Talk:List of recurring Futurama characters

Merge

• Oppose Each character has plenty of info to keeps its article. And since they are prominent characters, they deserve articles.

Those characters seem like they should fit on this list well enough. TTN (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support merge - the only one from this batch that has received much coverage is Zapp and it's just not enough to hold his own article right now. Stardust8212 13:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose There is enough information on them and cultural relevance to justify their own pages. Kuralyov (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - This list is too crowded already, and there is enough to say about them. Jimbryho (talk) 11:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support. If size is an issue, get rid of the unimportant characters. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • It is a ludicrous idea to have list incomplete on purpose.209.177.139.62 (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is enough information on those characters to warrant seperate pages. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The quality of an article is not based on the size of the article, and most of the articles lack references, and most of the content is unnecessary. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
    • When it comes to merging articles into a list, isn't length a more important factor than quality. For example, Scruffy isn't getting his own article because we can barely summarize the litle we know about him. If you call the information in each of those articles unnecessary, you might as well take the articles on characters in any form of media and pile them up in one list. This is a pointless suggestion and shouldn't even need to be discussed.75.53.128.107 (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • However, let me make it known that I won't support merging Zapp Brannigan, since it's showing promise. The other four don't have enough, however. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Imagine how much of those articles couldn't be included on the list.75.53.128.107 (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is enough information on Zapp Brannigan and he is a notable enough character to have his own page. If the request were just for the other characters I would support. magicOgre (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - with the exception of Cubert, I feel that most of those characters warrant separate pages. Zapp is a prominent character, so there's a page for him. Perhaps him and Kif can share a page. Nibbler's page covers some of the series' mythology, so there's a keeper. Mom is the series' antagonist, so I think that's worth holding her own page.72.128.51.130 (talk) 08:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Zap appears to have much infomation and being increasingly prominant to have his own article. Stabby Joe (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)*
• Oppose - It's not only that all of those articles have characters of substantial importance, but each of them are more than long enough to exist as their own article. It is as ridiculous to suggest that the articles should be merged as it is to suggest that the protagonists' articles should be merged. Imagine if Homer Simpson didn't get his own article. It's the same concept.75.53.128.107 (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Dogmatix has his own article, and Nibbler is much more important to Futurama than Dogmatix is to Asterix: In fact, it's Nibbler who sets the whole series' backstory in motion by sending Fry to the Future! -- Imladros (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - For reasons already stated. It is important to have as much info as possible. In one article, the info would certainly have to be cut down.--Asderoff (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Each of the characters are prominent main characters, who deserve their own articles. If a character has a history and backstory, as well as plenty info to write an article about them, they should have an article! There are some characters like Morbo, who can't/don't have/need an article because they're not prominent enough and have no history whatsoever. Then there are charcters like Mom, whom are very prominent. Mom has episodes about evolve around her, she has history, and was even included on a Forbes list. Does that sound like a character who should have a paragraph in a list of characters? SidekickJermaine (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, whoever wanted to merge it in the first place shouldnt have done so and probably had no knowledge about Futurama and simply goes around doing these types of things messing with things people actually know about and care about.Camelbinky (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, I think it's better to have loads of different articles than delete all of them for a squeezed list. Definatly oppose The drunken guy (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Same reasons as mentioned above, should be enough consensus, I have removed the remaining merge tags. Jamespoky (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Page organization

The page organization seems a bit odd to me right now so I thought I would go ahead and suggest what I think would be the best way to handle it and see what others thought.

1. Rename the page to List of recurring characters from Futurama and remove the main characters section. If we're not going to include info on the main characters (and I personally am against that since it just makes two places to watch the same cruft grow and try to maintain the synopsis in a usable format) then it makes sense to let this page focus on recurring characters. I also find that using the term recurring and setting a distinct limit for inclusion helps keep people from adding every character that had a speaking role in any episode (see related discussion of inclusion criteria at the original talk pages).
2. Instead of listing by major character either change to an alphabetical listing or listing by robot/human/alien groups. The division between what is a secondary character and what is a minor character is a bit fuzzy here and I think it would be more useful to the readers if the organization were more intuitive.

Any other thoughts/ideas/opinions? Stardust8212 13:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

As with the featured list, List of Naruto characters, there should be some sort of brief summary for the main characters. Renaming it is unnecessary. The focus should be the same without it. I don't really know about structure. You may want to ask somewhere that'll get some responses. TTN (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Too long !!!

The Headline says it. The list is too long I don't know why there shouldn't be another page with the list of recurring characters. Or why not divide the list in three articles with the titles of the level 2 headlines?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd propose merging sections about family members into the article of the more significant character - ie Cubert into Farnsworth, Dwight and LaBarbara into Hermes, etc. Merge Al Gore and Richard Nixon together on this page and cover it as "heads in jars" or something. And for the most part, delete the rest. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Excessive zeal

"Space Pope" redirects here, but this article no longer has a corresponding section. Serendi^podous 14:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Scruffy

why no mention of Scruffy?

