Talk:¡Viva los Muertos!
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This is thetalk page of aredirect that targets the page: •List of The Venture Bros. episodes Because this page is not frequentlywatched, present and future discussions,edit requests andrequested moves should take place at: •Talk:List of The Venture Bros. episodes |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Okay was the gathers scene really a reference to Rei from End of Eva? This is a good question for "teh Livejournal"...
Can someone provide a source for Ted being named after Ted Bundy. I think that's very unlikely, the theme for the hippie group was famous killers, not sitcom characters. And honestly, Ted didn't remind me Ted Bundy's personality (or face) at all.--20120:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, that would be AL Bundy. --M.Neko02:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not Ted Bundy the sitcom character. Ted Bundy the notorious rapist/serial killer--24.58.243.13323:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
-I don't believe that goof is legitamate. It can simply be chalked up to Brock remebering the events differently then what actually happened ~ Ytoabn
In the hallucinogenic dream sequence, it's strongly implied that Brock Samson is riding the dolphin while, uh, riding the dolphin. I guess I don't understand the mechanics of this copulation... he's sitting on top of the animal, behind the dorsal fin, where no orifices could possibly be reached. In addition to being just plain gross, it doesn't make any sense! --M.Neko02:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe add the fact that "death vine" is a translation of ayahuasca. Further evidence that Orpheus and his party are using ayahuasca is the fact that they experience frequent vomiting while using the drug.68.181.217.16205:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Why is this the only Venture Brothers episode to have a 'clean-up' tag on the trivia sections?
I think in the dream sequence with Hunter, Hunter says "You can't teach a hammer tolift nails. That dogwon't hunt." Teaching a hammer to lift nails and that dog won't hunt are both folksy cliches that I think got mixed up or misheard. I suggest they get changed to fit with the more accepted cliches.139.133.7.3712:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)brakbudy[reply]
WP:EPISODE, a guideline, instructs: "*Content about television episodes must conform to Wikipedia content policies, including but not limited toWikipedia:Verifiability andWikipedia:No original research.
Avoid excessive trivia and quotations.
WP:NOT, a policy says: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply: Plot summaries.Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic."
WP:V, a policy, is clear: "The policy:
Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
WP:OR, a policy, states: "
 | This page in a nutshell: Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position. |
That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article."
WP:RS, a guideline, reads in part: "Popular culture and fiction
Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included."
WP:WAF, a guideline, tells us:"Wikipediapolicy on verifiability requires that articles "rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." However, articles written from an in-universe perspective are overly reliant on the fiction itself as aprimary source. Lacking as they are in anycritical analysis of the subject, these articles may inviteoriginal research. In other words, lacking critical analysis fromsecondary sources, Wikipedia editors and fans of the subject often feel compelled to provide such analysis themselves. Consider this analogy: Would it be acceptable to write an article onflight based solely on watching birds flying? Furthermore, much of this analysis might seem on the surface to be quite sound. For example, assume that an editor creates an article on a starship recently introduced on a science fiction TV show. Using the episodes as reference, he or she writes, "Finn-class starfighters have purple shielding and can fly faster than Mach 3." But how do we reallyknow thatallFinn-class starships have purple shielding? What if there are green ones that just have not been introduced yet? And what if later episodes show thatFinn-class starships come in slower or faster varieties, too? The editor has made an inference, based on limited fictional information. Framing things from the perspective of our own universe eliminates the problem altogether: "In Episode 37, Commander Kinkaid obtains aFinn-class starfighter with purple shielding. Vice Admiral Hancock calls the ship 'a real space ripper' and says that she can 'make it past Mach 3'."
Image:Vivia-los.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used underfair use but there is noexplanation or rationale as to why its use inthis Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to theboilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent withfair use.
Please go tothe image description page and edit it to include afair use rationale. Using one of the templates atWikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.
