Talk:Family Guy/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Defining sentence

The consensus is that the defining sentence should call the show an "animated sitcom" with no other reference to the age of its intended or actual audience. There is consensus that such age information should be in the body. There was no clear consensus on whether any summary of that information in the body would be appropriate elsewhere in the lead; that could be more easily discussed once there is a consensus version of the material being summarized. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The previous RfC left two open questions:

  1. What particular wording to use
  2. Where to put it.

Resolving this here may also help resolve a near-identical dispute at The Simpsons, the talk page of which has been notified of this discussion. [This is a procedural RfC tagging; the discussion was already opened and has the character of an RfC but wasn't tagged as one, and clearly more community input would help us arrive at a clear consensus this time.]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  17:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Notifications about the opening of this thread (not by SMcCandlish, who just put an RfC tag on it later):

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that QEDK (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that A D Monroe III (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
— Note: All other respondents in the earlier discussions have now been notified of this one, and I've put an RfC tag on this, since it's basically a follow-up RfC to the last one. Also notified Talk:The Simpsons, an article with editwarring about essentially the same questions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  17:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  • I was asked to clarify my support, which I am happy to do. I support either "animated sitcom for adults" or "animated sitcom targeted at adult audiences". If this is not the correct place to have posted this, please feel free to move it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I support either "animated sitcom for adults" or "animated sitcom targeted at adult audiences" as the new text to replace that which was removed, with a preference for "animated sitcom targeted at adult audiences". --AussieLegend (✉) 23:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I support just "animated sitcom" (wikilinked) with the target audience in a later line as first preference; that is the way to keep the lead sentence crisp and concise. I'm also fine with "animated sitcom for adults" and "animated sitcom targeted at adult audiences" (both wikilinked as above), albeit both as a secondary preference. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 08:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    I would clarify that if the action is finally deemed to be canvassing, strike my vote sure, but my opinion isn't biased in any manner and is purely objective; further defence of my statement at ANI. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 17:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In order of preference, I support (a) keeping the demographics out of the lead altogether; or (only in the event that doesn't gain consensus) (b) properly explicating and contextualizing them elsewhere in the lead. Such information in the lead is problematic for the reasons I've stated in the discussion above and the preceeding RfC, and it is awkward, WP:UNDUE, POV, unnecessary, and something that is extremely rarely done for other TV programs. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I think it's important to note in the 1st sentence that FG is neither a children's cartoon nor some kind of porn (via linking Adult animation by that name, which might be misconstrued by some). I would prefer the wording that was actually reflected in sources, but barring that (since no such sources have yet been identified), I'd not oppose any wording that tended to have those two effects. Then, let's move on, okay? I'm sure we all have better things to spend our WP time on. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Assessment of consensus prior to conversion to RfC

With that, all editors who previously commented on the specific wording have now confirmed their preferences and it's safe to say that, with one dissenter, there is support for "animated sitcom targeted at adult audiences". The dissenter, Curly Turky, and SMcCandlish have suggested moving the text but that has not yet received support from other editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  • I agree with wording along the lines "animated sitcom targeted at an adult audience", but don't care too much about the exact wording. I think the demographic info should be broken out of the lead sentence and put into a second (or later) sentence in the lead section, especially because there are strong indications in above discussion that a) people are looking for sources that the show is targeted at teens as well, and b) we've already found sources that teens are about 1/5 of the audience regardless what the authorial/studio marketing intent is, so there will be a desire to expand the demographic info, which would make the lead sentence even more unwieldy and subject to dispute. We include this kind of demographic info in the lead (usually not lead sentence) when readers might not intuit it on their own; I posted some examples here. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  17:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    As pointed out elsewhere, the fact that it is viewed by teens doesn't mean that it is targeted at them. The two are really separate issues. There are a lot of, for example, children's cartoons that are watched by adults but that doesn't mean they are targeted at adults. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    They are separate, but correlated, and people are logically going to want to group them together in our article, which will make for a very clumsy lead sentence. If it's move out of the first sentence, audience info can be expanded without making the first sentence a mess.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    For four years the lead sentence was "Family Guy is an American adult animated sitcom" and nobody ever tried changing it to "teens and adult" (or any variation). Nobody ever had a problem until this. I really don't see it happening. Even if the target demographic does change, adult animation covers teens so the fix is simple, adult audiences becomes adult and teen audiences. It's really very simple. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
    Untrue: MattWorks opened a discussion on the subject in the #Family Guy Aging section above, and others have changed it before. Again, you're trying to re-litigate the outcome of the RfC. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
    he didn't have a problem with "adult" being equated with "porn". His issue was a misbelief that parental ratings defined the target audience. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
    Which brings us right back to the observation that "there are strong indications ... there will be a desire to expand the demographic info, which would make the lead sentence even more unwieldy and subject to dispute". Arguing about who holds exactly which variant view on what to address in the demo material doesn't change that. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  23:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
    Two people in four years is not exactly "strong indications". --AussieLegend (✉) 05:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I believe the current wording ...

