Talk:¡Viva los Muertos!

Gathers scene

Okay was the gathers scene really a reference to Rei from End of Eva? This is a good question for "teh Livejournal"...

Honestly i doubt it, that's a bit farfetched. -th1rt3en 14:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey. I hadn't thought of that! -Northridge02:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone provide a source for Ted being named after Ted Bundy. I think that's very unlikely, the theme for the hippie group was famous killers, not sitcom characters. And honestly, Ted didn't remind me Ted Bundy's personality (or face) at all.--201 20:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh, that would be AL Bundy. --M.Neko 02:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Not Ted Bundy the sitcom character. Ted Bundy the notorious rapist/serial killer--24.58.243.133 23:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC).

-I don't believe that goof is legitamate. It can simply be chalked up to Brock remebering the events differently then what actually happened ~ Ytoabn

DREAM SEQUENCE CONFUSION

In the hallucinogenic dream sequence, it's strongly implied that Brock Samson is riding the dolphin while, uh, riding the dolphin. I guess I don't understand the mechanics of this copulation... he's sitting on top of the animal, behind the dorsal fin, where no orifices could possibly be reached. In addition to being just plain gross, it doesn't make any sense! --M.Neko 02:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe add the fact that "death vine" is a translation of ayahuasca. Further evidence that Orpheus and his party are using ayahuasca is the fact that they experience frequent vomiting while using the drug. 68.181.217.162 05:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Question - Why is this the only Venture Brothers episode to have a 'clean-up' tag on the trivia sections?

I think in the dream sequence with Hunter, Hunter says "You can't teach a hammer to lift nails. That dog won't hunt." Teaching a hammer to lift nails and that dog won't hunt are both folksy cliches that I think got mixed up or misheard. I suggest they get changed to fit with the more accepted cliches. 139.133.7.37 12:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)brakbudy

Trivia removal

I've been cleaning up episode articles using WP:EPISODE, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:WAF as touchstones. Most of the articles on television episodes fail outright, but I've started with trivia and references to popular culture sections. This looks pretty cut and dried to me. Unless the show's creators said it in the media or a 3rd party source that passes muster with WP:V and WP:RS publishes it somewhere, it is original research and needs to be removed. No longer can we tolerate edits that restate jokes from the episode or say that a scene in the episode looks like a scene in another work or is a parody/homage of another work in its entireity Here are some of the relevant sections; the emphasis is in the original, I've highlighted the meat of it in green. Cheers. L0b0t 23:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:EPISODE, a guideline, instructs: "* Content about television episodes must conform to Wikipedia content policies, including but not limited to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.

• Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

Avoid excessive trivia and quotations.

• Extensive quotation from episodes is a violation of copyright and unlikely to be fair use.
• Here are some ideas for what information to include about a television episode, where possible:
  • The plot summary of the episode
  • The episode's relevance in ongoing story arcs, if any
  • How the episode was received by critics
  • The episode's impact on popular culture
  • Information on production and broadcasting of the episode
• Elements which are best avoided in any episode article:
  • A scene-by-scene synopsis. An overall plot summary is much better; the article should not attempt to be a replacement for watching the show itself, it should be about the show
  • Particularly for comedies, no attempt should be made to recreate the humor of the show. This rarely works, and is contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia."

WP:NOT, a policy says: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply: Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic."

WP:V, a policy, is clear: "The policy:

Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.

1. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
2. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."

WP:OR, a policy, states: "

That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article."

WP:RS, a guideline, reads in part: "Popular culture and fiction

Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included."

WP:WAF, a guideline, tells us: "Wikipedia policy on verifiability requires that articles "rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." However, articles written from an in-universe perspective are overly reliant on the fiction itself as a primary source. Lacking as they are in any critical analysis of the subject, these articles may invite original research. In other words, lacking critical analysis from secondary sources, Wikipedia editors and fans of the subject often feel compelled to provide such analysis themselves. Consider this analogy: Would it be acceptable to write an article on flight based solely on watching birds flying? Furthermore, much of this analysis might seem on the surface to be quite sound. For example, assume that an editor creates an article on a starship recently introduced on a science fiction TV show. Using the episodes as reference, he or she writes, "Finn-class starfighters have purple shielding and can fly faster than Mach 3." But how do we really know that all Finn-class starships have purple shielding? What if there are green ones that just have not been introduced yet? And what if later episodes show that Finn-class starships come in slower or faster varieties, too? The editor has made an inference, based on limited fictional information. Framing things from the perspective of our own universe eliminates the problem altogether: "In Episode 37, Commander Kinkaid obtains a Finn-class starfighter with purple shielding. Vice Admiral Hancock calls the ship 'a real space ripper' and says that she can 'make it past Mach 3'."

WP:TRIVIA might be of interest as well. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a good one too. The problem is, in many cases, not the trivia itself but the lack of cited sources. An editor claimed earlier that the episode itself is a source. That is true but only to a limited extent. The episode itself is a primary source and as such can only be used as a source for things that happen in that episode (and you still have to cite the show as a source per WP:CITE) and can not be used for claims relating to other works. that is, if you watch the episode and think that something that happens therein is a reference to a scene in another work, you will need to cite a secondary source (not the episode itself) that makes that connection. To attribute motivations to the writers of a show (did the writers intend to make a reference to that other work) absent a source that backs up that claim is called original research and is not allowed in the encyclopedia. Cheers. L0b0t 04:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Vivia-los.png

Image:Vivia-los.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)