Difference between revisions of "Talk:Rebirth"
(→Leak) |
(→Leak) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
So the episode was leaked today. Should it be mentioned in the article, perhaps even in the release date? [[User:Aki|Aki]] 14:36, 23 June 2010 (CEST) | So the episode was leaked today. Should it be mentioned in the article, perhaps even in the release date? [[User:Aki|Aki]] 14:36, 23 June 2010 (CEST) | ||
:Unless this leak impacted the release, the airing or the production or any other thing in any way, I fail to see its relevance. Even the films were leaked, and that is not mentioned in their articles, because it had no consequence on their production and people's opinion of them. In short, it has very little to do with the article's focus. --'''[[User:Svip|Svip]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Svip|talk]]</sup> 14:48, 23 June 2010 (CEST) | :Unless this leak impacted the release, the airing or the production or any other thing in any way, I fail to see its relevance. Even the films were leaked, and that is not mentioned in their articles, because it had no consequence on their production and people's opinion of them. In short, it has very little to do with the article's focus. --'''[[User:Svip|Svip]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Svip|talk]]</sup> 14:48, 23 June 2010 (CEST) | ||
::Leaks happen all the time. You've probably seen tons of wiki articles with the original release date, even though there was a leak. Yes, we definitely don't need to mention it. If we are to, it would probably go in "Production". | ::Leaks happen all the time. You've probably seen tons of wiki articles with the original release date, even though there was a leak. Yes, we definitely don't need to mention it. If we are to, it would probably go in "Production".[[User:Awedfrgt|-Not awedfrgt]] | ||
Revision as of 19:05, 23 June 2010
Frederator Studios
The wikipedia article mentions the "Frederator Studios". Do you know about that? — TheFry20:10, 4 March 2010 (CET)
- Going through the revision history of the article, I can see it has been added by an IP editor. But if you try read the sentence, you will realise that it makes no sense. Since this is clearly unsourced, and I have been keeping taps on all sources related to the new Futurama, as have my friends over at PEEL and FMMB, so my assumption this is bull, at which point I will also remove it from the Wikipedia article. --Sviptalk 20:41, 4 March 2010 (CET)
- I suspected it was a fake. — TheFry23:03, 4 March 2010 (CET)
How different will it be?
Me, like other people, are expecting big change in the series, perhaps too much. Sometimes I think that it just might not change that much. However after reading some stuff David X. Coehn has said, it sounds like I will be right. It seems like they're jumping right into the unavoidably theme of fry and leela. this is a good thing, in my opinion. those were always the episodes I liked. Hopefully it will be expressed creatively.-- -awedfrgt: possibly the biggest AFI/Futurama fan/ranter on the internet. 02:36, 29 April 2010 (CEST)
Countdown to Futurama!
[1] Svip got a picture from it but there's some more info/pictures coming every week day. It also says in it that this will be one hour long! I'll let Svip edit it for the moment cause i'm no good at referencing. --I'm Scruffy... the Janitor. 23:17, 5 May 2010 (CEST)
Leak
So the episode was leaked today. Should it be mentioned in the article, perhaps even in the release date? Aki 14:36, 23 June 2010 (CEST)
- Unless this leak impacted the release, the airing or the production or any other thing in any way, I fail to see its relevance. Even the films were leaked, and that is not mentioned in their articles, because it had no consequence on their production and people's opinion of them. In short, it has very little to do with the article's focus. --Sviptalk 14:48, 23 June 2010 (CEST)
- Leaks happen all the time. You've probably seen tons of wiki articles with the original release date, even though there was a leak. Yes, we definitely don't need to mention it. If we are to, it would probably go in "Production".-Not awedfrgt