Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation/Family Guy work group/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Someone needs to make templates

Someone needs to make two templates. One so we can have userbox in our profiles that we are members of the project, and one that we can add to talk pages of Peter Griffin, episodes, etc. that tells that the page is part of this project.

Oh and one more thing, please invite more people to join, I can't, because I don't know any Wikipedians that are Family Guy fans. TheBlazikenMaster 21:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it. Suggestions welcome on the Talk pages for each template. / edgarde 08:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

The userbox sucks but it's ready for use. Help I could use:

• Can someone please set up Category:WikiProject Family Guy participants ?
• There's a little catchphrase contest on the Project Talk Page banner article.

/ edgarde 08:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page banner

Not ready yet, but it's coming along. Could use:

• a 40px icon (non-nonFree) for the blue box. Something like Image:Simpsons tv icon.png, as used in Template:SimpsonWikiProject

/ edgarde 08:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Templates are ready

I need someone to push these out.

userbox

Please message members and encourage them to either add either

• {{User WikiProject Family Guy}}, or
• [[Category:WikiProject Family Guy participants|{{PAGENAME}}]]

... to Special:Mypage.

Both methods categorize the user in Category:WikiProject Family Guy participants.

talk page banner

Can someone please add {{Family Guy WikiProject}} to FG-relevant articles? Add just above other project banners for Family Guy articles (cos we're the most relevant). Add below other project banners for articles not about Family Guy, but of interest (such as actors and writers).

Neither template is in its final form, but since they're necessary to publicize the WikiProject, I don't want to delay any longer. They'll do for now. / edgarde 18:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well, believe me adding the templates to every Family Guy talk page will encourage more members. Oh and episodes, and characters originally from FG, or something like that should have the template on the top. TheBlazikenMaster 18:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think other talk page headers go above WikiProject headers. Let's not think too highly of ourselves. ;) / edgarde 18:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't take me too literally, I meant at the top of the other WikiProjects, of course templates like the one that has link to "Be Polite" should always be on the top. TheBlazikenMaster 18:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Episode citation style for events and character actions

Style guideline moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Family Guy/Episode citation style. / edgarde 10:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

edits

i went through and ran edits through all the main family members pages. that would be peter, meg, chris, lois, stewie, and brian.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Onopearls (talk • contribs) 19:33 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Good job. I recommend including "copyedit" as your edit summary for cleanup tasks of this nature. / edgarde 11:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Carter Pewterschmidt

I think he deserves his own page. He made many appearances. And he isn't done yet. Since he had these appearances, there is more than enough to type about him in my opinion. Most of the times, he spends time with Peter until the end of an episode then he decides he doesn't like him anymore, or when Peter realizes his mistakes on spending time, I could word it in many different ways, but one thing can explain them all: They both get back to their normal lives without each other at end of the episodes. I know Carter is most often just misusing Peter's idiocy. Anyway, besides that we get more info about him, for example, in The Fat Guy Strangler we see that he also has a son. In the Pewterschmidt family, he makes the most appearances besides Lois. Anyway, what do you guys say? Do you agree? Disagree? Any objections? Any agreement? Please spend time discussing why or why not he could have his own article. TheBlazikenMaster 23:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The entire Pewterschmidt family should be a section on Lois Griffin. These characters aren't very notable.

• Carter Pewterschmidt is a stock billionaire character who is contemptuous and mean to his daughter's husband Peter. He socializes with famous billionaires such as Bill Gates, {that guy who used to run Disney}, and Ted Turner.

Everything else is just recording anecdotes and making inferences. / edgarde 00:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he is, but I noticed that he sometimes hangs around with Peter. Damn it, you're right. The reason why Montgomery Burns has his own page is because he actually has his own Simpsons episodes, but Carter doesn't have his own Family Guy episodes, so there is no point. Thanks for pointing that out. TheBlazikenMaster 00:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This project is terrible.

I can't believe we haven't gotten any new members. This WikiProject is supposed to be working. How are we gonna invite a new member? After all, I don't know any Wikipedian besides edgarde and BrianGriffin-FG that like Family Guy. I already tried to invite BrianGriffin-FG, but no. We seriously need more members, with more members it wouldn't be so complicated on seeing what FG-related articles need source, cleanup, etc. And with only two active members of this project it will take a very long time to add the FG templates to the talk pages. TheBlazikenMaster 00:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anybody here. I invite whoever seems like they might be a good contributor. BrianGriffin-FG doesn't seem interested in joining, and seems to prefer contributing to Wikipedia in a much different way.

Realisticly, these articles attract a lot of newbie (and outright juvenile) editors. I wouldn't expect to find a high percentage of quality editors; and further, I suspect good editors may quickly grow frustrated of the constant garbage edits, and militant WP:ILIKEIT's fighting to restore or retain unencyclopedic writing.

My suggestions:

• invite editors spotted contributing any good edits to FG articles
• maybe make a request at the WikiProjects for Simpsons (who seem to overlap with FG in both editors and issues), American Animation and Comedy.

No need to establish prior relationships — the worst anyone can reply is "not interested". Also, the WikiProject Family Guy template hasn't been added to most FG-related Talk pages. Not saying it's a great template — I published it broken cos I didn't expect I'd find time to fix it, and I haven't — but it would be good publicity. / edg ☺ ★ 23:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm an Evil Monkey!!! - The new template

I created a new userbox for you guys. You can view it at {{User:Jmfangio/Userbox:FG alll riiight}} Jmfangio| ►Chat  08:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jmfangio, and welcome to the WikiProject!

