Talk:List of Everybody Loves Raymond characters

"Main Protagonist" to "Protagonist"
By definition, the term "protagonist" means "main character," and there can be but one main character. Therefore, Ray Romano should be referred to as the show's protagonist, not its "main protagonist." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.217.170 (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You ARE Quite Wrong. We Writers Can Have As Many Protagonist[s] As We See Fit. This IS Why Sometimes We Might Emphasize *Main* Protagonist To Help The Story Line. ☺️ 2600:1011:B30D:8B27:F070:336B:5748:64C2 (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

"Supporting Characters" to "recurring characters"
Shouldn't "Supporting characters" be "recurring characters"? I'm not nitpicking, but Doris Roberts won "Best Supporting Actress" a few times. Her roles is a supporting character, while Ray Romano and Patricia Heaton were considered lead. However I would divide them into lead characters and supporting characters. I would just change the "supporting characters" to "recurring characters"

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Everybody_Loves_Raymond_characters" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.9.96 (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There already is a recurring character section, which addresses "true" recurring characters, or characters that appear very infrequently. Supporting characters have generally fixed roles in the series, and could not simply disappear without explanation (as recurring characters often do). --Florida Is Hell (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Peter Boyle's death does not equate to Frank Barone's death.
It makes no sense to keep adding a death date to the Frank Barone info box or section of the article. Yes, the actor died in 2006 but when we last saw the character, he was still alive. So in the Raymond universe, for lack of a better term, Frank Barone is alive for all we know. Using the logic of equating the character with the actor, this means we should go through every TV show or movie article with recurring characters, played by now deceased actors, and add death dates to their characters. It's a ridiculous notion. Unless there is a Raymond reunion show that addresses the character as having died, that character remains eternally living, so to speak. JohnBWatt (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

D. Litt.
Raymond does not have a D. Litt. degree, however, it is often listed on the characters page that he does. In episode 91, "Debra Makes Something Good," it is stated that Ray does not have a Master's degree. He does not even know what Debra is talking about when she says she lies to her friends, telling them that he has a Master's. If he does not at least have a Master's degree, then he cannot have a D. Litt. He merely has a Bachelor's degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TisMoi (talk • contribs) 01:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ray definitely does not have a doctorate, but does have an honorary doctorate. See "The Ingrate" (Season 8, Episode 18) where they discuss his college education in full and he receives his honorary degree.MagnoliaSouth (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

What episode was that?
Does anyone know what season and what episode it was that Ray & Deb were trying to figure out where to live and they had a map and made a circle around a 2 hour radius of Frank & Marie's house to see if it was over 2 hours it would have to be an "overnight" trip but to stay within the 2 hour radius they would be able to return to their home. I think at the end of this episode is where they wound up living across the street from them.

Thanks for all help!

'''Found it. Season 1 episode 22.'''

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.111.2 (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Peter Boyle reference
"Coincidentally, since Boyle played the Monster in the Mel Brooks film Young Frankenstein, some fans mistake his name to derive from the film."

