Talk:Family Guy/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Carol Burnett lawsuit

Should the article mention the lawsuit Carol Burnett filed against Family Guy? see this report: [1], and this one: [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.17.129.70 (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't see why not. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I can't add the info myself, since the page seems to be protected from anonymous editing... So someone else would have to add it. 70.17.148.120 17:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe carol burnette would sue family guy,especially since her show and family guy both make parodies of other shows.-hotspot

Yep, and that's what the news articles say. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
It's over her cartoon maid character being parodied too closely to the real character. A parody is safe as long as it's obviously a parody. When Family Guy parodied it, it looked too much like the original character. I think it's worth adding, personally. SkittlzAnKomboz 02:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Simpsons/Tracy Ullman Show reference

This:

The second was in episode 04x24 - Peterotica, Peter has a flashback about the family being featured in animated shorts on The Tracey Ullman Show, appearing the way the Simpsons did when they debuted there.

is not true. According to Seth MacFarlane on the DVD commentary of this episode the joke is the fact that some cartoons (and indeed live action shows) have different character and different-appearing characters in their early incarnations. It just so happens that The Simpsons is one of the more famous examples of this. I can see why it might be construed as a dig at the simpsons, but it categorically isnt. 172.189.202.222 18:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sombody also said that the refrence was an omage to the Simpsons on the Tracy Ulman Show (I think, I have to cheek).--66.213.123.34 18:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard

A new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This noticeboard has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard. Please disregard the above post. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Meg's biological father

On most of the Family Guy related articles, it is asserted that Meg is not the biological daughter of Peter. I have a problem with this. The 'Stan Thompson' gag could have very well been a joke and we cannot conclude that Stan is truly her father. After all, there was a cutaway scene in one of the early episodes where it flashes back to the day of Meg's birth when Peter shows disappointment at the doctor's remark: "It's a girl!" Sherwelthlangley 05:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it. I think that any cutaways that happen in Family Guy should be taken serously, unless it's somthing really really really really outragious like the "Great Space Coaster" joke in "I Take Thea Quagmire". An example of this is in Da Boom when Peter tells a guy in a chicken costume that he doesn't take coupons from chickens after "what happen last time" an it goes into a flashback to Peter getting into a fight with a giant chicken over an expired coupon. Many fans probably dismissed that as a throw-away gag, I did and I was 8 or 9 when I saw it, but in Blind Ambition, the giant chicken attacks Peter out of nowhere and they have yet another huge fight in the present insted of in a flash back. AND he and Peter are fighting in Family Guy Video Game!, AND he comes back and fights Peter in No Chris Left Behind. If Chris has an evil monkey in his closet (that to was only going to be a throw-away gag) and Peter keeps getting into a fight with a giant chicken, I think that Meg might not be Peter's daughter. By the way, when you say "there was a cutaway scene in one of the early episodes where it flashes back to the day of Meg's birth when Peter shows disappointment at the doctor's remark: 'It's a girl!'", Lois could have told Peter that she was pregnant and Peter could have thought it was his. AND Lois might have told Peter years after Meg was born that Meg wasn't his daughter and that it happened so long ago that he diddn't care. Chris "finds out" in Screwed the Pouch while Meg is happily listening to her walkmen, not listening, and, if it wasn't just one of his idiotic comments, Chris tells Meg "My dad's smarter than your dad (Stan Thompson)!" Meg says "We have the same dad morron" meaning that she still doesn't know about Stan Thompson. As Stewie would say, "Well, that's my arguement, where's your's?"--BrianGriffin-FG 19:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

PS-Visit the Songs of Family Guy page, which I just created on wikiquote.--BrianGriffin-FG 19:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

BrianGriffin--you are falling victim to the "fanboy" trap. This isn't about taking cutaways seriously, it's about taking one time gags seriously. If you're interpreting one time gags as significant properties of the FG universe, that's only evidence that you are treating Family Guy more seriously than the writers.

Breaking continuity, on purpose even, is a consequence of humor. Articles about shows should describe, in general, the show's continual universe. If it happens once, in one episode, in one scene, it is NOT cannon. If it is not cannon, it doesn't belong here.

68.116.185.10 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So what if I'm a "fanboy"?! For one thing, if you took a surrvay (sorry about the spelling) of all the people who read an artical relating to Family Guy, 60%, if not more, would be "fanboys". For another thing, I'm not saying that it should be taken as "everybody-has-to-eyes" canon, but as "that-could-of-happened" canon. So what if I have created a theory on two, one-shot gags! That's what I do for Harry Potter, that's what I did (and still do) for the Lemony Snicket books, so that is what I am going to do for Family Guy! For all the fanboys out there, as Peter would say, (attack redacted) --BrianGriffin-FG 16:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. Those two things have different goals.
Made-up statistics notwithstanding, Family Guy articles on Wikipedia should be written for general readership, not specificly for fanboys (per WP:FANCRUFT, WP:OWN and probably WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE). "What could have happened" will tend to be original research or "in-universe" writing, both of which should be avoided. (Actually, much of the Writing about fiction guidelines would be applicable here.)
If you must have an unfettered fanboy wiki, consider helping develop the Family Guy Wiki (which incidentally also has wiki for Harry Potter and Lemony Snicket). / edgarde 14:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know what came over me. I just get real deffencve (spelling, sorry) ya' know. I'm sorry for my attack on 68.116.185.10. I won't happen again. Sincerely, BrianGriffin-FG 15:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, my theory. I will bet you everything that in an episode in the future, they will mention Stan again, as Meg's real father, and that you will at least hear his voice talking to a main character. Mark my words.--BrianGriffin-FG 16:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Okay, my theory, ..." That says it all. You're really passionate and defensive about the show--fine. But this isn't your home page about family guy. Is this really a place for fan fics, fan theories, and fan essays? The point is to describe family guy.
If you win this bet, by all means, point it out. But you haven't, so don't. It's equally likely it would never be mentioned again, and they'd have, oh, say, some flashback to Meg being born or something. 68.116.185.10 15:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm gonna bitch again. How come the other dog they had named Todd is cannon when he was only mentioned in one episode (in the episode Deep Throats) when the possibility of Meg having a diffrent father utter nonsence?--BrianGriffin-FG 17:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