Hey if it's for the WikiProject, do you want to change it to a Project Member template by adding [[Category:WikiProject Family Guy participants|{{PAGENAME}}]] to it? Your choice, it's your template. / edg ☺ ★ 23:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Na'ah, not my template - our template. You can make the change, unless you want me to :-) Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  09:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice. If you can make this change I can get off this borrowed workstation more quickly. Thanks again. / edg ☺ ★ 16:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Change made :-) Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Stan Thompson

Just a thought: nearly three seasons later, isn't it time we got rid of this Stan Thompson nonsense. I realize there have been previous discussions about this that ended with what the articles read now (Example: "Megan "Meg" Griffin is the eldest child of Lois Griffin in the animated TV series Family Guy. It has been hinted that her father is Stan Thompson, not Peter Griffin, but this could have been a one time gag."), but this was with the idea that at some point, we could possibly see Stan Thompson. But, three seasons later, nothing. And from reading from the standpoint of someone who has never watched Family Guy, I would think that Stan Thompson was a main character, and I certainly wouldn't think that he has never actually appeared on the show. I propose revisiting this issue and I think that many would agree that we probabley will never see or hear about Stan Thompson again. Remember, continuity is rare on Family Guy. Saget53 22:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Can you give me a real short explanation of what you mean by "Stan Thompson nonsense". I'm very familiar with the show but new to the project. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If you'll notice, in every article having to do with Peter and Meg, it states that Stan Thompson may be Meg's real father (refer to my example above), despite the fact that Stan Thompson has never been seen on the show and was only briefly mentioned in a 3 second one off joke in Screwed the Pooch. Brian is answering questions about the family and he says something about Stan Thompson being Meg's real father. Just to clarify, one off jokes have also stated that Peter was born a woman and that Lois was a circus freak. Saget53 22:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, I gotcha - yeah that's a toughy - my opinion (and this isn't any but my opinion) is that there "could" be some note of this on meg's article, but that's about it. I wouldn't think it's the best thing to put it on every other article. MAYBE and i mean maybe on Peter's. I'm working on filing an RFC right now, so if you want to point me to specific examples right now, i'll be glad to give you a better response. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Peter Griffin, Meg Griffin, List of characters from Family Guy. I'd like to see it completely deleted, however, at least don't put it at the opening paragraph of the article. Saget53 22:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Okay got it. Yeah, I mean FG is perhaps even more "inconsistent" than even the Simposons. I'm inclined to agree with you on a personal level, but thinking perhaps there is another way for us to accomplish the same thing and still have some note of the stuff in there. I would absolutely expunge the information from the WP:LEAD sections and move it into the article structure. I take it you'd like to remove it all together? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• I own that episode too on DVD, and I think it deserves no mention at all. Brian doesn't know EVERYTHING, he could be wrong, think about it. Until we get further proof, we should just remove it. TheBlazikenMaster 23:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Certainly you can edit as you see fit. If i were doing the editing, i would simply move the content to a more appropriate portion of the article and mention that in said episode, Brian asserts this information. I'd cite it and then do the same on other articles where editors have included the same basic information. Removing the content may only "temporarily" solve the situation. If someone comes back and inserts the information again - your probably going to be back at square one. If you provide a well sourced and factually verifiable statement, you *shouldn't* have those problems in the future. Hope that helps Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a gag from two seasons ago; the other shoe would have dropped by now. Certain editors' obsessions notwithstanding, nothing hints of a planned multi-year story arc that will resolve this gag against the show's continuity, or contradict the status quo that Peter Griffin is Meg's father. If the writers choose to revive Stan Thompson's paternity as a story element, then it changes, but expressing a conviction this will happen is like expressing a conviction that Brian will wear a hat in the next episode.

If anyone want to go through the characters and remove all formulations based on Stan Thompson's parentage (half-brother, adopted daughter, et cetera), that would be a service. Please let us know here if someone reverts or otherwise insists on retaining Thompson. I don't think this should be in Meg's infobox either, tho it may merit a mention in the article. / edg ☺ ★ 04:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed "Meg may only be his half sister" from the lead section of Stewie Griffin. Also created a section Bertram that states ..

While technically a half-brother also to Chris and Meg, Bertram appears only to Stewie in these episodes — it is not clear whether Bertram occupies the same reality as the rest of Griffin family in the logic of the show.

I hope I don't regret that, but it might create some initiative to keep "and half-sibling of Bertram" out of Meg and Griffin. / edg ☺ ★ 23:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Wife (Putative): Olivia Fuller" in Stewie Griffin infobox

On a related matter, is anyone fed up with this bit of original research? It's discussed on the Talk page, but unbelievably we couldn't get a WP:CONSENSUS to remove. / edg ☺ ★ 04:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Would you like to have a WP:30, I'd be glad to mediate. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel like there could be dozens of little opinions like this one. There'd be no end. At this point I'd just as soon leave it broken and see what happens. / edg ☺ ★ 05:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would strongly suggest that you explore WP:DR. Although I have "joined" the project, I'm suspecting that most of my time here will be as a "mediator". I don't have the passion for content creation here like I do for WP:NFL related pages, but I am as familiar as anyone with the show. If you want to point me to a specific portion of a discussion, I'll be glad to chime in with some thoughts on Olivia. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Basicly I'm asking this WikiProject for a 3rd opinion. I'm familiar with the DR procedures, and I don't want to start a DR process over something this trivial. The discussion (also linked above) is at Talk:Stewie_Griffin#Wife_.28putative.29:_Olivia_Fuller. / edg ☺ ★ 06:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Family Guy reference desk

Some editors have suggested it would be desirable to answer general questions about FG as posted to article Talk pages.[1] [2] As Talk pages are not the place for this sort of thing, I was wondering if WP:FG participants would be interested in staffing a Family Guy reference desk. Two ways to do this:

1. Monitor Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment for questions relating to Family Guy, and answer accordingly. Volunteers for this task should become familiar with Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines, and (if new to this type of work) learn from how other, non-FG questions are answered.
2. Start our own page within this project. I can think of several good reasons not to do this, especially while we in a low-activity stage, but it could be an option later.

