Infosphere:Conference Table/Old format

The Conference Table is for discussion of the Infosphere, and proposals for new ideas. For information about upcoming changes to the Infosphere, see Current events. __NEWSECTIONLINK__ Click here to start a new discussion.

If you feel a discussion needs to be archived, tag it with
 *   (see template for more information)

Got nothing to do? You can check out our To Do list to see if there is anything that need being done.

Wikia's Futurama wiki
I recently thought only Wikipedia was our enemy, but apparently Wikia's Futurama wiki has been revived. However, while it is obvious that we still have a lot more information (since it appears by the recent changes article that only a single person is making their pages). I am still wondering why they are even bothering. I mean, Wikia might as well go and buy our wiki. However, I have noticed that they don't link to us any more. --SvipTalk 09:53, 7 January 2008 (PST)
 * Proberbly because if anyone follows the link they'll go wiat a second.... this wiki is much better -  Humorbot 0.4  [[Image:Planet_Express_Logo.png|20px]] 14:21, 7 January 2008 (PST)
 * Just an update, this wiki is the third result in Google! Samanathon 22:17, 9 January 2008 (PST)
 * If you search for Futurama alone on Google, we appear on page 3, and I cannot even seen the Wikia wiki by page 12. I say quite good given there are over 13 million results for Futurama on Google.  Hah.  Remember, Google does not base its relevance on links by its titles, but rather by what other sites links to it as.  --SvipTalk 16:19, 25 January 2008 (PST)
 * There are tricks to getting a website higher up on Google's results the interlinking within this wiki could be enough to boost our position, it's what helps other wikis. If there's a wiki for a topic it's almost always on the first few results. The more often we link to Futurama rather than just typing it the better (though adding "Futurama" to articles needlessly is a bad idea). Also, duplicating the Futurama page to Futurama/Futurama and linking between them would help too. That worked for Charlie Todd. - Quolnok 18:26, 25 January 2008 (PST)
 * I've looked at one of the other wikis and it was really hard to navigate - Fryandgarfield
 * Well, we did focus a lot on the navigation lately. We wanted it to become as easy as possible.  We admit though that our system isn't perfect, and still be improved.  Any suggestions are more than welcome.  I have been considering making an Navigation page describing how to use the navigation plus more. --SvipTalk 10:57, 10 March 2008 (PDT)
 * We are now second, behind only 'kipedia, on google for "Futurama wiki". Also second for "infosphere", but we're the only Futurama page there. - Quolnok 06:50, 12 April 2008 (PDT)

Merchandise
Hey, I was thinking we should maybe include info on Futurama merchandise as well as the fiction? Some suggestions: I got this idea from the Transformers wikia, which obviously is much more closely connected with toys than Futurama, but still thought it might be a good idea. Thoughts? SwitChar 07:35, 21 October 2007 (PDT)
 * Sections on action figures, statues and other toys and such in character articles
 * Similar sections on merchandise in articles on objects, products or animals, like sections on merch incarnations of the PE ship, Slurm or Brain slugs.
 * Articles on certain lines of toys or merchandise like shirts/clothing, the retro tin wind-ups, games etc.
 * I don't know about having it in the articles. They're filled with extraneous info as it is, and any more may burst them! But it really depends on how in-depth the info is, I guess. If it's just a quick "There's a toy of this thing" and a screenshot, that could easily be added... But if it's a detailed description and examination and critical review and notes on all points of articulation, then they probably need their own article (or an article for all merch, each thing with its own section). --Buddy 13:23, 21 October 2007 (PDT)
 * Actually many articles Don't have extraneous info, only a select few do. There actually needs to be more with extraneous info. At least, if you want the informational purpose of the wiki to be fulfilled.Anarchy Balsac 18:47, 4 January 2008 (PST)
 * I agree, for the most part, but anything notable enough to have a toy made of it is likely to be something that has tons of info in the article about it. But yes, many things should be expanded. --Buddy 18:26, 3 February 2008 (PST)

