Talk:Everyone Poops

Spoiler warning

Is the spoiler warning really neccessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.97.177 (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.111.145 (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Trivia removal

In this edit, I removed the entire trivia section. I did so because none of the items said much more than that this book was mentioned in such and such an example of US popular culture. -- Hoary (talk) 12:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You, sir, are a great man. [Or, You, ma'am, are a great woman.] It was never important, and had reached a horrifying length. It looks to me like you made some effort to work on the article with the Trivia section, before you realized there was just no other solution. But (maybe because I was mostly offline for over a year, between 2010 and 2011) I have noticed that the overall difference between today's Wikipedia and what it used to be is almost revolutionary.

Although I don't re-read older, bad versions of articles as a habit, I do have a memory of Wikipedia as it used to be, pretty much synonymous with "A Collection of References to Generation X's Favorite TV Shows", with a heavy emphasis on Family Guy, The Simpsons, and South Park. (And calling these trivia lists "Cultural References", while not utterly without merit, was ugly and offensive.) This article was an excellent example of why allowing a trivia list to even exist within an article is just an unfortunate road to go down, best avoided. It's a nice idea in theory, but in reality it's an invitation for every drooling moron to impulsively register, learn the basics of editing, vandalize, and move on within half an hour. Looking at the History page (especially when expanded to 500 versions listed per page), I see a period when it seems 50% or more of editors were vandalizing, or just adding inadvisable garbage to this article. Every other editor was reverting the previous editor's "work".

Has it now become consensus that a mere reference in Family Guy (which LIVES on trivial references), South Park, The Simpsons, et cetera and whatnot, is just non-notable? Because it should be!

Thanks for getting the ball rolling, and being bold in editing! Great job.

--Ben Culture (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Another trivia removal

This edit, altering one unsourced trivial claim to another (less amusing and thus less credible) unsourced trivial claim, reminded me that all of this is, well, unsourced and trivial, even when aggrandized as "parodies" rather than the dread "references in popular culture".

Therefore, in the next edit, I removed the whole lot.

If sourced, credible, interesting information about non-trivial parodies can be added, go ahead and add it. -- Hoary (talk) 05:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Infobox confusions

The infobox conflates the original book (when it claims it was published in 1977) and at least one specific US edition of the English translation (when it gives the ISBN). It names the book that this book was "followed by" but doesn't indicate what "follow" means in this context. And most amazingly it gives the book as a reference for the number of pages in the book.

I can't fix this myself as I don't know how it should be fixed. Also, I'd be inclined simply to remove the infobox, which I don't see has helpful even if made consistent. -- Hoary (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right about that. I'm whittling away the inconsistencies...don't worry, I'll get them. Thanks for the comments...I'll use them when I fix this. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 16:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it needs any more clarification now? Any suggestions? Thanks! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 05:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's much better now. Good. However, how is that other book "next"? -- Hoary (talk) 05:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a chronological sequal per se, but the article (The Gas We Pass) says that this one was the prequal. I think it has to do with the ordering of the My Body Science series. Do you think it should be kept? I really have no opinion one way or the other. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 06:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Prequel in which sense? Particularly as this book is pretty much storyless. (Also, I don't rush to believe anything that I read at Wikipedia.....) -- Hoary (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's gonna go now. *Goodbye, little so-called sequal! Be free!* BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 06:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Good good. -- Hoary (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Of a different kind. . . .

However, the text inconsistently states that because "[a]ll living things eat", "[e]veryone [p]oops"

I'm lost. Where's the inconsistency? -- Hoary (talk) 05:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Removing that :) BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 06:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think he meant incontinence -- anonymous jokester. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.246.67 (talk) 09:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

On the title image of the book is pictured an apple. This is misinformation since apples do not "poop".85.210.79.231 (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I did read an amazon.com review at which point someone brought up that fact. However, I haven't been able to find any credible sources about a 'controversy' surrounding this. Do you have some? BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 20:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The book never states that apples poop. Apples cause poop and are therefore relevant to the illustration. Or perhaps the illustrator extremely dislikes apples and thinks that they taste like poop. Why must it be a "controversy"? -- 67.42.107.14 (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering the exact same thing. This is a hot issue and needs to be dealt with immedietly.--Gooooooood namme (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Since we've gone nearly a year without any sources being located, no action need be taken in the article; any "controversy" is duly omitted. —C.Fred (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Aw, horse apples! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.143.119 (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Third trivia removal

I have just removed a "popular culture" trivia section.

Here's what I removed:

1. Everyone Poops was directly referenced and a main plot point in "The Speech" an animation by Mark M. of Sick Animation (that's my own crude addition of links), with a reference pointing to the animation on sickanimation.com.
2. Everyone Poops is referenced in [. . .] × 3. No reference to any of them.
3. The Simpsons episode "Margical History Tour" features "Everyone Poops: The Movie" in the library. No reference.

Comments:

1. I think that "is referenced in" is a fancy way to say "is mentioned in", but I'm not sure. Well, so what if something is mentioned?
2. There are very many episodes of The Simpsons. They "feature" many things. So?
3. The Speech isn't about this animation. (It's instead an obscure essay about scifi.) So this "The Speech" doesn't get an article in WP. The article Sick Animation has for over one year started: The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.

-- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Reception?

How was the book received? How popular is it? What do critics say? SlowJog (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)