First, I don't see Todd in this article, so I'm not sure why you brought it up. But I'm not trying to prove something isn't part of the universe of FG. That's beside the point. What is written here (in the FG article) should reflect what has been established as cannon. One time gags can certainly be brought up again and made cannon, but they can also be completely contradicted, never mentioned again, etc.
A one time gag is something that exists for a joke. This is a comedy--there are jokes. Random slams on characters are jokes. Jokes are not always meant to be taken seriously. The particular issue in question is treating one of those "how about" things (the same exact lead in to all of the manatee gags), mentioned exactly once in the entire show, as an established fact.
Something's being mentioned in only one episode doesn't make it a one time gag. But something only being said once, in one scene, in a span of less than 10 seconds, for the sake of a single joke, is a one time gag. My point isn't to prove you wrong, or attack your theories--you're not what is at stake. My point is to clean up this article, and remove inappropriate theories. Quite simply, something appears on the article as true that has not only not been established as true, but that may very well be false. Just because it's your personal opinion that this holds doesn't mean the writers will respect your personal opinion.
As for the universe of FG, it could go either way. I'd have no problems if this weren't a one time gag (if they introduce Meg's father, for example, then by all means put this here). But they could equally likely never mention this again, and mention something that establishes Peter as Meg's father. This isn't a place to hedge bets, or to guess what the FG universe is--it's a place to put facts. The reason this doesn't belong is because there's a real likelihood it's not true (furthermore, it discusses nothing critical about the show; why is it a big deal to have it here? At best it is true by accident, at worst it's extremely misleading). 68.116.185.10 16:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm plugging something this time. Come to my talk page because I have put up a section of Family Guy hot-topics to discuss (Meg's dad, Brian's racism, ect.) because they are talked about on severl talk pages. Plug over. --BrianGriffin-FG 17:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I got even a better idea. WikiProject Family Guy seems deserted. Maybe we should encourage new members there? I will join tomorrow. TheBlazikenMaster 20:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC) EDIT: I recently joined and the day ain't over. Let's talk on the wikiproject, not here. TheBlazikenMaster 21:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Links for convenience:
/ edgarde 21:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Obviously this was a while back discussion. But i just need to say that stan thompson wasnt a cutaway gag, it was during peter's trial. that would lead one to believe that it is true.

TV-MA?

The article says that two episodes were rated TV-MA. I don't recall that happening. What episodes were they? WildFan48 19:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The Father, Son, and the Holy Fonz was rated TV-MA, but I am not sure of the other. Sherwelthlangley 05:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me that. On the Wiki site for The Father, the Son, and the Holy Fonz, it says that is is TV-14 on Fox, but TV-MA on Cartoon Network because CN includes Stewie's line, "Nothing says, 'Eat up' like a bleeding, half-naked Jew nailed to a piece of wood," while FOX omits it. I'm guessing that there is something similar to this for the other TV-MA episode. Should this information be icluded in the article to avoid confusion (which is the whole reason I asked about it)? WildFan48 21:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Attention fans

Stop adding Family Guy references to random articles when it's not relevant to the article's content, like, oh, say, the Brocolli article. Jtrainor 23:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There seems to me a big problem w/ that nowadays here. You're right. It just clutters the articles. 24.255.157.153 04:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a huge Family Guy fan, but you're right. Unless there's a refrence section on the artical with other refrences made to that subject, the Family Guy refrence should NOT be mentioned.--17:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Broadcasters

Are these the current broadcasters only, because they do change regularly. 86.149.209.189 12:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Air Griffin

Can we have an article about the mobile game Air Griffin? Superjustinbros. 22:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"Citation Needed"

The imdb entry for Seth Macfarlane credits him with helping write the episodes. Does that count as a reputable enough source? User:Snyrt 23:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Going into syndication this fall

  • Family Guy is going into syndication this fall. In case anybody asks "where'd you hear this", I learned it from a promo that aired just a few minutes ago on KWGN. Can we get this on the article? WizardDuck 19:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
It certainly is goin' to syndication, as it's coming to my local station KBCW starting Sept. 10. [3] Therefore, I will go add syndication, but problem is, I'll need a relevant source that claims FG will enter syndication nationally, not just in San Francisco and Denver as mentioned here. So I'll go research a bit more. Thanks for bringing this up! --Andrewlp1991 05:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Intro

As there is an Awards section, is it not a peacock phrase to say "Emmy winning" (sic; it needs a hyphen) in the first sentence? If not, then for consistency wouldn't we need to use that phrase in the first sentence of every series that's ever won an Emmy? Serious question, because the way it reads now seems excessively fannish.

Also, as the Fox Broadcasting Company article states, "FOX" all caps is a vanity form used by the network itself, but "Fox" (first letter capped) is the preferred form. All caps seems like unnecessary hype. --69.22.254.111 22:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"Good article" status

There is a lot of clunky language and semi-literate phrasing in this article. "Low-intelligent"? Not a real word. This locked article really needs some good line editing. --69.22.254.111 23:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Music

Plenty of people, myself included, are curious about the music on Family Guy--things like the Donny Most rising from the mist scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovrAMunOOKQ), the Sneakers O'Toole scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqiHoKhyuDU), all the barbershop-quartet singing, et cetera. Who composes that music, how is it recorded (is it MIDI, or are real instruments used?) who are the singers, etc.

This is relevant, interesting stuff for an article about the show IMHO.

Or perhaps someone can start an article, "List of songs on Family Guy", which would include all the original music and all the parodies, and have a chart giving the names of the composer(s), performer(s), which song it's a parody of (if applicable), etc.

