Talk:Family Guy/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

The "Main cast members" section

MacFarlane, Borstein and Henry all have 'others' listed in their credits, but why not Green? He has voiced several additional characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.194.195 (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

adult-themed

the adult-themed animated series The Simpsons i'm soory but that was clearly written but someone whos never in there live watched family guy the simpsons IS NOT adult themed watch south park and this and others etc... i needs and should be changed to an adult version of the simpsons instead —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.199.25 (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

fixed CTJF83Talk 06:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

High definition

At some point, the page said that Family Guy would be in HDTV 720p this fall, and it was later changed to 2010. In fact, this current season of FG seems to be produced in HDTV 720p (but in 4:3 though). Since I don't live in the US, I can not verify which channels broadcast the show in 720p, but true 720p (i.e. not up-scaled) rips exist for all episodes of the current season. 87.63.228.190 (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Family Guy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

It's impressive.

1. Well written
2. Cleary nonbiased
3. A bit shaky on the stability part
4. Images stay on topic.
5. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

I say it's ready to be a good article. Secret Saturdays (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Overall: a pass . Secret Saturdays (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Family Guy episodes

Hi can someone add a link to List of Family Guy episodes in a place on the article where it would be easy to find? TIA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.43.102 (talk) 08:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Family Guy template has a link to Episodes. It can be found at the bottom of most FG-related articles, including this one. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Episode List

shouldnt there be a section about episodes with a link to the episode list? That information is nowhere on the article other than the infobox Arg2k (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There definitely should. I was looking for it the other day and couldn't find it, had to type it in the search bar.Stewartdc8 (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? What would the section say? The FA The Simpsons doesn't have an episode section. CTJF83Talk 05:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what is the exact point if there is a link, and FA simpsons and GA south park do not have them. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 13:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of shows with just the link to the episodes list under the episodes section, or at the top of a "plot" section (although there is no plot section for Family Guy). i do think it is an oversight that these articles don't have them. Stewartdc8 (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I too think its an oversight not to have such link as it would be hard for the average internet user to find the episode list if the article stays this way. I agree the episode list should be under the episode section, just like music articles have a discography section that consists of just a link to the discography article Arg2k (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What would a plot or episode section say? Just have "Episodes" section, with "list of episodes" below it like here or here? That is too short of a section, and wouldn't be to the level of a GA article. CTJF83Talk 20:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

How about these good articles? they have a episode list link. Heroes (TV series), Kiss (band) (has the same link but with discography, band members, filmography, awards), Lost (TV series), Futurama. Btw, this article has just been delisted as a good article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arg2k (talk • contribs) 22:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with those examples is that they are plot and story-arc driven series (Heroes and Lost). The Futurama section should be looked at in future GA reviews as it is a short section with no references. Plus it is mentioned in the navigation box at the end. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 22:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Arrested Development has a little chart with the episodes list link. I think an Episodes section would only help this article. Stewartdc8 (talk) 05:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

look we mostly think of the simpsons when why compare, so the simposons is a FA and dose not have one so i say it would not work. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 02:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I was very surprised to find out that nowhere there is a link to the Episode list. Especially for inexperienced Users, who are not aware that they can access the list manually, it should be in there. The section does not have to say anything but merely has to point to the list. --Weatherfield (talk) 06:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There actually is a link twice once in the infobox (next to No. of Episodes; List of episodes) and once in the navigation box at the end of the page. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 12:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Grammar problems

I don't mean to offend anyone but this is probably the worst written wiki page I've ever seen. There are too many grammar problems for me to even name, but there is a serious subject-title disagreement throughout most of the page. A great example of that is how the show's cancellation starts with a tirade about mismatched UK DVDs. Or sentences such as "Cleveland references this at the end of the episode "Baby Not On Board"." References what? This article needs an overhaul.Murmur32285 (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You wanna edit it then? CTJF83 chat 04:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

the artical has gone through some copy edit not so far ago, but please if you can improve it do so.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 11:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was The other page is completely redundant. Everything on it is already listed on this page, so they should be merged, or the other page merely deleted. Ωphois 18:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: the articalk looks fine .--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support Right now History of Family Guy is just a content fork. Theleftorium 18:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Pedro J., just because the article looks "fine" doesn't give it notability. Everything in that article is merely copy and pasted from the main article. Ωphois 18:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support per Theleftorium. This merge has been proposed before, with much objection. Good luck. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Call me Pedro and the artical yeah it looks like a copy of it but there was no merge thing before and beforew it was horribly unrefrenced, can you tell me that just to understand....if what i say is confusing i will asak this question why not merge it before?.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Reading the previous discussion, it wasn't merged because people didn't want to summarize it. However, all of the information is now on the Family Guy main page, so there is nothing to summarize. The other article just needs to be redirected. There is no point in having the main page and a smaller page that consists of only information from the main article. Ωphois 21:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