In either case, questions posted inappropriately to article Talk pages would be relocated to the FGrd, with a notice on the poster's Talk page that their question would be answered here. To keep this quick and easy, we would have a simple procedure and boilerplate for all this.

Questions would probably be infrequent, seldom more than one per week. Once a few volunteers step up, we can formulate some standards for this task, then pitch the idea at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Entertainment.

Volunteers well-suited for this task would be:

• Online frequently enough to ensure prompt responses. It would help to have editors who live in geographically various time zones, or who are just online at odd hours. (Strict shift schedules won't be required.)
• Able to answer potentially-quarrelsome questions in a cool-headed, NPOV fashion.

Good idea? Any volunteers? / edg ☺ ★ 22:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I volunteer for Monday mornings. When the new season starts, I will be online at that time to check up on the article for the latest episode. I could add it to my routine to also look at the reference desk. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Most excellent. An experienced editor for a crucial time slot.

New members sign up at the Reference desk Talk page. (Cromulent already added.) / edg ☺ ★ 23:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference desk project status

Of the two volunteers for WP:FGdesk, one has been banned. The new season of FG starts in two weeks, and we don't seem to have enough people to make this work. (FWIW, the remaining vol is User:Cromulent Kwyjibo, who seems great for the job.)

There are other practicalities, but if we had the vols to staff the desk, we could give it a go. On the other hand, maybe it wasn't meant to happen.

Any suggestions? / edg ☺ ★ 11:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Pushing out the project banner

I've added {{Family Guy WikiProject}} to the Talk pages of all articles linked from the {{Family Guy}} template (at page bottoms). I'm currently doing episodes for season 2 (skipped s1), with the Edit summary " add [[WP:FG]] ".

It would be really helpful if someone took on a couple other seasons.

Suggested ratings:

Class

• "Stub" – unsourced plot synopses and trivia pages, pic, and little more.
• "Start" – probably the default class
• "B" – may be none out there. Don't give a B to episodes unless you find something extraordinary, and ready to submit for GA review.

Importance

• "Low" importance if only linked from other FG pages, default
• "Mid" importance episodes are of non-trivial importance outside of FG.
• "High" importance for the Stewie DVD feature, or a significant controversy (for example, one of the 2 episodes for which the PTC asked the FCC to fine fox).
• "Top" importance if mentioned in a Presidential speech.

So Talk pages for most FG episodes would start with ...

{{Family Guy WikiProject|class=Start|importance=low}}

Ratings other than Start/Low could use an explanation in the episode Talk page. (Example: Talk:When You Wish Upon a Weinstein) / edg ☺ ★ 07:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Correction: details on Importance should be added to the Assessment /Comments section, linked from the {{Family Guy WikiProject}} banner. / edg ☺ ★ 16:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Cultural references

I noticed that there is a list of cultural references in each episode's article. Is there a set rule about what cultural references to include? What I mean is, if the joke is explained in the show like "I'm officer TJ Hooker and this is my Deputy McMillan and Wife" do we still include it? Or do we just include the ones which aren't explained like "Oh, where, oh, where could that fishy go; oh where oh where--oh no!" 156.34.210.121 14:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no set rule for Cultural references sections, and they are problematic because the explanations given are usually unsourced original research, and these sections tend to grow long with trivia. As currently formulated, these are lists of unambiguous references to things many viewers won't necessarily know the meaning of, which may include the Monty Python example.

By that rule, these sections at least serve a practical purpose. However, WP:USEFUL says that alone doesn't justify their inclusion. / edg ☺ ★ 15:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I copied this section from Talk:Family Guy as it belongs here more than there. The reason I did it was because the talk page is meant to only be about the article. This project is about FG articles in general. TheBlazikenMaster 22:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Family Guy has some obvious guest appearances. It has happened in almost every episode that it's obvious appearance or parody. For example, when Peter is watching Star Trek, it is sometimes even mentioned in episodes where he does that it's in fact that TV show. TheBlazikenMaster 22:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a Family Guy wiki (found here: http://www.wikia.com/wiki/c:familyguy), that I strongly feel these culture reference sections should be moved to. The sections are both trivial and way too much episode details. A 20 minute popular cartoon doesn't need to be so detailed when it comes to plot. Since Family Guy revolves around them: the sections describe basically every scene in the show, which isn't something suitable for Wikipedia. Look at other TV show episode articles, there usually isn't massive trivia sections like this. There is some exceptions though (such as South Park and a few others). But the few exceptions don't justify the sections remaining how they are, just because it's a popular show that revolves around culture references. RobJ1981 05:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea.