Any thoughts?

Thanks! Piercetheorganist 08:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be nice, but didn't some article with songs of Family Guy got removed some months ago? TheBlazikenMaster 00:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I MADE A SONGS ARTICAL IN MAY ON WIKIQUOTE!!! Yeah, it's called Songs From Family Guy! Please visit it if you like. I need help with the editing. I am so glad that other people wanted an artical about the songs.--BrianGriffin-FG 18:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Fantastic idea! Since Family Guy uses music so often as a form of humor, I think it's completely appropriate to have a page dedicated to said music. I don't think, however, that it belongs on Wikiquote. So I've moved it to a Wikipedia page, and made the old Wikiquote page a redirect page. As I have time over the next few days, I'm going to help out adding a lot more stuff; for now, I've just started the article. Please see the talk page of the Wikipedia page I've created; I've listed my ideas there for discussion.

Non sequiturs, non

The term non sequitur is frequently added to (or linked from) this article to describe the cutaway gags. This is incorrect. Non sequiturs are illogical responses to logical premises.

Example

Ralph Wiggum and Zippy the Pinhead are characters well known for using non sequiturs.

Lisa: Hey Ralph, want to come with me and Alison to play "Anagrams"?
Alison: We take proper names and rearrange the letters to form a description of that person.
Ralph: My cat's breath smells like cat food.

— Lisa's Rival, [4]

Peter Griffin occasionally speaks in non sequiturs, and the more out-of-nowhere Giant Chicken appearances may be loosely considered non sequiturs as far as story telling is concerned.

However, cutaway gags may have no premise, or a gratuitous premise ("You think that's bad ...") that is followed logically, so they are not the same as non sequiturs.

I doubt this is a common misconception, so I'm guessing either:

  • On some commentary track or in an interview the producers are saying non sequitur for this, or
  • it's comedy writer jargon.

Can someone source this (with a quote) so we can add this to the article correctly, instead of repeatedly misnaming the cutaway gags? If you don't know how to add it to the article, just append the quote here, and indicate the source and (if video sourced) the timing (in minutes & seconds) where this is said. / edgarde 15:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Brian's Prius

If you click on this YouTube link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blbCm7JuRbg&NR=1#, at 53 seconds into the clip Brian will start his Toyota Prius, yet the engine starts, and it features the traditional car-starting sound effect (with a small electric engine starter). That is not how it works.

  • So...how is an error in a YouTube video relevant to a Wikipedia article about a television series? If there is a section or article of Family Guy goofs, post it there. Or, if there is a goofs section of the article relating to the particular episode in question, post it there. But how is that at all relevant here?
Much as I dislike Goofs sections — and what a show to get retentive about — they're being added to most episode pages. The Prius engine noise would go on the page for the appropriate episode. / edgarde 20:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Character interaction / understanding

Could somebody with some more episodes under their belt perhaps improve the information regarding who can understand who in the show (particularly Stewie and Brian)? It barely rates a mention in the current article, and I would suggest it is quite an important element to the show. There is an internal reference in at least one episode (where the Griffins secede from the United States - at the end of the episode a 'futuristic' school student asks whether the family can understand the baby) so obviously the producers themselves are playing with public confusion over this issue.

Jeg833 04:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you basicly understand it.
  • Brian: everyone understands Brian.
  • Stewie: Brian always understands Stewie, others either do or don't at the convenience of the story.
It seems to be a subject on which some editors obsess. This is very frequently edited (here somewhat, but especially on Stewie Griffin), and often simply any incident where someone understands or fails to understand Stewie (which is a lot of interactions) is appended.
The current treatment in this article looks fine — better than I expected when I read your comment. Can you suggest what should be added or changed? This really should be kept concise here, and expanded upon (as needed) in Stewie Griffin. / edgarde 05:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
There is one thing you guys don't get. This isn't some bullshit Rugrats there only the watchers of the show can hear (I wanted to give example, I don't hate the show, please don't take this too personally, just giving an example) this is Family Guy. Now let me ask you all this, would you seriously take words from a baby seriously? I know I wouldn't since it's just a baby. Think about that. That's the main reason why everyone is ignoring Stewie. Brian takes them differently, but still, the reason why Stewie ALWAYS fails to kill Louis is because Stewie doesn't know how to use the gadgets he makes yet, he is just a baby. Everyone understands Stewie, they just don't take him seriously, because he is a baby. I think I made my point. TheBlazikenMaster 19:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

First off, Stewie is trying to kill Lois, not Meg. Stewie could give less of a shit about Meg. Secondly, if everyone understands Stewie, they are doing a very good job of covering it up; much like the octopus in the kitchen. I do not think Stewie is understood by anybody, with the exception of Brian, of course. I believe his interactions with the people in his environment is akin to Garfield; meaning we can hear him, but no one else can. Perhaps when he gets older to a point when a baby is "expected" to learn to talk, he will be heard as he brags about his goals of human and global conquest... Jason Keyes 16:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly please try to be WP:CIVIL — it isn't productive to pounce on someone for an honest (and obvious) mistake like confusing the names of two cartoon characters.
The business of Stewie's communication is covered in more detail under Stewie Griffin, and is discussed on the Talk page (and Talk archives) for that article. That article also includes explanations taken from interviews and DVD commentaries, which on Wikipedia are decent sources for this sort of thing.
Your interpretation of Stewie is entirely plausible, and if that's how you watch the show, that's great. However, interpretation of this sort is considered original research, and is not suitable for Wikipedia because doing so would lead to pointless debate over interpretations. / edg ☺ ★ 17:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you got my point. I mean think about it, would you take a baby seriously? I wouldn't. Are you saying in Peter, Peter, Caviar Eater the servants are just guessing what Stewie is trying to say but are lucky enough to guess correctly? I think not. Oh and this isn't the right place to discuss something like that, since it doesn't affect the article in any way. It shouldn't, it should affect Stewie's article, if any. TheBlazikenMaster 12:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
This does seem to be a lot of fuss over something the writers appear to have deliberately left ambiguous. It's also been the subject of jokes, for example at the end of one episode: "I don't get it. Do they understand the baby or not?" Docta247 11:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Airtimes

