Talk:Lord Nibbler

First appearance?
Someone changed the first appearance from LLLiS to SP3k. I know his shadow is in that, but does it really count? Which is his first appearance?
 * I don't think the shadow counts so I'm voting for LLLiS Humerbot 0.4 13:47, 9 January 2007 (PST)
 * I don't know, probably should be the actual appearence that counts, not the foreshadowing. - Quolnok 03:51, 10 January 2007 (PST)
 * As far as i remember Nibbler's shadow can NOT be seen in SP3K. It was added in a later episode, but I don't remember which was the first episode to review Fry's falling into the tube. Look at it again. I'm pretty damn sure about this!

{| border=1 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=6 style="border-collapse:collapse" ! SP3k: !! LLLiS:
 * - bgcolor=#DDDDDD
 * - valign="top"

User:FutureFan

Escaping the universe.
Has he been eliminated from the show by doing this? DXC told us on the BWaBB commentary that Bender's Game will teach us more about Dark Matter, but I really don't see this involving Nibbler. Of course it can't be confirmed until he's mentioned, but isn't his absence worth talking about in the article? -- the preceding unsigned comment was written by Mini-Me.
 * Yeah, there isn't much there about it. I just added a little. If Bender's Game is, to an extent, about Dark Matter, there's certainly a chance of Nibblonian involvement. All we know is that he's not in the universe any more, and BG seems to be outside the normal universe. - Quolnok 12:00, 27 June 2008 (BST)
 * Hm, good point. I know IMDb isn't too reliable when it comes to credited cast members before the release, but Frank Welker (who was not in BWaBB at all) is listed for Bender's Game and Into the Wild Green Yonder playing Nibbler and other [animal] voices. -Mini-Me 12:36, 27 June 2008 (BST)
 * I don't think the writers have ditched Nibbler for good. I think they have something up their sleeves.  It just seemed fitting that he wasn't in BWaBB (and neither were his species, despite we getting to see a lot of alien species). --SvipTalk 13:31, 27 June 2008 (BST)

Server problems?
i was trying to add his appearances in 'bender's game' and 'into the wild green yonder' and i came up with this.

from here: Fatal error: Maximum execution time of 30 seconds exceeded in /var/www/theinfosphere.org/website/includes/StringUtils.php on line 276

what's happening? -- the preceding unsigned comment was written by Scruffy.
 * I am not sure, but generally, if such an issue happens, I'd suggest try again. The server may be busy elsewhere.  If it persists, then you should alert us.  I tried myself, while it was a bit slow, it eventually succeeded. --SvipTalk 23:07, 4 July 2008 (BST)
 * That's the problem I had while trying to add info as well. Only a few times in the last week or two, but today I can't even get three or four lines of a transcript up. I've tried tons of time and haven't gained much progress. If I'm not mistaken, this happened on the old server too. -Mini-Me 00:06, 5 July 2008 (BST)

Into the Wild Green Yonder?
I never saw the little guy in Into the Wild Green Yonder, unless I'm blind. Am I completely insane or is this an error? Chris of the Futurama2 00:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say neither. Though it is odd, given the ending of the previous film.  It would make more than sense to have him appear in the film.  But I didn't see him either. --SvipTalk 01:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, I clearly forgot, a topic at the Madhouse discussed this very issue. --SvipTalk 01:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooh, they did what they did in Space Pilot 3000. Cool. Chris of the Futurama2 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Lord Nibbler
I think we should go by the article name "Lord Nibbler" instead of just Nibbler, seeing as this is in actuality his full name (with title). This is the more encyclopaedic way to go with it, compare to Wikipedia's. What say you? - akitalk 18:44, 12 June 2011 (CEST)
 * I find myself conflicted. On the one hand, I think this makes sense.  But on the other, I didn't think we needed to change "Amy Wong" to "Dr. Amy Wong" because she has only once been called "Dr. Wong" once.  But on the third, mutant-esque hand, Zoidberg has "Dr. John A. Zoidberg" and Farnsworth has "Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth", and Zoidberg has been called "John" maybe once(?), so it makes sense for anyone with an earned title to have their full name in their article.  So my convoluted, roundabout conclusion is that titles should probably be added to the headers. -- DeepSpaceHomer 19:37, 12 June 2011 (CEST)
 * I think the article name should cover all first and middle names (like John A.) as well as titles, and I do believe that Amy's article should be Dr. Amy Wong, I just didn't think of it until you mentioned it. - akitalk 19:40, 12 June 2011 (CEST)
 * Well, you make the point that it sounds more encyclopedic, and you're right. The Infosphere is an information bank about Futurama, so we should strive to be as thorough and informative as possible. -- DeepSpaceHomer 19:45, 12 June 2011 (CEST)
 * The article has been moved. - akitalk 21:27, 13 June 2011 (CEST)