i agree i think we should have an article for all that stuff dr zoidberg 14

I think it would be agood idea because where I live you cant get the figures and i want to know about them. I would be happy to give descriptions on some of the figurines. Fryandgarfield.
 * I can provide photos of my own action figures and one bobble head, but we can also provide a direct link to the relevant page of the company who made them. Sadly, you cannot order online. Which is dumb. Why have a web presence if it's essentially useless? --Buddy 16:07, 15 March 2008 (PDT)
 * There are other sites you can buy from. It's a shame Collectorama seems to have disappeared, they were all about merch. The CGEF Merch page still has lots of the old stuff covered, which will help. - Quolnok 17:02, 15 March 2008 (PDT)

Background Jokes
I was thinking, both the simpsons and Futurama are known for their background jokes. Should there be a list for the background jokes on every episode? I think if we're to be a collective hub of Futurama info it would be important to do so.Anarchy Balsac 18:35, 7 January 2008 (PST)

do you mean a master list or for each episode dr zoidberg 14

Yeah, something like a trivia list except it says "background jokes" as its title.Anarchy Balsac 07:01, 11 January 2008 (PST)

great idea i say yes dr zoidberg 14


 * Would they need time-indices? --Buddy 18:36, 3 February 2008 (PST)
 * Wouldn't hurt, though it would make the task more tedious.Anarchy Balsac 21:21, 15 February 2008 (PST)

You could also make an article containing all the jokes from season 1, one for season 2, one for season 3, one for season 4 and one for the upcoming movies.It would be easier than going through all the episodes and adding a new section. Fryandgarfield
 * Hmm... *searches* reminds me of this group of articles List of computer science references, which aren't linked from anything except each other and are far from complete. - Quolnok 18:26, 25 March 2008 (PDT)
 * I see your point. Maybe we should merge this idea with that one (since most of the computer science references are background jokes anyway) and put it in the sidebar to draw more attention(hence more editing) to it.Anarchy Balsac 12:38, 27 March 2008 (PDT)

Background Jokes: break
Okay, I think we need to start this topic again. As I am watching Futurama now and then (often a lot), I am not paying much attention to the actual plot, but noticing parts of the screen I am supposed to stare at. As a consequence, I have begun noticing a lot of background jokes. Now here is how I think we can do this. Make a huge article (list of background jokes), and get rid of the lists I created when I first joined this place. In addition to that article, we can have noticeable mentions on each episode's page. And then of course a link to the list article. My rule for a background joke to be a background joke: Something that is in the picture but unreferenced by characters and/or unimportant to plot. --SvipTalk 18:53, 20 May 2008 (PDT)
 * Yep there should be an article. Just so long as we know the other, abandoned, ones are disappearing. Bits and pieces of these are already spread through trivia sections and commentary articles, and can be copied over. - Quolnok 06:44, 21 May 2008 (PDT)
 * Maybe in a similar format as list of deleted scenes? Well... almost similar, I was thinking listing the background jokes by appearance in a big table.  And also make a list of alien language appearances (this one deserves its own list in my opinion). --SvipTalk 07:03, 21 May 2008 (PDT)
 * There had been an attempt at an AL sightings section in episode articles... Yeah they should have a page too. Format should definitely sort by season/episode. Perhaps as subsections of episode have "Physics" "Computing" "Literature" "Television" sort of thing, if the background joke is just a fart joke or something, "other" is still an option. - Quolnok 07:15, 21 May 2008 (PDT)
 * The subsections seems a bit overkill if you ask me. Maybe keep it a list for each episode in the list, then have a bold type in brackets, e.g. (Physics).  e.g.:
 * Behind Fry at Mr. Mbutu's apartment reads the text "10 Sweet 20 Home 30 Goto Home" in a frame behind him. This is a reference to the programming language BASIC.  (Computing)
 * For episode I, Roommate, however, I still wondering how we should do this right. A list or a table?  With a table we can apply an image, but not always will an image be necessary.  Hm. :S --SvipTalk 08:22, 21 May 2008 (PDT)

