Talk:Brian Goes Back to College

Is this for real? "(and Stewie Goes With Him For Obvious Comedy Reasons)"

Is the full title of the episode really "Brian Goes Back to College (and Stewie Goes With Him For Obvious Comedy Reasons)"? Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the offical site, yes. I was just coming to this page to put the end of the title on! --JaffaCakeLover 03:19, 07 September 2006 (GMT)

This episode has been released as Season 5 in Australia

The subject speaks for itself. Around half of the episodes labelled as season 4 in both Wikipedia and IMDB as season 4 have been released as season 5 in Australia.

Fox has used a different numbering system for austrailia. In the US its on the volume 4 DVD and remains part of season 4, as well as on the official site. So it shall remain season 4, as austrailia is in the minority here

The "Meg bashing" note

There is a note which reffers to the scene where Stewie films Meg trying on a bra then passes out. Does anyone think the scene resembles somehow the "Blair Witch Project" movie? I mean, because of the camera movement mostly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maest (talk • contribs) 11:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC).Maest 19:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

goofs

I deleted the goof about Stewie not being able to stink since he hasn't hit puberty.

The fact that something is not physically possible doesn't make it a goof. I mean the episode is about brian going to college. and he is a dog, I'm pretty sure Brown does not accept canines. not to mention he talks all through the series.

Red Rocky 16:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Did Brian really finish college?

He fails it, but he is glad for managing to finally finish college, without cheating. His family tells him that he should have (cheated).

He failed the final exam, so that means he still doesn't get a diploma and he still hasn't finished college (though he may decide that he's done with college, but that's still not the same thing). And I don't want to hear any of that "Family Guy does not have consistency" foolishness. ShutterBugTrekker 23:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This page has far too much irrelevant &/or inaccurate information

Cultural references should not reference the obvious without adding an extra dimension--may as well just post the script.

Goofs should not be apologized for.

One cannot fail a course at Brown? Ridiculous.

There are problems with standard English usage in some sentences on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.20.182 (talk) 00:36 6 September 2007

Mh, well — I'm currently in the process of giving this article a complete rewrite, so I will be taking out any unnecessary and unreferencable information (i.e. No comment is made on it on the DVD, or no information is available on the internet for it), so if you bear with me, I should have it all neat and tidy in about a week. Qst 20:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Good article review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): See above b (MoS): See above notes.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

This GA Review was discussed on IRC with the nominator. After looking through the article, it passes all criteria as a good article.^Mitch32^contribs 15:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (Pass)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, MASEM 21:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Brian's teacher is Stephen Hawking

Why does this article go out of the way to avoid mentioning Stephen Hawking by name? I didn't fix it since I assume there must be a good reason for this.

65.182.233.83 (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Iulus Cofield

I'm gonna guess that it is because Hawking's real voice isn't used. Remember to put new posts at the bottom of pages. CTJF83Talk 06:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Plus, I don't think they ever say Hawking, just Steve(n), right? CTJF83Talk 06:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The wife's name is mentioned and it isn't the name of Hawking's real wife. 72.233.189.240 (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)