Talk:Seth MacFarlane/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.businessinsider.com/seth-macfarlane-boobs-song-angered-hollywood-women-2013-2. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced Genres

Every single one of these genres are unsourced, that is original research, which cannot be used. And there are too many genres anyway, making it become overfilled. The genre box is used for main genres. And some are redundant, as they are sub-genres, such as Jazz, vocal jazz, and vocal. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Please check the article, they are not unreferenced.--5 albert square (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
You didn't note the redundant genres, 5 albert square. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Right now I have more time to respond, I've looked into this and I can't find any redundant genres. He has received significant coverage in the media for all the genres--5 albert square (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree, 5 albert square. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Vocal jazz isn't even a genre, as shown by the article. "Vocal jazz or jazz singing is an instrumental approach to the voice, where the singer can match the instruments in their stylistic approach to the lyrics, improvised or otherwise, or through scat singing; that is, the use of non-morphemic syllables to imitate the sound of instruments." -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears reverting has started up again to remove Vocal Jazz from the infobox in this article. Wikipedia considers Vocal Jazz as a genre, as evidenced by the following Wikipedia Category page which lists it as such here [1]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, look at an article like rockabilly. Vocal jazz doesn't even have a genre infobox. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm looking at it as a Wikipedia genre category. Which it is. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
If it truly was a genre, it would have a genre infobox. And again, it appears to be a style. "Vocal jazz or jazz singing is an instrumental approach to the voice, where the singer can match the instruments in their stylistic approach to the lyrics, improvised or otherwise, or through scat singing; that is, the use of non-morphemic syllables to imitate the sound of instruments." And straight-ahead jazz isn't a genre either, as said in it's own article, it is a "style", yet it is included in genres even though it isn't. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
It's a genre as well as a style ; some reliable sources call it a subgenre. In any case, it's still considered a genre [2]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Occupations 2015

I thought I could reach some consensus here on his occupations. Television-series and film-maker doesn't really make any semse, Gene Roddenberry, Lorne Michaels, or even Tina Fey have that. Actor, animator, filmmaker, comedian, singer, and songwriter seems to make more sense to the readers who read this page. Love to hear your guys' thoughts. (166.176.58.243 (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC))

You should've tried that before you got repeatedly blocked for edit-warring. And the previous discussions (and resistance to your edits) show that the consensus disagrees with a long list. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

::I'm not talking to you. I'm looking for an editor who's actually helpful, nice, and isn't mean-spirited. P. S six occupations isn't a lot, have you even seen Kanye West'a page or even Madonna's they have like 8 or 10. (166.176.58.243 (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC))

You're talking to the Wikipedia community, which means anyone in good standing is welcome to reply. I agree with JasonAQuest. Consensus is against what you are edit warring over. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
True, consensus is against you. Of course, I do feel the IP does make sense, but I see where the other two editors are coming from as well. I say just go with consensus. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

:::::So I'm wrong, Jason is right television-series maker makes more sense than my list occupations? He won:( (166.176.58.243 (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC))

It is not a matter of winning, and I never said it makes more sense, as I see this in no other article (as far as I know) for me, you make more sense. But the general consensus says otherwise. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

:::::::And may I ask, what consensus? I read the occupations on top and that was last year and he must've had different occupations listed there. But, Jason didn't have any consensus doing that. My list is simply SIX occupations but when you look at Kanye West's occupations he has like seven. It's just so odd seeing television-series maker as an actual occupation. (166.176.58.243 (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC))

Every Wikipedia article is a work in progress. One editor after another adds one thing or another to them, and over time they often become overdone. A list of the two or three occupations that as person is notable for expands to include six or seven, some of which duplicate others or just aren't as significant, leaving it unclear just what the person is famous for. Or a line-item in an infobox expands from a few examples of influences on the person, into a huge block that overloads the reader rather than giving them a quick overview. From time to time, an experienced editor takes a fresh look at the article and tightens up the focus. Pointing at one article, or even several articles, and saying "that one is done this way" isn't a valid argument, because the articles you're pointing at may just be articles that haven't had a good copyedit lately. (Hint: the fact that someone had to put a citation on Kanye West being a "painter" tells you that it's not something he's generally notable for.)
Focus is especially important in the opening paragraph (and especially opening sentence) and the infobox, because those are things that people skim when their main question is simply "who is this person?" They don't want a complete resumé, they just want to know why Seth MacFarlane is famous. He is famous because he creates television series, he makes movies, and they're usually animated and/or comedies. The details of what he does are important. The opening paragraphs should say what roles he generally plays in making this stuff (and give a few of the best-known examples.) But that level of detail doesn't belong in the very first sentence. Maybe "television-series creator" isn't the best way of describing it. But it's far more informative – WP's reason for being – than a list that implies that he's famous as a singer or a cartoonist ... because he really isn't. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Voice actor and comedian