New quote style.
As apparent from the discussion above, I added an extension that gives use the, this is useful for our quotes, so I have written the following template (Template:Q) to create a new system, you can check out the template page on how to use it. Opinions? --SvipTalk 16:59, 10 March 2008 (PDT)
 * I have tried it on Miscellany of Bender's Big Score for a real world example! --SvipTalk 17:07, 10 March 2008 (PDT)
 * At first I didn't see much of a change there, but it gets rid of the need to use  tags so it'll probably help the casual editors. - Quolnok 19:28, 10 March 2008 (PDT)

Character types
I think we can all safely agree on what is a Primary character, but when it comes to Secondary characters and Tertiary characters, it becomes a bit more debatable. According to the current definitions, it goes like this: But here is where the problem is. Some characters will be labelled as tertiary, even though they have a much larger importance than a secondary character. Example, Steve Castle, the man takes over the company, he is one of the main characters in that episode, and that is an undeniable fact. Since he dies in the same episode he appears in, he was (I edited it myself, because I didn't agree) labelled as a tertiary character. But for instance, since 21st Century girl appears in both episode Love's Labours Lost in Space and The Sting, she is labelled as a secondary character, despite the fact that she have no major importance on the plot of any episode.
 * Primary: Appears in most or all episodes, films and comics.
 * Secondary: Appearing in more than one episode, film or comic.
 * Tertiary: Only appearing in one episode, film or comic.

Instead, I think we should label our types of characters upon plot importance. I am not going to argue for the primary characters, they are set, and are interchangeable. But for secondary and tertiary, it could be like so; I'd especially like to hear Qoulnok's opinion. --SvipTalk 03:43, 25 March 2008 (PDT)
 * Secondary: Characters with some or more plot changing purpose in one or more episodes, films or comics.
 * Tertiary: Characters without any plot changing purpose in one or more episodes, films or comics.
 * Sounds more accurate, but it still leaves some characters questionable. Petunia, for instance is in a number of episodes but doesn't quite meet that definition and I think she should be secondary. - Quolnok 06:50, 25 March 2008 (PDT)
 * I agree. But perhaps add more to the definition for secondary then.  E.g. "Characters with some or more plot changing purpose in one or more episodes, films or comics and/or large reuse of character with interaction with main characters."  And thanks for not pointing out my misspelling of your nick. --SvipTalk 07:12, 25 March 2008 (PDT)

sure why not better than nothing. dr zoidberg 4
 * The only problem is that, unlike the current definition, it's much more subjective. You'd almost have to have a vote for every character to see which they are. But I agree, That Guy is a way more important character than Hattie. If we come up with a more clearly-defined division, I'd be happy to get behind this. --Buddy 11:50, 27 March 2008 (PDT)

Transcripts
We all know the transcripts of Futurama from here. Now I have taken the effort of converting them into something we can understand on this wiki. And because I am quite proud of my work, I am willing to tell about it. See, the HTML there is quite messy. But it has some "standards" if you will. So I created two scripts. One which converts the illformed HTML to wellformed XML. And then a script that converts the XML to the Wiki format. There are two reasons for going that way. It is much more easier to interpret wellformed XML than illformed HTML and I need the XML versions of the transcripts for another thing I am doing.

