Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Family Guy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcuts:
WT:FAMILYGUY
WT:FG
Archive
Archives
2006 | 2007

Contents


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Only 100+ to go!

We have our second good article! The episode is Mother Tucker ([1]) 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Templates for deletion - Template:Religion in Family Guy

[edit] "Heritage" in character infoboxes

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

* (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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:
Preceded by
“Stewie Loves Lois”		 Family Guy Episodes Followed by
“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)

[edit] Herbert (Family Guy)

does anyone else think the "appearances" section is a horrible amount of list cruft? Ctjf83 talk 07:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue with this is WP:NOT#PLOT; recapping of all this character's appearances puffs up the article considerably with in-universe content. This is wrong for several reasons, some probably listed in WP:WAF.
Herbert (Family Guy) has about 2 paragraphs of real-world info, sourced from unspecified, non-footnoted DVD commentary. A freestanding character article needs secondary sources establishing notability outside the show. I imagine these exist or will soon enough, so I'd rather not send Herbert to WP:AFD, but it would be an uphill battle to make that article encyclopedic.
Two possible approaches:
  1. Leave a fan-WP:USEFUL but unencyclopedic Appearances section, since the article won't pass GA any time soon.
  2. Convert some list items for episode citations where they support statement about the character, and delete the Appearances section, along with remaining list items. Be prepared for much wailing.
That's how I see it anyway. / edg ☺ ☭ 09:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Family Guy books

It has recently come to my attention there are several notable Family Guy books, even by searching on Google books alone, I found quite a few which are notable enough to have an article, I've started with Family Guy: Stewie's Guide to World Domination and have also created {{Family Guy books}}, if anyone is interested in helping out. Let it be known that I have omitted a couple of books from that template, i.e. the ones with not even enough information avaialable about them to make a stub, as its better than redlinks. Qst 17:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, great idea. I'm sure some of us have these. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Griffin's fathers.

Both of his fathers have been merged. But in my honest opinion I think they should have been merged into Peter's article, because they are his fathers. What do you guys think? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree Peter Griffin is the best article for these guys. If someone wants to make this section, I'm sure changing the redirect is okay. The point of these AFD decisions is that neither of Peter's fathers merits a freestanding article. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [2]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of Cultural References items on Episode pages

I posted this on the The Cleveland–Loretta Quagmire page.

"I am trying to get to some consensus on these way overlong sections. I went and cleaned this one up, and it was reverted.

Two examples of things that I removed, which were then reverted to be included.

"Peter says the CPR dummy is “hard, jagged and tastes like alcohol—just like kissing Faye Dunaway.

After a wrestler berates the locals, Peter punches a child and shouts, "Take that Macho Man Randy Savage!" "

If I am going to be reverted on these, please explain the notability or need to include them in the section. Citations have nothing to do with it I don't believe as they are known simply from watching the episode. Gwynand (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)"

If I am going to be reverted on my cleaning up of the massive cultural reference sections (not removal of them) then I'd like to see what the consensus is in the project. Use the two items I gave as examples. For one I think they do nothing more than simply state what celebrity was referenced on the show--cruft, not notable, etc. Gwynand (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying your actions were wrong, what I am saying that rather than removing them all with somewhat misleading edit summaries, you should have posted here and asked, because, as it happens, I have season 4, 5 and 6 on DVD, so I will almost certainly have a DVD commentary and be able to add a reference to the valid cultural references. Removing them is not helping the encyclopedia, we should be trying to move forward with 'our' articles, not backwards. If I cam over as somewhat hasty when reverting, I apologise; but removing them is unnecessary, in my opinion. Qst 17:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I rather dislike these sections because they tend to repeat jokes from the show, and the example items Gwynand lists above do not seem like encyclopedic content. Qst: do these two lines have potential for inclusion in a GA-promoted version? You are one of a very few editors who could change my mind on something like this. If the deleted text had potential, restoring with edit summary like We're going somewhere with these might help. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, a lot of the fiction cruft in bullet points is only telling half the story so-to speak. I have to correct it and reference it after watching the DVD commentary, so I know that a lot of it does have potential if it had a reliable reference and was wrote correctly. But, on the other hand, some of those cultural references I know for a fact are not worthy of mention on the DVD, but some I think have a high chance of being notable (e.g the Superman one). I'll tell you what, after I finish Road to Rupert and Peter's Two Dads, I'll start on the above article and then it will have referencable information in it. Don't get me wrong, however, I think Gwynand has the articles best intentions at heart, but, given the state some of the episode articles are in, we should be aiming to keep as much as we can in and, eventually, I will get round to doing some of them. Qst 17:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure we are getting to the heart of this. I think the Family Guy articles are actually full of info, more so than most show's episode pages. I also think they are simply better than most show episode pages. However, it is obvious to me that some are overdoing the inclusiveness to the point of excess. The two examples I gave were not cherry picked... the were right next to each other in the most recent edit I did of one episode (of over 100 now). QST, I am glad that you are defending your point on the only things that matter, notability and verifiability, but is it just that we are disagreeing on the notability of some of these? Specifically, I think if Faye Dunawaye's name is simply uttered as part of joke in the episode, that is barely a "cultural reference" and no where near notable enough to be included. I think the same thing is a song is sung, a real-life product is used, someone imitates Robin Williams, etc, and believe me, the pages are filled with things like that.Gwynand (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, indeed. I completely agree that some of the items which you removed were not suitable, but a few were and, I think we would be better off listening to the DVD commentary of the episode to see if they are mentioned (if it has a commentary, that is.) Qst 18:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seth MacFarlane for FA

