Talk:American Dad!/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Klaus

The Parking Lot is Full (1996): It can't be a coincidence, surely? --Matthew 17:35 12 Dec 2006

It could just be a coincidence. Maybe Seth thought of adding a goldfish and while he was thinking of a good name, he remembered seeing this and just used the same name, maybe as a tribute, just a name or he ripped it off. I know that in the critism of family guy section, there is an article about Jimmy Corrigan, who says Stewie is a rip off of his work. Either way, it's interesting and I think it might be worth mentioning in here or at least on Klas' page. Tydamann (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Toshi is multilingual

In addition to Japanese, Toshi spoke Russian in "Iced, Iced Babies" and Francine mention how she talked to Toshi on the phone in Spanish in "Irregarding Steve". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.19.141.251 (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

About Toshi speaking Spanish, I remember that episode (Irregarding Steve), but I always figured that it was a joke. I thought that the joke was that Francine was so ignorant that she couldn't tell Japanese from Spanish, that she assumed that everyone who speaks a language other than English must be Hispanic. I really can't see any sort of reason for Toshi speaking Spanish to Francine on the phone - even though she does give the impression that she understood him after the call, stating that none of Steve's friends know where he is. But that's only to further her ignorance, I assume.145.116.19.203 19:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Critic reviews?

This article could seriously do with a critical review public response section. I've also added a Scheduling section, but the only data I have is on the US that was already in the article. Could others perhaps expand that section out? Mouse Nightshirt 20:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Would also like to see a 'response' section. W3stfa11 07:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

has it really not had one for five years now? Christ, someone get on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.17.107 (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear god, you posted that five years ago? What's taking so long? 74.88.97.42 (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

List of headlines

It would be nice to have a page with the list of all the headlines that apear at the beggining of the show. Zuperman 19:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree I would like to see a list of headlines included. Some examples that I can remember are:

• Israel pulls out of Gaza, Gaza not pregnant
• President finally gets joke about last name
• Iran changes flag to middle finger

They call me Mr. Pibb 05:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Also when the creators made a presentation at the 2006 Comic-Con they began their clips with their own headline, something like "Comic-Con nerd levee breaks"

Some more

• Zach Braff fever sweeps Zach Braff's apartment
• Stuff happens as wave of ambiguity spreads
• Big Bird dead of bid avian flu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonafan39 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The list of headlines really isn't important to the show. A mentioning of the recurring gag theme of the newspaper headlines is appropriate, a listing of every headline isn't. Konraden88 02:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Did Roger take the last name Smith?

In the episode, "Rough Trade", Roger had a dream with his name being Roger Smith. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.19.141.251 (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

If you were to look up "Roger Smith" on Google, it would come up,"Roger Smith American Dad", then it would say if you read,"Roger Smith, is a character from the animated television series American Dad!". See, Roger Smith--WikiTells (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The "truth about peanut butter"

There will most likely be many vandals on this subject so be ready! User:Blades2121eee

I suggested an article be written, inserted, and then protected. My draft is here - User:Flvg94/The_Truth_About_Peanut_Butter. I requested an edit to a protected page here. Eh? EH? --Flvg94 17:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Toshi voiced by George Takei?

I've seen nothing to indicate this is true. Can anyone confirm? --Bigscarymike 20:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

George Takei doesn't voice him. Toshi is voiced by an Japanese-American voice actor named Daiske Suzuki (not 100% sure I spelt it right). You can see his name in the credits in episodes that Toshi appeared in, and it was said in the commentary of "Stan Knows Best" that he voices him. 206.66.217.140 22:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No offense but what ever made you think that George Takei voiced Toshi? Mr. Takei has a deep voice and Toshi has a higher pitched voice and to be honest Toshi sounds nothing like George Takei. They call me Mr. Pibb 05:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Donny Patterson

Can someone post the episode/episodes where Donny Patterson appeared? SkierRMH 03:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In The American Dad After School Special, Donnie and his Dad chase Steve through the high school. In It's Good to the Queen, Donnie answers the door on a pizza delivery by Mitch and Steve, and then his dad shows up. 70.66.9.162 (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Characters.

Is it just me or does this page look more like a break down of the characters in the program, more then anything else? Ferdia O'Brien 23:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean; the character section is by far the largest and most involved. I do, however, think it should be kept in its entirety - characters do make the show, after all. My first impression of the article was that it should have a "Premise" section, or something like that, before "Characters", with information that is now contained within the lead. The lead seems rather long to me, being a paragraph instead of a summary sentence or two. I made several changes today but they were all pretty minor (copyediting, formatting). I am interested in seeing what others think of a more introductory first section before Characters. I also support a full listing of intro newspaper headlines, which was mentioned in previous comments above. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 17:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead-in's in general are rather large within wikipedia. As in, 2 lines would be way too little. It should shortly detail the history of the subject and it's major characteristics (lot of real world information). Then for TV articles usually a Premise/Plot section follows explaining the "world" of the work of fiction (focused more on the fictional work then the lead-in). Then usually character summary follows and then production info, cast, animation techniques, running gag explenation etc etc. I have to say that indeed this article could use a little more work. Be sure to take a look at the Featured articles on TV shows Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Television programs#Featured articles, and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Television programs page in general. But looking at the current state, the article is going nicely and it will have a strong base to work from. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

One picture for Greg Corbin and Terry Bates?

Surely we can find a picture of these two minor characters together? Having a separate picture for each is making the formatting weird. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 01:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hayley in Iran and Persian dishes?

When does Hayley go to Iran and steal Persian dishes from a restaurant? I don't know any episode that this happens.. can anyone cite the sources please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.197.211.172 (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Untitled

The entire Smith Family section is badly written and seems to have been written by someone who has only seen the pilot episode. other than that it is quite a comprehensive article. 218.186.9.1 10:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Article Continuality Problem

The Article claims that both Jeff and Haley are vegetarians. But at approximately 10 minutes and 40 seconds of the pilot episode, Jeff is seen climbing up to Haley’s bedroom window and asking her to have a picnic and eat some meatloaf which was sent back to the kitchen he works at because it had a hair in it. Haley declines not because of any aversion to eating meat, but because of an assignment that she has to complete. 218.186.9.1 10:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AmericanDad105.png

Image:AmericanDad105.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate 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 with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars "Band" Reference

I was watching the episode It's Good To Be The Queen from season two when I heard Klaus say "No, no, no. Luke would be on guitar, Chewie on drums, and Vader on Bass." This line is CLEARLY a reference to this picture. [1]. This is interesting, as this isn't an official image of Star Wars, (more of an internet thing, actually) as well as being a pop-culture reference. Discussion on this needing mentioned? Konraden88 03:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

iirc, there was a Star Wars xmas show thing many years ago that Jon Bon Jovi was involved in. I've seen video footage of Storm troopers and vader playing instruments, in a bio of JBJ, but I don't know whether it was mocked up for that or not. Thedarxide 09:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Opening Sequence

The opening sequence seems unique to me. Almost every part of the sequence screams "Generic American." From when Stan wakes up (with an American Flag over Stan and Francine's bed) to how he has a suburban home, and a giant flagpole in his yard. Also, Each of the members seems undeniably "generic American." The son is a "nerd," the daughter a liberal activist (fighting against her father), Francine is a beautiful trophy wife, and they have a pet fish. Anyone else see fit to not the unusual opening sequence?