With the exception of a few sentences and the small "Live performances" section, it literally is word-for-word from the main page. Ωphois 21:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright i now when i am wrong i change to Merge or redirect or something....for now, i will be editing it on my sandbox and i will see what i can do in the future:).--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have editit the page...tell me if it looks better and if i can make it better.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It was never about looking good or not. It was about content. All you just did was split the information into different sections. It is still the same content as the main page. Ωphois 04:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It has diffrent contens.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 10:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the main Family Guy article? Everything in your article is basically word-for-word copied from it. With the exception of the live performances paragraph (which can easily be integrated into the main article), there is nothing original. Ωphois 12:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Pedro, again you are not adding anything to the article. You are just copying and pasting reviews for the season, which do not belong. Ωphois 19:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ophois it has post canclledaction, it has season one it has guild writers, it has other seasons i do not see the problem it has diffrent thing it has diffrent paragrafs i do not get what is your probleam.

Onece again i vote Oppose.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Because, as I have stated numerous times, that is already present in the main Family Guy article. It is all duplicate information from the same page. Ωphois 20:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

OpposeIf it has unique info that differs from the main page it should stay. If it can somehow be condensed without losing much then it can go on the main page Grande13 (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

With the exception of the "live performances" section and a sentence here and there, what unique info are you referring to? Ωphois 20:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

But it has difrent info it is not thwe same it may have some info from the fg page but you are contradicting yourself in a way as you said cause it only had fg info but now it has more plus have you seen the simpsons history it is almost the same but beter(i am a simpsons fan also) i do not think i should be merged.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

My god do you not read my damn post it has post canclledaction, it has season one it has guild writers, it has other seasons--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And...? Just because there are a few extra paragraphs does not give it notability. They can easily be integrated into the main article. Ωphois 20:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Man your stuberned, well looks like this disscusion is for long time cause iaam as stuber as i can get, but admit i have improved the artical plus it can't be added to the damn artical(please stop saying that it anoys me so much) the seasons can't the season 1 can't the guild awards can't.Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Pedro, please listen to Ophois. What he's telling you makes sense. The season information should be covered on the season articles, plus that season one information is copied from Seth MacFarlane and is therefore a content fork of that article. Theleftorium 21:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay but i do not think it should bemerged i think it should be worked on, i will not disscuse any more(dosen't seem to get any where lets the voteing decide do you agree?--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Contradiccion of a moment i do not think putting the seasons info in here is wrong and removed the season 1 section--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment It does have a lot of the same info. If the Family Guy page can be summarized more, then the History one can contain more details. If not, then merge. CTJF83 chat 21:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• May you explain CTjf.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

CTjf, that is a plausible solution, but from my understanding that is generally used when the main article is too long. Family Guy is not long at all, so there is no point in doing that, IMO. Ωphois 21:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well on the FG page if we merge the production issues to one shorter paragraph, and had more on the history page. I guess I'm just feeling pretty neutral on the merge proposal, I could be swayed either way. CTJF83 chat 22:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to summarize it, though. The FG article is not large, so there is no reason to. It seems that Pedro is just trying to have the article for the sake of having the article. There is no reason to separate the pages. Ωphois 22:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support, pure content fork and an inappropriate one at that. Not even focused solely on "history". Merge back properly particularly when there are no size issues at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Guess you are kind of right, the artical is a fork....i am planing to improve this artical, and god nows Fg has not finished haveing controversy so maybe when it is the time we will work on makeing it but not for right now....Supporrt--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: The History Of Family Guy article is a great article on its own, and should not be slimmed down and merged into this article, and at most should have a mention in the FG article with a link to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Estemshorn (talk • contribs) 22:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: Sets a bad precedent on sub-article manipulation. Wikipedia is not paper. I don't see how the existence of a sub article hurts anyone. Kushal (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

FA for future

i need suggestions (suggested with refrences) to improve the artical i have ideas, i need help for cultural influences and the hallmarks--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 02:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

FCC song

Please someone wikify the "FCC Song" (in "hallmarks" -> "music"), as there is a page for it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.152.229 (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That article is unrelated to Family Guy. Ωphois 22:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

editsemiprotected

Please review the first sentence of the voice cast section. States that MacFarlane voices four characters and lists three. Link to main article for the section to find the complete sentence. Please revise for clarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.231.126 (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Merging Seth & Alex's Almost Live Comedy Show

