Talk:Family Guy/Archive 5

"panned" un/correct
I do not believe this here to be correct ('panned') possibly could have meant to be 'Banned'..

"Family Guy has been panned by certain television critics, most notably from Entertainment Weekly
 * Criticism

(BeeTz)TuneNZ 09:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This usage of panned means "to criticize severely". It's a vernacular term in discussions of media critics, but perhaps we should use a less ambiguous, more formal term. / edg ☺ ★ 10:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes the word is very ambiguous and probably not a word in most people's common dictionary. (BeeTz)TuneNZ 09:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The word is not ambiguous at all. It's a common word in the english language.  Either it's not your first language, which is cool, or you do not have a good english vocabulary, which is slightly less-good.  Either way, don't comment about that which you don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.202.12 (talk) 02:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Animation studio
It seems that from watching later episodes, the animation is similar to that of latter episodes of The Simpsons and Futurama, with a "3D effect" applied. As I remember, the first couple of seasons did not employ this type of animation. Was there a change of studios or animation type?  Zchris87v  05:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Educated guesses here: the difference is probably that they have a bigger budget now. Futurama commentaries often mention how expensive 3D scenes were to make, and how they tried to re-use 3D models in later episodes. Blue Harvest (Family Guy) was filled with the stuff, and practically none of it will be useful in subsequent regular episodes.
 * I don't know the details, but 3D is a different process than 2D, so non-3D work could still be done in their old studio. / edg ☺ ★ 06:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Merchandise
I think that this article needs a section on the merchandise of the series. Browsing various online stores, I have seen Family Guy books, t-shirts, action figures, steins, keychains and calendars. The Family Guy Video Game! could also be mentioned and more needs to be written on Family Guy: Live in Vegas. Count de Ville 03:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Seth Macfarlane's choices?
A question posted here has been moved to the Family Guy reference desk. A response will be posted there shortly.

Family Guy Live
This may have been addressed already or it may be in another article, if it is, please disregard this post!

Looking through the multitude of Family Guy articles, I have yet to see mention of the Family Guy Live stage shows. They have held three so far (to my understanding) in Toronto, Las Vegas, and Chicago. Is this mentioned somewhere or does it need to be mentioned? I would be happy to begin the article if it has not been done yet. Let me know what you think! Josborne2382 20:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay I found a blurb about it in the History of Family Guy article. Thanks!  Josborne2382 21:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Next time use WikiProject Family Guy, since this discussion page is a page for this article. TheBlazikenMaster 22:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Family Guy music source
Here is a source from The New York Times about the music behind the show if anybody wants to incorporate it into the article.
 * A Satirical Sit-Com’s Memorable Music --Nehrams2020 04:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Great work. You should use this page to find the proper tag and fill it in . Keep it up. TheBlazikenMaster 16:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Videos
Jackpot. Miranda 12:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not advertising. This is a celebration of 100 episodes as presented by Seth MacFarlane. Whoever reverted this needs to assume good faith, big time. Miranda 22:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to explain how this can help the article. TheBlazikenMaster 22:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm...let's see..since the 100th episode was a milestone + Seth MacFarlane presenting the videos = to show readers how big the 100th episode actually is? Miranda 22:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) I will just add this to the Seth MacFarlane episode, because this behavior is on borderline own. Miranda 22:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you're entirely mistaken. I'm not acting like I own Wikipedia at all. I just couldn't tell you were trying to discussing since all you did was adding "jackpot" and a link, so I mistook it for advertising. Next time be a little more specific then you want to start a discussion. TheBlazikenMaster 22:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But now that you have explained I understand what you were trying to discuss, thanks for that. TheBlazikenMaster 22:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, next time assume good faith, and don't revert others comments when they are trying to help increase the content of the article. Miranda 22:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you please stop thinking I was vandalizing? Again, all you posted was "jackpot", there was no way I could have known you were trying to discuss something. One-word messages and a link can be easily mistaken for advertisement, believe me. You're taking my revert way too seriously. It was a simple mistake. TheBlazikenMaster 14:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that you were vandalising. I said that you were not assuming good faith and owning. Move on. Thanks. Miranda 06:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you wanna discuss this, then for good sakes discuss it. No I wasn't assuming I was owning anything, look at this. All this says is "jackpot" and a link. This can be easily be mistaken for advertisement, are you paying attention? I'm trying to give you advice, and believe it or not, advices ARE a good faith. Next time be more specific, I couldn't tell you were trying to discuss something, because jackpot doesn't explain anything. Please at least try to take my advice, and look at my edits. I do assume good faith most of the times. This was a simple mistake. You're yet again making too much deal out of it. Please learn from your mistakes, and next time START the discussion with saying something like "Click here, here is something that might help the article.", and stop pointing me to the policy assume good faith. Instead try to learn from your mistakes, common, we all make them. If I didn't revert you, I'm pretty sure someone else might, believe me. Jackpot doesn't explain anything. Well, not much. Please try to understand, all I'm doing is trying to help you so this won't happen again. TheBlazikenMaster 10:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, lets calm down — this kind of bickering over having a Youtube link in any article is silly, we could sit here all day arguing, but that will not get us anywhere. I shall remain a completely neutral party in this, even though I contribute regularly to Family Guy article. I suggest that if the parties involved cannot resolve this on the talk page, that you request informal mediaton, to which I would be happy to assist with. But please, lets try to work together all of us, as well all want the best for Family Guy articles :) Qst (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, this issue is over with for me. I don't need any "mediation". I have added the link to the Seth MacFarlane page. Just to clarify any misconceptions. And, I really don't need a medcab request for something silly as this.Miranda 00:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It was just a suggestion. Qst (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * JSYN, the link is down. The account was suspended. 24.255.157.153 (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