Weird Subplot

What about that weird recurring subplot that comes on every once in awhile about a murder or something. It has nothing to do with any of the main characters at all. Is that noteworthy? I don't know enough about the show to edit myself, but it seems that would be an unusual feature in a cartoon.

You mean the one with the jewel encrusted golden turd? Yeah, whats up with that. Comradeash 17:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I remember this one too, I assumed it would be followed up (didn't it have a 'to be continued') It could of just been there to make people think it was something when it was really pointless filler. It could of just been some Family Guy-esque non-sensical too long running joke that went no where and had nothing to do with the plot. I hope it is followed up (unless it has been and I just missed that episode) but it might seem a little out of context now, unless Roger has mentioned that he can crap golden jewels more then the one time. Tydamann (talk) 10:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No "Critical Reception" or "Ratings" section?

That section's probably needed. I'd look into it myself, but I have other articles I care more about (sorry- I have to have priorities). 171.71.37.103 18:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind doing this, but where would one find t.v. ratings for this show, and what type of reception it has recieved? Love each other, or perish. ~Auden 00:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I would assume that critical reception has generally improved season by season, right? 74.88.97.42 (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Mcstroke

OK, on both the american dad episode list and the family guy episode list, they both say an upcoming episode is called Mcstroke. Soooooo unless it will be another crossover with the shows, someone who has an episode guide or something like that [i dont because we havent got the new seasons in england yet]find out what show its ment to be for. Thanks 10:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Was this to be a replacement?

Seems like American Dad went into production at the time that Family Guy had just been canceled, and was almost obviously meant to replace it.. but then Family Guy got UNcanceled, ... so like.. does anyone have the straight dope on how that really went down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Family guy was cancelled in it's second season (2000) and the third season (01-03) and returned in 2004. I don't see much info on American Dad's production date (it's first broadcast date was Feb 6th 2005) so it must of begun production a few months before that. You'd have to ask the creators of American Dad if it was meant as REPLACEMENT, the dates are close, but that doesn't neccessarily mean it was meant as a replacement. It might of been intended as a sort of spin off, it might of been something completly different except for the same animation style and creators (and production crew and/or writers) The only thing that does link the two shows (that I've noticed) are a few cameos from Roger in Family Guy and Bullock and Stand cameo-ing in 'Stewie kills Lois'. Theres quite a few different directors/writers who make completely separate projects but they are always similar (Underworld and The Covenant, Simpsons and Futurama, Beavis and Butthead and King of the Hill). As far as being a replacement, he might of gotten the idea for American dad before Family guy was cancelled (or even created). I doubt he sat there and said 'Well Family Guy failed, let's try this idea... (and american dad came along) Tydamann (talk) 10:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• When Family Guy returned for season 4 (after it was cancelled) American Dad started airing. I think its meant to be sort of a spin off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuiop729 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Commercialization

It may be noted that American Dad is one of many television shows of the mid 00's to include widespread product placement in their programming. Though inclusion of embedded brands such as Mr. Pibb or KFC is not surprising for a commercial product produced by Fox Entertainment, the lack of subtlety is remarkable. In an extreme example, A.T. The Abusive Terrestrial has a sub-plot devoted to brand identification for a Coca-Cola product.

This marketing development seems directed at a likely pool of non-traditional viewers who use digitally recorded television or direct download technology; thereby by-passing conventional commercial ads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.37.43 (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you know that Fox was paid for the references? Because Mr. Pibb is fairly obscure, at least from where I am sitting. Chewbacca1010 (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the idea that a person who considers Mr. Pibb an obscure brand now knows enough about the brand to discuss it on Wikipedia makes my point, no? I'm attempting to stimulate discussion on the marketing technique, not necessarily the ad revenue.

Fair use rationale for Image:AmericanDadCastS2 small.jpg

Image:AmericanDadCastS2 small.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate 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 with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia: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 on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Amercian dad.gif

Image:Amercian dad.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate 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 with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

American Dad characters

I feel it is completely unnecessary to have a list of characters on this page when there is already a similar yet more developed list on another. As such, I have taken the liberty to remove the list from this page. Immblueversion 12:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Universe

Does American dad take place in the same universe as family guy? I know we saw stan and bullock on "Stewie Kills Lois" but im just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.216.201 (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

yes it does as the characters from all three shows (cleveland show, family guy and american dad) infrequently cross over — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frogkermit (talk • contribs) 23:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

International Syndication Error

Found an error in the "International Syndication" section.

As far as I know there is so such Broadcasting channel/company called "FOX South Africa". In fact, I never recall American Dad ever being broadcast in South Africa. Can we remove this? Eventovt 16:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we be sure...

I was wondering if we can be sure that Stewie is referring to Joe Swanson when he calls Stan, Joe. If not, the link to Joe's page should be deleted. 77.97.1.49 (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episodes and characters, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The Family Guy Template

Why is this at the bottom of the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.161.143 (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The house of the Smith's

Have you ever seen that the house is the same as in the TV series "Married with children" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.1.113.182 (talk) 09:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

it is just a typical house. with stairs behind the sofa. it wouldn't have been meant to look like that house. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.224.1 (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Some improvement suggestions.

Hi I just swung on in to learn some more about this show (had never seen it before until this weekend) and have a few suggestions.

This article needs to be fleshed out in the beginning as it really gives no indication of what the show is about and its basic premises apart from "American Dad follows the events of CIA agent Stan Smith and his family."

It would be good to insert a show overview as Section 1, prior to the list of episodes section. For example, I am curious as to why there seems to be an alien living in the house.

The list of episodes could benefit from discussing how many series there have been and anything about ratings or renewals that is known. Manning (talk) 01:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No info on ratings, reception?

This seems lacking from the article.