Not only does he do live-action acting. He also does voice acting in Family Guy and other cartoon animated series, he's also a comedian too, he makes people laugh as well. FrozenFan2 (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It's ok if someone disagrees with this, if you guy's do, than I'll leave the article the way it is for now on. FrozenFan2 (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"He makes people laugh" isn't an occupation. (Is someone who makes people cry a "tragedian"?) He makes TV shows; that's an occupation. He makes movies; that's an occupation. The fact that these things are funny rather than sad or dramatic or whatever is just what those things are about. It isn't an occupation. (Some people use "comedian" to refer to stand-up comics, but that isn't what MacFarlane does for a living.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Changes

User:Dog Bark Man is a confirmed sock puppet of blocked user User:Atomic Meltdown

Yeah I have question. Winky said that their were some errors in my changes and I just thought I would get someones opinion on why there are errors in my edits. Dog Bark Man (talk) 03:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

First, you removed Television-series & film-maker as well as voice actor and added comedian. Why did you remove two occupations? Why did you add comedian? He's not a comedian. Next, you added tenure years to the lede of the article. Inappropriate placement. After that, you added content supported by an unreliable source (Box Office Mojo). Then, you removed a category and added a four categories. And all of this was done in one fell-swoop to an article that has Good Article status. These changes need to be discussed, and your reasoning behind them would be a good place to start. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

::Well I only removed removed television series creator. Gene Roddenberry, Lorne Michaels, Matt Groening, Vince Gilligan, and Mattew Reiner are television creators of hit shows yet that isn't in any of the their articles and others as well. Comedian, well he has done comedy in live events (Roast, Oscars, Breakthrough Prize, Award shows, and did stand-up in college). The years aren't misplaced, it's suppose to show the reader how long the show has been on the year and also the film's listed as years are listed there. Box Office Mojo is reliable, that's where every movie article gets its box office report. That's it. Dog Bark Man (talk) 03:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

"Other articles have it" isn't a valid argument (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). I disagree with your other points. Let's wait for others who have an interest in this article to weigh in. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Future Projects -- Bordertown

This is listed in future projects,

In late 2011, it was confirmed that Macfarlane is working on another animated series with Alex Borstein and Gary Janetti. Currently not much is known about the series other than it will be about a family and will have a female lead role. Janetti stated that the series has not yet been greenlit by Fox.[108][109]

Is this about the 2016 series Bordertown? Thanks. //nepaxt 16:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The occupations

User:Alpha Sunshine is a confirmed sock puppet of blocked user User:Atomic Meltdown

Why remove actor and voice actor. He's had a rich history of proving voices on all of his shows and Ted and has done live action acting. And a comedian, he's had a past of doing stand-up, he's done live comedy at the Roasts and the Oscars. 23:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha Sunshine (talk • contribs)

User:Tenebrae said that he's not an actor. Has he seen Family Guy or A Million Ways to Die in the West. Look at Seth MacFarlane filmography. You cannot tell me that I am wrong. I didn't notice animator was gone, he has a degree on animation, he's worked on Hanna-Barbera. And comedian, yes doesn't do stand-up comedy. But look at Jimmy Kimmel, he's not a stand-up comedian, he does comedy at live venues like his show, roasts and the Emmys. Alpha Sunshine (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I did not say he was not an actor. I said he's not primarily known as an actor. As for animator, he hasn't been at an animation board, physical or digital, in years.
I think you're misconstruing the point of infoboxes. They're for basic, non-contentious data. That two editors have both reverted you, based on the simple fact of what infoboxes are supposed to contain, should indicate that these are contentious additions. I'm glad we're discussing them. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Infoboxes are supposed to provide basic data. It provides people who are just browsing the article with a brief outline of who the person is and what they do. @Tenebrae: is right, MacFarlane is not primarily known as an actor etc, what he is primarily known as is the occupations already listed.--5 albert square (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Glad that we're finally discussing this. Let's begin shall we. Actor and voice actor is what he's known for, my God his characters man. He is primarly known as as an actor, that should just be left alone. Animator, he has a degree. Right the infobox is for someone's main occupations, which it is. Putting something like his political party is completely irrelevant because he's not a politician. Alpha Sunshine (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
It's still not what he's primarily known for regardless of how many characters he voices. He is primarily known for writing and producing programmes like Family Guy, American Dad etc. As for which political party he supports, I cannot find that mentioned in his infobox. I still think that you don't understand what an infobox is for, it is for listing the basic details about someone. We do not list every occupation.--5 albert square (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, he is. He's primarly known for voicing the characters. And as every person I can think of in this page does list every occuaptions into the infobox. Alpha Sunshine (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Seth MacFarlane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. //nepaxt 23:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Germany