.....
 Stewie's accent is "upper-class British English" discussion moved to Talk:Stewie Griffin

Family Guy's Last Episode
Is tomorrow due to the strike, according to this? Miranda</b> 06:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Strike and the future of Family Guy/American Dad
Someone needs to add information on how Fox went on to add voices and produce Family Guy episodes, even though MacFarlane went on strike and without his concent. <b style="color:green; font-family:georgia;">Miranda</b> 02:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The voices are recorded beforehand… even MONTHS before. All they need are the animators

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 04:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been added great work. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary about it being "good work". The past two episodes, Padre De Familia and Peter's Daughter, are severely lacking in both comedy and richness of the past episodes. Its a shame that Fox went on to produce these episodes. The show is nothing without Seth. I would have rather seen re-runs than these crappy thrown together versions. It doesn't make me any less of a fan of the show, just less a fan of FOX for doing something behind his back. This BS strike needs to get over with so we can all get on and enjoy our new shows. Milonica 09:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, Fox is showing Seth the same respect that Seth is showing towards pretty much every other comedy show that he has constantly ripped-off. The fact that Seth called Fox "dicks" in an actual televised interview shows how he is obviously too immature to be airing programmes himself. Seriously, I don't mean to give away personal details, but I am not even a proper adult yet and I am embarrassed that such an immature adult produces such immature animation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.154.115 (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Immature compared to what? South Park? Robot Chicken? Drawn Together?

I won't go into the accusations of unoriginality; all art is derivive and Family Guy has clearly carved out its own niche and style of humour. However, Seth created the damn show. He's got every right to be pissed off at FOX for not paying him enough for working on it, and for screwing around with his show without his consent. They're acting like dicks and there's nothing immature about calling them dicks.

Here's to hoping this issue is settled as quickly as possible.

70.50.178.225 (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

seeking information
is anything known about what peter does for a living? ThMadGooglr (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

He used to work in a toy factory. Then he was a fisherman. Now he works at a brewery.

70.50.178.225 (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Autumn 2007
When is Autumn? Autumn occurs at different times in the two different hemispheres. Whoever wrote "Autumn 2007" should immediately change it to a month to avoid the excessive ambiguity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huey45 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, if we look at the page for Blue Harvest we will see what month. Just a piece of advice. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