To add to that, my "to wiki" script will interactively ask me when it runs into a new character and ask for the full Wiki name. Which as you can see on the first two transcripts already (as of writing) have links to all characters we run into. Well, only those who speak - of course. --SvipTalk 12:15, 29 March 2008 (PDT)
 * And I'm done. However, I should note that the transcripts are NOT perfect.  There can be errors in them.  If you spot them, please fix them.  So far I have fixed what is most obvious.  Things that can be caught by the converter script I wrote, and so forth.  But if a line is incorrect, has spelling mistakes, my script obviously won't catch it. :P I am thinking about writing some javascript for the transcript infobox where an "edit" button would follow the user down through the entire script, so they wouldn't have to scroll all the way up when they found a mistake, of course, they would still have to scroll down in the text box. :| I don't currently like the idea of splitting the transcripts up. --SvipTalk 06:58, 30 March 2008 (PDT)
 * Okay, I want to make a rule for the transcripts. In respect to the person who originally made the transcripts (the Neutral Planet), I think we should keep the transcripts in British English (names in the transcripts however appear in American English like they should).  So if you bother adding to it or fix it, keep it British English.  I mean, that guy spend days writing these transcripts.  It's the least we can do.  --SvipTalk 22:57, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
 * Well, we do have a standing rule that (parts of) articles aren't to be changed between versions of English. It does stand to reason that we enforce it more strongly there though. - Quolnok 00:30, 2 April 2008 (PDT)

Okay, as you may have noticed I have added some javascript to the transcript articles. For two reasons, one it is difficult to link to a specific line and secondly, it is annoying to edit a specific line that is far down the page. So far the javascript fulfils the first part of its purpose. Linking to lines. And it is quite simple. When viewing a transcript article, simply click "activate edit mode" (this may need a name change), the link will disappear and a new box will appear on the right. Once you find the line you want to link to, click it twice, it will then be highlighted and the box on the right will contain two links to the line. One is a direct link (http://theinfosphere.org/The_Lesser_of_Two_Evils_(transcript)#link-347) and one is a template link, it should be noted though that this template does not exist yet, I will in due time make it. Thoughts? Note: If it does not work for you right now, you may need to make a cache-refresh to get the new javascript code. --SvipTalk 10:33, 5 April 2008 (PDT)

Also, if I may add, here is the current ideas I am thinking of implementing: Any other suggestions are more than welcome. Note that the template I mentioned earlier is intended to link to a specific line from another article. I can shorten it to undefined if you want that instead. --SvipTalk 13:57, 5 April 2008 (PDT)
 * Of course allow people to edit the line. This will be done by giving them an "edit" link to the line, which is simply some javascript which get the current line number highlighted.  It will then link to the regular edit page (like the one I am using to write this), but with javascript it will be scrolled down to the line in question.
 * Ability to highlight multiple lines.
 * Ability to edit the lines WITHIN the article. However, though, this is a bit of stretch, and its only purpose would be coolness.  So this has little priority if any.
 * I have now finished creating the ability to highlight multiple lines, go and try it. :) I'll create the template once I get a decision on whether it should be "transline" or just "tl".  Also, feedback is more than welcome. --SvipTalk 18:17, 5 April 2008 (PDT)

Transcripts: break
I just performed a complete protection of all transcript articles for autoconfirmed users (users who have been registered for more than two days). I had intended to do it earlier in fact, but since an unregistered editor felt he could add another transcript (I know which site it came from) (which were btw a lot more horrible and less informative, and not styled for this wiki at all), it was motivation enough. You may only see the first episode's transcript in the protection log, but you can test it yourself by logging out and viewing a transcript. The concept is done entirely through the LocalSettings.php as the entire Transcript: namespace have been protected. The reason? While of course the recent edit was a motivation, the real intend is that transcripts are of higher regard to being "perfect" than most articles. Sure we want our articles as good as they can get. But we want our transcripts correct. You can argue how to do an article, but with a transcript, there should only be a guide. For this reason, I am only trusting our registered users of following such lead that they are willing to edit constructively.