Seth MacFarlane spent part of his high school years in Rheine, Germany. He has mentioned it several times in interviews with German news outlets. He also says that because of that time he counts Otto Waalkes among his influences. Süddeutsche Zeitung 30 May 2014 Berliner Zeitung 27 May 2014 Maybe someone can add that to the Early Life section. --178.11.190.148 (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Seth MacFarlane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. Sources checked. //nepaxt 18:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Advocate Citations

Could someone fix the errors with the Advocate citations? Thanks. //nepaxt 21:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks whoever fixed the errors. //nepaxt 18:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Seth MacFarlane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Seth MacFarlane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Seth MacFarlane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Seth MacFarlane. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2016

Add Connecticut Democrats to Categories 66.41.188.6 (talk) 05:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the purpose of such categories is to identify people by their mere political preference. Unless he's done more than give money, express his support, and vote Democratic – like holding some position in the party apparatus (such as precinct delegate) – I don't think adding that category is appropriate. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. clpo13(talk) 23:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Comedian?

May I ask why so many editors have an issue with my inclusion of adding comedian as a list of his occupations. As I listed in my edit, there was a source from MSNBC that called him a comedian; television producer confuses me why that's even listed since it fits in with filmmaker. So if many members of the media and press have called him a comedian and yet this community can't agree on this topic?Sally Book (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

What does he do as a "comedian"? He doesn't routinely stand up and tell jokes, or do funny monologues. Instead he makes television shows and movies, and takes acting roles; those are what he does. The next bit (which you deleted) goes on to explain that most of his work is comedic, and together these bits tell the reader what she needs to know. As for television vs. film... they're somewhat different media/industries, and the fact that he works in both is unusual enough to be notable. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

::I've seen him on television as himself telling some jokes: like the Oscars and the Comedy Central Roasts for Hassehoff, Donald Trump and Charlie Sheen. He even has a tweet were he wrote that he does stand-up: https://mobile.twitter.com/SethMacFarlane/status/723719884941615104 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sally Book (talk • contribs) 01:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It's still not something he routinely does though. What he routinely does do is act and make television shows and movies. The description of what he does is fine as it is as it still explains about his comedy work without cluttering up the infobox and making everything confusing for people not familiar with him.--5 albert square (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

::::I don't think adding comedian is going throw someone off guard and making readers confused. He's performed live throughout the country with symphonies where he's pretty much doing the same thing. And like I said, many members of the press and media have called him a comedian. Sally Book (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It adds nothing of value. MOS:BLPLEAD "avoid overloading the lead sentence with various sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable" We've been thru this enough. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Picture

Can someone put the original 2012 picture back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.230.38 (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2016

Can somebody change the picture back to its original 2012, the one on the page clearly isn't, it was brighter and had a black jacket. 107.77.230.38 (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Done Willondon (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Today's edit: BLP issue

We cannot make definitive, encyclopedic relationship statements based on anonymous, unidentified, shadowy "sources" making unconfirmed claims. Unconfirmed claims are by definition rumors. WP:NOTTABLOID and WP:BLP apply. Gossip magazines and tabloids frequently claim people are dating when they're simply seen together.

And incidentally, if two people are dating and it turns out not to be serious enough that it gets confirmed, I'm not sure that ever minor, short-term dating relationship is of encyclopedic importance.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

This article is on my watchlist, has been since March 2014 when I first edited it (I see you first edited the article late last year, so maybe you're not as familiar with the issues this article's editors have faced and dealt with for quite some time). This type of content has been a problem at the article for years. In this case, I don't think it's really a BLP issue. US Magazine is considered a reliable source and I'm certain the two individuals in question were dating. The real issue is that it's not encyclopedic content. They were dating but now, a few months later, they are not dating. If they had gotten married and divorced a few months later or had been dating for a year or more and there was noteworthy significance to their relationship (such as in the case of Amy Poehler where she wrote of former boyfriend Nick Kroll in her book), that would have been acceptable content-wise. But the dating-not dating switch is obviously something that should be included in an encyclopedia; it should - and can - be omitted for that reason alone. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I didn't realize you were editing this article. While I disagree that anonymous "sources" in Us, People, etc. can be the basis for encyclopedic content, I value peaceful relations, and given our history I will bow out and leave this to other editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Family Guy