doorzon family
apart from four of the characters being obvious rip-offs of the simpsons, the talking and walking dog and baby, of which the dog is the only intellectual of the family, and the baby is more shrewd then any of the other characters, is exactly similar to the talking wand walking dog and baby in the dutch comic series "De familie Doorzon" by Gerrit de Jager. the only difference is in the comic they manage to keep it a secret from everyone else. no one seems to know this, can't find anything on the internet relating the two, but the relation is blatantly obvious· Lygophile   has   spoken  22:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, Family Guy is NOT a ripoff of the Simpsons. I'm sick of repeating that again and again. And no, it's not obvious unless you prove it. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * seriously? the fat, stupid, loud and hyperactive dad that obliviantly gets himself into all kinds of situations and spends far too much time in the local bar with his three drinking friends neglecting his family, the composed mother that doesn't reveal to be much disturbed by it but just wants him to give some more attention to her and plays the silent rational person behind it all without actively interfering in any of the shit going on around her, the dense and trouble-making sun (allthough one is very lazy and the other very defiant), the social outcast adn much under-appreciated daughter, thats all just coincidental relations?
 * heck, the simpsons even mocked it· Lygophile   has   spoken  21:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't the right place to argue about whether or not it's a ripoff, maybe it has a lot of simulations, but that doesn't make it a ripoff. Animators get ideas from other media all the time. I really can't see how this discussion can help the article. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * allright. but the point is, the talking dog and talking baby, with exactly similar character traits as that in doorzon seem very curious, and i think that really needs to be added somewhere in the article. the problem is i can't find any information about it. maybe they were both inspired by something much older or...i don't know. maybe someone knows more though...allthough i doubt that.but the comparrison certainly merrits a mention...i just don't know how· Lygophile   has   spoken  21:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing unusual about a talking baby, the unusual part is the intelligence. Anyway, might I suggest those articles? Brian Griffin, Stewie Griffin. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2007 (

Linguini
Why don't we mention him here? He is the one who is the gay guy on the show, if you don't really know about him.
 * Linguini...I don't know that characters. Do you mean the slow talking community worker? —<font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">Qst 19:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

YES HIM! So can we please mention him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.81.102 (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The only homosexual doesn't make him notable. You could check the list of Family Guy characters. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, he is mentioned in some individual episode article, I just cannot seem to find the link(s). —<font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">Qst 19:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, Mr Weed was gay and Brian's cousin who lives in LA is gay. Linguini is not the only gay guy on the show! --148.197.115.149 (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Subway
Family Guy is mentioned in Subway advertisments, as seen here. Someone add this please, as a influence in popular culture. <b style="color:green; font-family:georgia;">Miranda</b> 05:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Any definition of culture that includes Subway commercials comes from a bleak world I don't wish to inhabit. More useful would be real-world information about how this endorsement/branding/licensing/whatever deal was made, and if there was anything unusual or significant about it. Advertisements are not themselves very notable &mdash; anything popular will be considered for such exploitation, and obviously Family Guy is popular. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Family Guy Wikia
Am I the only one that is seeing a huge conflict of interest in all the Wikipedia "Family Guy episode articles" having links to the for-profit wikia.com site? JayKeaton (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The Wikia site is a reliable and valid link for articles, it is linked using the FGwiki link — I do not believe there is a problem here, but please comment further if you feel it would be necessary. Regards, <font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">Qst 13:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The reliability and validity is not really the problem. The problem is that the same people who own the not for profit wikipedia also own the for-profit wikia, so it seems highly questionable for a series of wikipedia articles to link to to wikia pages which are designed for ad views and clicks. JayKeaton 02:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm one of the editors who links Family Guy Wikia from FG articles. I don't see a dollar from it, and raising $ for Jimbo isn't one of my concerns. FGwiki is not contrained by the "encyclopedic" standards Wikipedia expects. If at some point FG-related articles are deleted or radically altered for notability/MOS/whatever, the data that cannot stay here would probably find a home on FGwiki, which is a suitable site for original research, news, non-notable and trivial information, ruminations about anthropomorphic dogs, and so forth.
 * For what it's worth, Star Trek articles do something similar with Memory Alpha. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Any article linking to Wikia is not a good idea at all. There is something seriously troubling about the whole thing, it's just one small step away from actually putting advertisements on Wikipedia itself as the profits from Wikia go to Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley (who is on the advisory board). And I personally see the links to Wikia as advertisements. And there IS a conflict of interest here, Jimmy Wales makes a little bit more money every time someone clicks on those Wikia links as it instantly goes to a page with ads. Are there any rules or guidelines already in place in regards to Wikia? Surely there must be as it is kind of a big deal. JayKeaton 04:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Editors linking their own sites is WP:COI; editors linking other Wikimedia sites are not, unless Wikimedia's owners encourage it more than a little. If your concern is about any article on Wikipedia linking to Wikia, you might want to take this concern to the Village Pump. Money concerns are too high level a discussion for this Talk page &mdash; we're just here to edit the article. / edg ☺ ☭ 09:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * How is this different from any other EL that links to a page with an ad? -- Ned Scott 06:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Question Re: Trivia Section warnings
Every episode page has a trivia section, and every trivia section has a warning that Trivia sections are discouraged under wikipedia guidelines. While normally I agree with this, the whole point of family guy is its random cultural references and irrelevant segues. So can we somehow get a ruling or blanket exception so that the episode pages aren't all marked for having trivia sections?