On a slightly related matter, the "autoconfirmed" group is granted when a user have been registered for two days, but it is also possible to set an amount of edits the user must perform before he/she can edit, should we make it stay at 0 or raise it? Additionally, I was considering protecting the transcript articles to the 'emailconfirmed' group instead, which may seem a bit more reliable. Thoughts? --SvipTalk 09:25, 19 April 2008 (PDT)
 * Sounds fine. 2 days is alright, don't increase it though, if anything drop it to 1, theoretically we'll welcome them within 24 hours of registration and they'll see the rules... theoretically. emailconfirmed doesn't seem any better to me. - Quolnok 22:12, 19 April 2008 (PDT)
 * Uh, I just tried to edit a transcript article to explain a reason for a revert. Somehow I'm not in autoconfirmed, I'm gonna check some things... - Quolnok 21:43, 21 April 2008 (PDT)
 * All I can think of is that auto confirmed may have been an option in the user rights management at the time mine were changed to sysop and autoconfirmed was accidentally removed. Now this verson of mediawiki then apparently checks if a user is in autoconfirmed rather than checking autoconfirmed and sysop because that should be redundant. Or something on localsettings.php has been changed wrong. Either way it's a bizarre problem that can't be solved without DB access. - Quolnok 22:07, 21 April 2008 (PDT)
 * Oh dear. I did some check ups, apparently the "autoconfirmed" group was added later.  Well later than the first version this wiki ran.  I think.  Apparently, that gave me the group when I registered but not you.  True be that there should be a exempt for sysops.  But all sysops should technically be in the group.  Maybe there is a maintenance script for this.  Hold on... --SvipTalk 06:03, 22 April 2008 (PDT)
 * Well, I added the sysop and emailconfirmed group as well to edit the transcript articles. So now you should be able at least.  I ran a fixUserRegisteration.php script, but I am not sure what it did... there was no output. :s --SvipTalk 06:29, 22 April 2008 (PDT)
 * Edit button's definitely back, if you remove the sysop and emailconfirmed I can see if the script did it's job, but it probably did. - Quolnok 07:19, 22 April 2008 (PDT)
 * Hm... I just checked my groups, and I don't have autoconfirmed either. Hm... I think I know why, autoconfirmed is no longer a group, but a right.  Therefore we shouldn't have it as a group!  Ah, I fixed everything.  Guess I'll have to leave emailconfirmed and sysop then. --SvipTalk 07:52, 22 April 2008 (PDT)

Upcoming movie releases
Not sure where exactly to post this source, so I'm posting it here. In case anyone has doubts about the release dates from Europe for Bender's Game and Into the Wild Green Yonder.(credit to sonic panther at PEEL for the pic)Anarchy Balsac 19:56, 6 April 2008 (PDT)




 * Aha, that is very interesting information. Perhaps add it to the trivia sections of Bender's Game and Into the Wild Green Yonder?  Hm, but it seems they have gotten the name wrong on the last film.  Or have we?  Well, we'll see when it is released.  --SvipTalk 05:38, 7 April 2008 (PDT)

Documentation templates
As a new standardising effort, I have begun creating "standardised" documentation for our templates. The new template will allow for easy documentation of templates, without making the templates cluttered from what is real important; the template itself. See Template:Documentation for how to us it. I have been considering including it in the I:I page for every infobox whenever I have written all those's documentations. --SvipTalk 16:44, 11 April 2008 (PDT)

nice job --Dr zoidberg 14 12:05, 12 April 2008 (PDT)

Standardising
I think I've finally gotten the hang of standardising. (Omicron Persei 8). My only problem, is, how do you convert the images? Chabby
 * Never mind I think. Chabby

care to teach me --Dr zoidberg 14 10:50, 13 April 2008 (PDT)

Infoboxes
I was working on my unstandardised pages list (which I'm quite proud of), when I looked upon Tube Transport System. I believe there should be a technology infobox. If there is one for it, please tell me, but I don't think there is.- Chabby
 * I think the serves well for that purpose, if there are any parameters you would like added, just tell me.  --SvipTalk 17:21, 13 April 2008 (PDT)

New page
I have come across that Jupiter is not an article. I'm too lazy to find all of the info and other things, but would anyone else like to? -- the preceding unsigned comment was written by Chabby.
 * I assume there is a reason for that, since Jupiter is never visited in the series, which would make sense, since it is a gas giant. But is mentioned when they visit Europa.  It only appears when they are heading for Europa, but other than that, you could say Jupiter only appears as a background thing.  But I guess it still counts.  However, I am not so entirely sure what would go in the article. --SvipTalk 19:21, 13 April 2008 (PDT)
 * Based on the Sol System article, I'd say no-one got around to it, (likewise for Urectum). Of course, such decisions were made when there was only a small number of articles. - Quolnok 20:09, 13 April 2008 (PDT)

