Talk:List of American Dad! characters

Bad Larry
Any thoughts on Bad Larry being a paradoy or homage to Doug Funnie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.225.196.111 (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Buckle
Shouldn't this guy be mentioned somewhere? I mean, he's been featured on at least three episodes, now, and has apparently moved into the Smiths' neighborhood according to the episode "An Incident at Owl Creek. Constavros
 * Yup, along with Sharri (spelling?) Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Reggie
Reggie the koala is also recurring. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hayley's last name
In Western society, a woman always takes the husband's family name upon marrying him. Therefore, Hayley carries both names unless proven otherwise. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like a source for this, as I live in Western society (the United States does count, right?) and I've known women who haven't engaged in this practice. Please source Hayley's current last name, thanks. Doniago (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm... no. If you want to find a source, then find one for the fact she didn't change her name. Besides, I don't recall her being explicitly called "Hayley Smith" ever, so by your logic she has no last name... who knows, maybe she's Stan's or Francine's love child. How far can we go? She's married to Jeff Fischer, therefore her last name is Fischer until proven otherwise. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. See WP:BURDEN. If you want to add her married name, you need to provide sourcing for it. I'm reasonably certain she was called "Hayley Smith" at some point, but if you want to go ahead and challenge that for lack of sourcing, you're welcome to do so as far as I'm concerned. Doniago (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're as reasonably certain in that as I am in my assertion. Please quit with these double standards. WP:COMMON SENSE allows us to assume what's not explicitly said but can be deduced using... well, common sense. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not about assumptions, it's about you adding material based on an assumption, another editor challenging your assumption and requesting sourcing, and you (thus far) being unwilling or unable to provide it. That being said, I've tagged it with a CN as a compromise. If and when other editors weigh in we can establish a consenus. Doniago (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: That is not how WP:COMMON SENSE works, and using "Ignore all rules" for an application of speculation, particular a minor one such as an in-fiction marriage name change, is not a sufficient argument. The character has been referred to as Hayley Smith for the entirety of the series, confirmed in the first season extra "Secrets of the Glass Booth". In fact, her full name was stated as "Hayley Dream Smasher Smith" in "Stanny Slickers II: The Legend of Ollie's Gold".  Considering that it is only "traditional", but not mandatory that a woman who enters into a legal marriage with a man change her last name, there is no reason to add it.  The burden of proof is on the editor to demonstrate that the change has taken place in the series.  Making a leap that "this is what generally happens in real life, so this is probably what happened in this work of fiction" is speculative and an application of original research.  If you can't be 100% certain that this has happened in the series, until you find a source that validates it, it's not fact, only a speculation, one that is particularly dubious because it's not even premised on a certainty, only a "tradition".  By the same token, one could add that Jeff Fischer instead took Hayley's last name, which, while not traditional, is a possibility because it has happened in Western society.  The level to which one might extend "common sense" could also loop in Hayley's radical feminist beliefs as portrayed throughout the series, which could potentially lend even more reason to believe that she didn't take Jeff's name.  But just because something "probably" happens or plausibly happens doesn't mean it has, especially in a fictitious work.  If a Wiki rule prevents you from adding that a real person is ageing, when all common sense shows us that living things age, then that is the time to pull out WP:Common Sense.  "Ignore all rules" should only be used when rules severely hinder the quality of an article.  That's not the case here.  You should really save it for when you really need it. If you are going to use it, I encourage you to look at it and validate your reasoning based on all the suggestions listed on "Ignore all rules":


 * "Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. Actually, everyone should be able to do that at all times. In cases of conflict, what counts as an improvement is decided by consensus.
 * "Ignore all rules" does not stop you from pointing out a rule to someone who has broken it, but do consider that their judgment may have been correct, and that they almost certainly thought it was. (See also Assume good faith.)
 * "Ignore all rules" is not in itself a valid answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule. Most of the rules are derived from a lot of thoughtful experience and exist for pretty good reasons; they should therefore only be broken for good reasons.
 * "Ignore all rules" is not an exemption from accountability. You're still responsible for reasonably foreseeable effects of your actions on the encyclopedia and on other editors.''