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was: Merged to Family Guy. CTJF83 chat 21:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If this is only a one episode program, it doesn't need its own page, and should be merged to Family Guy CTJF83 chat 22:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Well there are two things to look it is an episode like many its a special so that may be a reson to let it be, but it could more useful in the family guy artical, so its just an opinion but i think you should propose merge no damage in doing so.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 22:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• The article can be appropriately expanded, and should not be merged, in my opinion. Gage (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Since it has a lot to do with family guy, since most of the show was just songs off of family guy or some scenes from family guy, i think it should be merged within the family guy article, into its own section. estemshorn (talk|sigs) 22:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• I wasn't even thinking that when I proposed the merge, but it is mostly a live action clip show. CTJF83 chat 23:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Can we classifie it as an episode--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• No, because it is an entirely different show. estemshorn (talk|sigs) 23:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel it should be merged with family guy, but get its own section. Pretty much everyone associated with it is associated with family guy and it mostly includes family guy references and such. If down the line there are many more of these episodes they can be given their own article Grande13 (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge I agree with what Grande13 says. Plus, the content of the article is pretty limited and the show, while it got some coverage, was not that notable. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 13:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably best to Merge, unless it has enough notability to stand on its own (which it sounds like it might not). DP76764 (Talk) 17:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Seth & Alex's Almost Live Comedy Show Merge?

Uh, where's the section on Seth & Alex's Almost Live Comedy Show? It was supposed to be merged, but there is no mention of it in the article. Where is it?! With all due respect, BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Emmy Award Nomination

Regarding the Emmy Nomination for Outstanding Comedy Series, the statement "This was a significant accomplishment considering that the last animated program to be nominated was The Flintstones in 1961 and that The Simpsons has never been nominated in this category" should be removed. This is opinion. The reference to the last animated series to be nominated should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.12.121.254 (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Seth & Alex's Almost Live Comedy Show Merge?

Uh, where's the section on Seth & Alex's Almost Live Comedy Show? It was supposed to be merged, but there is no mention of it in the article. Where is it?! With all due respect, BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.66.110.146 (talk)

Racist and Anti-semitic

Family Guy is racist and contains many ant-semitic jokes.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.205.99 (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read Dvir Abramovich article, http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/this-family-guy-isnt-funny-just-offensive-20091127-jw8l.html, he is a professor at the University of Melbourne.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.205.99 (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not a page for discussing your opinions of the show. It's an encyclopaedic article. Smurfmeister (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Criticism of Family Guy might also be able to use Abramovich's article. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

'The Cleveland Show' influenced by 'Family Guy'?

This article suggests that 'Family Guy' has had a cultural influence on 'The Cleveland Show'. Given that 'The Cleveland Show' is a spin-off of 'Family Guy' and that its lead character has crossed over from that show, surely this is not a case of cultural influence - the new show was deliberately created to be similar to its parent show! Smurfmeister (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Section: Criticism and controversy

The line "They also commented that the shows Family Guy and American Dad are inadequate for children and are full of sex-themed jokes and foul language." is supposedly based on the interview that note 118 refers to, but the article mentions nothing of the sort. What's going on here? The article's locked so no edit possible...

I've just noticed that too the reference 118 is misused 2/3 times, the reference only mentions south park receiving support from the simpsons and king of the hill staff for ripping on family guy. It does not include any mention of a dislike of being compared to family guy or about being inappropriate for children. You can probably infer from the episode cartoon wars and cartmans behaviour that they do not like being compared to family guy but at the same time they also defend family guy. Either way the statements are not referenced by 118. 94.197.31.197 (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the section about South Park - as stated above the first two parts are not in the interview - the tone of the bit about support from other cartoon writers could be satirical, and certain doesn't equal criticism - all of the major cartoon franchises satirize each other, and it is likely that such 'thanks' is humourously meant. The last bit is not worthy of an encyclopedia - since when did the opinions of Eric Cartman count as criticism? Bertcocaine (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me this section is rather outdated. Maybe because it is locked, but it is lacking substantial criticisms, many of which hold more water that the critiques presented currently. For example, the criticisms of its treatment of issues such as race, mental illness, and figures such as Mother Teresa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.57.138 (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Seasons?