    Family Guy is an American animated sitcom created by ...

    is sufficient for the lede. Sitcom suggests an adult audience, and the linked Animated sitcom article confirms this by saying "Animated sitcoms have been adult-oriented and more controversial than traditional cartoons from the onset." The article body already mentions in a few places that this is "adult animation"—in fact, excluding the phrase Adult Swim (mentioned six times), the string adult occurs an almost defensive-sounding five times. I don't wish to argue this issue any further and request no more pings. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    Hmm, except most children's programming that isn't adventure fiction is also sitcom in form.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The current wording is the best. I think that "animated sitcom" conveys the target audience well enough. Kaldari (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Most of these suggestions are fine. I find my own opinions lining up most closely with QEDK's. Separately from the question of what to say in the first sentence/paragraph/section, I support including details in a separate section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    Sure. Anything summarized in the lead is supposed to be given in detail in the body.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  23:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    To clarify: the lead summarizes the body. This lead currently does not. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
    Then we need to fix the body, which has already been suggested.[1] --AussieLegend (✉) 05:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
    A point of universal agreement. Progress!  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  06:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Per SMcCandlish, the demographic should probably be discussed with full nuances (such as viewership by teens), somewhere in the lede. It is not suitable for the opening sentence though, and it's better to omit it altogether than have it in the opening sentence.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
    The lead is supposed to summarise the article. It shouldn't go into detail about viewership. That should be in the "Reception" section, per WP:TVRECEPTION. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Animated sitcom seems sufficient/concise...would apply to The Simpsons too Buffs (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Family Guy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2017

Can you guys add this to the lead of the page regarding the news about Disney acquiring Fox's assets:

On December 14, 2017, in a historic deal valued at over $52 billion, The Walt Disney Company announced it will buy the majority of 21st Century Fox. While the Fox network will be spun off into a smaller company, Family Guy are part of the 20th Century Fox studio that will move over to Disney.[1] 2600:1700:D560:BF00:91AE:53E9:9C49:1E5C (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. This show is not mentioned at that article, and we try to be pretty specific like that or else we'll find ourselves talking about everything that has anything to do with Fox at every show they have on every channel.
This is how we would make a change like this. Will the show in any way be affected by the acquisition? If the answer were "yes," then we should get to work. If it turns out that Disney is changing Family Guy in any way, even if it's behind-the-scenes stuff that probably won't affect the show you see on TV, that could almost certainly be added. But we don't know, at least not yet. This could definitely happen, though, and this is a great start if there's new information. CityOfSilver 19:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The Walt Disney Company To Acquire Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc., After Spinoff Of Certain Businesses, For $52.4 Billion In Stock" (Press release). The Walt Disney Company. December 14, 2017. Archived from the original on December 14, 2017. Retrieved December 14, 2017. {{cite press release}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2018

74.111.108.51 (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sakura CarteletTalk 02:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Split suggestion

There is no definitive answer to this. The article is not large enough to demand a split and the information fits fine here as is. However, it is justifiable to have the franchise article. It will ultimately come down to whether someone is interested in doing so. Just be aware that this a Good article so we do not want the quality of this one to decrease. The new article however will not carry the GA status over, so will need to go through WP:GAN if that is desired AIRcorn (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • See The Simpsons and The Simpsons (franchise) for comparison. Basically it allows the TV series article to have a smaller scope and devote more time to the TV series.--Coin945 (talk) 08:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Based on the size being over WP:SPLIT criteria I support this. The other media section would be perfect to be spun off. - GalatzTalk 12:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
      • At this time there is only 40kB of readable prose in the article. That's barely over the <40kB boundary where "length alone does not justify division" and well below the 50kB "may need to be divided" boundary. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
        • It's not just a maths equation about article length. The article is covering two different scopes. The TV show and the larger franchise. The scope will be better defined in this article if it's streamlined.--Coin945 (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
          • Actually, it pretty much is just down to size. The franchise article would be a stub. Everything in this article, including the franchise information, is relevant to the article subject. The scope of this article is Family Guy and everything related to it, which covers the franchise. A split really can't be justified based on specious arguments. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I think the Simpsons model works well so would support this change. Dunarc (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
      • The Simpsons model works well because there is enough content to support two articles. Here there is not. The Simpsons has 54kB of readable prose while The Simpsons (franchise) has 21kB. This article is only just over half of that combined total. Quite apart from there being no real justification to split, there is simply no need to split. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Size alone is not a reason to split the article, but there's no reason not to split if someone's willing to put in the work and there are sufficient sources. It shouldn't be split merely for the sake of splitting if nobody's willing to honestly put in the work, though. RE: The Simpsons—see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have completed the split and I believe did not harm the GA in the process. I would appreciate a second set of eyes as well on both here and the new article. Thanks! - GalatzTalk 15:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Unprotection

Can protection be removed from the page? 71.202.112.200 (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