Reply: Because it would be awesome for the Wikipedia article to make no mention of him and then people watch the show and it goes:

X Character: Hey, who are you?

Scruffy: I'm Scruffy, the janitor.

X Character: I've never seen you before.

Scruffy: I've never seen you before neither.

However Wikipedia editors are too retarded to get this and keep reverting every time I remove the section on him. -Fast Eddy

But consider you may be too retarded to notice Wikipedia isn't a place to try out your jokes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.84.11 (talk) 06:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

understood now how about a section on the fearsome Harlem Globetrotters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.227.49 (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Barbados Slim

why no Barbados Slim either? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.227.49 (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Because he is only brifly mentioned throughout the series. 123.2.85.195 (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is he in the Secondary Characters section instead of the Minor characters one? I think it should be moved there. It's not nearly as important as other, and has a lot less dialogue. Itzcuauhlti (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Another major charactery missing

Where is Judge Whitey? He appeared in several episodes with a major role in at least one plus in the movie Futurama: The Beast with a Billion Backs. TJ Spyke 19:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

And where is Adlai, from "The Cyber House Rules"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.129.97 (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Billionaire-bot

Billionaire-bot is not movie-only character. He was in Raging Bender, and probably in another one as well... King Klear (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Billionaire-bot is seen in the episodes Raging Bender, Crimes of the Hot, and the movie The Beast with a Billion Backs. He does not perform any of the actions as described within his entry. Tracy2214 (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Renovation of Article

• Move to List of recurring characters on Futurama (And remove main characters section)
• Split of the recurring characters to make it more readable, (Like List of recurring characters on 30 Rock)
• Remove fancruft

Any objections? IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Fry and Benderàs landlady

What's her name? She doe make several appearances... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.220.163 (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yancy fry II and Philip J. Fry II

why don´t put Yancy and Phil II? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.140.25.75 (talk) 05:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Randy

Since when is Randy gay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.220.137 (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Elzar = Emeril

Not reverting again due to 3RR, but come on, is there really any doubt? How about a bio of Emeril that mentions it: [1] Or the obvious use of the name "Essence of Elzar", clearly named after Emeril's show. Or the obvious use of the same catchphrases. I mean, this is hardly a controversial claim. What do you need, a written testimonial by the show's writers? Just Google Elzar. Nearly all of the thousands of links will mention Emeril. Not mentioning Emeril in a description of a character clearly based on him seems like a major oversight. Can we maybe rephrase the statement to state that Elzar is "probably" based on Emeril? It's pretty obvious, but if that's what it takes to leave an element of doubt? Lurlock (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm unable to check your link, but if thousands of links mention Emeril, surely one of them must be a reliable source? In any case, whether it's controversial isn't the point, the point is whether it's verifiable. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Its not obvious to me, but I have never heard of Emeril. Wikipedia is not just an American resource and assuming something is "obvious" because you see the source on TV forgets that not everyone sees the same TV. Sources are needed for WP:verifiability because what is obvious to you is not necessarily obvious to anyone else. noq (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, Futurama is an American show, and he's probably the single most famous TV chef in America today, so it should be obvious to the intended original audience of the show. Trust me, if you'd ever seen Emeril in action, you'd have no doubt at all. I'm sure there's YouTube samples out there if you don't believe me. Anyhow, as for "verifiable", you might be hard pressed, because I doubt there's any case where the writers themselves have specifically stated the fact. (And it seems like you're saying that anything short of direct, explicit testimonial from the writers isn't good enough.) As for that link, I'll reproduce the relevant paragraph here:

In the animated television series Futurama, the recurring chef character Elzar is a parody of Lagasse. Emeril also appeared on the animated television series Space Ghost Coast to Coast on December 11, 1996, in Episode 31 ("Cookout"). He cooks duck confit for Space Ghost. Emeril made a short appearance in the television series Family Guy, Episode 405, shouting "Bam!" as a reference to sexual intercourse.