Season 5

Can someone please explain to me why season 5 of American Dad abruptly finished with only 13 episodes? I thought FOX ordered a full set of 22 episodes. —Terrence and Phillip 00:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Episode Count

According to the IMDB, "American Dad" has 112 episodes. Is the episode count updated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bear300 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

April in Quahog

• "April in Quahog" - A deleted scene features Peter and Lois with Stan and Francine. <-- It wasn't a deleted scene, it was a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.13.145.35 (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

High Definition

The infobox lists the show as being in 720p starting in 2010, however Netflix has part of Volume 4 and all of Volume 5 (which correspond to the broadcast Season 4, if I understand it correctly) in 720p with a 4:3 aspect ratio. I'm assuming 2010 is when the show switched to the full 16:9 720p format? Can anybody clarify? NJM (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The series has 7 seasons

According the official website: http://www.fox.com/americandad/recaps/season-7/episode-15 as well as imdb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0397306/episodes and tv.com: http://www.tv.com/american-dad!/show/21935/episode.html?tag=page_nav;episode the series has 7 seasons.

The discrepancy starts in season 1. Season 1 has been split and now has 7 episodes en the other 16 episodes form season 2. The subsequent seasons all shift 1 season with a new total of 7 seasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzuijlek (talk • contribs) 09:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all. Both IMDb and TV.com are unreliable. Secondly, Fox has got the seasons wrong with Family Guy, too. And just look at this press release from February 2011; it says that the show has been renewed for a seventh season, meaning that it is currently in its sixth. okay? Pancake (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting since 'season 1' was always split into 2 parts on the BBC, but at a different point to that on the fox site given above, where Stannie Get Your Gun is episode 1 of series 2. So who knows what's going on. FX UK is also currently showing what's named as series 6 which is actually 'season 5' as per US programme guide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.239.89 (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Episode Notability

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_American_Dad!_episodes#Episode_notability, it has been decided that the twenty-two (out of 127) episode articles are indeed notable and should not be merged. Doniago, stop adding notability maintenance tags to these articles without reading the discussion and finding some other reason to add them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.80.139.102 (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Please don't delete maintenance templates without providing a reason in the edit summary per WP guidelines. I'm sure you didn't mean to suggest I was adding tags rather than reverting your unexplained removal, but feel obligated to provide clarification. All that was clear was an IP removing maintenance tags without apparent explanation. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed them because of the discussion cited above. Is that acceptable, then? 50.80.139.102 (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Doniago (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

iTunes and other links to legally purchase each episode from

Should links to iTunes,Amazon,etc be added to make it easier for people to go right from the wiki page to being able to purchase the episodes. 66.214.101.208 (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No. WP is not for advertising. Anyone who wants to purchase the episodes can look it up on Google. Doniago (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Anthropomorphic means having a human form. The goldfish doesn't have a human form, he has a goldfish form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.50.153 (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Should There Be?

Should there be articles for all shows episodes, like Gumball, and MAD, and Spongebob, and even preschool shows, as there are episode articles for this show. Just wondering. Dawn is my duck. And she will PWN you until you run away and jump in a hole! (Casey should have been said as guilty) (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally I don't think any episode deserves its own article unless there's third-party sources establishing some manner in which the episode is notable, but my understanding is that consensus is against my views. Doniago (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Future of the show?

Seth MacFarlane recently tweeted that the future of the show was up in the air, in response to a twitter user who asked what was going on with the show (its only being aired occasionally), suggesting people tell Fox if they want the show to continue. Should this be mentioned in the article? --RThompson82 (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Steve Adopted?

Stan has black hair so does hayley and francine has blonde hair but steve has brown hair? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChesterTheWorm (talk • contribs) 17:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

No, Steve was not adopted. In this one episode, sorry i don't know the episode name but, when Steve and Stan started to fight over who was the man of the house, it showed when Steve was first born and Stan holding him in the hospital. So, he was not adopted and his hair i think is from Stan's mom, doesn't she have like a brown hair or something.--WikiTells (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it is revealed in an episode (actually, more than one) that Francine dyes her hair. Doniago (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:American Dad! (season 7) which is related to this page, please see that talk page for the discussion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Some input in the discussion would be apreciated as it involved re-numbering all the seasons from season 7 to season 8 etc. There has been little input so far.--Salix (talk): 10:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't delete other people's stuff!

Contributor "AmericanDad86" deleted some material I contributed pointing it as "unsourced and bla bla blah". If you deem it unsourced you tag it as such but you DON'T DELETE other people contributions unless they are A) unrelated with the article (and mine wasn't), B) blatantly made-up (and mine wasn't) or C) unenciclopedic or opinionated (and mine was neither). The user also said "Family Guy shouldn't be the focus of this article". Well, who's making it the focus? I just pointed out similarities with McFarlane's ONLY other work just as well as other users have opened chapters in Family Guy's article about its similarities with "The Simpsons". Also, he says "there's no connection between the two shows apart from McFarlane". Dude, THAT'S THEIR CREATOR! And the 2 shows are 90% of his work at all! Except the Oscars night! Don't they have a IQ check for Wikipedia contributors before they sit at their keyboard and blabber around? Max ventura, Italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.85.48.105 (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

IP 5.85, you are not making any minor claims that can be readily presumed. You are making major claims which means proper citation and sourcing are needed. Your assertion of "American Dad is based on Family Guy" is a major claim; your assertion of "American Dad was initially intended as a replacement for Family Guy" is a mjor claim. Your assertion of "the characters Roger is a reflection of Stewie, while Klaus the fish is a reflection of Brian the dog" is a major claim; etc. You yourself wrote that material should not be deleted unless it seems blatantly made-up. How is one to tell all these huge claims you're making aren't blatantly made up if you can't even provide sources for them? I've been watching this series since it came out and Klaus the fish bears few similarities to Brian other than the fact that he's an animal that can articulate human words. Other than that, their personalities completely differ. And besides, Klaus is actually considered a man, just trapped in an animal's body, making the two characters that much more different. And Roger is vastly different from Stewie. Stewie doesn't engage in half the outrageous acts Roger regularly engages in, from masquerading and living out multiple lives, raping, con artistry, etc., etc., etc. Bottomline: Just because these characters might have a trait here or there that bears similarities doesn't mean they're based on each other and it's most certainly not presumable, so the onus is on you to provide sources for all of that.