I can't find a link to the Seasons pages on here, should they be added? --Maladroitmortal (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

They are at the very bottom in the Navagation Template. CTJF83 chat 21:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Also in the infobox: No. of episodes 136 (List of episodes) DP76764 (Talk) 21:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Meg (characters section)

Since it was specifically stated in Season: 3, Episode: 13 "Screwed the Pooch" that Meg's biological father isn't Peter maybe the character section where Meg is mentioned should be altered slightly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.189.8 (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that was just a joke. CTJF83 GoUSA 05:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Spelling Error

"Fellow cartonist Butch Hartman", should be "Fellow cartoonist Butch Hartman" —Preceding unsigned comment added by FriedelCraftsFanatic (talk • contribs)

Fixed CTJF83 chat 21:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Episodes? Seasons?

How come there's nothing on the main Family Guy page about the seasons or the number of episodes? There isn't even a link to the article Family_Guy_episodes. I was looking for info about a specific episode, and I had to figure out the url by myself in the address bar. There have been a total of 151 episodes with the 150th episode aired on May 2, 2010.

There needs to be at least a link to Family_Guy_episodes on the main Family_Guy page.

There is, right in the infobox. CTJF83 chat 16:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Episode articles not establishing notability

The articles "Brian Does Hollywood" and "From Method to Madness" were redirected yesterday and today per WP:EPISODE for failing to establish notability. While this is a wholly appropriate practice in general, I do believe that it should be preceded by discussion and notice to interested editors that particular articles are urgently in need of improvement; since such discussion did not take place for these two cases, I am starting this thread here. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

More convenient would be to "continue" the thread at Talk:List_of_Family_Guy_episodes#Episode notability. P.S. These articles were notified last year about the lack of notability so there was plenty of time to improve them. feydey (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I reverted until there is a consensus. Gage or I, or any other user can easily get these up to GA, or atleast notable enough for a page. CTJF83 chat 17:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

From the season 3 episodes only "Brian Wallows and Peter's Swallows" seems notable as it won an Emmy Award for Best Song. Did any of the others win awards (WGA, Emmy etc.) or got significant coverage in reliable sources? I am going to wait one or two weeks for someone to propose what else should be done with these articles, otherwise, I am just going to redirect those episode articles that don't have a claim of notability (e.g. Emmy wins and noms) or sufficient real-world information. feydey (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I don't think it's necessary for an episode to win an award for it to be notable. But if that's the case then there are a TON of The Simpsons episode articles that need to be redirected too. DP76764 (Talk) 19:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not; it is necessary for the episode to have been the subject of non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. Such coverage will generally exist for episodes that have won an award, but it is neither the only condition nor a guarantee. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, Black Falcon, coverage does exist, and can be easilly put together on the articles, but the assertion that the episode would need to win an Emmy award, for instance, is simply ridiculous. There is no intention whatsoever by WikiProject Family Guy to leave these articles as they are currently found. Our goal is to get every episode to GA status eventually, and not them go off the deep end. I am willing to work to get each of these articles up to a level of notability by providing third party sources, and I hope that I, along with other members of WP:FG including Ctjf83, can be given the opportunity to provide them. Gage (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

WTF?...

What happened to the link that used to contain all the episodes in a list along with the synopsis for every episode? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.57.0 (talk) 06:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Family_Guy_episodes Kwiki (talk) 06:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I have added a "see also" link under the production header

THe article really should have one - not just a link in the info box

I just spent 2 minutes of searching to find the Episodes section and the link to the list before I found it hidden in the infobox

Chaosdruid (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The episode list is not relevant to production information. A reader can use the infobox or the Family Guy template at the bottom. Ωphois 19:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well so far we have two people who couldn't easily find that link and it is the first article I have come across that does not have a link to the episode list in the body of the article and most have a section "Episodes" with just that link inChaosdruid (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because "most" have it does not mean that this article has to have it. For example, The Simpsons (a featured article) does not. There is no relevant place in the article for such a link, and as I already pointed out, the article already has the link in two places. Ωphois 00:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh - i only saw the one in the info box - where is the other ?

Chaosdruid (talk) 04:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

In the Family Guy template. Ωphois 13:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

And so there are still none in the article, one is in the template and one in the infobox...Chaosdruid (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Ophois in unnecessary. CTJF83 pride 17:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

So in the article itself you have see also's for list of writers, list of directors, list of cast members, list of guest stars, criticism, list of dvds but neither of you think that list of episodes is of equal importance ??

Chaosdruid (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If you notice, those are all in related sections already, what would an ==Episodes== contain? "There are x number of episodes" and a link to the list of episodes? CTJF83 pride 17:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I included a "see also List of episodes of Family Guy" into the top of the Production section - it was simly that. This was deleted and so the discussion continued from the first two comments Chaosdruid (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

And as we already explained, Production is not related to an episode list. Ωphois 20:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean you rather than we.