Wellspring (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Trivia sections are a temporary expedient for articles still being built (i.e. Start class). Per Avoid trivia sections, Trivia sections (and loosely-sorted bullet lists by any other name) should eventually be converted to meaningful prose. A FG article will not reach GA status with a Trivia section, and Cultural references sections (if kept) should be turned into meaningful prose. However, some editors find this hard to do, so we have Trivia sections as a stopgap. GA-listed listed Family Guy articles include:
 * Blind Ambition (Family Guy) (starting with this revision )
 * Mother Tucker (starting with this revision )
 * These good examples of what FG episode articles should aspire to become. (WikiProject Family Guy is interested in hearing from editors who want to bring Family Guy articles to encyclopedic quality.) / edg ☺ ☭ 17:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstood what Wellspring was saying here. He is saying that Family Guy is in essence just cultural references, that these cultural trivia make up most of what Family Guy is about. So the lists shouldn't be tagged as discouraged from the episode articles. JayKeaton (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Such lists are not encyclopedic. I understand that they are practical, but for some readers it would be practical to explain every joke made in another comedy, or to have minutely detailed plot summaries. These don't belong on an encyclopedia. Family Guy did not invent references. For example, the Gravity's Rainbow article does not explain all the references in that book. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Trvia sections are, as mentioned above, normally for start class articles. In more professional articles (for example, GA or B-class), they are referenced using DVD commentary or another reliable source, and moved from the bulleted list into a paragraph, giving it organisation. <font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">Qst 13:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I just wanna say this talk page isn't the best place to discuss this. WT:FG would fit more. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

PTV
Did anybody see the PTV episode? If so, please reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.95.190 (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw it, what do you need? <font style="font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 105%">Qst 10:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Templates for deletion - Template:Religion in Family Guy

 * Template:Religion in Family Guy is in a deletion discussion. Please see Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 29.  Thanks.  Cirt (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC).

Spelling error
This may seem slighty anal but on the Family guy page in the overview box on the left side Guy is spelled Guyo. since its semi protected an established user would need to cahnge it thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertwdodson (talk • contribs)
 * It was a simple vandalism, it has been reverted. TheBlazikenMaster 19:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection...again?
Is it possible that we could reinstate protection on this article. It seems to be getting a lot of pointless vandalism lately, and I'd hate to see someone without an account really mess it up. This is just a suggestion, but if it were up to me, I'd protect it.Milonica (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You can ask at WP:RFPP; however, the amount of vandalism this article has been getting recently does not justify protection. Many editors watch this page and damage gets reverted quickly. If today's level of vandalism persists more than a couple days, maybe then we could put in a request for Semi-protection.


 * Keep in mind, Family Guy articles attract a lot of novice (and dare I say, young) editors. Many of today's nuisance edits seem more like editing tests than outright vandalism. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the edits being more of a nuisance. I will continue to monitor the main article for any fishy edits. Thanks again guys. Milonica (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an update, I'm getting sick of the amount of vandalism that's happening to this article. I would like to request this article for semi-protection. If anyone has any objections to this, please let me know. Milonica (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. I have put in this request at WP:RFPP. Semi protection has been granted for a week. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't rip on young editors by the way. The most active users and a lot of admins are in fact very very young, so rather than knock young editors down you could instead encourage them. JayKeaton (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Who's knocking? Some of the best editors on this very article are in their teens. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Unannounced feature film announcements
This article has repeatedly announced an upcoming Family Guy feature film which has actually not been announced, and by all the evidence may be simple daydreaming. Sections entitled Feature film or Possible film series based on MacFarlane's loose comments to interviewers are misleading to readers. I understand that several editors here are breathlessly anticipating any new Family Guy anything, but speculation on things not actually greenlighted, in production, or even in concrete planning, should not be made here.

Also, please consider that MacFarlane's interview comments are often facetious, and should not by themselves be taken literally. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Bloated character section
I have already removed some non-essential information from the recurring characters section, but it seems to me that the whole character section is full of stuff that really belongs only in the List of characters from Family Guy article. Each character should really only have one sentence describing them, containing only their most well-known characteristics. The whole paragraph practically dedicated to describing Brian demonstrates this point. I'm going to cut what I think are extraneous details from the paragraph, feel free to add some back in if you think I am wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpesoj00 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is frequently appended by drive-by editors. Pruning is much needed. Thanks. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Censored / Uncensored
"DVD releases also contain the uncensored material."