As it is, much of this article has already made Family Guy mentions, including an entire section dedicated to crossovers of Family Guy characters, how it aired after Family Guy in the production section, reference to Family Guy as a sister show in the opening, Family Guy mentioned in the "Related shows" section in the infobox, etc. We don't need the remaining 50% of the article to promote Family Guy as well. The two shows have little similarity other than their creator, so if you're going to make such big claims like you are, source them. And even if you are to find sources, the information you place in the article on Family Guy needs to be limited so this article isn't promoting Family Guy in every section. It's a show about American Dad and should be respected as such, an individual show. AmericanDad86 (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I support AmericanDad86's decision to remove the fancruft paragraphs. His reasons make perfect sense. The disputed paragraphs are pointless opinion of questionable veracity. I would also caution the anonymous editor against making personal attacks ("Don't they have a (sic) IQ check for Wikipedia contributors before they sit at their keyboard and blabber around?"). - Fantr (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Also support the removal unless and until reliable sources are provided. Doniago (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Do as you wish. Still, what I'm saying is dead on. An i'm not anonymous, you are. My real name and location are signed up there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.165.128.216 (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

IP, I'm mystified as to how, according to you, the three of us, Fantr, Doniago, and myself, are the "anonymous" users here when we're the ones who are signed in, and you're the established user here when you're the one who's not signed in. Not only that but in the same breath as you wrote all that in, you failed to sign your post (and spoke of "location" for some reason). Please add ```` to the ending of each of your talkpage posts. And while you're at it, I would suggest learning a few basics of Wikipedia before further editing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents/Browse/Getting_started AmericanDad86 (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

"Homosexual tendencies"

This sentence was sourced to a fan written homosexual story on Fanfiction.net so I've removed it completely. Fanfics should never be considered reliable sources.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've supported the statement with a better source, which describes their relationship as "overly affectionate" and a "bromance," and mention of the "License To Kill" episode in which the two characters Snot and Steve kiss.AmericanDad86 (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced, poorly written "DVD release" section

There is an entire section of this article that is unsourced and subject to deletion which is the DVD section. I have taken the time out to source all the other sections from this article, from the awards section, the ratings section, the origins section, etc., etc., etc. I don't feel comfortable with sourcing and editing this particular section, however, because of dispute that has broken out above in regards to the bellyaching of where periods go. So I'm going to refrain from sourcing or assisting any further with this section. This section is overwhelmingly filled with material that isn't sourced and reads like a complaint. Please understand that this material is all subject to immediate deletion at any time. I encourage someone perhaps some of the editors concerned with where periods go in this section or anyone else to source it all. In addition, the section's writing style does not match with the rest of the article in regards to punctuation which is another concern. For now, I've posted the appropriate tags. I'll go ahead and delete if the section remains unsourced. Thank you! AmericanDad86 (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Periods and Quotation Marks

Per MOS:LQ, "On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not." The policy is a Wikipedia-wide standard that applies regardless of nationality...which is not even mentioned within the guideline itself.

WP:TIES has no bearing on this, as it is a guideline with regards to spelling and word-choice, not mechanics as above.

I have now twice reverted an editor who placed periods within quotation marks in such instances as episode names. I would welcome further opinions on this matter.

I have requested feedback from WT:TV as well. Doniago (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Why do episode titles appear between quotation marks? Film and novel titles appear in italics. Perhaps we should do the same? Putting episode titles in italics makes for easier reading. - Fantr (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat peripheral to the topic, but discussed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Names and titles. If you feel the guideline should be revised I'd recommend starting a discussion at the Talk page for the guideline. Doniago (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually not peripheral with the topic. Agree with Fantr and it resolves a rather petty debate. Btw, as a master's degree graduate, I can tell you that this is not the way grammar is to be done in English and it looks bad when the grammar is as such on a page with "American" in the title. And just to note, that section did mention quotations. Either way, as Fantr stated, these titles should not be in quotations anyway. AmericanDad86 (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah. I thought that a rule about this may exist but wasn't prepared to search for it myself. If the rule exists, then it exists and we must observe it. - Fantr (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason that the episode titles get quotations is because the series title is in italics. Episodes should be viewed as "chapters" of an overall work. If you've ever noticed in news sources, the episode titles are always in quotes. Now there is a differing opinion on whether a period should be inside that quote or not. On Wikipedia, it is NOT in the quote, because Wikipedia uses the Chicago style for grammar. So, we are technically using the "American" style, just not a style that others are necessarily following.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Bighole, I don't think that we can say something unique to Chicago or a specific small section of the U.S. equates to American at least if it's going against another usage widely considered the norm throughout the entire country of America. And Doniago, your policy on consistency is from an entirely different article. I'm getting my consistency policy from the exact same page as you just sent me here. Try to stick to the grammar article for finding policies relevant to grammar. The article you sent me is not from the same grammar article. And the section on consistency from the page "you" sent me reads and I quote:

In general, disputes over which English variety to use in an article are strongly discouraged. Such debates waste time and engender controversy, mostly without accomplishing anything positive.

When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change.

When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default.

If no English variety was used consistently, the tie is broken by the first post-stub contributor to introduce text written in a particular English variety.

The variety established for use in a given article can be documented by placing the appropriate Varieties of English template on its talk page.

An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one valid use of English to another. Editors who alter an existing variety can be advised of this guideline via the placement of In a recent edit, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. on their talk pages.

In other words, if the entire article is using one version, this states that it is counterproductive and disruptive to argue another version. The most important thing here is consistency. You are breaking the rules of consistency by making that section use the European form. You are even breaking the rules in accordance to your own policy from this other article you're sending me that has nothing to do with grammar. If you feel as though the entire article should follow your format, then it is up to you to go through the entire article and make it follow your format; what you have done, however, is merely change the section in question. Feel free to go through the entire article and put it in the European English style format if you like. Either way, this policy above has stated starting an argument over such an issue is useless and counterproductive. And I'm getting that policy from the page "you" originally showed me. In addition to that, as opposed to your claim that this section has nothing to do with grammar, the section is indeed about punctuation and grammar and even touches on quotations in this section here:

While Wikipedia does not favor any national variety of English, within a given article the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently. The exceptions are:

quotations (do not alter the quotation to match the variety used in the main text; but see typographic conformity, below);

proper names (use the original spelling, for example United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force);

titles of works such as books, films, or songs (use the spelling of the edition consulted); and explicit comparisons of varieties of English.

As evidenced by that portion of that entire section, the section is not solely referencing "words." And not only that, the section as a whole does not say specific to "words" or "terminologies." There are differences in both terms AND punctuation with regards to America and English-speaking European countries, so why would it only be referencing one or the other without stating this explicitly. In addition, this is an article that has "American" in its title and has heavily focused on subjects that are "American." And this here reads:

An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation. For example:

Great Fire of London (British English)

American Civil War (American English)

Institutions of the European Union (British or Irish English)

Australian Defence Force (Australian English)

Vancouver, B.C. (Canadian English)

Usain Bolt (Jamaican Standard English)

For articles about modern writers or their works, it is sometimes decided to use the variety of English in which the subject wrote (especially if the writings are quoted). For example, the articles on J. R. R. Tolkien's works, such as The Lord of the Rings, use British English with Oxford spelling.

This guideline should not be used to claim national ownership of any article; see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.AmericanDad86 (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Everything you've just added applies to word-choice/spelling/dialectical variants (color vs. colour, grey vs. gray), not mechanical matters such as the placement of periods with regards to quotation marks.

I should add that, with all due respect, I feel it is exercising article ownership to tell any editor that they shouldn't make changes to one section of an article unless they're prepared to apply the changes to the article entire.