What about adding external link to the episode pages on the wiki Rob is suggesting? TheBlazikenMaster 11:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a template we can use: {{FGwiki}}. Star Trek episodes do something similar, linking to their equivalent on Memory Alpha. / edg ☺ ★ 12:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, there is some controversy on WikiProject Television on whether Wikia links should be included. I don't think it means we cannot link to the FG Wikia, but it could be argued that Family Guy Wiki isn't very established, and contains copyrighted information. / edg ☺ ★ 01:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Status of Family Guy Reference desk

Only two volunteers, new season starts tomorrow. Are we following through with this? Desk volunteers vote here. / edg ☺ ★ 00:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Vanessa Griffin

One-shot character in Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story. Where does the article go? Merged? Redirect to the movie? ColourBurst 02:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this. One-time characters belong to their episodes — merge to Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story. I gave it a prod; it seems unlikely someone will search for information on this character. / edg ☺ ★ 03:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Video Game

Are we considering the events in Family Guy Video Game! as being part of continuity? I've seen it pop up in certain articles. I don't own the game myself, so does anyone who has it know if their is anything in the game that is worth including the articles? Saget53 02:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgeable about video games, so I'm mostly guessing here. I'm not enthusiastic about including the game. At most the game would merit a separate section in the relevant article(s). For example, I would not include character attributes from the game as part of regular character descriptions.

This would be different (I imagine) if FG were a game first that was spun off into a TV show, cf. Pokemon I suppose. I understand FG as a piece of fiction that was spun off into a game, so the game is likely to be a derivative work on the level The Simpsons comic books, where the intellectual property is licensed to outside creative talent who do their best to interpret.

Questions to game experts:

• Do the FG producers write the stories for the game?
• Have the FG producers stated anywhere how canonical situations from the game might be, i.e. are new episodes ever based on anything from the game?
• Do the FG producers discuss the game during DVD commentary? If so, do they discuss if it were part of the continuity, or as an aside?

I expect minimally the show would be written to be understandable to viewers who have not played the gam. / edg ☺ ★ 05:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

When You Wish Upon a Weinstein

This episode was cited by the media. With the filed lawsuit, When You Wish Upon a Weinstein may receive additional review by others. If anyone has the time, it would be really helpful to rework the article with reliable source material. / edg ☺ ★ 03:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I discovered some categories.

Category:Family Guy episodes: Season 1, Category:Family Guy episodes: Season 2, Category:Family Guy episodes: Season 3, Category:Family Guy episodes: Season 4, Category:Family Guy episodes: Season 5.

There are many episodes in total, so I can't fill them up all by myself. So I was wondering if I could get some helping hand with filling those categories? TheBlazikenMaster 18:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Great, useful stuff — weird that these have been sitting around for over 2 years. I'll do Seasons 1 & 3, and add assessments while I'm at it. Since I've already assessed all of Season 2, I'd appreciate someone else taking those episodes. / edg ☺ ★ 23:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It occurs to me that while we're in there, this would be a good time to add {{FGwiki}} links. If name is not disambiguated, the template will automatically match Family Guy wiki:

==External links==
*{{FGwiki}}

[[Category:Family Guy episodes: Season 2]]

On pages with (Family Guy) in the title, disambiguate like so:

==External links==
*{{FGwiki|Running Mates}}

[[Category:Family Guy episodes: Season 2]]

/ edg ☺ ★ 00:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Is {{Family Guy (TBS)}} really needed?

I'm about to propose this template for deletion. It's redundant with the current episode succession box. {{Family Guy (TBS)}} Any objections? I can't see the value of offering a re-sorted, incomplete episode list from the perspective of one of the syndication networks. / edg ☺ ★ 23:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots up for speedy deletion

Multiple screenshots are up for speedy deletion as the images have not had their fair use rationales addressed. You can see all of them at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. One example is Image:Fgmuppetcameo.png. It looks like each one needs the article title to be included in the template and that may prevent them from being deleted. Just wanted to mention this here before the majority of the episodes' images are deleted. --Nehrams2020 23:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If the goal is to prevent deletion, it would be helpful to address the following (in addition to the article title):

• Reduce image size to less than 300px longest @ 72dpi. Larger images have been deleted solely for being larger than needed for fair use.
• Add to FU rationale an explanation that no Free equivalent exists, and why this specific image is needed.

Example here: Image:Pinkfloyd 50.jpg. / edg ☺ ★ 23:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not anyone (including the characters in the show) can hear Stewie

I'm seriously sick of removing pointless trivia from countless episodes stating that he can be understood. So can you guys please help me keeping an eye on that? With the exceptions happening every 5 or less episodes or so, they aren't exceptions at all. Stewie is understood but not being taken seriously because he's only 1 year old.

Think about it, I wouldn't take someone THAT young seriously. So please stop with the trivial crap.

If you agree with me, try to help me removing those trivial stuff from the articles. TheBlazikenMaster 13:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we agree this isn't notable? If so, I'll certainly remove what I spot. (I don't watch all the episode articles tho.) / edg ☺ ★ 22:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we can agree on that, that's why I was bringing it to the WikiProject's attention. TheBlazikenMaster 22:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A Cultural references section delistified

This is pretty cool. Someone fixed the Cultural references bullet list in "When You Wish Upon a Weinstein", turning it into readable prose. Helps that the episode has a general theme to its references.