Family Guy is the very poplular american sitcom on Fox (channel 803 on Comcast in California) created by Seth MacFarlane who voiced Brian,Stewie,Peter,Quagmire,Seamus,Tom Tucker,Carter Pewdershmidt,Dr.Heartman and various other charecters on the show such as Brian's gay cousin. Seth MacFarlane has been known for other things like American Dad and The Cleveland Show he also hosted the oscars in 2013.The charecter Lois's voice was taken from Seth's two animated shorts the Life of Larry and Larry and Steve which were both in the late 90's for a college project when he was still in Road Island. The charecter Quagmire's voice was inspired by 50's radio hosts. Enough facts for now this is a talk so go ahead and talk. TheWikiWriter45 (talk) 06:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

  • @TheWikiWriter45: ... And the point is? All this is already mentioned in the article, isn't it? (The talk page is not a chat board; it primarily serves for discussing the article itself and its potential improvement.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Seth MacFarlane. 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) 08:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Seth MacFarlane. 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) 16:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Seth MacFarlane. 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) 22:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Seth MacFarlane. 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) 19:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2017

Can you guys link the page In Full Swing in the discography section, there is a page created about the album already. 2600:387:8:9:0:0:0:93 (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 08:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2018

Can you guys add his signature to the infobox: 2600:387:8:7:0:0:0:61 (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Done AdA&D 23:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The Orville

He has written and is currently staring in this show and it is not in the page. Nataliealex (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2018

Also list 'director' to the list in the first sentence of the article. 2601:182:4202:1069:61DA:5ED4:346:7F08 (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: This has been discussed and no clear consensus was found on including this label in the lead. Spintendo      21:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Directing is part of being a "filmmaker", which is listed for that reason. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I see people making this mistake a lot on Wikipedia, especially when someone is a fan of the subject, which is often. They want to include everything their hero has done in the first sentence to show how great that person is. It's bad writing. It's not impartial. And it's not necessary. There's plenty of space to talk about what a person has done. You don't have to do it all in one sentence, in the first sentence, or even the first paragraph. There are also general terms that describe multiple tasks. Like filmmaker.
Vmavanti (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Seth's atheism

I was surprised atheism was not mentioned not even once even though Seth is a well known atheist. I think commenting on his religious views is worthy of being included in the article. Rayansb (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2019

I want to add that Seth MacFarlane is a comedian to his wikipedia page, for his movies are heavily based upon comedy and his roots are in stand up. Nkrachman210 (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.-- 5 albert square (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Political party in infobox

User:Colonestarrice seems to feel very strongly that the political party of an "actor, animator, filmmaker, comedian, and singer" is important to include in their infobox, on the grounds that "Celebrities political affiliation has never been more relevant" and "more information can never hurt". I disagree. The purpose of an infobox is not to document every piece of data we can fit into them, just because we have it. (This is one of the reasons WP removed "religion" and "ethnicity" from them altogether: people using them indiscriminately, often for tribal bragging rights.) MacFarlane's political activities are documented in the article, which is appropriate. But as someone who does not serve in any formal political capacity, his party doesn't belong in his infobox. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

"Celebrities political affiliation has never been more relevant" Why is that? What makes 2019 any different than previous years? Recentism? Dimadick (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Mistake in Personal Life Section

The Personal Life section states: "He drives a Tesla sports car, modeled after the DeLorean time machine from Back to the Future.[192]"

No such thing exists. Reviewing the cited source, it states that he owns a Tesla AND a replica of the DeLorean from Back to the Future

69.10.244.11 (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Since what cars he owns isn't really noteworthy information, I've simply removed it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Ted Lawsuit wording - dismissed

On July 16, 2014, MacFarlane was served with a lawsuit from the production company of a series of Internet videos called Charlie the Abusive Teddy Bear claiming that Ted infringes on the copyright of its videos due to the Ted bear largely matching the background story, persona, voice tone, attitude, and dialogue of the Charlie bear.[209] The suit was dropped on March 23, 2015, after the plaintiffs withdrew the suit.[210]

Change the wording of 2nd sentence to "The suit was dismissed with prejudice on March 23, 2015, after the plaintiffs conceded Ted was independently created and withdrew the suit." and add the guardian as a source for the 2nd sentence. [3] [4]

Quotes from the news articles:

In the stipulation for dismissal of the suit (which cannot be refiled), Bengal Mangle is said to now be “satisfied that, based on discovery produced in the action, the character Ted was independently created by Seth MacFarlane using his own efforts and creativity and was not copied from [the] Charlie character.”[5]