Lastly, based on your initial comment, I'm guessing you're unfamiliar with Chicago in the context it was being used. Regards. Doniago (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you feel is article ownership. I have just stated to you that I'm drawing information from a Wikipedia policy page that yoooooooou have shown me. I'll copy and paste it again for you. In a Wikipedia policy page that yooooou presented me with, it emphasizes consistency. Again, this is not something I'm pulling out of my own head. This is drawn from a policy page yoooooooooou have presented me with. Unless you just like cherry-picking between the policies to suit your own whims. Here it is again:

In general, disputes over which English variety to use in an article are strongly discouraged. Such debates waste time and engender controversy, mostly without accomplishing anything positive.

When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change.

When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default.

If no English variety was used consistently, the tie is broken by the first post-stub contributor to introduce text written in a particular English variety.

The variety established for use in a given article can be documented by placing the appropriate Varieties of English template on its talk page.

An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one valid use of English to another. Editors who alter an existing variety can be advised of this guideline via the placement of In a recent edit, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. on their talk pages.

And as said above, the section in question is touching upon grammar. Copy and pasted again for you since it didn't register the first time I wrote it out:

While Wikipedia does not favor any national variety of English, within a given article the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently. The exceptions are:

quotations (do not alter the quotation to match the variety used in the main text; but see typographic conformity, below);

proper names (use the original spelling, for example United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force);

titles of works such as books, films, or songs (use the spelling of the edition consulted); and explicit comparisons of varieties of English.

As evidenced by that portion of that entire section, the section is not solely referencing "words." And not only that, the section as a whole does not say specific to "words" or "terminologies." There are differences in both terms AND punctuation with regards to America and English-speaking European countries, so why would it only be referencing one or the other without stating this explicitly. In addition, this is an article that has "American" in its title and has heavily focused on subjects that are "American." AmericanDad86 (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

AmericanDad86 — Doniago is quite correct in what he has been trying to explain to you. First, the placement of punctuation is not a matter of grammar but style. Second, your statement regarding usage widely considered the norm throughout the entire country of America may be your opinion, but it is not supported by evidence. There are many American style guides which advocate using logical quotation style. The guidance on retaining national variety of English really has no bearing whatsoever on this matter. older ≠ wiser 20:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Not supported by any evidence?! Sigh! Do I really have to present evidence. I thought this was common knowledge. It was one of the first things I learned not in my Journalism Master's program, but in high school. Anyways, I guess not everyone here has majored in journalism so here you go. As stated here [2]:

Rule 1

Periods and commas always go inside quotation marks, even inside single quotes.

Examples:

The sign changed from "Walk," to "Don't Walk," to "Walk" again within 30 seconds.

She said, "Hurry up."

She said, "He said, 'Hurry up.'"

Also notice how it's highlighted as "rule 1." I thought this was one of the first things you learn in English writing. And be that as it may, it really doesn't matter. The policies on the WP grammar rules in question have placed more emphasis on consistency. That the article is consistent and not to bicker about it as long as it's consistent otherwise you're quote on quote "wasting time" with trifles. Now there is one section that is inconsistent. And the only people that are exercising article ownership is Doniago and Bignole. I tried to place a happy medium in the article where italics are instead used based upon the opinion of someone else and the two of them dismissed that and continued up the reversions. If you won't agree to negotiate, then I'm afraid I'll take it to the admin noticeboards for disruptive editing. AmericanDad86 (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is no question that many American style guides do recommend usage as you describe. However, that is not evidence of a pervasive national preference for such usage. There are American style guides that recommend use of logical quotations. And in any case, as has been repeatedly explained, the guidance at WP:TIES and WP:RETAIN and WP:CONSISTENCY really doesn't apply here. You mention quotations (do not alter the quotation to match the variety used in the main text, but that is about altering direct quotations—not about the use of punctuation in conjunction with quotation marks. As for your happy medium, that doesn't work. Episode titles are not italicized. If you do take this to admin noticeboards, you'd better be prepared for a WP:BOOMERANG. older ≠ wiser 21:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to note to anyone who may wish to enter this discussion, user wiser is not a different user than Bkonrad. Both of them are the same person. Same person operating these names. I say this because it could be used a tactic to make it seem as though more people have agreed with him. Why he has changed his username to look differently, I have no idea. AmericanDad86 (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no secret that my user name is bkonrad and that I sign my comments as older ≠ wiser. I've done so since before I can remember. I started editing in 2004 and can no longer recall when I start using that signature. older ≠ wiser 21:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm just saying. When you're reverting under one name, then debating under another, it's pretty slick. AmericanDad86 (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Except that I'm not. My user name is readily apparent to anyone who cares to look at my signature. older ≠ wiser 22:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

did you actually accuse me of ownership of this article. I don't know if that was an innocent mistake or if you're that delusional because I haven't added to this article other than to make one comment on the talk page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't. Learn how to read. And shut up calling me delusional. It's rude. AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I read very well. You may want to go visit your comment 6 rows above my last one. And I quote, "the only people exercising article ownership are Doniago and Bignole." so feel free to tell me how you didn't claim that I was acting like an owner of the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The other user here who's name starts with a "B" has some type of a method where he changes his name between how it shows up when editing and when here, and your name also starts with a "B." As said before, his username change has caused confusion. Either way, I'm done assisting with that section of the article. It's subject to deletion now because very little if anything is sourced and much appears to be original research. Further, the writing needs clean up in that section. I've sourced all of the rest of this article, most recently the awards section. I'm steering veeeeeeeery clear of this section now because of the bellyaching over how to place a period. So if the section isn't sourced and cleaned up appropriately, it will be deleted unfortunately and I'm not helping out with this section in particular any longer. AmericanDad86 (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I have not ever changed my user name. Please do not misrepresent things. older ≠ wiser 23:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I've said all I'm going to say on the issue "Bkonrad" otherwise known as "wiser." Goodbye!!!! AmericanDad86 (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Well that's just dandy. Spread misinformation and then leave. Nice. older ≠ wiser 00:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards putting the punctuation outside the title, e.g. "Tears of a Clooney". It's logical though initially clumsy-looking. Putting it inside the quotes is visually jarring. The wp:LQ policy Doniago quotes clearly states "On Wikipedia, place all [emphasis added] punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not." This appears to trump the national ties argument. In the alternative, I agree with Donagio that "WP:TIES has no bearing on this, as it is a guideline with regards to spelling and word-choice, not mechanics as above." - Fantr (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Fantr, this discussion has completed and your input was merely a means of sparking up strife. As the section is largely unsourced and is being used to instigate other editors now, I'm removing it. AmericanDad86 (talk) 07:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Photo placing

User Grapesoda22, you have placed the character photo into the infobox, as shown here [3] and I reverted you explaining in edit summary that the character photo was better left right next to the character information of which it describes. There's already a photo in the infobox that states the title of the show. Mind you, someone else other than myself originally removed this out of the infobox when it was there once before because it wasn't necessary. Again, it's not necessary because there's already an image in the infobox and that's the image of the show's title. Moreover, removing the pic from the character section makes the Jeff photo look like it doesn't belong.

