Talk:A Clockwork Origin

Cultural references

The references are in the actual episode. How do I cite that? Thanks. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Basically, you want to look for references that were pointed out by a reliable, notable source. That's because just being in an episode doesn't necessarily make it noteworthy. For example, a show like Family Guy is almost entirely based on pop culture references, so it would be a mess if every cultural reference in the episode was pointed out, essentially making it into a list. So I reverted the Flying Spaghetti Monster reference, but then saw that one of the reviews, which was written by a reliable source, made mention of it, so I added it back and sourced it to the article. Let me know if you have any other questions about it. :)Luminum (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Banjo

Dr. Banjo (the Orangutan) is a pretty obvious nod to Kafka's A Report to an Academy (especially considering he takes the podium several times), which, imo should go into cultural references.72.211.192.245 (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

See above. Without a reliable source that can back up that connection, it's only original research and speculation. Has any source brought the comparison up? IMO, the only thing linking "A Report to an Academy" to Dr. Banjo is that both are apes that are intelligent and deliver a speech. It seems more like Dr. Banjo is a product of the evolution debate in relation to humans (chosen because he's an ape) who only gives speeches because it just so happens to be the venue most common to scientific debates. Until something can definitively prove either of us right or wrong, neither of those would be viable to go in the cultural references section.Luminum (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't particularly agree with your interpretation of original research and speculation. Maybe linking the episode to A Report to an Academy is somewhat of a stretch (even though I personally don't think so), but the FSM would be a logical truism. FSM is in the show. We all see him/it. Ergo, the FSM being in the show is a cultural reference. You shouldn't need a source for that. See common knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.192.245 (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Part of the issue with the Flying Spaghetti Monster reference (and many others like it) is that without appearing in a reliable source it is not only hard to verify and claim it isn't original research but it is also difficult to show that it is notable and not just a random piece of trivia. Let's say we include that fact. "A flying spaghetti monster appears in this episode." What does that add to understanding the episode? Not much. What else can we say about it? Nothing. Any discussion about how the writers use FSM as someone arguing against evolution vs the way FSM was originally conceived to show how silly creationism is would be original research. So we end up with a whole article that says "There is a flying spaghetti monster in this episode. There is also a this, a that and the other along with x, y and z." It eventually becomes a list of trivia with no way of seeing which parts are important. It doesn't make for a good article in an encyclopedia, it might be acceptable at a fan site (see the infosphere) but not here. So, the best way to deal with this is to demand secondary sources, they tell us which parts of the episode are notable and worth writing about and they make sure none of us are imagining connections and references that nobody else saw (not that you are but I have seen many discussions like this where someone says "this is a reference to that" and some replies "No way, it's a reference to something else", I've been on both sides of that argument). Anyway, I agree with you, the FSM reference is blatantly obvious, but I don't think that means it should go in the article without a reference. Sorry for the long/wordy reply. Stardust8212 14:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And actually, (see the above topic) to hammer in that point, the FSM was later mentioned in a reliable review, and so it was added as notable (in addition to some other references that expand on what the FSM signifies). Previous to that, it was removed because it lacked that notability. Adding cultural references without the curbing of notability falls into a gradual trap of listing out every single joke or reference with little substance to the actual plot. In practice, you could take a pop-culture heavy show like Family Guy and list every single reference, but then you'd end up with an exhaustive list (probably longer than the plot) that would tell you little to nothing meaningful about the episode.Luminum (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Many of the Futurama episode articles from previous seasons actually have that problem Luminum (see A Head in the Polls), and once the articles get a big enough section going in such a manner it becomes very difficult to remove it without causing an edit war (I've tried, it is crappy, thankless work and part of why I ended up on a year long wikibreak). A better place for this discussion might be the wikiproject (previous attempts at discussing the problem, 3 years ago, are at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Futurama#A new proposal for episode articles) Stardust8212 17:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You know, I was wondering why we were letting additions slide on the new episodes. I'm much more inclined to nip it in the bud for the new episodese. I'll go through those this season with the same reasoning. Hopefully, people will just let it go. The tag that's attached at the present should be enough. I know, it's all thankless work (The Comics Project has a lot of the same issues), so there's only so much you can invest before you have to divest.Luminum (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

A Clockwork Orange

That should be on the list of cultural references, How could you BOOBS miss it? if you do not know what a Clockwork Orange is, look it up, it is a film,and it has been referenced in the Simpsons. I'm rather annoyed that people don't seem to know what that movie is anymore. 122.149.80.181 (talk) 03:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Punkass Oranga

We're all well aware that the episode's title (as well as basically every title in the series) is a parody of something else. Next time, take the time to read the other topics, since they may discuss the very issue you're writing about. In this case, you're in luck, because the two previous discussions do exactly that. But to summarize: 1) Not a list 2) Requires reliability/verifiability 3) Requires notability. Without 3, 2 is irrelevant. Without 2, it's original research.Luminum (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if it is significant that the title of the episode is a pun on Clockwork Orange, the title of that purportedly a pun on the malay word 'orang', which means 'man', and which we are familiar with from the word 'orangutan' (Dr. Banjo). It's likely this is more than coincidence, I wonder if there's a reference anywhere? Antic-Hay (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

@Luminum: 1) You're right, it is a bit problematic that the section is list-like. However, I think the reference of the episode title is more important than the other references presented (e.g. FSM). 2) imdb. 3) The episode title is relevant per se. Any important cultural references should be noted, and A Clockwork Orange is without doubt constitutive for the episode title. --Church of emacs (Talk) 10:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you think it's important, but that doesn't necessarily mean that anyone else does. "Importance" (re: notability) is established by third party sources, not by our individual opinions as editors. Likewise, I would personally argue (and that's not an official reason for keeping it or removing it, just a counterpoint to your reasoning) that of all the cultural references, the use of "A Clockwork Orange" for the title is the least important. It's used as material for a pun in the title, but beyond that, the episode has absolutely nothing in common or thematic of "A Clockwork Orange". If the episode utilized jokes, plot lines, or homages to the work, then there might be a case for its importance (and probably would have resulted in people discussing it in the media coverage of the episode). Instead, cultural references that were more in line with the theme and plot of the episode (e.g. Flying Spaghetti Monster, 1 Million BC, and the Scopes Monkey Trial) were commented on by writers, arguably because they contributed substance to the episode's topic of Creationism vs. Evolution. "A Clockwork Orange" was only used as a meaningless pun. In a counter example, a recent episode of South Park, Coon 2: Hindsight, used a scene from "A Clockwork Orange" and that was clearly more notable in its use and meaningfulness as a cultural reference. For a Futurama example, there'd be a case here if the episode was like The Cyber House Rules (The Cider House Rules). Here, one may state "The episode title is a reference to 'A Clockwork Origin'." and the response would be "So what? What does that have to do with the episode as a whole?" The answer is basically nothing.Luminum (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Invisible pink unicorn

The only way we could possibly know that this IPU "appeared" is if we were told so by the writers/crew/whatever, in which case some sort of citation is definitely necessary, otherwise it's just a baseless not to mention pointless reference. 71.252.138.143 (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Clockwork Origin. 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/20100816125354/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/08/13/thursday-cable-jersey-shore-sets-new-highs-tops-broadcast-again-burn-notice-royal-pains-down-but-mostly-steady-more/59914 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/08/13/thursday-cable-jersey-shore-sets-new-highs-tops-broadcast-again-burn-notice-royal-pains-down-but-mostly-steady-more/59914

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 08:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

season

im pretty sure that this episode is in season 7 2607:FA18:F2FE:FB1E:A4D9:296:944C:5152 (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)