Talk:Möbius Dick

From The Infosphere, the Futurama Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Episode Title

Mobius Dick is also a 2004 novel by Andrew Crumey. [1]

Ships in the Graveyard

I love the ships in the Graveyard - but can't identify them all. The BEST obscure ship has to be the last one - from "Josie & the Pussycats in Outer Space"! I also recognize the "Jupiter" from "Lost in Space" - what are some of the others?

There's also the ELO space-ship used in album art of A New World Record, Out of The Blue, Discovery (Disco-Very)

There was an Oceanic ship.. I believe it to be a reference to LOST series, a series done by ABC Family. I am not sure, though. :3

Blonde guy?

Who were all the other people who came out of the 4D bowel at the end? I recognized Dr. Who but not the other two.

Ok, 2 theories on the blond guy seen in the 4D bowels of the space whale ( --Malorkus 23:21, 7 August 2011 (CEST) ):

1. He is actor Sam Rockwell, wearing the flight suit from the movie Moon and the hairdo from his role as Zaphod Beeblebrox in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
2. He is Richard Branson, chairman/founder of Virgin Galactic -- space flight pioneer and presumably gone missing in our near future.

Also of note, the bowels also seemed to contain 3 Russian Cosmonauts (who later emerge from the whale back at Planet Express) and Amelia Earhart (who we never see later outside of the whale). ( --Malorkus 23:21, 7 August 2011 (CEST) )


"Möbius Dick is also well known in the mathematics community as the answer to a pun-based math riddle: What's non-orientable and lives in the ocean? and the title of a 2000 science-fiction novel by Andrew Crumey."

Because they refer to two separate facts, they should have separate bullet points. Not only that, the puzzle solution and the novel don't even have the same titles. "Möbius Dick" (puzzle, with umlaut) and "Mobius Dick" (novel, without). -- DeepSpaceHomer 17:06, 5 August 2011 (CEST)

But they are similar titles, and both bullet points have the same concept, and start out the SAME EXACT WAY. I do not know what your problem is with compound sentences. This is basically what you want

  • I am a bird
  • I am a person

This is what I want

  • I am a bird and a person

Now do you see what I'm trying to do? --Icyweaner2999 17:15, 5 August 2011 (CEST)

Only one of the above things is "Möbius Dick", the other is not. It's a bit pedantic, yes, but similarity does not equal sameness. Different titles should mean separate facts. -- DeepSpaceHomer 17:25, 5 August 2011 (CEST)

So you're separating it all because of an umlaut? No way--Icyweaner2999 18:58, 5 August 2011 (CEST)

Two bullet points make it easier to read than combining them into one. --Sviptalk 19:03, 5 August 2011 (CEST)

Getting to the point is easier to read than unnecessarily expanding the article because of a single umlaut--Icyweaner2999 19:10, 5 August 2011 (CEST)

I am not talking about the umlaut, I am talking about two different allusions might be easier to overlook if they are separated. After all, we are writing a bullet list, not prose. --Sviptalk 19:37, 5 August 2011 (CEST)

Yes you are talking about the umlaut. It's what literally forced you to make them bulleted separately when the points are the exact same idea--Icyweaner2999 19:52, 5 August 2011 (CEST)

Don't go visiting my intentions. I am not talking about the umlaut, I am talking about them being two different works. --Sviptalk 20:05, 5 August 2011 (CEST)

Just because they're different works doesn't mean they get different bullets--Icyweaner2999 20:15, 5 August 2011 (CEST)

The umlaut is only important in the sense that they are different from one another, which is the point I was trying to make originally. They are two separate works, each deserving of it's own line of trivia. -- DeepSpaceHomer 20:11, 5 August 2011 (CEST)

I agree with Icy, rhus it's not community consensus, and just because it was 2 to 1 doesn't make it community consensus--

They are two different things and I think it should be separated to make it more clear. --Superbender 19:11, 7 August 2011 (CEST)

Just because they're different works doesn't mean they get different bullets. They still have the same exact title. Why dont you understand that? A separate bullet causes repetition, something that Icy was trying to prevent. I mean, come on people!--

You agree with yourself? How amazing! --Sviptalk 19:21, 7 August 2011 (CEST)

What are you talking about? You still haven't explained anything about how the separate bullets wouldn't be redundant-- 19:31, 7 August 2011 (CEST)

I sure have. But also redundancy is not the issue, it was what looks better and is easier to read. If redundancy makes it better, then I am all in favour of redundancy.
And also, stop treating me like an idiot, I know you are Icyweaner2999. Your commenting and writing style are so similar and you just seem to be continuing the conversation. You are basically evading a block right now. Which is a clear disrespect of our rules. --Sviptalk 19:34, 7 August 2011 (CEST)

Joke or Goof?

Not sure if this is an intended joke or goof when the space whale gets harpooned and yanks the ship. Bender is the first person to hit the wall and then disappears behind the other characters piling on the wall. Then Bender hits the last person to pile on the wall.