Let me me see if I've got this right. It always premieres on a Sunday, on FOX at 9pm and Adult Swim at 11:30pm. Is that right? (I can only make the 11:30 tonite. Will someone please tell me which channel to be on? Thanks!) StrongBad27 20:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

adultswim is usually a few weeks behind the initial airing on fox. Although the seasons been over for a month or so now and there wont be new episodes until the new season starts in september. you can check adultswim.com if you want to know the airtimes for that Grande13 21:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject

Common you guys I need you. The wikiproject needs more members currently there are only six, yet there are plenny more wikipedians that like Family Guy. Most discussions regarding Family Guy article is being disscussed on this page, it should be discuss on the wikiproject. C'mon you guys I need you. TheBlazikenMaster 22:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

=)

The Helpers

HEY! ARE YOU A FAN OF Family Guy! DO YOU WANNA GET ALL THERE DVDs! DO YOU WANNA SLEEP WITH MEG! IF YOUR ANSWERES ARE YES YES YES, than why, she's ugly. IF YOUR ANSWERES ARE YES YES NO, THAN JOIN THE FAMILY GUY HEPERS! JOIN NOW! JOIN NOW! JOIN NOW!--BrianGriffin-FG 18:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Instead of founding a new organization, would you consider contributing to Wikipedia:WikiProject Family Guy, which already has at least 5 active members? No point in duplicating efforts. / edgarde 00:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Family Guy's Declining Quality

Don't you think we should put something on how ever since Family Guy came back from cancellation the humor on the show has become forced and stale.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.64.187.221 (talk • contribs) 01:43 9 July 2007 (UTC)

personal opinions arent included in wikipedia, so your answer would be noGrande13

Not to mention the fact you didnt sign youre post newb.BlueShrek 02:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You can pretty much decide to ignore anything said by an unsigned comment. The header of this section instantly told me: Someone's insignificant opinion. 阿修羅96 21:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I removed "Emmy award winning" from the opening sentence. The first sentence should simply state who or what the subject of the article is. Winning awards is something the show has done, but it's not what it is. Yes, it's true the show's won awards, but it's trying to cast it in a "positive light" and "award winning" in the opening sentence is a piece of verbal fluff that you expect from a press release, magazine article, or fansite. The awards can of course be put later in the lead, but not the opening sentence. If you look at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#POV in first sentence?, consensus shows that it's inheritely POV to put awards in opening sentences (unless it's groundbreaking). Spellcast 19:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think calling the show "Emmy award winning" is hype and borders on misleading — if I'm reading this correctly, the only Emmys won were for voice Acting (MacFarlane) and for Music & Lyrics (probably Murphy). / edgarde 21:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Which are Emmys awarded to the show. Thus the "Emmy Award Winning" part of it. Nothing misleading about that whatsoever. Get it right. (Hida Akechi)

Cleveland Brown

Adding something about his token blackness. Definitely a character element.

Bleedingcherub 06:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This is your own opinion, which I don't necessarily agree with. Suggest you remove it until you can source a writer or producer making that assertion. Docta247 07:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted this as POV. Brown has other characteristics besides representing blackness. Anyway, it's too much detail for that list — if you can cite sources calling Cleveland a "token", add to Criticism of Family Guy or Cleveland Brown, as appropriate.
The source need not be a Family Guy writer or producer, tho it makes a difference coming from them. A decent critical source would also be useful. / edgarde 10:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I tried a Google Scholar search with "Cleveland "Family Guy" token black" and got no results. Cromulent Kwyjibo 20:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


Other thoughts about Family Guy in Middle East and Africa

Can you please answer me about why Family Guy not shows in Middle East and Africa. Can I receive it only in MBC while in Middle East and Africa?

--193.180.253.2 09:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Try the Reference Desk for questions like that — Reference desk/Entertainment can probably help you.
This talk page is for discussion of edits to the Family Guy article. Article Talk pages aren't general chat forums, and I'm not sure anyone who reads this page would know the answer to your question. / edg ☺ ★ 09:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


Broadcast Talk

Broadcasters section removed

Removed this section entirely. This section changes constantly, and can never be encyclopedic. Relevant policies:

Similar sections certainly can be found in other articles. Without addressing any specific article, these should probably all be removed as well. / edg ☺ ★ 23:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree, so I proposed that International_broadcasters_for_24_(TV_series) be deleted. --Andrewlp1991 18:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up: OK, I've changed my mind tentatively, because of the I should agree with this recent edit. Because of WP:CSB that requires worldwide view for all articles, I believe that the inclusion of such sections will fulfill the worldwide view section of each Wikipedia article. Agree? --Andrewlp1991 02:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Lists of current broadcasters will never be encyclopedic, for the above reasons.
Lists of every station that has ever ran the program, with periods when it had been run (as long as every entry included end dates), would not become outdated, and could theoretically be included, tho it would be somewhat unwieldy and trivial.
Exactly how much of this information would be encylopedic is a debatable matter. I would guess the original broadcast network is always worth including, along with when the show went into syndication.
WP:CSB dictates that shows originating in other countries be given similar treatment. Having huge amounts of details on non-american broadcasts of an american TV show does little to counteract systemic bias. Unless, of course, Wikipedia is to be used (in other countries) as a electronic program guide (which, incidentally, it is not). / edg ☺ ★ 03:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree, so I think we should welcome the "int'l broadcasters" section back, condensed to the skin & bone. --Andrewlp1991 03:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you want to take this on? The new section could become a model of what would be kept in articles on other shows.
Not to make work for you. ;) I'm just not as certain about what would remain. / edg ☺ ★ 03:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
What I would do to revive that section would be putting it back only with verifiable and sourced information - meaning that the broadcast networks around the world airing FG would have to have citations, otherwise it can't be included. --Andrewlp1991 05:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that brings us back to the problem of have an unencyclopedic list of current and quickly outdated information. What am I missing here?
Also, tho I'd hate to debate this, lists of this sort seem like small potatos information-wise. Trying to restore as much of it as possible seems counter to WP:NOT#DIR, which calls this sort of thing unencyclopedic.
I was telling another editor that http://FamilyGuy.wikia.com would be a good place to salvage a Wikipedia-deleted Broadcasters list. Good idea? / edg ☺ ★ 09:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, there are many online free encyclopedias out there. I'm a member of WikiProject Pokémon and since we have to merge into list, a lot of members of this WikiProjects agree on working for Bulbapedia, of course it's only an example, let's get back to topic:
Yeah, do it. It would be great for the official Family Guy encyclopedia. TheBlazikenMaster 16:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I got a great idea, (or at least I think it's great)