New Server?
If we compare ourselves to the Wikia's Futurama wiki, we would win on content, article count and quality hands down. But on server responsiveness? Not so much. It is true that trying to fight Wikia on server responsive is going to be a Planet Express versus Mom's Friendly Delivery Company. We cannot win, however, we can improve, and we can improve a lot. DreamHost's service is good, but good enough. My generally experience with DreamHost is slow sites. Something I have been grinding my teeth about. Therefore I am suggesting we get a new server to be hosted on.

And no, I don't mean going to some other webhost and try their service, I mean go directly to a Datacentre. For those of you not familiar with a datacentre, it is a place where tonnes of computers are stacked upon one another, and all connected to a high speed Internet. These machines are usually old discarded computers. Sure, the machine we currently use may be in a similar house, but that building is still owned by DreamHost, in a datacentre, each machine is owned by a person or company. I suggest we get our own dedicated server for this purpose. Our largest problem may be the database, the database is not on the same machine as the webserver. This means that it'll have to contact another machine for each query. And not through a local area network, through the Internet. It would be as if requesting several pages for a single page. It's unnecessary. Now I know the only real problem with a datacentre rather than webhost is it will probably cost a little more. But I would be willing to pay whatever extra it may cost. I shall do some research into possible datacentres, until then... discuss. --SvipTalk 13:52, 15 April 2008 (PDT)

sure how much will it be --Dr zoidberg 14 13:30, 16 April 2008 (PDT)

New users
I think ever user should be welcomed. I'm seeing users who haven't registered only making one edit. I'm also seeing some users being turned away. The point was supposed to give them a break. Not everyone already knows the Wiki format. I know I didn't. I just think all users who edit should be welcomed and users should be a little nicer.--Chabby
 * There may be times where I can appear a bit "elitist" if you will, but that's usually when I have something important to tell a user about a recent edit. I have not part of the welcoming committee for a reason.  It's not because I don't have the time, but because I consider myself the admin who makes sure everyone is following up to the standards, etc. that we have set.  I am fully aware that we do so far not have a Manual of Style, and I do in my comments to people apologies for the lack of pages/articles about how to write on our wiki.  But given the topic at hand, I think we should welcome potential users, even IP users.  Remember though, that some users edit an article quickly as they spot an error, whatever it may be, fix it and don't intend to come back.  These people won't regard much from a welcoming statement, as they weren't planning on staying around anyway.  I admit it is a bit of a grey area, but I guess Quolnok is the right one to speak on this matter. --SvipTalk 05:48, 20 April 2008 (PDT)
 * Yes, yes, there is some clarity issues with when to welcome. The old template was only for user accounts, but now that I've modified it with the IP option it is more suitable for them, they had been pointed in the direction of registration with manually written notes. I'd say welcoming of IPs is to those who look like they'll stick around, hints of this might be page creation, in-depth changes, detailed comments on edits or more than a handful of edits. Registered users are a given for welcoming. Exceptions are those who are purely here to cause trouble, however minor joke edits may still warrant a welcome. - Quolnok 06:13, 20 April 2008 (PDT)

Oh, no. I don't mean that. People who are here to cause shouldn't be welcomed. Thanks for the change to the rules on that, though. Chabby

Change our license?
Our current license (by-nc (2.5)) is not free, or rather, a non-free license. Since it doesn't allow everyone to redistribute our work. I am thinking that we should convert our license to a completely free license, such as by-sa (3.0). Opinions? I mean, what good does it do us that people cannot use it for commercial purposes? Hell, they are still going to have to attribute it to us, it is only a win win for us. --SvipTalk 08:56, 25 May 2008 (PDT)


