Talk:Brian in Love

Notes saying Stewie is understood
I don't really think this is something worth a mention. If it's good for a gag or the plot, stewie is either understood or not. This is not the only episode where stewie's spoken word is understood.


 * I laughed the first time I saw those gags. But as I reflected upon the episode later, this question of Stewie being understood stuck out. I doubt I'm the only fan who had a similar thought process in his appreciation of this episode. Cromulent Kwyjibo 20:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Questions about the Cultural References segment
Can anyone verify that characters from shows that didn't premiere until 2004 (Foster's) or 2005 (Camp Lazlo) are referenced in this episode? It seems highly unlikely. 67.191.181.150


 * I'm going to have to take a look at this episode again. I agree with you, this episode was first aired in 2000, but Foster's and Camp Lazlo didn't come on until 2004 and 2005 respectively. Looks like the editing of a major Cartoon Network fan. --S-man 18:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I just read this and it's absurd to think that characters from Camp Lazlo and Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends would be in this episode, being that this episode preimered at least 4 years before production of those shows. Upon reading it, I checked back on my DVDs and the characters shown are all puppets from Mister Roger's. The characters said to be Lumpus and Jane Doe are the King and queen, and the character said to be Coco is the blue owl. I don't remember exact names, being that it's been years since I've seen the show. But I'm very bewildered that someone made such an error. Very curious. xinline88

I have watched this ep. On dvd and the before statement about the characters is false they are not on there, inless, at sometime they edited that part after some time or something.ZeroGn28

I added back the bare Mr. Rogers reference. The Camp Lazlo stuff is just vandalism. Alanhwiki 05:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

References to Brian being in love with Lois
In Peter, Peter, Caviar Eater, Brian says something about "so you're single then?" Does this count as a reference to him being in love with her or not? Munci (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FGBrianinLove.png
Image:FGBrianinLove.png 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice Plot Summary!
A lot of the Family Guy Plot Summaries are ridiculously long, and embarassing to read -- I feel like I'm reading a fanzine published by a 13-year-old fanatic, as these "summaries" tell the whole episode in narrative format. This one, IMO, is perfect. Well done! --63.25.242.59 (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

My last edit wasn't random.


I mean look at some good articles like Peter's Two Dads and Hell Comes to Quahog, you can't see that table hanging around on the bottom or that NOTC can you? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I know my previous edit summary wasn't clear, but I hope I've made myself clear here. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize; your last edit was not random. I now see that  and the episode navboxes have both been discussed at WT:FG. Spacepotato (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no need to apologize, believe me even the smartest persons on Wikipedia can revert without thinking. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It was my pleasure to make it clear to you. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 10:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)