So where would it go then ? The main point of a production company or anywhere that produces something is the product and here the product is the episodes which form the series. Simply saying it does not belong in a certain section does not mean that you are right to exclude it altogether.

And yes I would accept a header "Episodes" within the Production section which simply had a link for "See also List of Episodes"

Chaosdruid (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean "we". There is no relevant section to include it. Production is for development of the series, which is unrelated to episodes. The link is already in the infobox and Family Guy template, so that is all that is needed. Ωphois 20:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Chaosdruid, there is no way that would be the work of a GA/FA. As Ophois said, The Simpsons (FA) has no section. Sections need more than a sentence or two, or even worse, just a link to another page. CTJF83 pride 20:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Funny but neither of the FAC reviews mention "remove the list of episodes section and links from the article" or even mention it at all

And at that last FAC (No2) the Futurama(added after session failed) article HAD an episodes section [1]

Chaosdruid (talk) 07:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

GA standards are a lot higher since Futurama first got GA, 3.5 years ago. Note on the GA reassessment [2] it didn't have a section with just a link. And your link is flawed, anyone can add it at any time, the point is, at the recent GA reassessment it didn't have it. CTJF83 pride 17:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

here is the second FAC, where is the list of episodes in a section? CTJF83 pride 17:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for that - I have had a lot of problems with lost sessions and didn't notice the missing word Futurama from the text - I was trying to show that others around the same time as the Family Guy FAC in Dec 2009 had a section for episodes and did consist of only a few words and should have pointed to [3]

To be honest it really is a bit ridiculous that the discussion has gone on for so long when a link in the body of text and would certainly not have affected an FAC review in any detrimental way.

Chaosdruid (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

As someone who has gone through numerous FAC's, a pointless section such as that certainly would affect it. Ωphois 18:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've brought this up before (the need of an episodes section). It is amazing how an article about a tv show has no information about the episodes it airs! The links in the infobox and template are not sufficient as most people would not find them easily, even people somewhat familiar with wikipedia. It is safe to say that most people visiting wikipedia don't fully understand all its features and it would be rather hard for them to realize to look for an episodes link or information about these in the middle of the infobox or at the very bottom of the article (past the extensive number of reference links and after the article clearly ends) in the template, and also realizing that the template is hidden!

It is also striking how a link to the episodes directors, for example, is within the article, yet again, a link to the episodes is not, the latter being most important (i don't think anyone could negate this). And how is it that "road to" episodes has its own section yet once again, the episodes as a whole do not?! this (along with hallmarks) should be under an "episodes" category.

Or if doing that would be too much of a change, the episodes section could have a brief introduction probably stating how long they are, usually how many there are in a seasons, how many seasons, probably some recurring themes, nothing too elaborate, followed by the link to the episodes page.

Does it really hurt the article to have this section? Does it take away from it?. I think that the answer is clearly no, in fact, i think it only adds to the article. Arg2k (talk) 07:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have a section with just a few sentences, and a link to a list page, then yes it hurts to have that. If you can add enough to the section, then no, but there probably isn't a lot to add. Plus, if someone is looking for a list of episodes they can hit "ctrl F" and type "episodes" in, and find it. CTJF83 chat 17:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Really? are you serious? how can mentioning the episodes be hurtful? and how is thinking those two hidden links are enough?! The average internet and wikipedia user has no idea that control F opens a search pane within the article, i though the purpose of the article was to bring information for everyone, not to reserve it for the minority who know to look way at the bottom under a hidden template, mingle through the infobox or use specific computer commands to do a search within a page. It seems as if many of you are trying to keep the information from people, which i can't understand. Arg2k (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Who doesn't know about ctrl f, it isn't a Wikipedia thing, it works on all pages...and as was pointed out, many FA/GAs, the highest quality articles on Wikipedia have no link in the article body. CTJF83 chat 18:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes i know that works everywhere, but one shouldn't have to hit ctrl f to find information on an article, specially if is something this relevant! Do we have to hit ctrl f to find a link to a band's dicography on any musicians article? i doubt it. Arg2k (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If someone is truly looking for the episodes, then their search will include "Family Guy episodes". Ωphois 18:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ya, don't know what else to tell ya.... CTJF83 chat 19:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 188.221.15.24, 3 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please correct the spelling mistakes under the section "Other Media - Live Performances".