Any FG episode article that wanted to reach FA status would need this kind of cleanup. / edg ☺ ★ 22:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Censorship sections in episode articles

As a heads up, I'm removing them from the episode articles. They show no importance. Things are edited all the time when they are moved to a new format (movies to TV, movies to DVD, and so on). How Family Guy differs from it's original airing compared to syndication/reruns isn't that important. RobJ1981 20:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The syndication edits are indeed pointless to have on this page as there are always a good deal per episode and they really dont do much. Although with Family guy its slightly altered as they have multiple versions. The initial version on fox has a good deal of edits, that change entirely on dvd. There are different scenes, jokes and such which are much more than just syndication edits for time and standards, as fox already is a free broadcast network. I think the section should be allowed that shows the difference in scenes from the initial TV version to DVD as those are somewhat notable as they might contain completely different things in segments. Although this adding extra stuff for the dvd didnt start til season 4. So remove all of those, but maybe you can remove the straight up syndication edits on teh later episodes, but keep the alterations to the dvd version category intact. Grande13 20:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the censorship sections are a lot smaller than cultural references ones. I think censorship section could be useful if we include a reason for the censorship. (of course obvious ones like fuck censored, or blurred penis shouldn't be there) Sometimes people are offended and censor. If the censorship is notable it should undoubtfully be there. Only if it's notable. I mean like scenes that aren't on TV. And has some stuff that aren't normally censored on TV, but gets censored because of something the TV guy finds inappropriate. Yeah, the notable ones should be there, but not the obvious ones. And I think the reason for the censor would be needed. TheBlazikenMaster 23:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Family Guy character

I took a hacksaw to this template because it contained many problematic fields, most of which aren't distinguished for more than one character (if any), so they're unneeded. Keeping fields for date of birth, favorite beer, favorite drink, political leaning, vehicle, favorite band, favorite sport, disliked sport, only encourages original research and especially pointless edit wars.

It would be helpful if editor could watch {{Family Guy character}} for unhelpful new fields. Date of birth was recently restored without explanation. / edg ☺ ★ 01:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

DVD Commentary in infobox.

Sorry about bringing up an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, but I can't help to wonder why the Simpsons episode pages have DVD commentary and Family Guy ones don't. I mean why? How are their commentary any more important? TheBlazikenMaster 01:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

One reason is that The Simpsons episode articles use a custom infobox, whereas FG articles use {{Infobox Television episode}}. Ways we could have a commentary listing:

1. Request a commentary field be added at Template talk:Infobox Television episode. (We'd probably just be proposing it, working on a consensus, and then adding it ourselves.)
2. Make our own custom infobox and adding it to every FG article.

Given the choice, I'd try the first option first. No idea how the proposal will go over. / edg ☺ ★ 01:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

More Stan Thompson warring

Just cleaned up Meg Griffin, and at least one editor (could be two) is restoring Stan Thompson WP:OR I had neatly footnoted. Would appreciate someone watching out for these. / edg ☺ ★ 03:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out. I'm pretty adament about seeing that not come back. Saget53 21:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Peer review notice - Blue Harvest (Family Guy)

Just a 411: I have listed Blue Harvest (Family Guy) up for peer review. The review can be found HERE. The Chronic 00:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on the suggestions of the (quick) peer review, I'll be working on improving the article on my sandbox. If anybody wants to help, they're free to do so. Thanks! The Chronic 00:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Blue Harvest (Family Guy) receives edits almost every day. Unless your sandbox is completely experimental, you might want to work on the live document so that your finished version doesn't overwrite other editors' work. / edg ☺ ★ 04:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for the suggestion! The Chronic 17:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Goofs

I agree that goofs aren't very useful for an encyclpoedia, especially since the animators can animate their characters any way they like, so I'm going right ahead and remove all the sections I spot with the title "goofs" or "errors", I hope you don't mind. TheBlazikenMaster 15:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup of most episode pages

As you all probably know, most of the episode pages right now violate WP:TRIV and mostly all of these "Cultural References" sections contain virtually every joke told during the show. When you try to clean these episodes up by a randome episode by random episode basis, you are most of the time reverted by an IP address. New users on Wikipedia see these sections and begin to add to them on other articles, which we are trying to discourage. What I'm saying is, I think it is time this project really starts a comprehensive effort to clean these pages up. This includes:

• Deleting 95% of the Cultural References sections, pointless notes, and other pointless Censorship sections. Don't get me wrong, there is alot of useful information in these (one cultural reference that comes to mind is the dancing scene in Road to Rupert). I would say we combine all three into a big Notes section and convert readable prose.
• Deleting Goofs sections, per above post.
• Cleaning up many plot summaries.

I would say that someone should sign up for each season and commit to cleaning up and monitoring the episode pages for reverts (to start, I'd be happy to take Season 5). In addition, someone should clean up the current season articles, adding useful notes, cult refs etc. on Sunday nights and Mondays. Let me know what you think and I would love sign-ups. If someone thinks there is a better way to do it, let me know. Saget53 21:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, ok. But can we do it without making the articles only summaries? Oh and I think it was a mistake to make this a minisection of goofs, because this is a separate discussion. TheBlazikenMaster 21:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Typo. Sorry about that. As I said, just about every episode has something in it outside the plot thats warrants inclusion. The problem is when you add EVERY joke in the show as a cultural reference (a few episodes ago, an IP address continually tried to add something about Peter wanting apple juice), EVERY miniscule little fact (ratings, etc.), EVERY time they censor someone saying the F-word etc. Take all the usable info and put it into prose in one concise section. Saget53 01:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the statement that fuck is bleeped on television shouldn't be included. TV always censors the word fuck, so there is no need to include that. TheBlazikenMaster 01:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