Anyways, after explaining this to you in edit summary, you reverted me again and without an explanation at all in your edit summary. Please leave the edit as it was originally until the matter is discussed. If a big deal is made out of it, we can get the opinions of other editors. Thank you AmericanDad86 (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Viewer discretion is advised / Doniago

Doniago, please stop instigating edit wars as you did [4]. I wasn't the first person to add that bit of information on the show having a TV-14 rating for adult content, another user was. I am simply the one to vouch for the material and support it with sources. If you view it as "trivia," it was in your best interest to initiate a discussion about it on the talk page of the article rather than instigate an edit war by reverting it when you knew full well that others found it necessary in the article. Your behavior is belligerent and contributes to edit warring. And adding a "television shows" "TV-14" rating is not trivia. This is an adult cartoon and it's plenty relevant to the article. Unless you can find me a policy that states adding a television show's TV rating is trivia, you have no business labeling it as such. AmericanDad86 (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You should start by assuming good faith. You should furthermore consider whether starting off by accusing someone of instigating edit warring is really the most productive way of approaching your concern. While this is obviously a tv series and not a movie, I feel WP:FILMRATING makes the case succinctly for why the rating is not important. Why do you feel it is important in an age where many tv series come with such ratings? Doniago (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Television is different from film. Also, the Family Guy article has TV-14 information contained in it and has been rated a GA status article. Is what you're telling me that you're going to go over there and embark on a debate with them and the reviewer who rated it GA class?! AmericanDad86 (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to ask the GA reviewer for their thoughts if you'd like. And can you please explain why in this particular case it should matter whether we're talking about film or a tv show? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - just because one article does something one way, even a GA-rated article, doesn't mean it's correct. Policies change, consensus changes, article text changes. Doniago (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

By your logic, we don't need a television wiki project article because all the same rules apply as between television and film. If it doesn't say it at the teleivision show wiki project, it doesn't apply. Stop trying to bend the rules to suit a little belligerent agenda. Here at Wikipedia, we follow rules strictly. We follow rules strictly and you should know this considering your belligerent period/grammar belligerence from several months ago and I eventually ended up brushing off and ignoring. By your logic, why don't we just get rid of the television show wikiproject article?! You might want to consider doing two things: A.) going to the film article and asking do all the same rules apply as between television and film?! B.) consulting the GA reviewer and asking him why he gave that article a GA rating with that information? Furthermore, this same information is contained in the King of the Hill articles as well, so if you could ask all of them why they incorporated it. Thank you. AmericanDad86 (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

If you would like a response, please rephrase without the personal attacks. If you persist I will respond per the guidelines in linked policy. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

AD96 is correct that since this involves a removal of stable content, we normally retain the material until there is a consensus to remove. For my part, I have a hard time understanding why any article would contain more than the briefest of statements about the rating level of a series.—Kww(talk) 22:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do we have WP:BOLD then, Kww, if, as you state, we have to discuss the "removal of stable content". CTF83! 10:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason to include such trivial information as the rating of an episode and the disclaimer. The Simpsons project has hundereds of GAs/FAs on episode pages, not one has a rating. Not to mention the FA, The Simpsons has no mention of rating. Also, how you wrote it, makes it seem like every episode has all 4 letters, which I highly doubt every episode does. For the record, I have had the same issues with AmericanDad86. CTF83! 10:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The mere fact that user:CTF83! has written "For the record, I have had the same issues with AmericanDad86" is enough evidence in and of itself that much like Doniago, he's not here for the good of the article, but simply to start edit wars and arguments all based upon past dealings. I had issues with both these users that like this situation, started from Doniago's edit-war-inciting behaviors, the last time over the placing of a period for God's sakes. This was months ago. I eventually dropped the whole heated debate and ended up ignoring as Doniago was getting more and more people involved who didn't know the extent of his belligerence, one of which was CTF83. Turns out I would later even have people coming to my talk page, begging me to continue challenging people like Doniago on his 'period placement' belligerence (as shown here on my talk page: [5] ), but I was tired of all the fuss over the nonsensical matter and just ended up putting the few periods where he wanted it because I would much rather prefer not dealing with Doniago than debating with him.

Unfortunately, however, dropping the matter and letting the user have his way has proven to be ineffective as he's been perpetually doing his best to initiate more edits wars. One quintessential example is where it backfired on him and he realized his own edit was unconstructive in the midst of his belligerent revert ( as shown here [6] and here [7] ).

This matter in question is just yet another instance in which it has backfired on him because Doniago and CTF83 are of the opinion that I made the edit in question, but in fact I didn't. The edit was first made by User:TBrandley over a year ago in May 2012 as shown here [8]. Now earlier on yesterday, it was removed by someone because they thought it was "untrue." That's when I restored the edit and placed a source to support TBrandley's year old edit. Thus, my only contribution was the sources and that it was delivered via a "public service announcement." That's when Doniago quickly jumped in and removed it, his reason being that it was "trivia."

I then initiated a debate on the matter here on the talk page, questioning Doniago as to why exactly he was removing the edit. He said his basis for removal was because the wikiproject film article discouraged such information. Entirely confused, I explained to him how that was the wikiproject film article, not the wikiproject television article." He argued that if it says it on the wikiproject film article, it should too apply to the wikiproject television article. I told him that if all the same rules applied as between the wikiproject film article and the wikiproject television article, then we wouldn't have two separate articles with differing rules and policies. He just kept arguing how everything on the film article should apply to the television as well.

I also noted that the Family Guy article, which is a GA article has the same information located in it's opening (as shown here: [9] ). Likewise, the King of the Hill article has this information located in their article as well (as shown here [10] ). Doniago replied to me by stating that he was going to consult all these people and the GA reviewer of Family Guy article as to why they incorporated it and rated it as GA class with this particular information in it. He has yet to do that. All he's done thus far, is to try to be slick and go to The Famiily Guy talk page where he knows CTF83 does a great deal of editing at and can easily be found at (as shown here [11]) and asked there if he can remove information off the American Dad! article (as shown here [12] ). Following right in accordance with Doniago's manipulative schemes, CTF83 has shown up here and aggressed. And in such a way that it's clear he thinks I made the edit in question. What Doniago and CTF83 don't realize, however, is in their attempts to harass and start a petty tit for tat, they aren't even reverting an edit I made, but some stable edit created by someone else that's existed for over a year.