This has been confirmed to be a joke. ;) DannyJC13 (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2011 (CET)

While in the 4th Dimension

The only quote that seems to sound correct backwards is Hermes, while Amy's quote backwards sounds like something possibly being said in Chinese.

If I get a chance, I can probably record these in Audacity and reverse them to see. --Buddy 07:54, 10 August 2011 (CEST)

(Trivia) "When Bender is told that the spacebergs are giant diamonds, his pupils momentarily become diamond (lozenge) shaped."

Icyweaner2999 - sorry, why exactly have you removed this from the article? Conradici 14:45, 9 August 2011 (CEST)

Because that's not exactly trivia, nor a goof. It's just a joke scene used for comedy. You only added it for the sake of adding it--Icyweaner2999 14:47, 9 August 2011 (CEST)

Well, I didn't notice Bender's eyes when I watched the episode. There's no harm in this piece of trivia being in the article. -- DeepSpaceHomer 15:15, 9 August 2011 (CEST)
But how is it notable exactly? It was blatant, not trivial--Icyweaner2999 15:17, 9 August 2011 (CEST)
I'm not rehashing the notability argument. I'll just say that I think it should have remained, and that you should have brought it up in discussion before removing it unilaterally. -- DeepSpaceHomer 16:04, 9 August 2011 (CEST)

I didn't think the removal was going to be questioned. Are you saying I have to ask permission every time to edit any page I wish to edit? Besides, Bender's irises can change shape, that's already been established. No reason to make it trivia 7 broadcast seasons in--Icyweaner2999 16:07, 9 August 2011 (CEST)

So it can be put under continuity. It's a relevant fact. And no at no point did I say you need to ask permission before editing. I'm not your boss. But when removing pieces of trivia for reasons like "notability", it's probably better to see what anyone else thinks. -- DeepSpaceHomer 16:12, 9 August 2011 (CEST)

So, we can put a page called "Fry's armpit" and you'd consider it notable? Please, the bullet is not notable at all, and if a lack of notability is not a reason to remove a trivia bullet, then let's bring in everything not related to Futurama into this wiki. It's like putting in "Bender used his robotic abilities again in this episode", something unprofessional, unnotable, and frankly, idiotic. Please, think before you run off your big mouth (something you admitted to) to someone who is just trying to keep the wiki clear of nonsense--Icyweaner2999 16:16, 9 August 2011 (CEST)

Wow. You have a temper. I'm not even going to try arguing with insults, so I'll just take my leave to greener pastures. -- DeepSpaceHomer 16:23, 9 August 2011 (CEST)

I'm not even angry. I'm just surprised you'd try to provoke me hours after my release.--Icyweaner2999 16:27, 9 August 2011 (CEST)

Icy, don't take everything personal. I for one think it is notable, because it is a fun note that a lot of viewers would miss. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they "try to provoke" you. - akitalk 16:58, 9 August 2011 (CEST)

First, Conradici said to drop the subject, and second, fun doesn't make it notable. And you're also wrong about DSH. If you actually read his comments, you'd see his language was very provoking.--Icyweaner2999 17:00, 9 August 2011 (CEST)

Icyweaner, you need to relax, he wasn't provoking you, he just disagreed with you. Personally, I think that it can stay in the "Trivia" section --Superbender 17:04, 9 August 2011 (CEST)

Again, why are none of you giving actual reasons? Vandalism is fun to those who do it, does that mean you keep it? Bender's eyes changing shape is a common occurrence that is not trivia-worthy, it's part of his programming. If it wasn't notable before, what makes it notable now?--Icyweaner2999 17:07, 9 August 2011 (CEST)

I don't recall saying it's never been notable before. Concerning vandalism, it destroys the site and is noteworthy for no-one. This trivia/continuity is fun/interesting for many people, as evident by the opinions expressed in this thread. Third: is this really such a big deal? You're nitpicking. - akitalk 17:17, 9 August 2011 (CEST)

No, I'm not nitpicking. You just contradicted yourself AGAIN. I on the other hand have been explaining how this piece of trivia is unimportant, and none of you have explained how it is important. It's like saying "Fry continues to have red hair". Is that important? No. It's the same situation with Bender's eyes and greed. The eyes becoming diamond-shaped isn't continuity, it's a part of his personality.--Icyweaner2999 17:25, 9 August 2011 (CEST)