Family Guy isn't the only article that has broadcasting info that can outdate quickly, I noticed Pokémon (anime) has it as well.

So how about some member of the TV WikiProject discuss this on the talk page there? I was thinking about discussing it on Pokémon (anime), but no, it needs to be discussed on a WikiProject, what do you guys think? TheBlazikenMaster 17:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. It has been brought up here: WT:TV#Removing_Broadcasters
Also, I turned the prod for the 24 (TV series) list to a proposed Article for Deletion so there would be some discussion. That discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International broadcasters for 24 (TV series) / 02:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Relevant AfD decision on broadcasters lists

There's been a lot of precedent for these lists to be deleted. Most recently, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International broadcasters for 24 (TV series) decided to delete solely on grounds of Wikipedia is not a directory (AKA Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide). This is significant because this suggests the lists themselves are unencyclopedic, whether or not they are subject to becoming outdated (per WP:DATED, mentioned in the nomination but not in the deletion decision).

(Whoever disagrees with this decision can take it up on Wikipedia:Deletion review, but a really solid argument should be presented for any attempt to overturn precedent.)

The WikiProject Countering systemic bias concern for writing articles from an "international perspective" was brought up in defense of broadcasters lists. This got little traction.

Delete on sight, preserve only core information, like network the show was made for, or on which an episode was first broadcast. Otherwise, these lists don't belong on Wikipedia. / edg ☺ ★ 08:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Rip-off Talk

Simpsons/Family Guy Similarities Page

I think Wiki should add a section to the Family Guy page about the ripoffs Family Guy does from the Simpsons.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jediyoda426 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, ripoff is a strong word and not true at all. Just because it has many simulations doesn't make it a ripoff, if it was a ripoff, things would be a lot more a like. I watched all the way from season 1-9 of the Simpsons, and I've watched 1-4 season of Family Guy so I know it's not a ripoff, seriously, there are many differences. If you wanna make a section, have it named simulations, not ripoff, I'm sick and tired of people assuming this show is a ripoff. (yes, I'm still on vocation, but I come here once a day to see what's going on.) TheBlazikenMaster 15:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't going to reply to this cos it's such old news. However, if anyone can find some sources for this criticism, it might be worth adding to Criticism of Family Guy. Please do not add original research — things you observed watching Family Guy, and decided were "ripoffs" of The Simpsons, are not acceptable. / edgarde 17:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


How exactly is an observation on family guy not valid? As long as its not nonsense surely it is valid no matter whether its a proffesional reviewer or a normal viewer who makes it?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.111.194 (talk) 11:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture in criticism section

Whose bright idea was it to have the australian cover of mad magazine for the criticism section of family guy? Mad magazine is made in america and the american version of that issue has a COMPLETELY different cover than the australian version. In the cover for the american version they show the family only their skin is yellow and their hair has been altared to look like simpsons characters, (peter has homer's hair lois has marge's hair etc.) the joke is (obviously) that Mad is calling them a rip-off of the simpsons. However on the australian cover there is no gag, and it may seem like Mad is actually praising family guy. Any long-time fan of Mad magazine (like myself) will tell you that Mad rarely praises ANYTHING (including itself) instead seeming to exist to poke fun at everything (again including themselves). In fact the very cover used to be in the criticism of family guy article but has since been removed. I think that maybe we should replace the australian cover with the american cover. Father Time89 16:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, that should be on the main article. TheBlazikenMaster 18:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Why though, in the issue they continue to state that family guy is a rip-off of the simpsons, the american version shows that, the australian one does not.Father Time89 02:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
If it shows that Family Guy is rippoff it can't be allowed on Wikipedia. Not only is that bullshit, also it can be considered point of view. Show or movie directors already have too many problems with people assuming their hard work is rip-off of something, so that's why we shouldn't assume something is rip-off. I've been saying that on this page many times. TheBlazikenMaster 12:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The image is probably non-free, and may be excluded as potential WP:COPYVIO.
That said, the point of view can be included in the article if it is sourced to a notable criticism. It has been pointed out before (I believe under Criticism of Family Guy) that Mad parodies themselves are not credible criticism (cos Mad magazine rags on everything by formula), but the image can be used to illustrate other notable criticism. / edg ☺ ★ 16:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Delisted Good article

I have removed this article from WP:GA because it no longer meets the criteria.

  • Article needs additional citation.
  • References need to be correctly and consistently formatted.
  • Copyrighted image lacks fair use rationale.

Once issues are addressed and the article is brought up to the current GA standards, it may be renominated at WP:GAC. If you don't agree with this decision, you may list the article at WP:GA/R. Regards, Lara♥Love 18:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mad 0905.jpg

Image:Mad 0905.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added a fair use rationale. It should (hopefully) be good now. Lara♥Love 04:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ratings minutia

As it is currently formulated, the Ratings section is just a list of every time where the rating was different that the most common rating, and every network where it is different from the FOX rating. This really can't be kept, per Wikipedia is not TV Guide.

