Talk:Lrrreconcilable Ndndifferences

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 July 2010. The result of the discussion was delete.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Animation: American / Futurama Low‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Futurama task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Television: Episode coverage

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

J. J. Abrams

Didn't this episode feature the face of J.J. Abrams? Lots42 (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but so far, no reliable sources have pointed the reference out as being notable. So if there's really nothing about it that seemed noteworthy to any third party sources, there's not much reason to add it on the page.Luminum (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guy himself is noteable. I think this merits a brief mention. Lots42 (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only if his appearance in the episode was also notable; if that is the case, reliable third-party sources should be able to support that. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. President Obama could make an appearance in a cutaway gag on Family Guy, but just because the President is notable, doesn't make the appearance notable on its own.Luminum (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any television show would dare imply the President has done gone and got himself murdered and his face ripped off. 8-) Lots42 (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, is Whedonesque's acknowledgement of the Whedon gag a sufficient enough source to include that cultural reference in the article?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who or what is Whedonesque? If they are a site or publication, it depends if they are reliable or notable. If it's a person, say, the screen name of Joss Whedon, which has been proven to be real, then yes.Luminum (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's his endorsed weblog. Usually he makes official statements through there, which are directly linked as reliable. It is also a site where the (closed membership) draw attention to Whedon-related news. As such, one piece concerned the Futurama namedrop. http://whedonesque.com/comments/24713 Thoughts?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would take it as a reliable source for information about Whedon. Since it's supposed to be his endorsed webblog, any info about him or work he's doing or commentary about anything else that comes out of it, I would take with reliability. But the post about the Futurama shout out isn't his statement about anything, just a user (even a high ranking one) pointing out a bit of interesting facts. It seems more like the reliable aspects of the site would be the official news, which would be notable because they come from Whedon himself, but surrounded by any manner of fan interest, which lacks notability because it can come from anyone. Sort of like user comments on a news site. The news is reliable, notable content, but the user comments are not. that's my opinion of it, anyway. ::shrug::Luminum (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was why I enquired. I assumed as much, I just didn't know where any archived "which bits of Whedonesque are WP:RS" discussion was located.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lrrreconcilable Ndndifferences. 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/20100829092639/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/08/27/more-cable-ratings-jersey-shore-burn-notice-royal-pains-still-on-top-futurama-rises-more/61303 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/08/27/more-cable-ratings-jersey-shore-burn-notice-royal-pains-still-on-top-futurama-rises-more/61303

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) 01:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lrrreconcilable Ndndifferences. 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:

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) 19:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]