Unfortunately as dropping the matter has proven to be unsuccessful with Doniago as I tried to do the first time he pulled this, I will have to fight out this matter to the very end. And I will explain in detail exactly what Doniago is up to, to everyone and their neighbor if I have to so as to expose his misconduct. AmericanDad86 (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll be happy to speak on this further pending the outcome of an WP:ANI discussion that I've opened regarding AmericanDad86's conduct. Doniago (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Doniago, I'm actually very pleased you've taken the matter to the administrative noticeboards and linked to this very discussion, especially when I've just explained the insides and outsides of this matter above and when an administrator has already point-blank told you this ([13]) within this very discussion. AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question, CTF83, it's really a question of figuring out which move was actually the bold one. If the content has been in a for a long while, then removing it is the bold act which was then reverted, and discussion is generally required before removing it again. If it just got added, then the addition was the bold move, and, once removed, discussion is generally required before adding it back.—Kww(talk) 00:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Kww...and AD86, do you really think I'm gonna read all that rambling? I'm even at work getting paid and I won't do it. I did read the first sentence, which I detest your insinuation. My 32 good articles should tell you I'm here to improve the project/this article. You just like to add junk trivial spam, that belong at a fan wiki, and then get in a tisy fit when someone removes it, as that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Neither Doniago nor I have a block for personal attacks/incivility...so who really likes to argue here? And past dealings? It show your character and how you act on here, so I'd say they are relevant. CTF83! 03:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

And to be honest, AD86, I've steered clear of American Dad episodes, since our issue with the trivial addition of Roger's costumes, because I don't even want to deal with you. I've dealt with hundereds of users here, and have never said that before. CTF83! 03:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

And if the above two postings by CTF83 don't fully support my comment then nothing does. Since the user has joined the discussion, he's been doing absolutely nothing but bringing up a past ordeal, yet claims he's here for the edit in question and not his petty grudge. In CTF83's most previous two posts, however, he does nothing but make silly insults and doesn't even bring up the edit in question. The only time he brings it up is to acknowledge that he's wrong and administrator Kww who has agreed with me is right. Meanwhile, Doniago's only argument was that policies of the film article should too apply to the wiki television article. He's since been off at the Wikipedia Administrative Noticeboards begging them to block me because his feelings got hurt in this discussion, which they seem to be getting as exasperated with as I am [14]. Ugh! Guys, I'm not entertaining the antics here any longer. I'll be back when a legitimate argument has been presented and there's been consensus among large enough number of editors. So far, all we have are Doniago and CTF83 engaging in verbal abuse, misconduct, and begging for blocks from administrators to try to support their edit or better yet grudge. Oh, and we have admins who disagree with them. If either of you would like to discuss the edit in question, let me know when you're ready, but as long as the silly insults and misconduct continue, you'll be ignored. Goodbye! AmericanDad86 (talk) 04:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how our "rant" is different then your 6 paragraph rant. Anyway tv ratings , like Roger's costumes are trivial and belong on a fan wiki site, not an encyclopedia. CTF83! 10:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, in case you are unaware, admin's opinions carry no more weight then yours, mine, Doniago, or any other user/IP. CTF83! 10:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• The answer to the Family Guy TV-14 thing is that it didn't have that when it became a Good Article. Amazingly, these articles are not frozen in time. We successfully did away with ratings at the Film Project because of their superfluousness and constantly changing and arbitrary nature that varies from country to country. This year I successfully lobbied to get them abolished from Video Games as well for the same reasons. TV-14 makes sense only to Americans and means even less to them, it doesn't need to be in the article, Doniago was correct to remove it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks DWB. People following this thread may be interested to know that I have proposed a related change to MOS:TV. Discussion here. Doniago (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to note, User:TBrandley has stated over at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television the following: I agree, this needs to be discussed. In my opinion, I believe parental ratings should be added to television articles, but only a short explanation. Reasons, such as because of its violence, is very unnecessary and a short explanation (eg: Family Guy is rated TV-14) would be fine (as shown here [15]). This is also what administrator Kww has stated above.

DarkWarrior, you raised the point that TV-14 only makes sense to Americans, but the show is called "American" Dad! There's going to be a great deal of information that will only make sense to Americans in an article like this. The series is created, produced, and set in, and even partly titled "American," so American-based information is first and foremost in an article of this nature. If information based on other countries should be added, it should be collectively annexed somewhere at the bottom of the article like it is in several other GA articles (such as here and here). Friends and Family Guy, which are both GA articles, touch upon a great deal of information that is unique to America throughout the entirely of their articles, as of relates to dates, premieres, and other information. It only touches upon information that's unique to countries other than America in sections that are collectively devoted to other countries, titled "International." And I've already given my response on "the policy exists at wiki project film" argument above (as shown here [16])

At least an argument has finally been presented here. Doniago has done little other than resort to sad, unethical ploys to get his way on this content dispute and strive to find people who I've had past content disputes with. He's spent the majority of this content dispute begging on his hands and knees at the Administrative Noticeboards for blocks. In doing so, he was sternly reprimanded and rejected by several admins for resorting to block-begging behavior to try to win this content dispute as opposed to proceeding ahead with this dispute in a straightforward manner, as was shown here [17], here [18] and here [19]. AmericanDad86 (talk) 00:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Easy with the personal attacks, AmericanDad86. Yes, we contributors to the AN/I discussion were not in any hurry to see you or anyone else reprimanded, but ease up with declaring that somebody is resorting to "sad" methods. DarthBotto _talk•cont 21:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Doniago (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Darthbotto, I should inform you of the behavior that Doniago has been engaging in! Instead of this user debating out this matter like the rest of us, he has engaged in a full-fledged and failed campaign to try and have me blocked. And he has been either dismissed and/or scolded each and every time by everyone he has come across. Despite being told numerous times by numerous administrators and editors to treat the matter as a content dispute and stop trying to make it anything more than this, Doniago has only continued going from admin to admin, venue to venue, and editor to editor to try to make it as something more than it is. Each time the user has harassed someone to block or scold me, he has been told the same thing and seems to keep digging himself deeper and deeper into a hole. I've not even entertained Doniago's attempts to get me blocked. I've largely just been ignoring him which has proven to be amazingly effective. It seems as though Doniago's actually about to get himself blocked or at least in trouble because he won't stop harassing everyone to try and get me blocked or at least scolded.

And if you don't believe me, he first went to the administrative noticeboards and ended up bickering with them because he was getting reprimanded there and didn't get his way, as is shown here: [20]. Here's some of what different administrators told the user, repeatedly telling him to treat the matter as a content dispute and stop trying to make like he's been personally attacked by anyone: [21], here [22] and here [23].

When that didn't work and his Administrative Noticeboard protest was effectively rejected by several admins, he started bellyaching to different administrators personally on their user pages, as shown here: [24]

When that didn't work, he started going to different editors' talk pages, such as user Bignole's and CTF85, trying to get them to assist him in his aims, as shown here: [25], here [26], here [27] and here [28].