Shouldn't this be "DVD released also contain the CENSORED material"? After all, if they only contained the uncensored material, then they would be the same as the originally aired episodes. 78.86.33.152 (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Censored means that something is filtered or cut out. Uncensored means that it has the cut and filtered out part, for example, fuck is always censored on television, but an uncensored DVD of the show has the word fuck uncensored. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So you agree with me. In the quote "DVD releases also contain the uncensored material" it is the material that is uncensored, not the DVD. According to your own definition the quote should read "The uncensored DVD releases contain the previously censored material." At the very least, that we are even having this discussion means that the quote is arguably ambiguous, and would profit from clarification. 78.86.33.152 (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a clarification of that sentence could be: "DVD releases also contain material previosuly censored in the original airing" or something to that effect? Londonsista (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ernie (Family Guy)
Ernie (Family Guy) is up for deletion, please share your opinion. Odessaukrain (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

New Title Sequence Addition Request
In addition to the episodes already mentioned in the list of episodes with different title sequences, 'Brian Does Hollywood' also has a different title sequence, which is fronted by a parody of a hit American drama related to CSI or something similar, however I am unsure which this is. Also, the first two episodes of the fourth season - 'North by North Quahog' and 'Fast Times at Buddy Cianci, Jr. High' - contain different title scenes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jas3960 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Adult animation
Despite what it says in the broadly inclusive, unsourced essay article Adult animation, I'm pretty sure "adult animation" cannot be shown on american network television. Is this verbiage really necessary in the lede section? Much animation intended for young audiences (cf. Shrek 2) includes references understood mostly by adults (assuming that is the argument for using the term in this article), and The Flintstones were shown in prime time (anticipating another such argument).

If for no other reason, this term should be excluded as highly POV. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Depending on your definition of "adult animation" (ie: targeted to adults or straight out porn), there is plenty of "adult animation" on network TV in America. Family Guy, The Simpsons, American Dad are perfect examples; the shows are probably inappropriate for children and are obviously targeted towards adults.  Other good examples include almost the entire programming schedule of adult swim, though it's on basic cable.  I think the term is meant to indicate a show that is targeted specifically at adults as opposed to being targeted to kids, but with something thrown in for the adults to appreciate (ie: Shrek); ie: there is zero material for kids in "adult animation".Dp76764 (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Family Guy is targeted to a broad audience that includes adults and kids. And again, if it's "depending on your definition of adult animation", this term is too POV for the lede section. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think they target kids particularly (at least not young/pre-teen kids; it's rated TV-14). Maybe there's a reference somewhere that discusses their target audience that could help distinguish it for the article? I'm no expert on POV, so if it's too much so, so be it.  It'd be nice to keep a mention of people considering it adult animation though, perhaps further into the article?Dp76764 (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The episode "Road to Rhode Island" is considered family friendly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.81.102 (talk)


