Talk:"Fishy" Joseph Gilman

From The Infosphere, the Futurama Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Hmm[edit]

You know, I just thought of something: He isn't known as "Fishy" alone, nor as "Fishy Joseph", so shouldn't the title technically be "Joseph "Fishy Joe" Gilman"? The quote nesting is a little weird, but you get it, right? --Buddy 18:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. That would make more sense. If his name is Joseph we should go with that then his nickname. Good thinking. Chris of the Futurama 20:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, it is commonly that the nicknames are between your first name and surname. --SvipTalk 23:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Probably would be better, but Linda says "We have with us the CEO of Fishy Joe's, Mr. "Fishy" Joseph Gilman." - Quolnok 07:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Lovecraft "reference" a coincidence.[edit]

In the commentary they say that the name is merely from the fact that fish have gills. That seems to say that it is not a Lovecraft reference. To suggest that it might be a reference to that implies that we have some reason to draw the connection. What we have instead is a coincidence not a reference. And there are plenty of coincidences that we could point out. But at what point do we go from having a factual collection of information about Futurama to every little tidbit that may or may not be related to the show?

I've seen it on other wikis: the temptation to document a connect you made regardless of any actual connection. And in some wikis, it may be agreed that it will be accepted when we don't know the answer to suggest any ideas that come to mind on the article page as opposed to the discussion page. But are we still to do it when we know what the reference is?

In the commentary for The Problem with Popplers, there was a discussion as to the origins of Fishy Joe's name. Patric M. Verrone admitted that he couldn't recall where the name Fishy Joe came from but stated "I do remember naming him Joe Gilman because gills; fish have gills and he's a man. So he's a gill man." So unless you want to argue that they were kidding around, I'd say that stating that its a reference to anything else is just wrong. Suggestions like that are best moved to the talk page where discussing interesting coincidences can go on to the writers' content. —JediRogue 01:42, 3 January 2011 (CET)

Well, when we know the true reason for something, as we now do here; ideally any claims otherwise would be removed or reworded. If there's only been one suggestion it can be kept but reworked to show coincidence (like this) or long-standing popular theories (like the spelling of Igner as Ignar) but more than that and we'd have pointless trivia. - Quolnok 03:26, 3 January 2011 (CET)
I understand. I see Quolnok's already added it's coincidental, and Aki's made a few more changes as well. This merely seemed to be a funny piece of trivia I, as a reader, would like to see in a section such as the Trivia section. Heather (I can call you Heather, can't I?), notice I didn't remove what you wrote nor did I say it was incorrect! (Well, I couldn't, anyway.) I just thought we could have both. So what do you think? Should the Lovecraft thingy be exterminated? Sanfazer 20:14, 3 January 2011 (CET)