 * On another note, it's unnecessary to change a fictional character's name to reflect a recent issue anyway. It smacks of WP:Recentism and portrays the topic inaccurately as if it was there since the beginning, not to mention muddles the concept of sticking to depictions of fictional characters as they are most recognizable.  A similar thing happened over at Futurama with Amy Wong when the character gets her PhD in an episode from 2010.  The consensus was to keep the name as "Amy Wong" rather than "Dr. Amy Wong" since the back history of the show is proportionately weightier than one episode.  It is correct to include the event in the character synopsis and even to move Jeff Fischer into the family category, but problematic to spin it as definitive in lieu of everything that comes before it in the fictional universe.
 * The way it is now, and the statement that she later marries her boyfriend Jeff establishes that the character was not married for the entirety of the series, that Jeff Fischer was introduced as her boyfriend in the series, and also that as the series developed, the two characters were eventually married. That is completely accurate and portrays the series history accurately as well.  Pushing that it be changed with the only reasoning being dubious probability and invocation of "Ignore all rules" means that you have to demonstrate how leaving it as it is—in other words, abiding by the anti-sepculation/OR policy—harms the page content.  With the original edit and language, I see no harm and see no added benefit of changing it.  If you want to open up a separate debate, I would even say that the proposed change harms the page by removing context and perspective on the series as a whole in favor of a slant toward recent events.Luminum (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I re-watched "100 A.D." and Hayley signs the letter "Mrs. Jeff Fischer." On this point, I will accept that there is basis for her to be called "Hayley Fischer" (though not necessarily Hayley Smith Fischer, which would assume she retains "Smith" as a middle name).  However, with regard to the change, I would still err on the side of series constants vs. recent changes to portray the character as she is most commonly known, given the proportionate weight of the previous 5 seasons (e.g. Jean Grey, vs. "Jean Grey-Summers") and the fact that it hasn't emerged as a clear change in the continuity yet.  However, there is series material evidence that character does a name change in the series continuity.  If it takes off, I would agree to the change at that time.Luminum (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Style guide standards on fiction
Should fictional characters be described by their most recent developments or in proportion to their series history? See the edits in question here: [ -- Per [[WP:TENSE]] the style standard for pages dealing with fiction and fictional history are presented in-tense. That applies to issues of series history.  Fiction is considered to exist in a state of "present", since the fiction is all states of being depending on when it is accessed.  This is contrary to real life, where history has a definitive past and present.  If the series is accessed at the start of Season 1, Jeff is Hayley's boyfriend.  If the series is accessed at Season 6, Jeff becomes Hayley's husband.  Likewise, with issues to actual written tense, this is why it should be written in present (e.g. "Hayley marries Jeff" vs. "Hayley and Jeff got married.") The standard on good articles, such as Futurama and other works is to present the characters as accurate with appropriate weight with regard to the series as a whole.  Like I mentioned in another discussion, the same issue occurred with Amy Wong.  In fiction, she receives a PhD in the newest season, effectively making her "Dr. Amy Wong", but the decision was made to keep the character's name as "Amy Wong" because in the context of the entire series, she is not a doctor.  The series as a whole has more weight than a few episodes of the newest season.

Portraying her name as "Dr. Amy Wong" is also inaccurate to the reader, as it suggests that she was conceptualized as "Dr. Amy Wong" when this is untrue. That is the same issue here: As the conflicting edit exists, it initially portrays—inaccurately—Jeff Fischer as being Hayley's husband, providing little context and absolutely no mention of his depiction as her on-again-off-again boyfriend since the series began. That is also the reason why it would be inaccurate to change Hayley's surname to "Smith Fischer" (in addition to the fact that it violates WP:IN-U). Look at various good articles for comicbook characters, which by and large, have much lengthier fictional histories to deal with, and you will see the same application of "present" status to all the events that happen.