So would you be on for this, BlazikenMaster? Really, if we're going to do this, we could use three or four more people. Saget53 03:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree parts of the censorship sections are pointless, but integrated somehow should be the differences in original broadcast compared to that of the DVD release. As its not really a cut, but more of an extended episode. just a thought. Also, goof sections are allowed if there are goofs that are noteworthy, although im not saying ive found any noteworthy goofs yet...Grande13 03:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Really, censorship mentions should only garner a place in the article if there is an extra scene or something that makes it significantly different then the FOX version. A few of these will appear on Adult Swim, but generally the DVD has the most significant changes, which is why I, in a sense, agree with you. As for the goofs, as you said, there have not been any significant goofs other then minor animation errors. Many of the goofs can only be derived through original research, so they should not be on there anyway. If one notable pops up, we can add it to one of the sections. Saget53 04:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There are only few things know that will OBVIOUSLY be censored on television.

1. The following human bodies: tits, vagina and penis are ALWAYS blurred on television, or censored some other way.
2. Fuck, shit, tits, cocksucker and cunt are ALWAYS bleeped on television, or censored some other way, so we shouldn't include that.

Yeah, that's it. I will only remove these things for censorship as they're too obvious. I'm not currently watching any episode that uses the word fuck on the DVD (I mean on Wikipedia, I have seen the episodes because I own some on DVD), but when I do, I will edit. TheBlazikenMaster 12:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Uncited references

Bob's Poetry Magazine

As discussed here, citations for "Bob's Poetry Magazine" were added to almost every FG article (including episodes), perhaps in a token attempt to demonstrate notability. This reference fails on multiple levels — self-published, superficial in coverage, not at all scholarly. Whether it always or just usually makes no reference to anything in the article is hard to determine because it is never cited correctly.

Regardless of intent, I think this should be treated as spam and deleted on sight. Any opinions? / edg ☺ ★ 08:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Family Guy: The Official Episode Guide Seasons 1–3

I'm also not happy with Steve Callaghan's episode guide being added to articles without proper footnoting. I think it is footnoted correctly in List of characters from Family Guy, but no attempt at in-line citation was made anywhere else. I think is okay (for now) to keep this on character articles, but this is a broken citation without <ref> tags and page numbers. (Quotes would help too since this publication is not very freely available.)

If anyone has this book and wants to help by adding this information, but isn't confident about formatting and template usage, they can add it quick'n'dirty between <ref> and </ref> tags. Were I alerted about any such addition, I would be happy to help with formatting. / edg ☺ ★ 08:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the right template to the rest of the crap.

I can't believe I had to add it on most episodes, but I'm glad it's finally over.

I understand that edg can't add to everything, but I'm glad we are finally finished tagging all the episodes, and please when new episode is announced that deserves an article, please add the template to the talk page, thanks. TheBlazikenMaster 19:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

In theory I can. It just takes me hundreds of years. Thanks for getting this done. / edg ☺ ★ 17:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Blind Ambition is being renamed

Please cast your vote here. TheBlazikenMaster 19:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: This section is a direction from one talk page to another. No further comments should be made to this section.

Common you guys, I need your opinions.

I don't want the discussion to get locked, and then discussed further, because there weren't enough people that were part of the discussion. TheBlazikenMaster 16:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

We're next.

I have a lot of Family Guy episodes on my watchlist, and we're doomed.

The bot told that our important images are about to be removed.

Some people say that Wikipedia is getting worse, they are right. But I'm not gonna sit on my ass doing nothing about it, (I'm here to help after all.) so I brought it up here so I can get help. TheBlazikenMaster 21:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I fixed all the images so they shouldn't be a problem anymore. Grande13 21:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice work Grande. / edg ☺ ★ 17:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You didn't fix the problem entirely. Look how messy this talk page is. TheBlazikenMaster 16:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

yeah the episodes with more than one picture took me a bit to realize just exactly what they wanted fixed, but I believe its all good now. Grande13 21:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

At least fix this, somehow. I can't stand much more repetitive sections. It's filling the page with unnecessary warnings. Find a good fair use. This page has way too much of those bot messages. TheBlazikenMaster 16:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This is worse than I expected, the image is gone. But seriously someone needs to clean up the talk page or Running Mates. TheBlazikenMaster 21:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

New discussion for deletion.

See here for more. TheBlazikenMaster 17:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: This section is a direction from one talk page to another. No further comments should be made to this section.

__NTOC__

Can we please get rid of it? It makes sections hard to find. And episode articles are meant to be easy to browse, people shouldn't have to scroll to find a particular section. TheBlazikenMaster 14:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean in all episode articles? I guess. If someone is going to go thru all 100+ episode articles, we should make a checklist of what else should be standardized. / edg ☺ ★ 14:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

unless the episode pages get longer there is really no need for a table of contents as its all basically visable on one page. The table of contents would be a good chunk of the page and on some of the episode pages that previously had it it would distort things. Grande13 14:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, articles should not have the __NTOC__ removed, no matter how long the contents may be, I'm sure it ays somewhere on the Manual of Style. Qst 18:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If we decide to mass-remove this, I'm wondering if we could ask the Cydebot to do the work for us. / edg ☺ ★ 03:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

New logo

Hey, I'm just looking for some comments about what you guy's think about using Image:WikiProject Family Guy logo.PNG this as the project logo? I can create one with just Family Guy written, if necessary. Qst 18:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, it looks like a microwave. This one is better in my opinion anyway. TheBlazikenMaster 18:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The original looks like an ancient TV, with a massive ariel and you can see lines where the light blue has been added quickly, and it looks very squashed, IMHO. Qst 18:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I made Image:138px-FG-icon-2.png and I agree it kinda sucks. The TV used in FG official art is rounded and has a very tall ariel, so I kind of favor having that in the project logo. It's not something I feel strongly about, however. / edg ☺ ★ 03:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Mh, I intentionally removed the ariel from that image, as most modern televisions do not have ariels, it's completely up to you guys :). Cheers, Qst 17:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleveland Brown, Jr.