What, exactly, does this even mean? It does not seem to relate in any way to the entry on Frank Barone. Esprix (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Debra Barone vs Debra Whelan Barone+ Amy MacDougal-Barone vs Amy Barone
I have forgotten this detail, so I'm asking: Why is Debra labelled as Debra Barone and not Debra Whelan Barone while Amy is labeled as Amy MacDougal-Barone and not just Amy Barone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdogno5 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because Amy started on the show as Amy MacDougal, Debra has only been known as Debra Barone. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Debra Barone
Recently a certain anonymous IP user (currently 99.136.252.146) has continued to insert erroneous assertions that Debra is abusive towards Raymond, etc. If this person is serious, they must not know what real spousal abuse is. If the character was a real person, this would be libelous. Nonetheless, this is original research/personal point of view. At the top of the article page a message template (1 of 4) says "article needs additional citations for verification," and a controversial edit such as this definitely needs to have a reliable source, or at the very least find consensus on this talk page, before it can be included in the article. (Usenet is not a reliable source.) --Musdan77 (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * First off, its only "controversial" because you personally do not like it. Your actions in the revert page give the impression that you are emotionally compromised by my addition to this article. "who wrote this crap?"  (written by you, not exactly the most logical explanation for a revert I have seen on wikipeida.) "Stop the nonsense"   (Written by you,   is that what you call a reasonable explanation for a revert?... Sounds like your emotionally compromised to me ) your actions border on censorship, and distributive editing.... It may even violate wikipeidas harassment guidelines. That was your actions before... Lets take a look at your most recent actions in the revert section.... "Still unexplained, unsourced, nonconstructive, incorrect and not discussed for consensus" "Rm possible vandalism; unexplained, unsourced, nonconstructive content. If you disagree use article talk page" Here is my issue with you now,... All of a sudden..  You care about "sources" and yet... The whole article is almost devoid of any sources at all.... But you don't have any issue with other content being added... Or the content that's already there... Just the content I added that you don't like to such an extent that your responses to it are emotional rather then scientific. Calling information rubbish.. And nonsense?...  You didn't sound like you care about things like sources..... Until you changed your tune. Now your claiming the information is un-sourced.... And yet 99% of that article has no sources.  But you don't debate any of the other information about the show or people on the show. So what is your "reasoning" behind why this information needs sources?..  Its because you claim my addition was "incorrect " It just so happens I have watched almost all of the episodes made by this show. My sister is a huge fan also and we have watched it together for years... She has almost the whole collection on video. But don't take my word for it....  Watch the show your self. Of course.. as you mentioned... That could be counted as original research.  (even though most of this article may be considered original research, as well as not being sourced.)  I suspect you really don't care about any of that... Since I firmly suspect you are engaging in censorship or / and are emotionally compromised.  Even if I sat down with you and watched every episode ever made by this show.... And pointed out every single aspect to you....i Suspect you would still would attempt to censor this article due to some kind of emotional reason.  Perhaps I should not accuse... But that's the impression im getting.. And it needs to be said. as I intend on escalating this for specifically that reason.    If you cared in the slightest about the factual content... I would not consider any escalation, but I legitimately believe your actions and intentions may be bordering on malicious. Back to arguing the factual nature of this article.... rather then my impression of your actions... Because I do care about the accuracy this article. You claim the information I posted is in-correct.... Have you ever watched she show?.. Because I have. Let us take a closer look at my addition, piece by piece.... Here is what I added. "Debra is often very abusive towards her husband Raymond, often verbally attacking him. Debra also has had several scenes were she is seen committing the crime of Battery by physically striking him. Debra is regularly shown engaging in acts of domestic violence against her husband, often when she feels he is not doing something she approves of. Her anger issues are a main characteristic of her character's personality in the show." Shall we pick this apart?.. See if it stands up to actual truth... as you claim it does not? "Debra is often very abusive towards her husband Raymond, often verbally attacking him." According to multiple sources... Including any person with eyes who is watching the show at that moment.. This is what happens during the episode  "All I Want For Christmas" Debra calls Ray  "Pathetic" when he tries to be romantic. According to multiple sources... Including any person with eyes who is watching the show at that moment.. This is what happens during the episode "The Author " Debra Threatens to "Hurt" Ray.   (hmm... Did you know this is a crime in much of America?... Its considered domestic violence in many areas as well... Would you like some sources?... im sure you can find plenty your self however, if you care.) What about the episode dead moon rising?... Debra threatens to Smack Ray.   (that sounds like verbal abuse to me...  Would you like a link to a creditable source for what verbal abuse is?.. I would be happy to provide it...  Though as I mentioned I suspect sources have little to do with why you are reverting my addition.) do you still claim it is untrue that Debra verbally abuses ray?... Because we have loads of visual documentation sitting about 5 feet away from me right now to look at of examples.. And have both sources for what verbal abuse is, as well as debars actions, as well as public analysis of all this information into a conclusion that Debra abuses ray. Of course... We are still on the fact that you claim what I added is not the truth. Here is yet, another example, of Debra verbally abusing ray. In the episode "boob job".. Debra pretends to get plastic surgery... then calls him an idiot when he's stimulated by her breasts.  She tells him he's gone soft in the middle and has a concave ass. If you don't believe this happened... Would you like me to upload the episode to you?. Still claim my assertions are "erroneous"?... Because the evidence seems like you are mistaken.... And I have shoo much more... On just the verbal abuse alone! Lets continue to pick apart my addition to the article.  To see if my additions are facts, or "crap"


