Talk:Jurassic Bark/Archive 1

Archive 1

Milk in shoes

umm... what is the name of the milk-appearing-in-shoes trick that bender used? (Please respond on my talk page.) tinlv7 03:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ending Song

The ending song 'I will wait for you' is in fact performed by Vikki Carr in this particular case. The version by Connie Francis is slightly different.

No it's not --Rubber cat 23:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Source

GotFuturama.com is not a spam advert. It is in fact the only major source for Futurama related info that is still reliable. It has been listed on many occasions as a reference source and often contains trivia info listed on Wikipedia. The link has remained for a long time for a reason. Whoever edited it out needs to know this. 68.198.202.244 06:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it woulda been fuckin' hilarius if fry'd found his mamma fossilized!!24.144.137.244 17:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You think? Hmm. Wimpyguy (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Citation

The citation for seeing more seymour in the upcoming episodes is from a David X Cohen interview. The link is here: http://www.wizarduniverse.com/magazine/toyfare/002710592.cfm. I barely ever make edits on wikipedia plus I don't know the proper format for citing sources. If anybody has an interest to add the citation, feel free. --Offput 23:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I added the citation.--CyberGhostface 19:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Bleeding gums? Says who?

"Fry mentions that Seymour had intimate relations with the leg of a wandering saxophonist, presumably referencing Bleeding Gums Murphy of Simpsons fame."

Am I the only one who thinks that connection is more than a little specious? I've removed the speculation, if there's a consensus that it belongs, feel free to put it back in. --StarManta 07:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Futurama and the Simpsons art different Universes and continuities. So that doesn't make sense. There have yet to be ANY crossovers.Utils 03:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• False! Bender has appeared in an episode of The Simpsons. It was in the episode where Professor Frink showed Bart and Lisa their future. When Bart and Homer exit a tunnel in Homer's hover car, Bender is suddenly a passenger and declares "you guys are my new best friends!"
• That happened to be in a story within the story of the show. It's not even canon. The only time Futurama is ever referenced in the Simpsons is when they talk about the show as a TV show, as in the cancellation and the creators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.224.53 (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• True! No one in Futurama has yellow skin, which is ubiquitious in The Simpsons, with the only people lacking it are racial minorities. 207.255.35.246 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC).

That's not true, I don't think. I believe I saw In one episode, Blinky (the three-eyed fish produced by the Springfield nuclear plant) can be seen briefly. StarManta (talk) 06:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It's called a wink or a cameo, but it's not a crossover. Go buy or rent the season one DVD, please. Utils (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

the hustle

who plays the song that fry is dancing to when he is protesting on the sidewalk for his dog seymour??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.37.160.226 (talk) 03:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

I belive it's the orginal by Van McCoy --SirGalrim 16:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

In the ending sequence, the u falls out of the sign and makes pan cci's. Could that be included as a reference in the trivia section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 97.81.109.36 (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

But what is is a reference TO? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.56.107 (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's point out the problems

1. Plot section out weighs everything else in the article, never a good sign to start.
2. No source for the single bit of production information, which doesn't even appear to be that relevant.
3. Continuity - that's another name for "goof" which is another name for "trivia". Don't have goof sections on film pages, don't have them on these either.
4. Cultural references...nice...but not a single one sourced. It's in list form also.
5. Goofs section...establish already in #3

What's the big kicker that says this episode has not proven any type of notability? Not a single instance of anyone commentary on the episode. Not a single review anywhere. So where's the notability? Sorry, notability is not inherited from a parent. We don't create an article on some celebs wife just because the celeb is notable, so we don't do that with television episodes. Explain, what makes this episode notable? I don't see anything, hence the tag that says it doesn't meet the criteria. The tag also states that there are 14 days (probably more, considering the number of articles on Wikipedia) to establish notability. Everyone knows what notability is, so it isn't that hard to look for. Prove is another thing. No one said the article has to be perfect, that takes time. We only say that article needs to prove the notability and not act like some blood relative from TV.com or IMDb.com. Please show me where it says that notability is inherited? Because Florida State University is notable, so I guess my being a student makes me notable enough to have a page about me. I'm a component of that school, just like an episode is a component of a Television show. Mazda is notable, and I drive a Mazda, so that's one more reason for me to have my own article. There appears to be a flaw in this "inherited notability" idea. There is a reason minor characters are not supposed to be given their own articles, because if notability was inherited we'd have every Tom, Dick, and Sally from every television show with their own article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Continuity in this is being used as how it connects to other episodes and plot points, not how it's messed up (it's still trivial and unsourced though). TTN 23:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now. But, as you pointed out, it's unsourced and with no explaination as to why it is occurring. Was it meant to allude to something. Per WP:WAF - it is important that articles give proper weight to important aspects of the subject and do not place undue empasis on minor points. These seem minor, because they don't explain their significance. You should not need to see the show to understand the significance.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment You know, MANY - and by many I mean the vast majority - episode pages of The Simpsons, Star Trek, Smallville and other shows that haven't been targeted by this campaign also have the exact same problems. The episode was nominated for an emmy, so I think that's a start for individual notability. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm leaving the Simpsons alone due to the number of GAs it has (though it may be targetted towards the end). Smallville is being worked on, and Star Trek is just a big beast that will come later. We can't do all of them at once. The nomination is a start, but it alone can't define the article. TTN 23:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons have an entire season of atleast GA articles (two of them are FA). They could use some cleaning, but they have at least established some notability. I'm personally working on Smallville, and trust me, the majority of season 1 needs to be merged. I'm managed to get the pilot into much better shape than it previously was. To point out something you did, Smallville has about 40+ articles on episodes. Exactly 1 has been expanded. Please check those pages out, because they all have the tag that TTN added, I know because I added it personally. I also added the tag for the parent article that alerts people there about what is going on. Needless to say, I'm the only one that really edits those pages anyone(although Matt did respond). No one is singling this article, or show out. It's a problem with just about every show, with the majority of their articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Seriously. What have you got against.. ughh.. Wikipedia is not paper. Jurassic Bark is definitly notable. And whoring traditional media on what is used as a new generation of media is just... poor sighted. I don't care what crusdes users and admins are going for - it's just short sighted buracracy. --72.138.186.64 05:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've listed the template at TfD. The edit war here is actually a good example of the template abuse. Matthew 23:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I find it a good example of a lack of understanding of notability.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit war over tag