Incorrect Sentence: In 2009 a special televised performance show aired titled 'Famil Guy Presents Seth & Alex's Almost Live Comdey Show' in which voice actors Alex Borstein and... Corrected Sentence: In 2009 a special televised performance show aired titled 'Family Guy Presents Seth & Alex's Almost Live Comedy Show' in which voice actors Alex Borstein and...

188.221.15.24 (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for spotting that! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Aspect ratio?

How come there's no explanation in the article as to why the show is always aired in 4:3 (even the 720p HD versions) when every other programme these days comes out in 16:9 widescreen? --The Pink Oboe (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Family Guy isn't in HD yet, hopefully will be next season. CTJF83 chat 04:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I realise that, my question though relates to why there is no mention of the fact in the article. I'm sure that it is a question that must have been asked by many fans. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 11:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Fan Q&A belongs on a fansite. Now, if you can find a source discussing why this is such an issue, we could add something to the article. DP76764 (Talk) 14:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the rather patronising reply, even though it added no informational value to the discussion. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I see 0 patronizing by DP. CTJF83 pride 20:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You probably don't see any useful information with regard to the subject matter either. I know I don't. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 12:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to correct: Although it seems that Family Guy hasn't been broadcast in HD yet, some episodes including the complete 2009-2010 season (including the "Something, Something, Something Dark Side" episode released on 1080p Blu-ray) have been produced in HD (at least 720p, although in 4:3 format). From what I remember, Seth MacFarlane said on one of the episode commentaries something like "comedy doesn't do well in widescreen". I don't remember his exact words or what episode it was. 87.63.228.190 (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Request copy-edit

This sentence (in "Criticism" section) needs copy-editing:

"In the episode "Extra Large Medium", (season 8, 2010) At one point, the character, Ellen, who suffers from down syndrome, states that her mother is the former Governor of Alaska, which strongly implies that her mother is Sarah Palin, the only woman to have served in the office of governor in the state."

Actually, the whole section needs copy-editing. Transmogriff (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing it out but i already have adressed an editor to copyedit it soon. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request: Setting

{{editsemiprotected}} Please remove the link "Quahog, Rhode Island" from the "Setting" section. It redirects back to itself. 76.241.150.171 (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Done Welcome to Wikipedia! "Quahog, Rhode Island" was not a part of the text, but rather placed above it, so I removed altogether. jonkerz♠ 08:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Under the Road to section the first sentence is grammatically confusing. Simple fix, would do it myself but page is semi protected. (9/19/10) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.68.164 (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Better? CTJF83 chat 16:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Providence images

I was thinking the current way these two images is presented seems awkward. It's not that big of a deal, however. I just thought I would ask for some input. Does anyone else think the images would be better presented in this way the proposed way?

Current	Proposed
Left image: The skyline of Providence, as viewed from the northwest looking southeast, from left-to-right: One Financial Center, 50 Kennedy Plaza, and the Bank of America Tower; and its animated Family Guy counterpart.	The skyline of Providence, as viewed from the northwest looking southeast, from left-to-right: One Financial Center, 50 Kennedy Plaza, and the Bank of America Tower. Its animated Family Guy counterpart.

Or are they best left as they are currently presented? Obviously, when in the article, the images would not be centered.  Chickenmonkey  04:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

They were diffrent in was top to bottom not side by side, but i changed them when i edited the artical, I thought it took unecesery space, but if you and other editors feel otherwise please go ahed and comment here. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 13:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this way is fine, although the text takes up a lot of space since each image has its own description. You might want to instead use the "multiple image" template instead and combine/trim the descriptions. Ωphois 14:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually in the artical it is one big description box. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 15:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've edited my above comment to also include the way the images are currently presented, in the article. The proposed presentation takes up less room, and splitting the captions makes them easier to understand. I chose to use {{double image}} instead of {{multiple image}} because I couldn't get {{multiple image}} to place the images beside each other.  Chickenmonkey  17:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.58.160.38, 28 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The number of seasons is listed as 8. Being that the premiere of the 9th season just aired, I thought it might be pertinent to update this. Also, the end of the last sentence of the Origins section reads, "...but at the time the show was not bought until years later...", when it should read "...but the show was not bought until years later...". The former's syntax is incorrect; not a major issue, but it couldn't hurt to clean it up a bit. 68.58.160.38 (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Changed syntax. Number of seasons already updated. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

Under the "Humor" subtitle, the following chain of words was noticed: "In the majority of episodes these occurs,..." whereas I believe it was meant to be said, "In the majority of episodes this occurs,...." --Nolan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.105.195 (talk) 03:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have rephrased it so that it makes more sense now. Thanks for bringing this error to its deserved attention. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 03:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Racist, Misogyny, generally despicable behavior

How is it that this article and even the Criticism article have almost no real mention of the frequent sexism, racism, homophobia, misogny, fat bashing...? One could go on. This stuff is blatant. It seems like the criticism section on this page has been written by apologists for the show as it characterises all criticism as being basically prudish. The prime example is the comment the "Canada Sucks" episode generated hate mail!? Or how every Asian female on the show with the exception of Asian reporter Tricia Takanawa is depicted as a product of Human Sex trafficking. I doubt there was hate mail for that, that is an unverified statement. But to correct that would be just the tip of the iceberg.