 * this is what I wrote next. "Debra also has had several scenes were she is seen committing the crime of Battery by physically striking him. Debra is regularly shown engaging in acts of domestic violence against her husband, often when she feels he is not doing something she approves of." so you claim this is.. Not true? What about this? In the episode the letter, Debra hits him repeatedly on the head... US law says that battery.. Want the source to what battery is under u.s law?.. Want my video record of it?... Want a source to others confirming this happened?  Want a source to others interpretations that this constitutes battery? well I got it all if you want it.....  Of course you probably don't care about if this is true or not.. If its sourced or not... Because you sure didn't care about the other 99% of the article being "true" or "sourced" or weather or not its original research. But regardless of if you care or not.. It is true, it is sourced, and it passes original research scrutiny as well as your typical wikiepida document. Public record of u.s law isn't original research, neither is a basic blow for blow factual information of a public record video document... eg.(debra verbally attacks ray.. debra smacks ray) and the source I listed that constitutes 1/3 of the sources on that whole page is from a relevant and knowledgeable source on the topic of everybody loves Raymond, and it also supports the material added. Need some more examples of debra committing the crime of battery on Ray? as if you cared. (I can't help but say that .... But I must, because I suspect your redaction of my addition is due to some negative emotional reaction or bias from you.) here is some more examples any way. In the episode "Meeting the parents" Debra hits ray in the leg, forcing him to fall to his knees. How about this? In the episode "The plan".. Debra Hits Ray, shoves him, stamps on his foot, and calls him idiotic. Still say its not true? Do I need to go on? If you really want a source in there... I added one from a neutral source that contains detailed information on the show, including the material that supports what I added.... And that's better then any of the rest of the page and the lack of sources it has.  It is not original research as it encompasses material published and acknowledged by others..  The sources that support my addition have no contradiction that I could find.  If you want to nit pick about original research as an excuse,  you should look elsewhere on that page first and for-most because its full of it to the brim and my addition reduces that impact. This is only a controversial topic because you made it one...   Based on your conclusion that is was "untrue crappy nonsense" and we have disproved your notion on that, now haven't we?... We have.. Haven't we?.. It does not sound like its untrue crap to me... And other editors have agreed with me and have reached concessions with me... If you really want I can request they add input on this talk page as well. But in the meantime...  The addition stays due being factual and holding more solid evidence then the majority of other information on that page. I don't like going to higher up's to resolve a dispute... Id prefer not to elevate this if I can.. But your actions and reasoning right from the start have been alarming.  I urge you to recognize that you have made severe errors in judgment on this page in and I urge you to be see reason and to step back from your edit war. Please see reason and end the dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.136.252.146 (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * When I first read the paragraph in the article I figured it must be vandalism. Now it seems that you seriously believe the ridiculous allegations (which is baffling). Of course I've seen the show. That's why I can so strongly dispute it. As I've said (and linked to article), it does not constitute real abuse. And even if it did, this is a comedy (like slapstick) everything is meant for laughs. It is your own personal emotions that seem to be coming into play. Your actions show that you are inexperienced in proper WP procedure and policy. You left a barrage of warning templates on my talk page, and must not have read half of them, or you just don't practice what you preach. You talk about a fictional character abusing, and then you act like you have (in real life)? I have been very patient with you, but I'm losing my patience.


 * I wouldn't have much problem with someone removing all of the unsourced content in the article. That would be better than adding something like this that violates all three of Wikipedia's core content policies: "Neutral point of view", "Verifiability" and "No original research". And I will not allow such violations to remain in the article. However, if there was found consensus here for it, then I would have to accept it. But until then, it cannot be included.


