Talk:That's Lobstertainment!

No Way

I'm removing the following, totally obscure (and i'm guessing wrong) information:

"The scene in which the 30th Century Fox beacon blinds a pilot, which then rolls upside down and crashes parodies the TaleSpin episode A Bad Reflection on You Part 2. The plane in the Futurama crash also appears to be the Sea Duck from TaleSpin."

Removed text

I have deleted the claim that it´s unpopular becouse of Zoidberg. "Why must I be crustacean in love" and "A taste of Freedom" are very popular.

I reverted the following edit:

   Illogical plot
   * It is know that the specie of Zoidburg dies after having intercourse,
how can any one have a father or mother, yet Zoidberg has a great uncle.

The main reason is that a person has a mother and father whether they are alive or not. Also to be someone's uncle or great uncle does NOT require fathering any children so there is no reason that Zoidberg couldn't have a great uncle, it would simply be the brother of his deceased grandparent. Stardust8212 22:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Since none of Zoidberg's other relatives are seen, perhaps the question should be whether or not his race has the ability to produce multiple children at once. I would assume the answer is yes, but... who knows? -- Kicking222 02:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

In Teenage Mutant Leela's Hurdles Zoidberg reverts to a childhood stage in which his siblings split off from him. So the answers to your questions are 1)yes and 2)who knows? I know ;-P Stardust8212 02:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Every species that always dies immediately after mating only once has the ability to produce multiple offspring at once. Otherwise, each generation would be smaller than the previous one, and the species would quickly die out. It's basic math. And I'm saying that it's basic math (rather than saying that it's obvious) so that Doniago doesn't say that it violates the policy on original research (policy allows basic math).47.139.47.69 (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Zoidberg's family is shown in "A Taste of Freedom", but the woman is NOT his mother, since she refers to Zoidberg's parents rolling over in their graves. It is logical that the previous generation (i.e., grandparents) would raise the new generation after the parents died off. Zoidberg also says he's "Norm and Sam and Sadie's boy", hinting at biological parents as well as an adoptive parent. Buddy13 21:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well the grandparents themselves wouldn't be able to do it as they'd also be dead but perhaps aunts and uncles or *gasp* great-uncles! Anyway, I think we all seem to be in agreement here. Stardust8212 23:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

...And that agreement is: "Whatever. It really doesn't matter. The show is amazing, but this episode sucks, so let's just move on with our lives." -- Kicking222 23:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Coming to America

Harold Zoid sounds very similar to the old jewish man in the barber shop in Coming to America (played by Eddie Murphy). Is there any connection there  ? /Cygnus78 (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Harold Lloyd

Whilst I am aware this edit was previously made and subsequently reverted, I find it absurd that it was disallowed. The reference is patently obvious, and there is a large amount of precedence for such edits. A quick example would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denny_Crane#Star_Trek_references .

Unless you have a reliable source you're talking about original research. If it is patently obvious then it seems likely that a source can be located, and pointing to another article to establish precendent doesn't really help, as it's just as likely that article also needs improvement. In fact, I'm tagging that linked section for possible OR issues. Remember, the criteria for inclusion in WP is verifiability, not truth. Doniago (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I can't give you a reference to present it as a fact, I would have thought the obvious similarities and the context would've been enough for this to pass as something that doesn't require verification elsewhere: the similarity alone should be enough for one to realise this was intentional. You can't demand that every single sentence requires verification. Obviously statements of fact do, but then there are those axiomatic statements you can take for granted. In other words, I don't think this comparison is likely to be challenged by anyone apart from overzealous wikipedia editors. Furthermore, given its obviousness, I would say the burden of proof is upon you to say why it isn't a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.102.100 (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I recommend reviewing WP:NOR and WP:BURDEN. "It's obvious" is not a sufficient argument for not sourcing information...additionally, if it really -is- obvious then sourcing should be available. Perhaps the DVD commentary mentions it? As noted in the provided link, the burden of proof is on the editor -adding- material. Doniago (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't need sourcing for simple leaps such as this one. It's asinine to demand sourcing for such a trivial addition. Not every factual link can be sourced - to think and request otherwise is being anal to the point of hindrance. In any case, who is likely to challenge this? Can you honestly claim you don't believe this is a reference? If not, then this is uncalled for to start with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.102.100 (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Provide me with a link to a policy that backs up what you're saying. And by asking for sourcing we -are- challenging what you're claiming. Find sourcing or leave it out per the policies stated above. And since I have no idea who you're talking about I can quite easily say I don't know what to believe. Your refusal to abide by policy is just as uncalled for as any request that you provide a source. Doniago (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

As it so happens, there are tons of references and backup as to this. A little googling would enlighten you as to this. The reference I believe provides most credence would be from IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0516001/bio - and I quote Was immortalized in "Futurama" (1999) episode S03E08: That's Lobstertainment. In this episode we find out that Dr. Zoidberg has an uncle who was a silent actor, Harold Zoid.. And you are the only person challenging this, and I believe you are being extremely officious and childish. Whilst we all appreciate the need for such enthusiasm in order to protect Wikipedia articles from objectively untrue articles, in this case you are simply wrong. I would ask you not to revert this article back, because I've given every reason for this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.102.100 (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a Futurama fan, but I happened on this discussion from the WikiProject Television page. The reference to Harold Lloyd is pretty obvious to anyone with knowledge of silent films or film history. Mentioning this connection in the article will help readers without that background to understand the article or the episode. I did a quick search through Lexis Nexis and Academic Search Premier, but I found only one periodical article that discusses this specific episode, and it did not mention the Harold Lloyd connection. Using IMDB as a reliable source is questionable practice, because it is user-generated, and we don't have an author or date for the trivia section of Harold Lloyd's bio. My suggestion is to try and find a reference that is NOT a website to source the fact. Like I said, I'm not a dedicated fan of the show, but shouldn't there be some episode guides or companion books out there? Please understand that Doniago is objecting to the insertion of original research, not necessarily the claim itself.Astrocog (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, it's also possible the DVD commentary mentions this tidbit. I'd encourage anyone concerned with this to check there. Doniago (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Lloyd - Read the reference links at the bottom. Also notice the line attributing this episode to Harold Lloyd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.102.100 (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Having just listed to the commentary track for this episode, while Harold Lloyd is mentioned, IMO it's more as an aside than anything else. The Zoid part in particular is a reference to a videogame that David Cohen developed and actually tried to have published through Broderbund at the time. Doniago (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW, 1) wikilinks are not reliable sources in general (who's to say the linked article is itself reliably sourced?) and 2) the reference to Futurama in that article was itself unsourced along with everything else in that section of the article, and apparently had been for over six months. Doniago (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

it's an obvious reference but we can't find a source reference so WP:IAR and add it. I think WP:IAR is too often forgotten in situations like this where bureaucracy is hindering the improvement of wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.108.214 (talk) 04:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)