The show is constantly making Jew jokes, talking about rape, pedophelia, the most recent one they talk about the fat person dying as a relief. The shows supporters would surely argue that this is all ironic critical humour or somesuch. Critics of the show could say it normalises racism. Anyway these arguments are all missing! It really looks like this show has been whitewashed. Saying Canada Sucks is not an example of this shows offensiveness. Neither is it particularly sexual. A major theme of the show is people acting offensively - shock humour. But this is barely mentioned.

Don't get me wrong. I've watched every episode and have a soft spot for this show. I would make excuses for the show myself. But I'm going to point out the awfulness of the show first if no one else is doing it just for the sake of balance. This is not any kind of description of the actual show if racism and sexism are not addressed and that is just the first two!

Sorry I'm not just editing it to improve it myself but this is just too much work. Its a very popular show/topic. I find it unreasonable to assume that this stuff just got left out inadvertendly. I'm going to have to voice my suspicion that this article is the subject of a bit of whitewash. I'd like to appeal to those doing it that you don't help the show by misrepresenting it.Rusl (talk) 05:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I say feel free to add it, with a reliable source. Criticism of Family Guy has more specific examples and Family_Guy#Criticism_and_controversy should have more general examples. I have the same feelings as you too much work to do alone. CTJF83 chat 16:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with both of you. Elaborating on the impact ('normalizing racism') will need to be well sourced, of course. DP76764 (Talk) 17:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request: grammar

Production

Executive producers

Show creator Seth MacFarlane has served has an executive producer during the show's entire history, and also functions as a creative consultants.71.56.116.141 (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done CTJF83 chat 19:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Stuff copy-pasted from the Simpsons

Am i the only one who has noticed that a LOT of text from this article is just copy-pasted from the Simpsons article (with, of course, any mention of "The Simpsons" changed to "Family Guy" or "Springfield" to Quahog"). For instance this sentence:

The show is set in the fictional city of Quahog, Rhode Island, and lampoons American culture, society, television and many aspects of the human condition.

or this one:

The show's humor turns on cultural references that cover a wide spectrum of society. Such references, for example, come from movies, television, music, literature, science, and history. The animators also regularly add jokes or sight gags into the show's background via humorous or incongruous bits of text in signs, newspapers, and elsewhere.

I dont know if wikipedia has any specific rules regarding this, but it just seems really, really cheap to me to write an article this way. And what's worse, some of that information doesn't even seem that accurate when talking about Family Guy. For instance, how often does Family Guy make jokes about science? I'm sure it has happen, but it's hardly something they do a lot. Also, the show doesn't have nearly as many semi-hidden text gags as The Simpsons does, so to specifically make mention of such gags in this article seems out of place (oh yeah, and the citation to that paragraph led to an article which didn't even make any mention of those kinds of jokes). And really, considering that the show is so often light on story in order to instead focus on individual gags (which stands in stark contrast to the classic Simpsons), do you really think it's appropriate to describe the show as having a lot to say about "the human condition"?.

Rattis1 (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good point. The editor who copied the information might have considered doing so a clever allusion to the alleged similarities between Family Guy and The Simpsons, however this puts forth editorial bias and should be removed. My own thoughts are that the same text could be used on any nearly dramatic work with satirical overtones - animated or otherwise - not just The Simpsons. As long as the subject matter involves modern everyday life, you can argue that anything "lampoons...the human condition." Perhaps the introductory paragraph could end in a more objective manner such as:

The show is set in the fictional city of Quahog, Rhode Island, and revolves around a middle-class American family.

The other example you mentioned should also be rephrased in a more objective manner. Phrases like "turns on cultural references that cover a wide spectrum of society" are vague and not very descriptive, so they don't belong in an encyclopedia. How about this?

The show makes use of contemporary cultural references in its humor. Emphasis is often placed on individual gags which make reference to current events and/or modern cultural icons.

