
 * Cohen - Song written by Eric Kaplan and Ken Keeler, music by Keeler and Christopher Tyng
 * DiMaggio - it was difficult because he was singing the lower harmony
 * Cohen and Kaplan- another verse was cut from the song
 * Kaplan - a lot was cut, enough for this to be a “three-parter”
 * Cohen - they really had started to loosen up with the writing and become more comfortable. The episode feels more like the later episodes
 * Moore - The army of demons they face are actually six animated characters that have been duplicated multiple times


 * I crossed out one that was already used in the article. Cirt 17:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC).
 * And a couple more. Cirt 17:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Used another one. Cirt (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Another. Cirt (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

Peer Review
This article is currently undergoing a Peer Review. Please see Peer review/Hell Is Other Robots/archive1, and if you can, provide feedback on how to improve this article's quality further to WP:FA status. Thanks, Cirt 16:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC).

Reception
I found a couple more sources and added them to the Reception section. Of course, it can't hurt to always be on the lookout for more sources for that section. Cirt (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

GA Sweeps (Pass)
This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, M ASEM 07:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Episode review
This episode, along with all other episodes from season one, is being reviewed to determine whether it currently satisfies Wikipedia's various policies in guidelines. All editors are welcome and encouraged to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Futurama/Season 1 review. Stardust8212 18:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers in the lead
Because this is somehow controversial, here's a brief rundown of why I have removed (and am continuing to remove) the plot summary in the opening paragraph:
 * 1) It's needlessly redundant. The plot is summarized perfectly well in the Plot section.
 * 2) It's not vital to the reader's understanding of the topic. The reader doesn't need to know the entire plot before reading the rest of the article in order to understand any aspect of the article.
 * 3) It's not what a lead section should contain. Basing this off of WP:LEAD, a full plot summary in the first paragraph does not "establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any" better than a single-sentence, spoiler-free plot summary would.
 * 4) It's written like crap. In order to condense the entire plot into three sentences many of the more relevant points of the plot had to be glossed over, both giving an unclear impression of the plot and sounding rather awkward to boot.
 * 5) It's a dick thing to do. Getting rid Template:Spoiler is one thing, but this crosses a line.  We don't remove objectionable content when it is relevant to the article, but this is (as I've established above) badly written and redundant.  It might be relevant to know that "wang", "dildo", and "cock" are slang names for the penis, but we don't stick that information in the lead of the article. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (ramble   argue  check ) 12:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not written like crap at all. This article has went through the featured article candidates process and was commented on its good lead. May I also suggest you do not use terms like "its written like crap," as several editors have spent hours working on this article (including me), so terms like that don't help the working environment of the encyclopedia. The lead should fully summarise the article in question and cover all aspects. As for spoiler, that was deleted after large discussions and TfD debates took place months ago, so I suggest you actually quote where, from WP:LEAD that it says you should not have "spoilers" in the lead. Qst (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1 From WP:LEAD "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." A concise overview of the article includes information on the plot of the article
 * 2 See #1
 * 3 See #1
 * 4 I agree with Qst, it's not written like crap as evidenced by the peer review and FA processes.
 * 5 I don't see it as being objectionable and I find your example irrelevant to this particular case. Slang names for the penis are not the bulk of the information necessary to understand the penis and thus would be trivial to include in the lead section whereas the plot of an episode, in an article about that episode, is not trivial. If we had an article on Slang terms for penis I would expectat the very least cock and dick to be included in the lead.
 * All that being said I think the final sentence of the lead summary "When Fry and Leela come to rescue him, the three escape safely." could reasonably be removed however I see no reason to remove the rest. Stardust8212 13:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think removing the brief plot overview from the lead is a bad decision. The lead for an article about a work of fiction should most certainly succinctly summarize the plot.  --Laser brain (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But you have been fighting to remove it above... Qst (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never commented here. --Laser brain (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry; just to clarify, my above comments was to Laser brain. :) Qst (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But Laser brain never suggested removing the spoilers...? Yukichigai did and I suggested a compromise to remove one sentence but Laser brain never did... Stardust8212 15:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I also think the WP:LEAD is fine, and should not be changed from the version that successfully passed through the Featured Article Candidate process and was promoted to a Featured Article, save for minor copyedit and prose tweaking or typos correction. Cirt (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologise to Laser brain, I was under the impression that he/she was the user who kept removing the "spoilers" from the lead. Qst (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Update
Importance changed to low for WikiProject Robotics after talk page discussion at that project. Cirt (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Southern Baptists
Hell Is Other Robots contains the sentence: While explaining to Bender his claim on his soul, he uses logic similar to that used by many Southern Baptists. I think it needs more information here. What kind of logic do many Southern Baptists use? How is the Robot Devil's logic similar? It's not clear to me. – wodup – 06:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For the time being I have attributed this to the sourced cite, will look into this further. Cirt (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, and it's been a while since I sat down in Borders and tooks notes on that book, there really wasn't much explanation of which aspects were specifically being compared, my original notes just say he "speaks in a manner typical of inner-city African-American pastor stereotypes". Maybe somebody owns a copy and could check, otherwise I'll try to find it again sometime. Stardust8212 21:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