Spotlight discussion
I am wondering if personality should not be under character description? It seems rather odd that personality, which is currently a rather short section has its own above biography and outside of character description. --Sviptalk 16:51, 16 June 2011 (CEST)
 * I agree that personality should be part of the character description. Aki's the one who put the section there, so ask him. Teyrn of Highever 18:20, 16 June 2011 (CEST)
 * I went ahead and moved it. -- DeepSpaceHomer 18:34, 16 June 2011 (CEST)
 * Before I go crazy and edit every single character page I can find, is having personality as part of the character description section going to be standard? Teyrn of Highever 18:43, 16 June 2011 (CEST)
 * Well, a personality section is in the character article template, which I didn't even know existed until now. I guess it would make sense to have one for the major primary and secondary characters, but most of the minor characters who we learn little about can do without one. -- DeepSpaceHomer 18:57, 16 June 2011 (CEST)
 * Done. Teyrn of Highever 20:18, 16 June 2011 (CEST)
 * This was attempted to be discussed here, where the character article template also was mentioned. I personally believe the standard as per that template is the best way to have it, as the personality should be seen right away, and is really small compared to the biography section. - akitalk 20:34, 16 June 2011 (CEST)
 * So... what just happened was that Teyrn of Highever thought it best to ignore everyone else's opinion as well as the standard as discussed under the conference table... and just change all primary articles anyway? Could you please change them all back, or at least try discussing it before doing it? - akitalk 20:43, 16 June 2011 (CEST)
 * I thought our discussion was about the inconsistencies in ordering rather that the ordering itself. In my defense, I was just following up on what Deep had already started. I will undo those changes if that is what people want. Maybe we should point Svip over to the specific table so that he can get a sense of what was discussed? It might change his mind or at least reopen the discussion. Teyrn of Highever 20:45, 16 June 2011 (CEST)
 * No, I was not saying there should be a specific standard of where to put the personality section. If it is too small, put it in character description, if it is big, let it stand alone.  Sometimes it is also about feel and winging it.  I reverted some of ToH's changes. --Sviptalk 20:51, 16 June 2011 (CEST)
 * There is a reason I discussed this on THIS talk page, because I wasn't talking about a standard, I was talking about what might be a good idea for THIS page. Had I been talking standards, I would have went to the conference table.  I know how this wiki works. --Sviptalk 20:53, 16 June 2011 (CEST)
 * I didn't mean to imply that you didn't know how the infosphere worked, it was more that I didn't know if you were aware of the discussion that took place. That, plus my misinterpreting what you were saying Svip, caused this problem. I've reverted my edits. Teyrn of Highever 21:07, 16 June 2011 (CEST)
 * I didn't mean to be hostile or anything. I was just sayin'.  It's just that I am not a big fan of small sections when next to big sections if they are on the same level.  Sometimes nothing can be done about it, such as a Production section, because it doesn't fit under any other section.  But you could argue how a Personality section could at times fit under a Character description section.  Take an article like Lrrr, its personality section is far bigger than its biography section, because Lrrr's personality is so far more important than what he has done.  While we should and do have standards, some articles require us to go beyond them and even contradict them, because its content requires us to.
 * It's what they call being bold over at Wikipedia. --Sviptalk 21:25, 16 June 2011 (CEST)
 * Thanks, Teyrn. Overall I agree with what's been said, but some confusion kicked in. - akitalk 21:14, 16 June 2011 (CEST)