Ratings should be listed in the episode articles, not here.

Can anything notable be said about Family Guy ratings? Otherwise this section needs to be removed from this article. Every show on television gets a rating, and sometimes that rating varies. Listing this in detail is unencyclopedic, and nothing about this is special to Family Guy. / edg ☺ ★ 20:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

But then I might as well use the TV ratings infobox for the ratings: "TV-14-DL" in the USA, "15" in the UK, etc. right? Such an infobox exists for South Park. In fact, IMDB lists the usual ratings. --Andrewlp1991 02:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Common rating
United States TV-14-DL
Quoting the usage note on that infobox:

... it's impossible to note correctly in the article as a fact and to do so might even be considered "unencyclopedic"

I'm a bit concerned that over time the "common rating" (defined as the rating given most frequently) would change over time as different ratings nudged ahead.
That said, I'd be okay with a "Common rating" infobox if it kept editors from detailing every episode where the rating was different. / edg ☺ ★ 02:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. The Infobox I shall add. --Andrewlp1991 03:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I pruned this down a bit.[5] Common rating doesn't mean "every" rating — I'm pretty sure the point is to list the usual rating the show is receives for its normal (probably initial) broadcast. Otherwise we would just be duplicating the abovementioned unencyclopedic trivia into an infobox. / edg ☺ ★ 04:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Should original run be changed?

On the main Family Guy page, it says that the show ran from Jan. 31, 1999 - Feb. 14, 2002 and May 1, 2005 - present. Wasn't Family Guy canceled for a year after the first two seasons? Shouldn't it say Jan. 31, 1999 - Aug. 1, 2000, July 11, 2001 - Feb. 14, 2002, and May 1, 2005 - present? -(Vert Bandit 01:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC))

Questions about Family Guy: For the record

81.228.156.60's questions were directly relevant to "discussing improvements to the Family Guy article." But one person substituted his individual judgement for everyone else's and deleted the whole thing. First reason given was that the questions were nonsensical. If the questions really were nonsensical, would it have been that hard to say "Could you rephrase the question?" Second reason given was that they were off-topic. Even if they were off-topic, would it really have been that hard to say something like "You could ask those at a Yahoo! Group" or something like that? Instead, the anonymous user would go back and see nothing whatsoever, no explanation at all.

But the fact is that the misguided, unfortunate anonymous user first tried to get answers to his questions from the article and when he couldn't find them there, confident that he could get them from somewhere in Wikipedia, he turned to the talk page. As it happens, Wikipedia does have the answers to most of his questions. For example, we missed the opportunity to point him to Fictionalized portrayals of George W. Bush#Family Guy and American Dad!, in response to his question 2.

So for the record, 81.228.156.60's questions are at User talk:81.228.156.60. ShutterBugTrekker 20:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I support this deletion and would have performed it myself if the other editor weren't so vigilant. Allowing off-the-wall, off-topic discussions (and some of these questions are quite nonsensical) would be an invitation to troll posts. This is not a forum for general discussion, the questions were not related to editing the article, and the page top explicitly says such posts will be deleted. / edg ☺ ★ 21:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou, ShutterBugTrekker, for preserving those questions. I apologise for acting unilaterally but I assure you it was in good faith, and I actually assumed there would be no disagreement at all. I have read over the questions again and I remain convinced that most of the questions were nonsensical and were furthermore intended that way; a Nobel prize and asking us to speculate why Bush Sr wasn't on the show? Even assuming the questions were intended to be answered and answerable, Edgarde has kindly pointed out that Wikipedia is not a forum, which would surely end this debate. Docta247 21:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for remembering about good faith. So many like to quote WP:NOTs, but it's not often that I see goodfaiths.
We can only speculate whether 81.x.x.x. was acting on good faith or not, but I'll assume that he was. What he should've asked then goes something like this: "Should the list of episodes list TV ratings? Where in the Family Guy articles or the Nobel Prize article can I find info about this show and the Nobel Prize? Is there an article that lists in which episodes of this show George W. appears?" Anton Mravcek 21:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Family Guy reference desk proposal

I've started a discussion thread on WP:FG about the possibility of starting a Family Guy reference desk. Anyone who feels we should be answering general Questions about Family Guy is encouraged to participate in this discussion (and to join WikiProject Family Guy). There are ways we can do this. / edg ☺ ★ 22:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. My only concern is: who would man such a desk? Even if I was a total FG expert (some of you guys here know this show as deeply as I know Star Trek), I don't know if I could devote a serious block of time each week to man the desk. ShutterBugTrekker 23:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The (initial, preliminary) details of the proposal are on the WikiProject Talk page. The answer to your question is whoever volunteers. Strict shift schedules or 24-hour coverage wouldn't be a requirement. So far there hasn't been much interest. / edg ☺ ★ 01:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ratings in Canada

Could someone change the listing for the ratings in Canada? Seasons 1-3 were rated PG on Global in Canada when they originally aired. Since the beginning of season 4, every episode is rated 14+. Upperwhen455 16:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Banned in Poland?

Family guy was not banned in poland. I am from Poland and know for a fact that it is available there. Year 2144 17:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection

{{editprotected}} please unprotect this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Devil Captain (talk • contribs) 17:13, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you go to WP:RM, but I disagree though. Family Guy is a famous culture show, so many vandals come here with some bullshit about the show. TheBlazikenMaster 17:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection requests should generally be made on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. In this case, I don't see any reason to unprotect. --- RockMFR 21:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Peter's Simpson Cameo

"Peter Griffin cameo'd in a Halloween special of the Simpsons, in which Homer was cloned." For the record, this special was Treehouse of Horror XIII. 81.159.248.243 17:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, check Peter's article, that should give a little more info about the appearance. TheBlazikenMaster 01:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I've added a ToHXIII citation to this article.[6] Thanks. / edg ☺ ★ 03:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Adult Swim=Original Broadcaster?