I've protected this page due to the edit warring over the notability tag. Please discuss this problem here. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Been under discussion. Some choose not to participate.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion over whether the article is notable hasn't been updated in a month. Does anyone plan on unprotecting this? --Chiklit 03:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I requested unprotection a couple days ago. It was denied and I was informed that I should try asking Majorly to unprotect since he protected it. He hasn't responded yet. Stardust8212 03:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This Majorly guy needs to unblock this article, there are many mistake i want to edit, but can't. C. Pineda 07:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Links for article improvement

Since the page is still protected and I can't work on it I'm going to make any article improvement notes here. I'll add them as I find them and hopefully I can make an article out of them once this is unprotected. I'd ask that anyone else working on this article also leave their notes here for future use. Stardust8212 00:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Continuity: David X. Cohen states that previously unknown facts about Seymour will be revealed in the upcoming DVDs

Cultural section

In the cultural section, it says this: "In the scene right before we see the cloning machine, the Professor's head appears as a large hologram, telling everyone that it is ready. The head appears with a loud, majestic trumpeting, referencing the scene in the television series "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" where a Magrethean official appears in a hologram, with a similar trumpeting, to the characters." In reality, I find it much more likely that it is a reference to the Wizard of Oz (which I believe is what Hitchhiker's Guide is referencing). It would be odd to reference a reference, no?

Bender's Big Score

Should the notes section or summary section be editted to point out that, because of the events of Bender's Big Score, we now understand the ending better. That Seymour didn't die in the last season, and more importantly, that he waited around the pizza place for Fry to return from his job and from the trip to save Leelu?

Personally, for someone that found this episode so sad, this new information makes it so much better, and adds a new meaning (Seymour remaining loyal to his master, even though his master found another love) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.51.217 (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• I expect this will be the subject of some debate, but if I had to vote, I'd change the plot description to fit in with the events of Bender's Big Score. Perhaps change the last sentence to "The scene shows a slow montage of passing years, where Seymour was cared for by Mr. Panucci until the restaurant's closing, and waited well into old age, still awaiting Fry's return." --85.5.94.202 12:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, plus there should be some mention about the fact that the movie explained Seymour's fossilized stance. As it was shown at the end of this episode, Seymour simply lays down and closes his eyes. Giving the audience the impression that how he died. But at the same time Seymour fossilized form shows that he died a standing death. In Bender's Big Score it reveals that Seymour was burned alive while barking at Bender who in turn, shot at Fry's apartment. Sarujo (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence anywhere that a "backlash from fans" was responsible for the retcon in Bender's Big Score. On the contrary, in this month's WIRED, David X. Cohen states that Seymour only appears in the movie in order to preserve continuity. I've rewritten this sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.232.20 (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you by any chance have a link to that article? I'd like to cite it to preserve verifiability. Thanks. Stardust8212 15:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Production

I've added Harry Nilsson's song to this section as it is featured in the episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.76.16 (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Title Reference

I'm sure nine out of ten people (or more) will freely acknowledge that the episode's title is a reference to Jurassic Park. Unfortunately, there's never been a reliable source establishing that, and the current source is IMDB, which is not reliable. Is there a reliable source, perhaps the DVD commentary? I hate to remove an "obvious" fact, but I think we really need a more reliable citation here. I'll give it some time before taking any action. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Would probably be in order to remove the citation and change to {{cn}}, I'll have a look around and see what I can find, I have the DVDs so I could check commentary but I hate watching this episode so I'll only do it as a last resort. Stardust8212 13:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! I've pulled the citation...hopefully we can find something better. I also removed a bit specifying that the title is a reference to the movie, as it could just as easily be a reference to the book, without which the movie wouldn't exist. Doniago (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)