Does he even need his own article? I suggest we merge it into the list of Family Guy characters or his father's article? What do you guys think? TheBlazikenMaster 22:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's OK. It contains some good information, all it needs is a few more references. Qst 20:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, tell me. Did he have any huge roles besides the appearance in Fore Father? I have all Family Guy episodes up to Untitled Griffin Family History on DVD, and I can't find any big role of that character besides that one episode. And one episode, and few cameo appearances isn't good enough for an article. TheBlazikenMaster 22:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Qst: Do you feel a need to keep CBjr as a separate article? How about we include it all under Cleveland Brown? Better to have one richly-developed article than multiple stubs, IMO. / edg ☺ ★ 18:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Very strongly agree. I would favor merging the entire Brown family into Cleveland Brown. Separate articles for minor characters are almost always {anecdotes + trivia + WP:OR = permanently stubs}, and Brown Jr. is par for the non-notable course. This would be such an easy merge I almost want to give it to someone for a Christmas present. / edg ☺ ★ 03:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: I added a merging tags to the articles so more people interested in either of the character would come here. TheBlazikenMaster 17:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess if you feel a need to discuss it further, that's an option. My preference would be to just bang it into place. Generally, FG-related merge debates tend to (slowly) attract editors who seem to consider all changes as attacks on FG. / edg ☺ ★ 18:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Edgarde, I support the merge, as Cleveland's article would be more suited with information about his son, as well as his wife (which does have some info in it). Qst 18:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

So let's merge it then. Since there are no (or very few) objections. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This is done. I'll clean it up a bit more later unless someone beats me to it. Since I don't own the DVDs and have not seen every episode, I could use a lot of help with episode citations. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Our first GA

Well boys (and girls), we have our first good article relating to Family Guy, lets hope its not the last :) Qst 17:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow. The episode is Blind Ambition (Family Guy); current version at the time it was listed in GA was 2007-11-06T17:10:02. Qst played a very big part in improving the article. Good work! / edg ☺ ☭ 00:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, I'm making the last few improvements to Mother Tucker, I think its almost ready for it's GA nomination too. Qst 13:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Episode-specific cast

I tried this section in To Love and Die in Dixie. Specifics about guest cast (which could include writers and whatnot) don't always fit neatly in the infobox, but I'm not convinced this is the best section title. Any suggestions?

Incidentally, To Love and Die in Dixie could reach GA status if we found some outside references not specific to the show, and combined the bullet-point items into a Treatment of United States southern culture section. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Mh, this needs some serious work, unfortunately — I cannot help much with this article, as I've only seen it once ages ago, so I don't know the plot, and I only have the DVD's for Season 6, 5, and 4, so I can't help with production either :( Qst 16:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It DOES need serious work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.138.145 (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets tidy this up!

What do you guy's think? How about we tidy up the main project page so it looks neat and ordered, I'm thinking along the designs of how Wikipedia:WikiProject Syria is set out, what do you think? I'm willing to do all the work, by the way. Qst 21:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can make it look nice and still remain fully functional then go for it, you have have my vote. Grande13

Wow Wikipedia:WikiProject Syria has a lot of the sections we have, only nicely arranged. Unless someone comes up with something better, copying their layout might work nicely for this project. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Great, I can make a start tonight, if you like. Qst 16:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Al right, but don't make it too similar. Keep in mind that Family Guy is a television show while Syria is a place, and there is a huge difference between that. TheBlazikenMaster 20:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Right. We don't want Dick Cheney to have us invaded. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

:) Qst 21:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Parentage to Comedy WikiProject?

I was wondering if the Comedy WikiProject is a parent to this WikiProject? Is it so and it should be noted on the WikiProject? ISD 12:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the WikiProject Comedy is more of a 'parent' to this Project, however, although it is more of a parent, I object to it being merged, although I don't believe you are suggesting this. Qst 12:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not saying it should be merged, just that it should be listed as a "Parent" in this WikiProject, and a "Descendent" in the the Comedy WikiProject. ISD 13:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think its unnecessary to officialy list this as offspring so-to speak of WikiProject Comedy, it is fairly obvious it already is, hence forth - I feel there is no need to make this official. Qst 16:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I never understood the importance of specifying parentage. Can someone explain this? / edg ☺ ☭ 16:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The FCC Song is being concidered for deletion.

Click here for the nomination. TheBlazikenMaster 23:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: This section is simply a direction from one page to another. No further comments should be made here. Instead it should be discussed on the proper place.

Yet another discussion for deletion.

We might even speed that one, but I'm not risking doing it inappropriately. So I will nominate the article, here is the discussion. Please leave no further comments here, thank you. TheBlazikenMaster 19:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Only 100+ to go!