“The parties hereby stipulate and agree … that this action, and Plaintiff’s Complaint for Copyright Infringement, shall be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice, each side to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees,” reads a newly published court statement. Defendant Media Rights Capital (MRC) added: “The plaintiff has conceded that the Ted character was independently created by Seth MacFarlane using his own efforts and creativity.”[6]

24.217.247.41 (talk) 05:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done--SharabSalam (talk) 09:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit Request: Addition to relationship section

This article strangely makes no mention of Seth being briefly romantically linked to his Orville co-star Halston Sage in early through mid 2018. Although they never publicly confirmed a relationship, I believe that this at least warrants a mention since they were on the same show (she has since left production) and several sources spotted them spending time together in public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavgunner11 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Just being seen a lot with someone isn't noteworthy. If they never publicly confirmed a relationship, then it's just rumored, and Wikipedia only covers verifiable facts. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Or television, TMZ, Facebook, or Twitter. It's an encyclopedia. You know. Boring stuff. It's not about current events.
Vmavanti (talk)
Ok, I think this was sufficiently addressed, well, a year ago, but whatever floats your boat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavgunner11 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

The infobox occupation line lists the word 'occupation' in it's value field. This line 24.2.169.58 (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2020

Can you guys link his album Great Songs from Stage & Screen in the discography section?207.11.71.201 (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC) 207.11.71.201 (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

What is Seth MacFarlane famous for?

MOS:ROLEBIO reads as follows: "The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources. The noteworthy position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph. However, avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various and sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-noteworthy roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph." A footnote adds: "In general, a position, activity, or role should not be included in the lead paragraph if: a) the role is not otherwise discussed in the lead (per MOS:LEAD, don't tease the reader), b) the role is not significantly covered in the body of the article, or, c) the role is auxiliary to a main profession of the person (e.g. do not add "textbook writer", if the person is an academic)."

The opening paragraph is not intended to include their whole resumé. It's supposed to answer the question "Who is this person and what are they famous for?" Shorter is almost always better, unless you're describing Leonardo da Vinci, who did some of everything.

MacFarlane is not known for being an animator: he may have done some hands-on animation early in his career, but that work isn't what he's known for. He is not a comedian: he writes funny stories and he acts in funny shows/movies, but those are examples of writing and acting, not comedy as a performance art.

MacFarlane is an actor: his voice work and his screen work (two forms of acting) are probably what he is best known for. He's a writer: his scripts for those TV shows and movies go hand-in-hand with that. He's a producer/director (aka filmmaker, but that implies it's just movies, not TV): programs he's created where he's not hands-on writing and/or performing are also note-worthy. With pretty much everything he's famous for, he's played one, two, or three of those roles. He's also a singer: While I doubt he'd be famous for that if he wasn't already famous, it has gotten attention independent of his other work, so it's notable enough to be mentioned.

If someone sees the name "Seth MacFarlane" in an article, and clicks on it wondering who that is, there's a 99% chance that it was because of his work as an actor, a writer, a producer/director, or a singer. So I think that's how we should describe him in the opening sentence and infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonAQuest (talk • contribs) 16:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly. I'm going to change the lead and see if it sticks. LK (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Roles listed in lead sentence

I'd like to raise the question discussed in Talk:Seth_MacFarlane#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_23_January_2018, which discussed the roles that should be listed in the lead sentence. After the discussion closed on March 3rd 2018, the lead sentence read: "Seth MacFarlane ... is an American actor, producer, and singer, working primarily in animation and comedy, as well as live-action and other genres."

Currently, the lead sentence describes Seth MacFarlane as "an American actor, animator, writer, producer, director, comedian, and singer" which looks strange, to say the least.

I would like to start a discussion on what the lead sentence should look like. The relevant policy pages are:

  • MOS:LEADSENTENCE -- which states "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead."
  • MOS:ROLEBIO == which states "The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources. The noteworthy position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph. However, avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various and sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-noteworthy roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph."