 * Also remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes at the end of your comment. Anything that's not signed is subject to removal. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In all honesty, I have to say that I quite agree with what this person has posted. In nearly every single episode of Raymond it shows Debra literally hitting Raymond, because of certain comments he makes, or something he doesn't do right.  How can this be credited as not neutral or no evidence of it.  You cannot literally state that signs of domestic abuse were not present during episodes.  In all honesty, I find it rather amusing that you are now starting to change your argument because someone has brought to everyone's attention about the abuse this show is showing towards men.  From what this person has provided with sources is good enough to convince any amid reader that it is indeed true.  Debra was borderline abusive in the sitcom.  Anyone with eyes could see that.  It wasn't hard to figure out that Raymond was scared of his wife because of how she treated him.  I can provide plenty of areas where Debra has been abusive to Ray, either psychically or mentally.  Before I provide sources, Debra's way of showing Ray in return of how she loves him, is by being physically, mentally and emotionally abusive to him.  In the episode "All I Want For Christmas" she calls him "pathetic" when he tries to be romantic with her.  In "A Vote For Debra" she denies to people that she knows him.  In "Bad Mood Rising" She shoves him into a bookcase; hits him; threatens to "smack" him; threatens to get Marie to "smack the crap out of [him]"; calls him a "Gigantic Arse", "Insensitive Durfwad", "Jerk"; shoves him away when he tries to hug her.  Do I need to add more episodes where she's balantly showing how abusive and inconsiderate she really is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.32.217 (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You have failed to address any of the above points that you your self was claiming the reason for your reverts and edit war. You don't argue any of your so called "objections"... Your whole response consisted of 2 paragraphs.. With only 1 or 2 sentences devoted to explaining your "logic" on this artical. you have not even tried to argue most of your own reasons for reverting my additions to the article. You have not really attempted once to prove how the information added is un-true... ( telling us, for example,.. "No one was hit in the head in episode 3". You have not denied the very large list of factual events in the source I linked to... And how could you?.. You know I can upload the video to you and you know you will see debra smacking ray..... What happened to your claim that the information I added was not true?... That argument dry up? "it not being true".. .. Being "non sense".. Being "crap".... Not being sourced.... What exactly was your excuse this time?... im kinda confused because you keep changing your reasons in your attempt to do what ever is possible to censor what you don't like. Here are most of the ever changing reasons you provided for your reverts and edit war. "crap".. "Nonsense"... "Not true"...."Not sourced".. "Not sourced good enough".."Non consensus" I have a dressed all of your continuously changing issues in my previous post,  Explaining how you were mistaken... On the other hand.. Here is your one single sentence explantion on the topic of the content I added and how it relates to the show and your claims. "And even if it did, this is a comedy (like slapstick) everything is meant for laughs." that's it?.. That's all you got?.. a 1 sentence explnaation of the vadlity of your claims on the actual debate?... That's all you came up with to back up the many claims you made to justify your many reverts? What happened to what I said being "not true" does your one single sentence about the article  justify or explain your claim?