As you can see, the guy is a pretty well-known figure in American pop-culture, and a natural target for parody, even if the rest of the world isn't familiar with him. Lurlock (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the you missed the point. Futurama is showed outside the US and so US specific references are not obvious to everyone. I could come up with examples of things that I find obvious that you would not - that does not release me from providing sources in Wikipedia because it is obvious. If it is so obvious, surely the mainstream media have written about it? Is Lagasse the same person as Emeril? Not obvious if you are not familiar with Emeril. Personally, I would flag it with a {{fact}} template if I was reviewing the edit but others may chose to revert the whole change with an edit summary explanation. Reverting with "its obvious" does not help resolve this. noq (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's the same person. Lagasse is his last name. Why can't you check the link? Or google it if you don't believe me? I don't have the time or energy to spend hours researching this extremely minor point to find some sort of "official" confirmation, but it's not like they're even being subtle about it. Emeril's show (or one of them - he has several now) is called "Essence of Emeril". Elzar's show is "Essence of Elzar". Both use the catch phrase "Bam!" and "kick/knock it up a notch". The voice even sounds the same. I guarantee you more people have heard of Emeril Lagasse than have heard of Crazy Eddie (inspiration for Malfunctioning Eddie), but nobody is challenging that claim. (There's probably hundreds of un-checked facts on this page, it seems ridiculous that you're going crazy over this one.) But in case you want some links to look over: (via about 5 minutes + google)

• http://futurama.wikia.com/wiki/Elzar
• http://theinfosphere.org/Elzar
• http://www.nohomers.net/showthread.php?t=85014
• http://www.angelfire.com/pe/futurama/episodios/1ACV07.txt
• http://www.twiztv.com/scripts/futurama/season1/futurama-107.htm
• Or how about another Wikipedia article: Bender Gets Made

Search any of those links for the word "Emeril", and you'll find it. It looks like you probably won't accept any of those sources, because they're mostly wikis and forums, but that's probably all you're going to find unless somebody specifically goes to the writers and brings a tape-recorder to ask them about this one minor character. Anyhow, I'm done caring about this. Lurlock (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There's probably something on a DVD commentary, to hazard a guess. It does seem a pretty obvious 'cultural reference' by the show (I'd never seen Emeril, but knew immediately who they were spoofing when I saw Elzar) though. But it's always good to have more sources than fewer. DP76764 (Talk) 02:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Didn't even see this when I myself added the information. Now I see why some people got all touchy when I added it. Sorry. Oh... whatever. If anyone could find a source, that would be nice, if not, its Wikipedia's loss. Sven Manguard (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Seeing this convo again led me to try once more to find a source for this info. Anyone have an opinion on the reliability of TVSquad? link to relevant entry It seems like we have used them before but I may be remembering incorrectly. Stardust8212 18:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I would consider TVSquad reliable, because they are owned by AOL (purchased in 2005; that article was written in 2006) and there appears to be some form of editorial oversight and professionalism. With that said, I believe there was a DVD commentary where someone (I think John Dimaggio) mentioned the character's basis on Emeril Lagasse (which is not a source, unless it's verified--to clarify that to editors who may not be aware).  Chickenmonkey  20:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Celebrity Heads

I think in such a good and vast article on Futurama it should be mentioned somewhere that the first appearance of a celebrity head was in Matt Groening's other show, "The Simpsons", in the Episode "Bart Gets Famous", Season 5 Episode 12. It was Kitty Carlisle. And at least I think it was the first of appearance of a celebrity head, but I don't know if there were any before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.62.222.15 (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"God"

What about the Godlike entity from Godfellas and Bender's Big Score? 71.59.165.129 (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Reply: He only showed up in 2 episodes, that's why

Why is Amy not mentioned and why isn't this alphabetic?

Amy Wong isn't even mentioned, even though she's a main character, and also: why isn't this list alphabetic? --82.171.70.54 (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

None of the main characters are on this page. This is for "recurring" characters, which is different from regulars, in that they're not in pretty much every episode like Amy is. Agreed that it could use alphabetization, but I don't feel like doing it myself... Lurlock (talk) 12:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, okay... well, in that case, do you agree we could add a link to the article with the main characters on top of this article? --82.171.70.54 (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ndnd

"Ndnd (pronounced nn-da-NN-da prior to season six, nn-da NN-da in season six,[4] and voiced by Tress MacNeille) is Lrrr's second wife."

Really. I hear this as NN-DN-D , or UN-DUN-DA if you insist on having some implied vowells somewhere. But definitely THREE syllables, not four.Eregli bob (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

In season six, it sounds like Under-Under 4 syllables. Both Lrrr and Leila pronounce it that way.Eregli bob (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Fishy Joe Gilman

Fishy Joe Gilman seems to appear in several episodes.Eregli bob (talk) 08:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed he does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.34.165.139 (talk) 18:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge Mom

I'm opening a merge proposal for Mom (Futurama). This was previously up for AfD, which was opened without doing any proper WP:BEFORE. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Sure, sounds good to me. That's what I recommended in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mom (Futurama). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support: per NinjaRobotPirate's reasoning in the AfD. DJ Autagirl (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support: per above. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 08:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support: Nothing significant to add. Agree with what's been said and all that. —DangerousJXD (talk) 08:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of recurring Futurama characters. 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/20071011175003/http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20021108-1750-ca-people-gore.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20021108-1750-ca-people-gore.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)