On topic: Okay, I'll try to explain more properly. It is continuity in the same way as it is continuity that Bender dances with Amy at the end of 6ACV12 - they have been together before, and so it is a fun note that they still seem to be somewhat close to eachother. It's not necessarily of extreme note, and it is not necessarily meant to be (maybe the writers didn't think about it), but it is an interesting thing to read about the episode.
Another example is if the Professor talks about his doomsday devices in an episode. This is a big interest of his, having been showcased in multiple episodes, yet it is still fun to note that "The Professor discusses his doomsday devices, that have previously been seen or used in [...]". - akitalk 17:31, 9 August 2011 (CEST)
Wait, when did I contradict myself? Are you still talking about your personal e-mails to me in which you kept quoting me completely out of context? - akitalk 17:33, 9 August 2011 (CEST)
What part of "Just because it's fun doesn't make it notable" don't you understand? You're rehashing invalid points. "Fun" and "interesting" in this case are also more subjective than anything. It isn't fun to read unnotable trivia that claims to be interesting without a proper reason--Icyweaner2999 17:39, 9 August 2011 (CEST)
Because it's not really a reasoning here. We have a very very weak noticeable requirement. It is noticeable enough for our wiki. I find it interesting to note. --Sviptalk 17:43, 9 August 2011 (CEST)
Then the notability policy should've been strengthened. The fact that this conversation was supposed to be dropped, as requested by the conversation starter, indicates clear ganging up on another user. All you keep saying is it should be kept without ANY reason. I give reason, and yet I'm being bitten right in my shiny muscular brain. That is very hypocritical--Icyweaner2999 17:47, 9 August 2011 (CEST)
No no, you are misinterpreting what we are saying. We just disagree with your reasoning. And I ask you this simple question; does it hurt the article? I don't think so. --Sviptalk 17:51, 9 August 2011 (CEST)
Edit conflict: I wrote the following before Svip's and Icy's new comments. That shouldn't change the points though.
Seeing as you completely ignored my recommendation of indention, I indented your post for you.
Ofcourse it is subjective. If we are to be entirely objective, Futurama as a whole is not relevant enough to garner its own wiki, and we should stick with the poor Wikipedia entries. But we are not objective. We are not Wikipedia. We have a completely different view, in which almost anything appearing on the show is notable enough to be mentioned. There are limits, yes, and that is when we bring through a majority vote. So, to settle this once and for all: a vote! I hereby start a vote below, please read the information on it before writing anything there. Any discussion can resume just below this post, under the heading "(Trivia) "When Bender is told that the spacebergs are giant diamonds, his pupils momentarily become diamond (lozenge) shaped."", not the heading "Vote". - akitalk 17:53, 9 August 2011 (CEST)

After deleting the entire vote twice in a row ([2][3]), Icy has been banned for one day to cool down. Ofcourse he can still claim his vote after he returns (the vote goes on for two days). If he continues to do such things, longer bans could be placed. - akitalk 18:20, 9 August 2011 (CEST)


So it has come to this... a vote. You can under this text write your nick under your opinion. The majority vote will be taken into consideration when editing the article, for the next six months. In six months, the vote can be ignored or reheld. Only non-anonymous users (not IP:s) can vote. Only users that registered before the vote was held (17:45, 9 August 2011 (CEST)) can vote. Votes ignoring this rule will be ignored. Vote by writing "#~~~~ under your opinion, and nothing else. Comments on your choice can be written above. - akitalk 17:53, 9 August 2011 (CEST)

I realized now that I forgot to include a deadline, which there ofcourse has to be preplanned. I hope everyone is alright with 48 hours, to make sure everyone interested can vote. The vote will thus end on 11 August 2011, 17:45 (CEST). - akitalk 18:02, 9 August 2011 (CEST)

I agree that the fact that Bender's eyes turn into diamonds can be considered trivia or continuity in the article.

  1. - akitalk 17:53, 9 August 2011 (CEST)
  2. Sviptalk 17:57, 9 August 2011 (CEST)
  3. Superbender 18:00, 9 August 2011 (CEST)
  4. DeepSpaceHomer 18:01, 9 August 2011 (CEST)
  5. Conradici 18:02, 9 August 2011 (CEST)
  6. Buddy 03:33, 10 August 2011 (CEST)
  7. Polantaris 07:11, 10 August 2011 (CEST) - Trivia, not Continuity. It's really just a quirky fact that not everyone would notice. I've seen much more obvious stuff getting added to Trivia sections.

I do not agree that the fact that Bender's eyes turn into diamonds can be considered trivia or continuity in the article.

Hello all, has this vote carried, then? Can the item be added into the article? Conradici 12:38, 20 August 2011 (CEST)
Yep, shove it in the trivia section. I'd have voted for it if I thought there was a chance we'd have more than one negative vote (evidently that one didn't come up). - Quolnok 14:00, 20 August 2011 (CEST)
Great, thank you :) Conradici 14:03, 20 August 2011 (CEST)

Beating a dead horse

I hate to bring this up again, but looking through the history of this talk page, it's pretty obvious that a major rule was repeatedly broken. Specifically, the one barring people from editing (or in this case, outright removing) other people's comments. Perhaps next time we should keep a closer eye on the rules, so that infractions can be cited before we get to the pissing contest. This is a reminder as much for myself as for others. --Buddy 08:33, 24 August 2011 (CEST)

Record setting allusions episode?

Does this episode hold the record for the most allusions to other literary/media works than any other Futurama episode? It seems to be a non-stop allusion fest. 21:48, 31 July 2013 (CEST)

The "Allusions" section for "Space Pilot 3000" is bigger than the one for this episode. Sanfazer (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2013 (CEST).