Of course there's nothing like citation to support any added information. I'm certain there are plenty of print and online sources describing the general premise of Family Guy's humor in an objective manner. At any rate I'm not able to edit since the article is semi-protected, but feel free to use & alter any of those examples as you see fit. 96.252.169.163 (talk) 04:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds very good to me. I'll make some edits right away. Rattis1 (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding Patrick Waburton as a Main Character

Title says it all. Joe is basically a main character and has appeared in a bunch of episodes. I was thinking that we could add him to the main character picture thing, rather than say he is a guest star.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Such a corrupt site that everyone only sees and responds to what they want to see and respond to.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

How about you WP:AGF...what does Fox say about him as being a guest or main? CTJF83 chat 22:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

TBH I couldn't find the voice cast site on Fox. Think you can find the link?69.134.221.93 (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request - condense Criticism and Controversy section to avoid duplication with separate Criticism of Family Guy article

{{Edit semi-protected}} Per the consensus reached on the talk page for the Criticism of Family Guy article, the section of this article dedicated to criticism should be merged with it. There are adequate references to write either a lengthy criticism section within this article, or to maintain a separate article for criticism; however there is no need for both. Duplicating information and exhibiting systemic bias by over-coverage of certain subjects detracts from the quality of the encyclopedia as a whole.

The simplest approach would be to remove all text from the section, except for the line "See Criticism of Family Guy" to direct readers to the appropriate article. Another option would be to condense the section within this article to a brief summary - one or two sentences - with the same line to direct interested readers to a more detailed discussion. Thanks in advance to anyone carrying out this edit request. 96.252.169.163 (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

 Not done I think you'll see that Criticism of Family Guy is far longer than Family_Guy#Criticism_and_controversy, which is the preferred way. The section on Family Guy should be a summary of the Criticism of Family Guy page. CTJF83 chat 04:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I realize that the two are not identical, but the Criticism & Controversy section of this article duplicates much of the information. While I appreciate your extremely swift response time of only 3 minutes, I would appreciate if you would read the talk page of that article and address the issues before making a decision on whether or not this request should be considered. The aforementioned section of this article is by far the longest, and much of the information is duplicated in the other article without a clear reason. This is reminiscent of devoting more coverage to lightsabers than the printing press. In order to be encyclopedic, by definition it must be a summary, and while I don't doubt the accuracy of all of the references involved I question whether they are needed to establish such a lengthy discussion on this subject in not one, but two places.

Right now, the Criticism & Controversy section is - by raw word count - more than twice as long as any other section. Don't you think that this is excessive for a "summary", considering that there is an entire article dedicated to this subject as well? 96.252.169.163 (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree the summary is a bit long...would you be ok with me copying this to a subpage, that you can edit down, and then I'll read it over and move it back to the Family Guy page? I'm too lazy to trim it right now. CTJF83 chat 04:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, just point me in the right direction and thanks.96.252.169.163 (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Have fun!! Notify me here, or on my talk when you're done. CTJF83 chat 05:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Please have a look. The error on the VanDerWerff reference should resolve itself when re-inserted into the article. I removed entirely some of the extraneous information. For instance I thought the partial censorship in Venezuela was unnecessary since it related only to one song and doesn't do anything to summarize international criticism. Also the criticism by Sarah Palin didn't seem important enough for a brief summary, since the opinion of one person who is not an established critic in the entertainment industry does little to illustrate criticism in general. (At the very least, we don't need to go into detail about how it was mentioned on her daughter's Facebook page.)

Criticism of individual episodes is probably too detailed for this summary, but that can certainly go on the dedicated article. I also removed the quotation-within-reference-tag from Amidi (2004) in the interest of keeping the reference section more neat and concise. Any further suggestions are appreciated.96.252.169.163 (talk) 05:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to get the final revision back to you, had to make some unexpected travel. As we discussed on your talk page I prepared a summarized version, and I'm adding any information that is not already duplicated. Criticism from the PTC, Sarah Palin, and other cartoonists is already substantially duplicated in the criticism article, so I'm making sure everything else is copied over. However in the process I'm coming across potential improperly-cited statements, such as publications written by the show's producers themselves regarding criticism of their own show, and personal blogs which are questionable at best. Do we really need to copy this info over to an article that already provides quite a lot of coverage depth? 96.252.169.163 (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably not, as long as this is a good summary of the main page. CTJF83 chat 12:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok glad to see you're on. Please compare this article with the current version of Criticism of Family Guy and tell me if you think anything else should be copied over. 96.252.169.163 (talk) 13:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)