 * finaly a new disscousion sure we sould run as cheep (money wise) as posible --Dr zoidberg 14 11:12, 25 May 2008 (PDT)
 * To clarify; neither result in The Infosphere or it's members needing to pay for something, the new one lets newspapers or whatnot that people buy use our content if they say we did it whereas the current only allows non purchasable media to use our content.
 * I can see how this would be beneficial, if they actually linked to us, those who wouldn't bother attributing it to us would most likely already be taking our content anyway, so we may as well let the good ones do it right. - Quolnok 19:39, 25 May 2008 (PDT)
 * Indeed. Another advantage is that other wikis, including the WikiMedia foundation and its wikis, will think better of us, because we provide 100% free content.  Of course, our images are non-free content, but that is not really the content we provide, we provide text information about Futurama.  The images are only there to help us.  Of course, such information is included in our Disclaimer. --SvipTalk 03:17, 26 May 2008 (PDT)

i say yes lets do it --Dr zoidberg 14 08:53, 26 May 2008 (PDT)
 * I'll wait for Buddy first, because license change is a major step, I'd prefer it if I have his acknowledgement before. Indeed, maybe he will shine light upon the reason for picking our current license. --SvipTalk 11:31, 26 May 2008 (PDT)

good point --Dr zoidberg 14 15:50, 26 May 2008 (PDT)

Why did I pick the current one? No reason in particular, other than the fact that it's the one I pick for all my work. I just never liked the idea of people making money off of the things I created and getting nothing in return. However, you guys make a good case for the free thing. The main point being: unscrupulous businesses that want our content will just take it anyway. If they're good people, they're attribute us, probably with a link, and that can only be good for us in the end. So yes, I'm all for changing the license. Another however: there are contributors who have left and presumably we'd be changing the licensing of their work. I know this can be a sticky wicket, but I don't think we'll run into trouble in this case. If we were just going to make everything public domain, that'd be a different issue, but as it is, I think we can go ahead. --Buddy 12:01, 11 June 2008 (PDT)
 * Done then. You can see the change in the bottom of the screen.  I also made sure Copyrights was updated to the new license.  You may want to have a look at that, and see if the text is good enough. --SvipTalk 13:05, 11 June 2008 (PDT)
 * Looks good to me. Also, I just noticed that there's a non-existent page linked at the bottom Privacy policy. - Quolnok 18:21, 11 June 2008 (PDT)

Leaks
Two recent edits (edit 1, edit 2 (note: don't edit anything about these, they are removed now)) have been adding the information about the leaked version of the film (The Beast with a Billion Backs), and I can confirm that it is indeed leaked. I have personally made use of it, however, I do not discuss it, only as much as required. However, my reason for starting this discussion is that I feel that we should not have our article describe the leaks at all. Remember, there is a difference in the perspective between our wiki and Wikipedia, Wikipedia takes a general perspective, while we take a more Futurama fan perspective.

I am just saying we need to lay some clear rules out about this. And maybe create a rules page. --SvipTalk 02:06, 9 June 2008 (PDT)
 * The Wikipedians seem to be of the opinion to talk about it if the leaks get press, and not add information from the leaks. This seems more-or-less like what we need to do. Except we shouldn't mention the actual leaks, regardless. After release, and confirmation that the leaked film is the final film, those who have that version can use it for info but are assumed to have intent to get the legit version. If the leaks aren't a final version, we need to add some info about differences to the miscellany article. - Quolnok 03:32, 9 June 2008 (PDT)

a rule page is a great idea --Dr zoidberg 14 15:40, 9 June 2008 (PDT)