And contrary to the edit note, WP:Recentism is an issue and does apply here, as these edits likewise skew the depiction of the characters in favor of very recent developments in the series, negating the 5 seasons previous. This is not real life. This is fictitious, and since fiction exists in the "present" (unlike descriptions of real life), descriptions need to encompass an accurate summary of the characters in total, albeit briefly. The previous edit where Jeff is described as both her boyfriend and later husband is accurate. That is, there is absolutely nothing inaccurate about it from an out-of-universe, full-breadth perspective starting from Season 1 to Season 6. The newer edit is only accurate with regard to Season 6, attempting to apply real life concepts of history to a fictional timeline. There is no "WAS" with regard to fiction because depending where you are in that piece of fiction, the character is in a state of "present"-ness. The article should reflect that, otherwise it lacks the accuracy of the series as a whole, devoting accuracy only to as it develops.

With regard to these issue, the page as a whole has a lot of problems, but I'd rather stem this issue now to prevent further issues.

I welcome discussion on the issue. For reference, again, please see WP:WAF, WP:IN-U, WP:TENSE, and WP:RECENTISM.Luminum (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll admit upfront that I tend to feel the bulk of the contributors to these kinds of articles don't ever look at the Talk page.
 * Aside from that, I was invited to put in my two cents, but it pretty much boils down to "I agree". (smile) The article has significant issues, present tense should always be used, initial descriptions of characters should be based on how they were initially conceived, etc.
 * Sorry for such a lame and non-confrontational reply. I'll try to do better in the future. :) If anyone has specific questions or concerns regarding my thoughts on the issues raised I'll be happy to take a stab at them! Doniago (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the noted edit, I think the Hayley changes are largely semantic (I might recommend- "In seasons 1-5 Hayley has an on-and-off relationship with her boyfriend Jeff Fischer. She marries him in the season 6 premiere episode "100 A.D.".), but Jeff should be listed as Hayley's boyfriend and later husband. Stating off the bat that he is her husband doesn't seem appropriate to me as that isn't his initial concept and is not how he was introduced into the show. Doniago (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So what's wrong with my take on it? I phrased it as "She marries Jeff Fischer after an awkward on-and-off relationship, followed by a long breakup. They get married in the season 6 premiere episode "100 A.D."." This portrays the situation in a more accurate manner, while stating all that needs to be stated: they have a history of an on-and-off relationship and breaking up for a long while, and now they're married. It's still wrong to introduce him as her boyfriend, considering their current status. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's because it introduces subject matter that only became relevant much later first. Here, there is ambiguity that the statement describes pre-series events.  If I read that one sentence alone, it could suggest that the characters are introduced with a tumultuous dating history but got married.  The second sentence provides clarity that the marriage happens much later, but doesn't change that the first sentence is ambiguous with regard to the series history.  The most appropriate thing to say is that in the beginning of the series, their relationship is on and off, but that she later marries him.  This is "true" for someone accessing the series at Season 1 and true for someone continuing the series to Season 6.  So go with the version that has first sentence correct, second sentence correct over the one that has first sentence ambiguous/WP:TENSE, second sentence correct.  Or, if you can think of a way to merge them so that you can achieve correctness and clarity, that's another option, though how it is now isn't inaccurate.  And again, it isn't "wrong".  Fiction happens in "present".  It would be "wrong" to describe the characters as they are "now" when there's a whole 99 episodes where they are "different" before then.  That's why one should stick to descriptions that are largely series constants while making mention of any outstanding character developments later.  (As a minor point, "awkward" is opinion, not an objective description.  The most objective description is that they have an on-and-off relationship and just leave it at that.)  I hope that's helpful.Luminum (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Barry
Where did the name Robinson get established? Looking back a long way, it was introduced by someone who wrongly gave a surname for Toshi, therefore if no-one can provide the episode then this should be removed as the original source is totally unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.241.55 (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, said Robinson in episode The Wrestler, no original source so maybe the producers just went with what the internet was already calling him.