I think Adult Swim should be listed as a original broadcaster with FOX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorak111 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Lists of broadcasters beyond the first aren't that valuable. If there's something unique about Adult Swim's relationship to or effect on the show, that would be worth a mention.
Personally I think of Adult Swim as having first grab at re-runs, like they had with Futurama. This is, by itself, no more unique or interesting than whether Channel 19 or Channel 27 first ran the show in syndication.
The show is made for and first broadcast on Fox. If any episode was pulled from Fox and broadcast first on another venue, that would be worth a mention on the episode page, but not here. / edg ☺ ★ 02:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


Family guy jokes being unrelated to the story and or current situation

How did people come to this conclusion? I dont remember an excessive (or even anything more than a small) amount that were and ive seen all 6 series multiple times. For instance, an example that I have been given quite often is the Barbershop quartet aids thing, but that was in context.

So in short how do they come to the conclusion? I may have missed it (or forgiven it) as I am a fan of this wonderful show afterall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.111.194 (talk) 11:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Family Guy has frequent cutaway gags that are totally tangential to the story. They've even made jokes about this themselves (Stewie: "Oh we don't have a clip for this one?"). It's a very conspicuous device.
While the show is normally very loose with continuity, the cutaway gags often dispense with continuity completely. Example: Peter depicted as a transsexual doesn't reconcile with the normal backstory of the show. The time Meg was deaf, dumb, blind and limbless seems to have no effect on her current condition, and it is not explained how she got back to normal. These things cannot be considered real character traits, because when the joke is over, they have no apparent influence in the formulation of the character.
Generally single episode situation are dismissed as not character traits unless they are repeated later on, like Peter's mental retardation. (Some editors might assert there are grey areas.)
Yes, the "barbershop" duo were a running cutaway gag. Ditto the Giant Chicken. But I'd say (for example) calling Stewie a murderer on the evidence of his killing the barbershop duo is like calling Meg a quadruple amputee and making up magicial or medical explanations for how she got better in the interim. The FG writers don't reconcile this stuff, and per WP:WAF, neither should we.
Incidentally, I'm not inventing these rules. The WP:SIMPSONS editors routinely remove info from character pages on the basis of being a "single episode situation". For Family Guy articles, we need to treat cutaway gags the same way. / edg ☺ ★ 14:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
And? Many shows have the same traits as explained above (south park for instance), why is family guy criticised for it whilst others are not?
And take the simpsons for instance, massive things happen in that that are never mentioned or hinted at again, which massively effect one thing or another but then the effect is gone. Am I mis reading what the problem is here, or is it a case of favouriteism?
As an aside im sure the deaf blind and dum thing tied in, though ill have to find and re watch the episode to see. And is stewie called a murderer solely on the basis of killing the barber shop duet, as hes killed a few people172.209.53.31 16:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess my points could be stated more succinctly as:
  1. Reasonably notable criticism makes an issue about how FG does this a lot.
  2. The cutaway vignettes are a very conspicuous device in FG, used several times per episode.
  3. If Lisa Simpson plays a bango in one scene in one episode, this does not mean

    Lisa is a highly expert banjo player, even though she has never been seen practicing or taking lessons

    ... should be added to her character page. This is a serious problem with FG character pages as well, so I mentioned it here.
That's all I was saying. None of this is intended with disrespect to the program, if that is the concern you are expressing. / edg ☺ ★ 17:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh im not taking any issue with your/the statement im simply trying to figure out why family guy is criticised for it more than other shows that use the same devices. I cant understand it personally, as most of the jokes tie in with the story somewhat, and they are funny, so I cant see why people take issue with them. Maybe its something to do with Bias, as even notable critics can be (and often are) biased. 195.171.111.194 10:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's a good point, Robot Chicken is far more random than Family Guy can ever be.
Well, maybe you should read criticism of Family Guy article, that might have the reason you need. TheBlazikenMaster 13:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I did and all I found out was that trey parker and matt stone were lieing little whingers. And that others dont like it with no apparent reason. And Matt groening and Seth Mcfarlain get along better then id have thought, It didn't provide any answer at all.172.213.31.41 18:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It's best if you ask on the talk page on that article, this is a talk page of Family Guy article, not the criticism one. TheBlazikenMaster 19:05, 25 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 to the WikiProject, further comments should be made there. I thought about just removing it from here and putting it to the project, but then, nah. It could be risky. TheBlazikenMaster 22:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. Discussion is continued here. / edg ☺ ★ 22:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


What episode is the fishy quote on? as the oly fish one I rememver ( the 2 elbowed guy) says something markedly different, also whats it a reference too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.213.31.41 (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yiddish article

Hi. There's now a Yiddish version of the FAMILY GUY article. Here: http://yi.wikipedia.org/wiki/משפחה_מענטש . Can someone please add Yiddish to the list? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.25.200 (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Black comedy