May I ask why you would like the page unprotected? It was protected, admittedly a long time ago, due to frequent vandalism, and given the popularity (some might say notoriety) of this TV show, I'm concerned that unprotecting it would simply result in a resumption of vandalism. In any event, you could request it at WP:RFPP, though you may need to be a registered user to do so. DonIago (talk) 04:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
So I can add information. I also asked Nyttend if he could unprotect it, but said I can propose changes to its talk page. 71.202.112.200 (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm an administrator, I've looked at the block log and I won't unprotect the page. Admittedly it has been protected for some time but looking at the block log tells me that every time it has been unprotected previously it has been protected again almost immediately because of vandalism. Unprotecting it is more likely to damage Wikipedia.
Nyttend is correct, you can use the talk page to propose changes. What changes would you like to propose?--5 albert square (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
There are currently 1,163 people watching this page. There is a safe bet if you want to post a change in the talk page here that it will be seen. - GalatzTalk 01:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm declining my request. 71.202.112.200 (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Request to add category: Television series revived after cancellation

Attempting to add category to Family Guy for revived series after they were cancelled. Article already mentions revival, with the number of shows being revived it would make sense to create a hub for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGAB312 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Disregard, I missed the category that would make adding this redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGAB312 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2019

Regarding the broadcast, I think it should be mentioned that in the US, the first 15 seasons of the series are airing on TBS and Adult Swim, while season 16 and beyond are airing on FXX and Freeform. But by the fall of 2021, WarnerMedia's rights to the first 15 seasons will expire and the FXX and Freeform will be the exclusive home(s) of the series. 212.54.101.172 (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2019

i love family guy and i want to make it better Heymanforlife (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. Please make a precise edit request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

"Fmaily Guy" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fmaily Guy. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 17:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Reference Website has virus

Please delete the *archived* link to the citation 20. It will deliver the user to a website that is infected with a virus (AVG caught this for me, current 25NOV2020 library). The original website still functions and is without virus. There is no reason why such a backup is needed, else link to internet achieve wayback machine (a trusted source). Delete that shit: now.

Has this been carried out? It's not very clear when no signature is on the post. - XxLuckyCxX (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2021

Please add Cherry Chevapravatdumrong to the Executive Producers section her name is mentioned many times in the show she is clearly an important part of the team. Nihilistzsche (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Run n Fly (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2021

The picture of the Family Guy skyline compared to the Providence skyline should be updated with a newer picture for the Family Guy side. Onlydarkninja (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please provide such an image. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2021

173.68.5.19 (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC) Hello, I Didn’t Mean To Vandalize Wikipedia And I’m Sorry I Did That, I Didn’t Mean To Ruin Wikipedia, Please Let Me Edit Family Guy Wikipedia Page, I Didn’t Mean To Do It.

 Not done: Due to excessive vandalism in the past, this article is currently protected such that no editor without a username will be able to edit. If you would like to edit this article, please create an account. DonIago (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2021

September 18, 2021 Family Guy airs on Adult Swim for the last time as the animated sitcom moves to Disney-owned platforms and networks Jbrewen (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2021

Family Guy's syndication broadcasts on FX Canada and not FXX Canada. https://www.tvpassport.com/tv-listings/stations/fx-networks-canada/10026/2021-11-29 Dexterryyyy (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

A minor mistake noticed Dexterryyyy (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 09:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

"Quahog, Rhode Island" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Quahog, Rhode Island and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 23#Quahog, Rhode Island until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I wish to accept Draft:Quahog, Rhode Island as an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2022

Please remove the space between FX Canada and the period. 216.154.33.170 (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done MadGuy7023 (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

All about Family Guy

Parents should know that family guy is not for kids, Not for people under Old 18, An adult cartoon. 2601:8B:4402:3460:80F4:EE8D:A7C3:65A9 (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

You raised a similar concern at Talk:American Dad! and I've responded there. The short version is we don't typically include parental ratings in articles unless reliable sources have commented upon them. DonIago (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Individual Episode Articles

While every episode of The Simpsons and South Park has its own article, Family Guy does not. Why is that? 100.7.36.213 (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Because not every episode has been demonstrated to be notable enough for its own article. Many of them had articles that have since been converted to redirects, so if you have sourced material you might be able to add to the episode articles, perhaps the redirects can be removed.
I suspect many of the episode articles for the other two series you mention should probably be redirects as well. DonIago (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The other two series as well as Futurama, almost forgot about that. Where should I go to discuss this further? 100.7.36.213 (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
If you want to discuss multiple series, I think you may need to go up to WT:TV. DonIago (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Will do. 100.7.36.213 (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2022

On the right hand side, the summary box doesn't have Seth MacFarlane's linked Wikipedia page. This should be linked in. Bearandroo27 (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

 Question: He's linked next to "Created by". Did you overlook that, or did you have something else in mind? We typically only link the first occurrence of a name in the infobox. DonIago (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2022

Please add the following template to the article: Template:Rough Draft Studios 2601:249:9301:D570:E869:1EDF:22EE:5836 (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done DonIago (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2023

Change "January 31, 1999 – present" to "Original run: January 31, 1999 - February 14, 2002; Revival: May 1, 2005 - present"; the show was officially cancelled, not just put in an indefinite hiatus at the time. 1.64.131.140 (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Xan747 (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Family_Guy/Archive_12&oldid=1214985890"