Trimming of characters
Someone went too far ... first discuss which characters could go before butchering this page without even showing any justification. Many of them appear in several episodes, so can be kept, but agree that one episode or anecdotal appearances may not be worth keeping (eg. Stan's half brothers, Francine's sister) — N.B. some could be merged, eg. Buckle and Sharri, Bob and Linda

Kwilo?
What’s the correct spelling for the name of the small Asian man who appears as Roger’s sidekick in “Rapture’s Delight” and “Stan’s Food Restaurant”? Also, since he appears twice, can we count him as a recurring character? Felicity4711 (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Subtitled as Quilo in episode Stan's Food Restaurant

Steve's fat girlfriend
What happened to this character and what was her name? She was in 3 or 4 episodes, right? --98.246.156.76 (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Her name was Debbie. I believe the last episode she was featured in was the episode where Steve and his friends try to escape the school in an homage of The Warriors. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by SerFriendzone (talk • contribs) 09:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Klaus Heissler?
Why isn't there a main page for a main character of the show? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.228.61 (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC) I don't know if I'd call him a main character. To me he is more secondary. If you can find enough WP:N to make a page, you can. C T F 8 3 ! 22:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

He's a member of the main cast. How can he not? He used to have one but in around 2011 it mysteriously disappeared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.228.61 (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Why isn't anyone responding??????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.228.61 (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What is your question? He's mentioned under "Main characters". ... disco spinster   talk  23:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Why doesn't he have an article of his own even though the rest of the family does??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.228.61 (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

What happened to his article?? Is someone gonna bring it back? He's a member of the main cast, so by that reason every other member of the family could have their articles deleted... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.228.61 (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyone gonna answer?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.30.98 (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is nobody answering!!?? 98.247.228.61 (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was started. C T F 8 3 !  20:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Didn't last very long. Back to being a redirect. DonIago (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Francine Smith, Stan Smith (American Dad!), Steve Smith (American Dad!), Hayley Smith (American Dad!), and Roger (American Dad!) be merged into this article. Much of the information is already here. There were AfDs, but no actual merge discussion was opened and this is ultimately what needs to be done as opposed to the AfDs. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  12:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, support as nominator. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support merger as none of these characters has independent notability separate from the TV programme. See my earlier comments at their AfD's for a fuller discussion. did you deliberately leave out Klaus Heissler, the goldfish? --Bejnar (talk) 06:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd missed one! Thanks for letting me know! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: Per Bejnar. DJ Autagirl (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Well it has been two weeks and we all (three) agree, no listed objections. Who gets to do the hard part of actually merging them? --Bejnar (talk) 08:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose I actually think that the articles have enough information to stand on their own.--5 albert square (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose: I think that thes articles deserve not to just be mentioned in the characters list. There are plenty of sources listed from a variety of places in just Roger (American Dad!). In other words, LIAFFS. Leave it alone for fuck sake. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well... the question here isn't whether or not they have enough information to stand on their own, but whether or not they're actually notable or not to merit their own articles. This all started off as a batch of articles that were brought to AfD for deletion, without opening a merge discussion. If you can find where these characters have been discussed to where they're independently notable of the show itself, I have no problem with them being kept. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose I think that as the main characters of a very successful and well-known series, there's no reason they shouldn't have their own pages. Many minor characters of The Simpsons, for example, have their own pages, and I'm sure that the major characters of American Dad are more notable than them. The Raincloud Kid (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose I feel that many major characters can have and should have their own pages. That way, people can read a more in-depth page of information about these characters.Ilikeguys21 (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support as I see people professing that the characters are notable enough to merit their own articles, but I don't see anything being done to substantiate that argument and have my own doubts regarding their notability. Everyone complains about the weather, nobody does anything about it... DonIago (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose all major tv series have wiki pages for their main characters (The Simpsons, Family Guy, South Park etc) I think American Dad is a notable enough show with notable enough characters  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.34.150 (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Each of these characters have maintained enough cultural significance to warrant their individual inclusion as articles. I would like to request that this discussion is closed. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 00:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Jeff Fischer (actor).png

Merge
Stan, Francine, Hayley, Steve, Klaus and Roger should be merged. Even if they are the main characters, there is very little real world information that makes them notable enough. 174.210.229.161 (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Absolutely nothing has changed since this was last proposed. Kjscotte34 (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)