LK (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Changing per suggestion above, made by User:JasonAQuest, which I didn't notice before. Please discuss here if you have a different idea on what the lead sentence should look like. LK (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I like to chime in here User:Lawrencekhoo. Upon looking at your edits, you removed significant portions of his occupations. He has produced all of his shows and movies, thus making that significant in addition to directing three feature films and a couple episodes of the Orville. Here are two sources as well that call him a comedian and animator, in which he went to college to study and get a degree so that’s worthy of inclusion.[1][2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElArcher44 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/392649-seth-mcfarlane-fox-news-makes-me-embarrassed-to-work-for-this
  2. ^ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/seth-macfarlane-cartoonist-246805
Remember the policy about what they lead sentence should look like. "The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources." To include a role in the lead, it's not enough to show that a person did a thing. One has to show that reliable sources today usually describe that person in such a way. LK (talk) 09:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Exactly, two of the sources I got describes those two sources. And again he’s produced all his projects and numerous coming along the way as well as three directed movies plus some episodes of the Orville. ElArcher44 (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
What do you think the lead sentence should state? LK (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, I do think the previous version was correct. He’s an actor, writer, and singer-that is is correct. But he’s also an animator, producer, director, and comedian. With sources calling him that and having done numerous jobs with those occupations, it is accurate to list these in the lead. We cannot just take one out when the whole article states he’s actually done them and well known for doing them.ElArcher44 (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that ElArcher44 is a sockpuppet of a blocked editor. Chronically trying to insert into the opening sentence a word salad of every thing his idol has ever done is one of his compulsions.
I've given my analysis/rebuttal above. The only thing missing from the opening as it reads now ("actor, writer, and singer") is his leadership role in putting these series and movies together: "producer" is the best single word for it. He directs a lot of these things too, but that's because he (as producer) knows what he (as writer) wants it to look like, so directing it himself is the best solution. But it's ancillary to those two roles; he is not known to other producers as someone to hire to direct their projects. -Jason A. Quest (talk)
Having reviewed the edit history of ElArcher44, I agree with your assessment, and have tagged ElArcher44's talk page. Following your suggestion, I have added producer to the lead sentence. LK (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Failed Verification in Hanna Barbera section

Don't have rights to edit this, but there is a failed verification in the first paragraph of the Hanna Barbera section discussing scriptwriting process, second to last sentence, ending Cow and Chicken did not lose". Nothing about this in the linked article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.71.12.150 (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2021

2607:FEA8:561F:FBBE:949D:6839:473F:A76E (talk) 05:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC) I want to change Seth`s Article!
 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. —Sirdog9002 (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Image RfC

(non-admin closure) Consensus was for Image #2 and early closure. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:57, 30 August 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.

Which photo of Seth MacFarlane for infobox?

Should the infobox contain Choice #1 (the current version), Choice #2, or Choice #3? -- ψλ ● ✉ 21:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Choices

#1
#2
#3
Infobox images to choose from

#1


#2

  • Support as my first choice Superior version of #1, which is much too dark. This version has been lightened to better show his eyes and give a truer depiction of his skin tone; cropped to remove some of the microphone. Better quality than what's currently in the infobox - even though the microphone remains somewhat distracting. -- ψλ ● ✉ 23:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Closer up than the current version and has better lighting. The current version is too dark and third alternative has a poor smile. Meatsgains (talk) 01:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as it's closer up & much brighter, #1 is too dark, #3 looks really odd ..... #2's better. –Davey2010Talk 11:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support This tighter crop makes sense and it's better quality/coloring/lighting than #1. #3 looks much too awkward. Kerdooskis (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT. Way better lighting than photo #1, which is too dark making hard to recognize his actual skin tone. It is also a closer shot, and doesn't have that akward, poor smile of #3. I don't find the microphone an actual problem- not in its position. --Kostas20142 (talk) 12:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support (Summoned by bot). I can close this tomorrow if desired. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
L3X1, it was actually decided yesterday to close this RfC as it's a WP:SNOW. If you have time, go ahead and do it now and then switch the image back to what it had been changed to yesterday by Meatsgains. In a shuffle of content placement by a sock, an admin inadvertently changed it back to the image no one wants. Thanks. -- ψλ ● ✉ 02:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, please close the RfC when you get a chance. I've restored the supported image back to the page. Meatsgains (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done L3X1 (distænt write) 02:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

#3

  • Support as my second choice Was the infobox photo for a couple of years until a few months ago. Taken on the same date at the same event as #2. Is superior visually because of no distracting items in the foreground, but not as sharp as #2. -- ψλ ● ✉ 23:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Comment - I know this RfC has only been open a couple of days but I don't foresee any opposition to closing this and adding option #2. Meatsgains (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, Meatsgains. Would you mind changing the infobox photo out, please? -- ψλ ● ✉ 16:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done Meatsgains (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Let's close this RfC out. Meatsgains (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the image switch. Feel free to close it. -- ψλ ● ✉ 16:21, 28 August 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2018

There is no clear consensus. Some feel the list is outdated, inaccurate, or under-reporting, while others feel listing too many items clutters or is otherwise inappropriate.

I'd personally suggest just reducing it to WP:BIO sub-categories where appropriate (e.g., "director, producer, and entertainer" or just "entertainer" and explaining in subsequent sentences). This would most likely embody the spirit of WP:LEAD (i.e., go with the most important, most notable thing(s)) and more importantly MOS:FIRST (i.e., not overloading the first sentence with everything they're notable for), but obviously this is just a drive-by suggestion.