When that didn't work, he started whining on the Help page. This led to a discussion between him and someone from the Help page in which he was whining that there's something wrong with Wikipedia administrators and the way they do business and the system of Wikipedia altogether, as shown here [29], here [30], here [31], etc. An individual from the help page, user:I dream of Horses, told him the same thing as the admins which was to treat the matter as a content dispute and that his protest didn't belong on the Help page: [32] and here [33].

In going from venue to venue, admin to admin, editor to editor, Doniago has long violated the WP:FORUMSHOP policy. While I could easily bring this to an administrator's attention so as they could handle him accordingly, I think he'll get himself in way more trouble than I ever could with his behavior of harassing everyone to try to get me blocked because his feelings got hurt. AmericanDad86 (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I was asked by Doniago to leave a comment explaining my close on ANI. First of all, I am not an admin but made the bold move of closing the ANI to send it to somewhere that could do something about the content issues. Secondly, any editor may question the close of any procedure that they have concerns with, whether it be ANI, AFD, DRV etc. This is not to say that Doniago's concerns were rejected merely that other venues be exhausted. At the time I closed the ANI, you had not made the above comment and thus I could safely say that the issue was largely content based. However, your misrepresentations of Doniago's requests for assistance, in what started as a content dispute, as "whining", as well as them being "reprimanded" on ANI following their "bickering" with the admins, is liable to poison the well and I suggest you strike your comments. I have encouraged Doniago to open a request for [{WP:DRN|dispute resolution]], which they have done and similarly encourage you to join the discussion in the hopes of moving forward. Blackmane (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

By your own edit, you've just admitted that Doniago never did what he has been told to do now by numerous editors. He was initially told to treat this matter as a content dispute by numerous individuals and never did. My above edit comes only after all of the disobedience and harassment. Instead he's been on the talk pages of NUMEROUS editors asking them to defend him. You're just among one of many editors who he has asked to defend him, such as shown here [34] and here [35]. Several editors have ignored and/or dismissed him, but I see that you've appeased his nagging requests, which are shown on your talk page: here [36], here [37], here [38], and here [39].

By Doniago's own admission on your talk page, he has engaged in this type of behavior with other editors where he blows content disputes out of proportion and tries to use the Administrative Noticeboards to his advantage. This is shown here where he states the following at your user talk page: "I hope you can understand my frustration and disappointment here. If you really believe that going through DRN is the best course I can undertake at this point, I'm willing to go there, but I have to say I feel the ANI filing was mishandled, and it's more frustrating for me because this is the second time that I've gone to ANI with a conduct concern and it was "brushed aside" as a content dispute. As I noted at the time, it was my belief that a failure to act with regards to AD86 would merely encourage them, and that seems to have been exactly what's occurred (as shown here [40]).

Thusly, I am not the only person Doniago has pulled these antics with in which he misuses the Administrative Noticeboards during a content disputes. Moreover, in the user's harassing behavior of going from person to person, trying to create strife between myself and them and bellyaching of how his feelings got hurt from "incivility," he has hypocritically been making a series of obnoxious comments and lies, such as the following on your user talk page: I don't mean to sound snarky, but I don't think AD86 would care if what you said was binding (as shown here [41]); and They have additionally ignored the advice of one of the participants in the ANI filing to settle down (as shown here [42]). This last comment he made was a lie because as you will see in the following link, I was never even apart of the discussion at the Administrative Noticeboards: [43]. Again, I've largely ignored this user's antics. It's mainly been other editors reprimanding him to stop making it more than a content dispute and dismissing him as he tries to get them to defend him. I've actually had little involvement with Doniago as far as this content dispute goes. It has mainly been him bouncing around from person to person and venue to venue in an effort to get me blocked or get support in getting me blocked. In the process, he has been repeatedly ordered to stop treating the matter as anything more than a content dispute, but has been persistently disobeying these orders from several editors. As shown in the above, he's also going around lying now to accomplish his aims, claiming that I've had more involvement than I have and that I've been told to calm down on Administrative Noticeboards in discussions I wasn't even involved in. The user is a liar and a troublemaker and is upset that he isn't getting his way. I've handled him best by ignoring his shenanigans.

Also, Doniago, made this request of you on your user talk page: "Thank you. If you would be willing to do so, I would greatly appreciate it if you would chime in at Talk:American Dad! to clarify your reasons for closing the ANI filing, as that would at least defang some of the claims AD86 has been making specifically with regards to that." (as shown here [44])

Quite frankly, such a request as that is entirely out of line. This talk page is intended to discuss edits to the article, not to explain ANI filings or make Doniago look good. The only reason it has gotten off track as far as it has is because Doniago started making threats that he was going to Administrative Noticeboards during the middle of a content dispute. Since then, there has been little discussion relating to the editing dispute that was started based upon his wrongful reversion (this as told to him here by an admin [45]). And that's because of his threats to go to the Admin Noticeboards and deliberated attempts to get others to defend him.

Moreover, the editor has opened this matter up in multiple venues, including here at the Family Guy talk page [46], here at the Wikipedia Manual of Style talk page [47], the Administrative Noticeboards as shown above, Wikipedia Dispute Resolution here [48], this discussion here at the American Dad talk page, the Help page, etc. In doing so, he's actually participated very little in the content dispute matter. In fact, he's had no involvement in the debate over at [49] past opening up the discussion. Rather, he's just been going from venue to venue opening up the matter and whining that he's been viciously attacked by myself. As Kww told him from the get go, he was wrong and had no business removing a stable edit.

Moreover, if the editor is so antagonized and aggressed by myself, why is he shown at my talk page earlier today making this edit following a compliment I received from User:Willondon (as shown here [50]). Doniago comes to my talk page and writes that I'm plenty active to the user who sent me the compliment. Mind you, this is the same remark Doniago made in his failed attempt to try to get me blocked at the Administrative Noticeboards as shown here [51] where he writes the following at the Admin Noticeboards: "Additionally AD86's Talk page indicates that they're a retired editor, which to me seems to be clearly belied by their activity level. While this may not be against policy, it does not seem to me to be good faith either"

If Doniago feels so antagonized and threatened by myself, tell him to stay off my talk page with the instigating after I receive compliments from other editors. His behavior is nothing more than belligerent, disobedient, and harassing and I have every right to label it as such.

Up to this point, I've done little to actually resist or acknowledge this user as far as this matter goes. Other than the few comments I've made here, I've not had any dealings with this user. I'd hardly call it a dispute because I'm not paying attention to the user beyond my comments here. He's been off at numerous pages of editors asking them to defend him and whining and bickering with them if they don't. He's done it at the Administrative Noticeboards, the help page, different admins, different editors, etc., etc., etc., etc. AmericanDad86 (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)