I am thinking about nominating this article for FA. Any suggestions for improvement? Miranda 06:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It definitely has the potential, but, as it only recently got its GA status, I don't think we should hurry it to FA, maybe just let it be edited and improved a bit more. It's definitely something to consider in the future, though. Qst 18:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
There have been articles in the past that have been promoted to GA, and have made featured soon after the nomination. I don't know. Maybe if we wait until the strike is over. Miranda 22:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I suppose when you put it like that, you're right. The strike could take months to finish, so we could be waiting a lot time, unfortunately. Lets see what others can input here, and then work from there :) Qst 22:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Griffin & Mayor Adam West articles

I am trying to get these to more encyclopedic quality. As the newest member of this WikiProject, I'm just learning the ropes of it so if I make any mistakes, let me know on the talkpage.

If you can help me, please feel free to discuss either at my talk page or the respective articles' talk! Thanks, --Solumeiras talk 18:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Episode navigation box

I've been reverting A LOT lately, and there are some unregistered users that keep adding those. We must do something about this fast. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If we're all agreed these gotta go, I'll remove them when I see them. I'm watching the first four seasons, and some of the later. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree removing them would benefit the articles. Qst 18:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with the episode navigation boxes. It's just a more convenient way for people to navigate through the episodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberhawk241 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it really just more clutter on the page? There's a perfectly good navbox on the top of each episode article. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship notes

Hi all, I reverted some sections which were removed on censorship (i.e. material in FG episodes which had been edited out due to censorship concerns). I figured it was good to keep in for a couple of reasons. First, it results in more copmmentary and discussion about an episode rather and hence reduces article emphasis on a plot summary, and second, censorship in itself is a pretty notable topic and more so for this show which, shall we say, certainly sails close to the wind....however it would be prudent, nay, essential, to get some references and discussion on hte topic. My connection is slow so I may take a bit of time to list the 5 episodes I reinstituted stuff on. All help appreciated. Later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exciting news!

I've just found a bunch of freely-licensed family guy images (yes, including some pictures of production staff.) I'll upload these tomorrow. :) Qst (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Qst, you continue to amaze. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Road to Germany

Okay, I'd like to request some input on this. Road to Germany has been the subject of some edit warring over these past few days (including myself) over whether it should be a redirect, or an article. I myself think it should be a redirect, as, although it has references - its already getting trivia added in to it about it being the third Road to [...] episode and stuff like that. I'd like to request some input on whether it should be an article, or a redirect so I can act upon it in light of consensus. Cheers.Qst (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Road to Rupert for FA

Any edits welcome. I'm going to work on it some more (hopefully with the assistance of Cirt, a valuable and experienced FA contributor,) then send it to peer review, and hopefully, it will be ready for FAC within the next few weeks. So please, feel free to improve this article and be bold. :) Qst (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Family Guy trivia essay

I've been meaning to write a guideline to encourage removing excessive Family Guy trivia from non-FG articles. Such a guideline is probably not as helpful as actually removing such information, so I've not put much into it yet. Suggestions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Family Guy/Family Guy trivia. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You did a damn good job making this page. I added it to my watchlist. It can be improved I'm sure, but since I don't waste time practicing about guidelines or essays I don't know how to improve it. But I'd love to take part in any discussions on this page that will be in the future. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I Never New This

I never knew this exsisted. I'm glad because I just went on about 110 images, and categorised it. I think i'll join, if i can. SimpsonsFan08 talk Sign Here Please and get Award 19:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Seth MacFarlane

Nominated this article for featured status. miranda 05:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)