--slakr\ talk / 15:46, 8 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.

Can you guys re-add his filmmaker credit. He’s done 3 movies and created 4 shows; he’s written, produced and directed them. 2600:387:8:7:0:0:0:9D (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
These sources list him as an actor, animator, writer, producer, director, and singer.[1][2][3][4][5]
Not done: The reviewer would like to request that the editor discuss the proposal with other editors engaged in the subject-area first. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 11:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment: The anonymous editor is evading numerous previous blocks, originally for edit-warring. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

A discussion should take place then, it is inaccurate to have just have actor and singer since that is clearly false. He does more than that.2600:387:8:7:0:0:0:9D (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Please feel free to start one. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 06:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on occupations

As I stated before, it is inaccurate to just list him as an actor and singer since this is clearly false. These sources ([6][7][8][9][10]) list him as an actor, animator, writer, producer, director, and singer. The current format is just wrong and I feel that when a reader comes to the article they’re getting false information. The reader should be fully aware of what the subject of the article is known for, and when multiple sources list him as those occupations yet here in Wikipedia doesn’t, just doesn’t sit right with me. This isn’t fake news, we should be putting stuff into articles that are 100% true and give what’s right to the reader. 2600:387:8:7:0:0:0:9D (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://deadline.com/2012/10/exclusive-seth-macfarlane-oscar-host-345899/
  2. ^ https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/authors/125027/seth-macfarlane
  3. ^ https://www.ora.tv/larrykingnow/guests/seth-macfarlane
  4. ^ http://variety.com/exec/seth-macfarlane/
  5. ^ https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/3119987.Seth_MacFarlane
  6. ^ https://deadline.com/2012/10/exclusive-seth-macfarlane-oscar-host-345899/
  7. ^ https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/authors/125027/seth-macfarlane
  8. ^ https://www.ora.tv/larrykingnow/guests/seth-macfarlane
  9. ^ http://variety.com/exec/seth-macfarlane/
  10. ^ https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/3119987.Seth_MacFarlane