featured
featured? really? huh. good for us then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnarcistPig (talk • contribs) 22:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought the same when I saw it. Well, good for you!82.32.252.203 (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah how the **** did this end up being featured--115.166.18.180 (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh wow. I never thought I would see a Futurama article become featured...  Until It Sleeps   05:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Way to knock it up a notch everyone! BAM!  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How can something rated as Low Importance be a featured article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.45.134 (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the Featured article criteria. — The Le ft orium  17:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Grats futurama! --Jim Raynor (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * With no references in the opening paragraph, WOW Wikipedia is going down hill!LOL.--219.90.161.177 (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wretched sinner unit!  Lugnuts  (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:LEAD. Cirt (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I did it says The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article. Have you even read it yourself. LOL.--219.90.161.177 (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * From WP:LEADCITE: Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Cirt (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool another area/policy of Wikipedia that contradicts another. I'm going to go around deleting references on other articles leads. LOL. Thank Cirt.--219.90.161.177 (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go around deleting references on other articles leads. Yeah, good luck with that!  Lugnuts  (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have, mostly they have been reverted, So Cirt is WRONG lol... Anyway I have found a better way to muck up articles. I change dates, and Names of people that don't have wiki-links. Seems to be working out just fine. I just keep creating user names under different IP's.LOL......--Gar57643 (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not one has been reverted so far.LOL......--Gar57643 (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Over-citation
Here are a few consecutive sentences from the article:

"This episode is one of very few that focuses on the religious aspects of the Futurama universe. In most episodes, it is indicated that the Planet Express crew, along with most beings in the year 3000, are "remarkably unreligious". It introduces two of the religious figures of Futurama, The Robot Devil and Reverend Lionel Preacherbot, both of whom make appearances in future episodes. Preacherbot, who speaks in a manner typical of inner-city African-American pastor stereotypes, converts Bender to the religion Robotology. This leads to a series of events that are similar in many ways to the experiences of real world religious converts. Mark Pinsky states that the episode has a "double-edged portrayal of religion" as it portrays both an improvement in Bender's character but also some of the "less pleasant characteristics of the newly pious". The Robot Devil is introduced after Bender's fall back into sin. According to The Gospel According to The Simpsons, while explaining to Bender his claim on his soul, the Robot Devil uses logic similar to that used by many Southern Baptists. By the end of the episode, Bender has returned to his old ways and states that he will no longer try to be either too good or too bad, a parody and contradiction of the Book of Revelation statement that one should not be lukewarm in his faith.

This episode contains a large amount of religious parody, with references to many religiously themed works of fiction. The episode's title is itself a parody of the famous line "Hell is other people" from Jean-Paul Sartre's one act play No Exit, though the episode has no other resemblance to the play. The punishments in Robot Hell are similar to the levels and rationale which are portrayed in Dante's The Divine Comedy, specifically the Inferno. The "Fairness in Hell Act," where the damned must engage in a fiddle battle to save their souls, is taken directly from The Charlie Daniels Band song "The Devil Went Down to Georgia.""

Is it really necessary to add the same footnote after every single sentence? --Shreevatsa (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Cirt (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? Shreevatsa (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Because in the future other editors might move sentences around in the article, and then it would appear that a certain fact or sentence is unreferenced, and that sentence could get deleted from the article, or worse yet, the article's WP:FA status at that point could be in jeopardy. Cirt (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced, moved from article to talk page
This episode was Futurama's only ever win at the UL television awards when it won "Best Directing in a animation or comedy series".

Could be added back into article when sourced. Cirt (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Southern Baptists
I have an issue with this quote:

"Pinsky writes in The Gospel According to The Simpsons, that while explaining to Bender his claim on his soul, the Robot Devil uses logic similar to that used by many Southern Baptists: "Bender tried to plead his case, without success. 'You agreed to this when you joined our religion,' the devil replies, in logic any Southern Baptist would recognize. 'You sin, you go to robot hell - for all eternity."

Am I to understand that as long as one can source something, it can be placed on a page without any review? These statements are false, whether or not they can be sourced. They represent a skewed perception of Southern Baptists from someone who has had no or minimal contact with the group.

I propose changing the quote to this (italics added):

Pinsky writes in The Gospel According to The Simpsons, that while explaining to Bender his claim on his soul, the Robot Devil uses logic similar to that used by many religious groups: "Bender tried to plead his case, without success. 'You agreed to this when you joined our religion,' the devil replies, in logic any Southern Baptist would recognize. 'You sin, you go to robot hell - for all eternity.

This removes the article bias while preserving the original quote. Hikui87 17:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hikui87 (talk • contribs)
 * The perspective is pointed out quite clearly to the individual that wrote it, cited appropriately, attributed as such to the author, and quoted in full so that there is no confusion. Cirt (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if it's sourced, it's not true. In fact, most Southern Baptists believe that once you become a Christian, you're going to heaven no matter what you do. Quoting an uneducated source is fine, but the article doesn't have to take the same tone. If something is stated without quotes, you must assume that it is the material of the article and not the source. Hikui87 22:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hikui87 (talk • contribs)
 * It is stated with quotes. Cirt (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)