What the hell?! If I was Groening, Cohen, Fox, or even an extremely pissed-off fan, I'd want to hunt down the moron that keeps leaking these films. It only hurts business to leak the thing before it's released. I mean, after it's released, there's no power on Earth that can keep it from being somewhere on the web, but they should be able to keep a lid on it until then. It's ridiculous. I'm hereby boycotting all pirated versions. Not that I wouldn't anyway, but come on. Who out there thought it would be awesome to leak the film? Gah! I have stronger language in my head than I can use here, but all you need to know is that it rhymes with "oopid stuther muckers". Grar! --Buddy 12:05, 11 June 2008 (PDT)
 * I couldn't agree more. Indeed, should I have been so lucky to be a picked reviewer, I would consider it my sole duty to avoid anyone else seeing it until it was released.  However, I think Fox did it wrong this time, with BBS, the previews appeared like 2-1 week before its release, this time more than a month.  This is not a good business move.  People cannot be excited for a month -- save some few, leaks are bound to happen when you give it to previewers.  Trust me, someone out there will get their hands on it and soon it'll be everywhere.  I never claim I am perfect, and I blame my own impatience for my actions.  But don't misjudge me, I am buying the film legally, hell, I'd buy more than one copy!  If... I had the money to do such things.  Regardless, Buddy, it happens to everyone.  Especially when you release your film on such an easy copyable format such as DVD.  Theatre releases are much safer, since it requires a bit more to get it leaked.
 * Anyway, I know some who have also obtained it who too clearly says they will buy the work as well, for they want to support Futurama. If I were Groening, Cohen or Fox, I wouldn't be the least surprised.  But disappointed is always an option. --SvipTalk 12:57, 11 June 2008 (PDT)
 * THEATER! That's brilliant! In the future, they should just have "preview parties" for preview/reviewers. In a little screening room. Then they won't actually have a copy. Hooray for brilliance! And no, I'm not judging the people who view the thing. I myself listen to pirated material almost constantly. I'm just boycotting this particular bit of pirated material. And the next two films as well, because I assume they'll be pirated prematurely as well. But yeah, they really should try harder to prevent leaks. Why do we need previewers, anyway? To give silly quotes to run in the commercials? To write online reviews (let's face it, I don't think Futurama movie reviews will ever see print media)? I think the people that want to see it already know about it, and anyone who doesn't know probably wouldn't care. Some reviews aren't going to change their minds. But I digress. Or actually just talk too much about nothing. --Buddy 13:05, 11 June 2008 (PDT)

Fry and Leela
Fry and Leela have had different times when they sem like a good couple, but never are. Does anyone think this will change? -- the preceding unsigned comment was written by Go Bender Kid.
 * Wouldn't it ruined a lot if they ever got together? Then we cannot keep on dreaming.  All shows that have a similar situation between two people always jump the shark when they let them get together.  So -- hopefully not. --SvipTalk 15:13, 10 June 2008 (PDT)
 * Well, Fry and Leela actually have been together on a few occasions. It's just that Fry usually screws it up. Leela thinks Fry is "sweet", but he's fallen into that "just friends" pit of doom, and he's deperately trying to get out of it. Alas! Although, the what-if machine showed that, were Leela more impulsive, she'd probably eventually hook up with Fry--after killing a bunch of people. I have more to say, but it's not really a topic for the Conference Table, is it? --Buddy 12:09, 11 June 2008 (PDT)

Mistake/goof
I was just updating the site, and I noticed that if Farnsworth built the original robot within his lifetime, then robots that are older than the Professor should not exist. The only example of this that currently comes to mind is Bender's Uncle Vladmir who died at the age of 211. Farnsworth is obviously not older than 211, so therefore when Vladmir was built, the original robots that the Professor built while working at Mom's Friendly Robot Company, wouldn'thave existed yet, thus, Vladmir (and others) predate their "ancestors". -- the preceding unsigned comment was written by Fatt Daddy Inc..
 * Some robots predate the sports utility model, yes. But all modern robots, at the time, were based on his designs. 211 years old doesn't fit into modern and therefore Vladimir isn't based on Farnsworth's designs, unless he was upgraded after the polluting design was created. Calculon would have been upgraded to a high pollution model. Robot 1-X is another example of a robot not based on his designs, but hadn't existed when Farnsworth said that. - Quolnok 00:50, 13 June 2008 (PDT)