Survey

  • Support I would not really call it a question of true or false. The paragraph mention him as all of those, it is more a question of style. How many should you mention in the first sentence? I think five titles is the maximum? Maybe you can skip the animator part. I don't think he does much of that himself today. Seth Woodbury MacFarlane (/məkˈfɑːrlɪn/; born October 26, 1973)[1] is an American actor, director, producer and singer working primarily in animation and comedy, as well as live-action and other genres--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment: Thank you for taking part of this, I really appreciate it. I think animator should be added because that’s how his career began and he listed it himself on the occupations about himself in the. Can I also suggest on removing the sentence, working primarily in animation and comedy, as well as live-action and other genres, it makes the lead way to long and too trivial. Seth Woodbury MacFarlane (/məkˈfɑːrlɪn/; born October 26, 1973)[1] is an American actor, animator, writer, producer, director, and singer. This format looks more ideal. 2600:387:8:5:0:0:0:A4 (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Glad that I could help! If you want you can also share your honest opinion on the Rfc I started.Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. You should also consider to create account. This makes your interest in Wikipedia look more official :)
I don't know much about Seth except that he is the creator of family guy, so I don't really have an opinion on what is best in this situation. I think it should be stated what he is mostly famous for however. You can compare this with Isaac Newton "Sir Isaac Newton PRS (/ˈnjuːtən/;[6] 25 December 1642 – 20 March 1726/27[1]) was an English mathematician, astronomer, theologian, author and physicist (described in his own day as a "natural philosopher") who is widely recognised as one of the most influential scientists of all time and a key figure in the scientific revolution." But if you look at Trey Parker, Matt Stone and Matt Groening the just state the titles in the first section. I guess both are fine, but I would prefer also mentioning what he is famous for, but I leave that for someone else to decide.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose His occupations have been discussed several times before on the talk page and the current list is what was agreed on by consensus. Consensus was, basically, that we can't list everything in the lead or the infobox and so content in the article body would have to suffice. The pieces of his career reflecting what he's most known for are what we have now, and I believe it should stay that way. As long as it's all addressed in the article body, then a few highlights are sufficient as a snapshot in the lead. We should stick with the previous consensus as it makes sense and follows WP:MOS. All that said, I think that the IP is likely yet another sock of Atomic Meltdown, so... back to SPI we go (and this discussion will be summarily closed as one result of the SPI). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment Why would anyone try to register a new account for such a trivial question? You seem to have a poor attitude towards new users. Anyway, the similar articles Trey Parker, Matt Stone and Matt Groening all list 5 or more titles, so there is nothing that says it can't be done. Also he is more known as a director and producer than an actor and singer.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
You suggested above the IP register with an account and now you are making excuses as to why the IP wouldn't want to register with an account? Interesting. Alas, an SPI has already been filed and doing so has nothing to do with "new users", just lots of experience with Atomic Meltdown socks and the tactics of his socks.
Regardless of what "the similar articles" state, there's always WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which gives a good picture why that's not really a good argument for inclusion. My comments above stand. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I meant the IP-adress as a new account. There is no clear answer to what is right and wrong here. In your mind 2 titles are enough others use seven, there is no policy here it seems. I don't think anyone has such a strong opinion about the formalities that he would try to sock puppet to change the article. He strikes me as an inexperienced new user and I think you earn him an apology if the results of the SPI comes back negative. Most likely he just notice his first mistake on Wikipedia. Look at his inexperienced way of using Rfc and how he formulated the issue.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
He is not a new editor. I recognize him easily as a chronic block evader, one obsessed with the subject of this article. He's handling this discussion poorly because in all the time he's spent trying to impose his edits on WP, he has always resorted to edit-warring rather than constructive discussion with other editors; it's what got him blocked in the first place. I'm impressed that he's making an attempt at it here, but unfortunately he apparently can't keep his hands off WP long enough to qualify for amnesty for his misconduct. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Immunmotbluescreen has been indef blocked, so this "survey" can most likely be closed. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General ‖ 07:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Winkelvi - He's more known as an actor and singer - We don't need to include minor and trivial details in the lede. –Davey2010Talk 23:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:THINGHEDIDONCE. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment: The occupations listed are something he’s done more than once. He’s directed 3 movies, written and produced his shows and movies, and his college major was on animation and worked on 5 shows as animator. 2600:387:8:5:0:0:0:A4 (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Relevant and most notable professions already in lede. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Welfare State ‖ 02:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the proposal in the original RfC question, but I do Support what is currently in the lead sentence...is an American actor, producer, and singer, working primarily in animation and comedy, as well as live-action and other genres. - This is what he is primarily known for per WP:RS. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Am I missing something?, he is listed as 'writer' on eight of The Orville's first season episodes and has written for his other shows. Why is "writer" or "screenwriter" not appropriate here? Randy Kryn (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Some support - I don't think every role should be in the lead. I would keep "...actor, producer, and singer...", although I would add "writer". For me, producer covers animator - so I don't think that needs to be explicitly included in the opening sentence. -- Whats new?(talk) 04:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Eeeeehhhh. (Summoned by bot) "Filmmaker" doesn't really mean anything in particular. I would support adding "writer" if the consensus was there, but this has come up before: It's a lot harder to justify repainting the bikeshed purple when we already picked out blue. -- Thanks, Alfie. talk to me | contribs 04:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Some support I agree with Whatsnew?'s summary. I don't think it's necessary to have every single in there, but the 4 mentioned above would definitely suffice. Comatmebro (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support for at least one more profession (in addition to producer) reflecting his role as an auteur of television media. Clearly, with regard to both RS and common sense, the man is best known as the major creative force behind various animated series (and to a lesser extent and more recently, some marginally successful live action movies and television programs). I'm not sure what exactly is the ideal combination/relative emphasis that should be placed on his various roles, but unless I have stumbled into a parallel reality recently, I'm confident that WP:WEIGHT requires a reworking here to account for the ultimate sources of his notability. If nothing else, I'd recommend a re-read of WP:LEAD to any editor who thinks it makes sense to include reference to the fact that he is the highest paid television writer anywhere in the world (and presumably therefore also the history of the medium) and yet still does not think it is necessary to mention writing as one of his professions in the opening sentence, nor indeed anywhere in the lead. Somebody is going to have to explain that one to me. Snow let's rap 07:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support I think Snow (see above^) has an extremely solid point. So long as it can be verified. I cant see how him being a writer and voice actor isnt listed in the lead, when it was his voice acting and writing contributions to Family Guy that has been a constant throughout his career. He is the voice actor for 3 main characters in a TV show that had a peak viewership of 22mil viewers for which he won an Emmy for outstanding voice-over performance. he is also the only voice to appear in all 300 episodes. While he is a singer, its not something that "stands-alone" in his career. Also see Seth Green. He has several professions attributed to him and has had a very similar career if somewhat less popular. Just my 0.02c Fusion2186 (talk) 20:51, 17 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seth_MacFarlane/Archive_4&oldid=1099335423"