We have our second good article! The episode is Mother Tucker ([3]) Qst 17:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

3 Good articles, now. Qst 15:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should make a page soon full of list of good FG articles? If you keep up that good work, you might even in the future get us a featured article. TheBlazikenMaster 19:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Honor roll

Added a section to the Project page for GA and (Satan willing) FA articles, the former in a quickie table. Not married to this table format. Does anyone know how to add classes for "plainlinks" and "wikitable" for the entire table? / edg ☺ ☭ 20:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thaddeus Griffin

Hi. I wrote the article Thaddeus Griffin, who is Peter's evil twin. I wrote a section about his family, but it did not allow me to cite it. I have all the references needed here so can anyone help? Because I have them all it shouldn't take more than 10 mins.

thanks;

Cf38 (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Templates for deletion - Template:Religion in Family Guy

• Template:Religion in Family Guy is in a deletion discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 29. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC).

"Heritage" in character infoboxes

Discussion in Talk:Peter Griffin#Heritage. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Holy Crap needs a new picture.

Just look at it. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

fixed. Grande13 (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thaddeus Griffin is being up for deletion.

Please cast your votes there. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel free to add these to the list of active FG-related deletion discussions: WP:FG#For_deletion. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You know whats a real bummer...

Family Guy articles receive very little reception. When you compare some episode articles' reception section to the ones of The Simpsons, ours don't look to good, even those on articles which have reached good article status. Qst 16:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

When you say "articles" receive little reception, do you mean episodes? I don't know where to find more Reception information, but I'm sure The Simpsons gets more real-world recognition. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, by my above comment, I am referring to individual episode articles. The reception must be from a good source (for example, IGN), as polls and ratings from TV.com are not worthy of a mention in the episode articles. But please, if you know of a location as to where more valid reception information is available for episodes, please do leave a link here, as it increases the articles layout and attractiveness a lot :) Qst 16:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This is very valuable real-world content. I find reception information, especially reviews and reactions, much more interesting that plot synopses. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration: Episodes and characters

For those who aren't following, this still-being-decided arbitration will set precedents for future Admin rulings on Television-related articles: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Proposed decision

While most of this is user conduct rulings (not interesting to us), some of it rules on how shows are edited with disregard to the WP:EPISODE guideline, and what should be done when this happens.

"Proposed decision" is written by Arbitrators only, so please don't add comments. It's a little too late to get involved, but if you wish to contribute on the "Evidence" or "Workshop" pages, please read the (tons of) background material before joining. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Scrubs episode and character merges

After lengthy, contentious discussion, all Scrubs (TV series) major character articles lacking real-world notability (reliable secondary sources) are being merged into List of major characters of Scrubs. The conversation is long and occurs on multiple Talk pages, but the place to start reading would be Talk:Scrubs (TV series)#Character_merge. Applying this standard to FG articles — and this decision was based on WP:N, WP:FICT, WP:RS and WP:WAF, not local stuff on Talk:Scrubs, where there was much objection — would kill most FG character articles, and probably most episodes.

Most episode articles have already been redirected back into List of Scrubs episodes, with much (mostly in-universe) content (for episodes lacking real-world notability) discarded.

Minimally, this demonstrates the need to

• find real-world content (from reliable secondary sources) for FG articles* , and
• avoid creating articles for minor characters.

* (And I wish certain editors would get over the belief that tacking "Bob's Poetry" and the Calaghan FG book met this requirement. This fantasy solution will only result in deleted articles.) / edg ☺ ☭ 21:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about multiple episodes on WT:EPISODE

Hi. A discussion on the episodes MoS is here. As an article under the project's scope is used as an example, you are encouraged to contribute. Will ^(talk) 15:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Episode navigation boxes

Okay, I'm here to determine whether the episode navigation boxes are worth being included in articles. Consensus was determined somewhere (sorry, I'm unable to find where) against these boxes, however Immblueversion (talk · message · contribs · count · logs · email) has been readding them to the articles I've been working extensively on, and have thus removed in the process. I'm not going to edit war with him, as I find it disruptive. The preceded by and such information can be found by looking in the episode infobox; so I'm here to determine whether consensus still favours the removal of these, and if such, I will leave them on the article, and vice-versa if the other way around. Qst 10:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Attention is needed on this. Qst 23:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about restores like this one:

{{Episode navigation|parent=[[List of Family Guy episodes|''Family Guy'' Episodes]]|prev=[[Stewie Loves Lois]]|next=[[Hell Comes to Quahog]] }}

I'm not aware of a consensus saying these particular boxes should go, but other highly superfluous specialty FG nav boxes ("TBS", "religion") were deleted for crowding the page with useless tools. Can you point to a discussion where {{Episode navigation}} was considered undesireable?

Immblueversion (talk · contribs) has a troubling pattern. Never discusses, disregards consensus, indifferent to policy, devoted to cruft and excessive plot detail. Just not quite disruptive enough to drag to WP:DR or Admin intervention. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Edgarde — I'm afraid I can't find the link where consensus is against this (I know this makes it look like I'm not telling the truth, but I'm being honest), however if I remember correctly, it was an article talk page. You do also have the infobox which lists all the episodes (including the one before and one after), thus I don't this is really necessary, and it makes the article look a hell of a lot tidier. The Simpsons don't have these, and they have loads of FA and GA articles, it makes it look a lot neater, IMO. However, I'm still open to discussion. Qst 12:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There is only one edit that user made on a talk namespace, I really think something has to be done. The user doesn't even give edit summaries. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)