 * Ok, that's 1 out of 105 episodes considered 'family friendly' (considered by whom, btw). Do some searching around on the 'family friendly' tv review sites; most of them don't think very highly of FG. Dp76764 (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in whether FG is "family friendly". (We won't determine that here anyway.) I guess my main concern is that the term adult animation in the lede section (probably anywhere) is vague and POV. It should be removed for these reasons. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems like this could be cleared up if someone cleans up adult animation and does some sourcing for it. I think it's valuable to have a distinction between this type of show and your average kid-orientated animation (ie: SpongeBob, etc.). It's tough to say what is or isn't 'adult', but the TV-Rating of the show is certainly a good indicator. FG being TV-14 means it's obviously not appropriate for children. Dp76764 (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, after looking at some other articles, I agree with you that adult animation shouldn't be used in the lead paragraph; in favor of: animated television series. It'd still be nice to have a mention in the article about the show's 'adult' nature though. Dp76764 (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm gonna call this a WP:CONSENSUS and change it to animated television series. If we can find a way to say not SpongeBob but not Fritz the Cat either kind of The Simpsons but more offensive, we can add it to the article body.
 * Now we wait for the revert war to begin. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehe, no doubt. I wonder why the TV Rating isn't part of the infobox on show articles; that'd be informative I think. Maybe it's due to different standards in different countries. Oh well. Dp76764 (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This article includes an Infobox TV ratings in the Episodes section. The documentation for that template dwells so much on the problems with listing ratings that it almost recommends against its own use. Not just different standards, but ratings often change with different broadcasts even on a same network. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's compare Family Guy to most other animation. If you look closely Family Guy has some stuff in it that most other animation don't. For example, bleeding, cussing(on most other animations hell is replaced by heck and damn is replaced by darn, crap by crud, but it's not in this animation) sexual references(most other animation has VERY mild or no sexual references at all), I can go on forever. My point is Family Guy has a lot of stuff that msot other animation doesn't. So I don't think it's appropiate for children. Especially not volume 5 DVD Box Set, since fuck is used in almost every episode on that box set. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Abusive comment deleted per WP:CIVIL and WP:TPG. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, watch your language and refrain from making attacks on other users. Second, Family Guy is hardly a "kids" show. Fox always has a viewer discretion warning at the beginning of the show, and the rating, correct me if I'm wrong, is TV-M. Milonica (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, FFS. WTF does it really matter for? It's not like people are all gonna see it as "Wikipedia strongly discourages children watching Family Guy." Most likely, they won't even notice. This debate is totally unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2L84UBB (talk • contribs) 06:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I for one am sick of this banter back and forth as well. I also don't appreciate the IP address who keeps trolling this article and replacing my comments etc. Can someone request a lock on this article, at least temporarily? That would possibly end this BS argument. Milonica (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have an idea to kind of stall this argument, or maybe even get rid of the troll that keeps adding nonsense. Can we just delete this entire section (Adult Animation). I realize its a talk page where people can discuss things relating to the article but this back and forth reverting of the IP troll has got to stop. On here as well as my talk page, I suggested a possible IP block of the 70.81.**.** range, where this problem seems to be coming from. If the person wants to question it, let him sign up for an account and post that way. Milonica (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

DVD's Too?
On Youtube, i saw this short family guy vidio. It was uncensoered, so they said f***. If they did that on Youtube, did they do that on the dvd's also? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.129.75 (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of the DVDs contain uncensored material, particularly from the third season onwards. The DVD for Stewie Griffin, the Untold Story, had both uncensored and censored version of the audio. Chances are, the video you saw online was ripped from the DVD version.Milonica (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Pilot Episodes
Why is there no mention of the pilot episodes. The 1st was for Fox http://youtube.com/watch?v=QcQu0Dh_imk the second was for Cartoon Network in case Fox didn't pick it up http://youtube.com/watch?v=021PPpmwX98. The third was in the Cartoon Network style but more adult oriented http://youtube.com/watch?v=OeceEtPKOG0. Most likely for Comedy Central. Seth talking about the pilots: http://youtube.com/watch?v=qdJ3GEu7VQU&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.61.34 (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion
Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --User: (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ThuranX summarizes this repetitive, vitriolic discussion here . / edg ☺ ☭ 11:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reworded updated the introduction with a better more still neutral summary as well. However, instead of attacking the discussion, contribute so that this issue can be resolved. --User: (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, you have announced widely in TV-related articles on an issue that pits editors of TV articles against the rest of the community. I've commented several times on that Discussion page and the discussion just gets rebooted again and again, with the same editors making the same discredited attacks and never budging. Hearing that you have since needed to reword your thesis to be more "neutral" is not encouraging.
 * Announcements to "everyone, pro or anti" should be simply posted to Village Pump. If a larger audience is needed, then have it put on the Watchlist banner. Posting here does not help edit this article, appears to be WP:CANVASSING, and serves only to drag out this dead horse for another beating. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your tone is condescending and your accusations are wrong. I did not reword my intro, I simply added to the summary and it did not become more neural, it was already neutral. The purpose of notifying this page is it was very cumbersome notifying individual editors of the issue on both sides of the isle. So, I learned to notify the mass with pages like this. Your tone and attitude makes it a circular conversation. If you could contribute positively, then things could progress. We have several discussion going on and since this issue affects all of wikipedia, I tried to create a central location to work though this issue rather than umpteen different small conversations. Please state correct facts and not opinions. Cheers! --User: (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I did not like your tone, I am one to apologize when I see wrong. You gained your info from my post, therefore I apologize for that wrong accusation. Clarification: This has been taking a lot of my time and since nothing was being accomplished, it was time to do something. My aim is to fix something that was not working and that is creating strife. This is the only way to do so right now. Thanks for the lesson. --User: (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)