Family Guy is not a black comedy. Rent Man Bites Dog and you'll see the difference. (Man Bites Dog at IMDb.) FG uses various types of humor and much of it is "edgy" by television standards, but by current comedy standards it is also pretty mainstream (cf. Saturday Night Live), and only a timid milquetoast talking to his mother would need to categorize this as "black comedy". / edg ☺ ★ 17:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I will remove the category, that's all I needed a reason for category deletion. TheBlazikenMaster 17:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Why has any action been taken? isnt the above original (and unsourced, not to mention POV (Oh wait I just did :D)) research?
And going by the wikipedia definition of black comedy
Black comedy, also known as black humour is a sub-genre of comedy and satire where topics and events that are usually treated seriously — death, mass murder, suicide, domestic abuse, sickness, madness, fear, drug abuse, rape, war, terrorism etc. — are treated in a humorous or satirical manner
This is black comedy, may not be [b]as[/b] black as others, but it still is172.209.53.31 17:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Family Guy is joke after joke over a wide range of topical transgression. "Black comedy" is specificly about topics that are horrible to contemplate. Checklisting the definition from the black comedy article does not make FG a black comedy; try it with surreal humor, farce, toilet humor, ethnic jokes, satire, slapstick, it still works, sometimes even better. There is some black humor — "meet me at the top of the World Trade Center, 8am, September 11 2000" sounds pretty mean to a lot of americans — and maybe for some viewers that's all they take away from watching the show. But black humor doesn't really dominate the proceedings. Were this show basically a black comedy, you can be sure it would have a much smaller audience. / edg ☺ ★ 17:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, good point. Family Guy is mixed animated comedy, some scenes might be black humors and some aren't. Just like most other comedy shows, well, I don't see much of comedy shows, but don't most comedy shows have some black humor and some appropriated ones? TheBlazikenMaster 19:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
By your logic then man bites dog cant be labeled a black comedy as it includes surreal humor, farce, satire. Still you are correct I suppose in that black comedy isnt the main aim of the artists. Still wouldnt what you did be classed as original research. Perhaps something about the multi type nature of the comedy involved should be added to the intro. 195.171.111.194 10:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Family Tree Inaccuracies

I noticed several inaccuracies on the family tree on this page, so I thought that I should note them, and hopefully the creator or someone else can fix them:

  • Grammar Innacuracies: Though it is commonly written incorrectly, if a singular name ends in s, the possesive with an " 's " is still added to the end, not just an apostrophe. The grammatical error is used for both Silas and Lois.
  • Assuming that Peter's Mother's maiden name isn't Griffin (which would be very unlikely), all of the ancestors of Peter with the last name "Griffin" should be ancestors of Francis, not Thelma.
  • If Marguerite is Lois's great-aunt, and her last name is Pewterschmidt, she is therefore the sister of Carter's father, not the sister of Carter's grandfather
  • If Kathy Griffin is supposedly a cousin of Peter's, why is she a descendant of Marguerite?

If someone could fix these, it would make the tree make a lot more sense.{{M. H. Avril3:02, 24 September 2007}}

I left a message with the uploader to see if this can be addressed. Until then, I've yanked that image from Family Guy, but not from Peter Griffin since it kind of demonstrates the amount of ancestors that have been depicted in the show.
This image has another problem — assumptions of consistency (do the FG producers retain this information?) and guessed lineage make it original research.
If the author can address thees concerns, I'll restore the image there there and retain it here. / edg ☺ ★ 03:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent general comment) The Family tree has been nominated for deletion (link here). R. Baley 23:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, could we perhaps construct a new family tree, with simply the definite relatives (Peter, Lois, Chris, etc.)? Mhavril39 21:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea. How do we handle updates for remarried grandparents, cousin Oliver, so forth. Can the source document be uploaded as well as the image file? / edg ☺ ★ 21:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... I don't know. We could just do the basics, and then update the file if anything new arises in the series that would officially connect the distant relatives. Is it okay by wikipedia's image policy to add photos that are allowed to be used to a new document? if we made the basic family tree, we could use the available photos (perhaps just heads?) above names if it is okay by wikia.Mhavril39 23:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Images add more negatives than positives. A dozen character pics (no matter how fractional) in a 300px chart would be too tiny to distinquish in the article, and clutter the chart; also, images that aren't free use (i.e. all character images) will eventually be challenged if not absolutely necessary. Question: what software do you use to build this image? / edg ☺ ★ 23:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Basically just Microsoft Paint (i don't have anything fancy). I have made a few picture-based family trees for a few other wikias, so I suppose this can't be too hard. This is what I had in mind (just a quick sample with not a lot of people. I only used images that were already on wikipedia) http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x141/mhavril39/GriffinFamilySample.png What do you think? Any suggestions? Mhavril39 03:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess anything made in pbrush.exe is a one-shot, since one cannot edit layers or anything. (Side note: layers are a useful tool. Try The GIMP. It's free, powerful, and cross-platform.)
I'd still say avoid images for Wikipedia, as they are simply decorative, and this sort of thing gets deleted as not fair use. Additionally, they also make the chart very big, so that the image would have to be expanded to make sense.
If you make one of these, List of characters from Family Guy is a more suitable article than the Family Guy article, in my opinion. / edg ☺ ★ 05:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Re-sung opening

The normal title sequence in Family Guy parodies, in part, All in the Family with its nostalgic longing for values of days past.

Because so many people thought Stewie sang "F-in' cry!" instead of "Laugh and cry", Seth MacFarlane resang that line to make "laugh and cry" more clear.

That's kind of ironic, given that Jean Stapleton and Carroll O'Connor redid the opening theme to "All in the Family" to make the line "Gee our old LaSalle ran great" more clear.

Never cared for MacFarlane's explanation. I'm confident Stewie sang effin' cry, and the "more clear" explanation is to avoid controversy. This is a case where verifiability is more important that truth (whatever that is), but to anyone familiar with the vernacular use of effin' it's quite obvious what Stewie is says. / edg ☺ ★ 04:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

words and phrases

Referring to the ringtones: Doesn't Quagmire say "aaaaallright..." rather than "awwwwright..." ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BloodyFox (talk • contribs) 21:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Beats me. Is there an official spelling for this somewhere? The number of repeat letters seems also to be guesswork. / edg ☺ ★ 22:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the correct way to put the word would be al-right or a-lright? — jacĸrм (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe the correct way to find out is to watch an episode with closed captions on when Quagmire says "all-right" which is the phrase I think he says. Dethfan216 01:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That might do it, presuming captions for Family Guy follow the script. I've seen these deviate on other programs. An actual script would be "canonical". / edg ☺ ★ 02:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Great idea, but sometimes it might not work. Sometimes the ones making the subtitles are not the ones writing the scripts. TheBlazikenMaster 19:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Family_Guy/Archive_4&oldid=1136719322"