 * Lets take a look at your one sentence on the actual article its self. "And even if it did, this is a comedy (like slapstick) everything is meant for laughs. It is your own personal emotions that seem to be coming into play" yes.. We know this is a comedy show... How does that change the facts about what happens on it? If it was a drama about a beaten house wife...  Would it THEN be okay to add it?...  I guess being a comedy show suddenly changes facts like "debra smacks ray in the face with a broom on purpose and knocks him down" regardless, you have not even attempted to justify the vast majority of the ever changing reasons you listed for reverting my addition... You make no mention of why the sources are no good. You made no mention of how what I added is not true... It being a comedy is hardly a proof that the massive amount basic facts suddenly are not longer true... (you watch the video again.. Did Debra magically not punch Ray,, because you said "its a comedy"... Does he magically not cower in fear from her because your whole explanation of your claims is "its supposed to be funny?" you made no attempt to prove how this was "crap" you make no mention of why the sources are no good... When the only other source is a youtube video... And I got the whole series on freaking tape I can upload to youtube!....( of course I suspect you don't care at all about sources as that's not what your original problem was.) you made no attempt to prove how this was "non sense" you made no attempt to prove how this was a original research... (again.. Not that you care... as all of the article is original research... And my addition comes with sources and facts rather then personal opinions... Unlike the vast majority of the rest of the article.  (that you have no objection to,, how interesting and transparent.) your word is not law... Nor do you get the final say on what or what not can be added to this article. You can not make claims without backing them up... You made a lot of claims without even an explanation. as well as failed to even remotely provide support for your views and claims. Your real reasons for wanting this addition removed are very transparent.... Your neutrality has been compromised. You said it your self....  You rather all the unsoruced content removed (the whole article in other words... rather then allow this addition to stand... Your reason for preferring the whole article being removed then allowing this one little addition to stand?..... Well.. You CLAIM its because of these 3 reasons...  "Neutral point of view", "Verifiability" and "No original research". But the problem is... THE WHOLE ARTICLE VIOLATES "Neutral point of view", "Verifiability" and "No original research". So if almost the whole article violates "Neutral point of view", "Verifiability" and "No original research".... Why did you pick such a fight over 1 little addition? Its because your Neutrality has been comprised...  We have rock solid evidence you don't care about the rest  of the article violating "Neutral point of view", "Verifiability" and "No original research" at least.. You didn't care enough to stop it.. Erase it.. Or fix it. Out of those paragraphs... Almost all of them violating wikipeidas "core policy's".... You didn't do anything about all those massive violations.... But you pick such a big fight over this one?.... Even going as far to violate multiple wikiepida guidelines your self. Why?... Why this one little paragraph.. In a sea of violations on the same page?...    Its clear to see... Your have been emotionally compromised... Your not being neutral... And your attempting to censor what you don't like... You would even prefer to have this page and others totally wiped out just to censor one little paragraph that makes you feel really bad, or causes what ever emotional flair up we have evidence that you had. That is lack of neutrality.. And you need to step back. So the new addition stays.. Due to the following reasons.

1. The new addition is supported by sources and not original research...

2. No one has come forth to argue why its not.. (you your self didn't even bother to explain your views)

3. Documentation proves the new addition is valid and this is confirmed from a neutral source that does not take sides and have detailed knowledge on the subject at hand.

4. No one.. Including your self.. Has even attempt to explain or put up any logical verbal counter as to why others analysis on this show are not valid.

5. No one has attempted to explain how the new addition is not verifiable... Just saying its not isn't good enough. (like claiming something isn't true is not good enough.)

6. No one has offered very much evidence for why or how it violates any guidelines.... AND there justifications on how the violation is truly a violation.

7. No one has made any attempt to offer any evidence for why the addition is not true information

I would go on... But in short... You have not even made an attempt to properly justify, argue, or explain the your reasoning for your many reverts and the many excuses you used to revert. You can not just simply make claims and not back them up.... (the way you claimed debra does not abuse ray.... And yet we have dozens of episodes were she hits him, smacks him, etc.) with such strong evidence supporting the material I added... And with absolutely no one offering any counter evidence.. And with absolutely no one attempting to explain there justifications in detail... .I have no chose but to keep the additions and protect it from vandalism and disruptive editors... In order to preserve the integrity of wikiepida. We here at wikipeida always assume good faith... Something we see you have forgot from your comments in your very first revert of my addition. You have no made any attempt to explain your many outrageous claims... 1 sentence about the actual article is not very fitting. Until you can offer much stronger proof of your outrageous and varied claims.... Your disruptive editing can not be allowed... And I am forced to safe guard this article from any further censorship, vandalism, or disruptive editing you may attempt. You have no argument... No evidence... Just claims... That is not the way of wikiepida. Oh.. And don't worry.. Ill make sure to sign my comments... I wouldn't want you to use yet another transparent excuse to try to delete what I wrote to cover up or make more easy your censorship Until you can offer some proof and explanation to your claims... The addition stands....  To protect wikipeidas  mission of sharing knowledge, facts, and information in good faith. (I strongly admire that mission.) In order to protect the integrity of wikiepida dedication to sharing knowledge and Facts, the addition must stand. as all evidence and true arguments and debate have supported it being the best course of action to keep it. 99.136.252.146 (talk) 11:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, looks like you haven't learned a thing. You're still doing the same "stuff". Which makes me think that you're not interested in doing things right here or wanting to resolve anything, but just wanting to cause trouble. Instead of making so much effort in causing disruptions, you should be trying to find out how things are supposed to be done (I've given you links) or asking an experienced editor (like me) questions. I'm a very busy editor. I don't have that much time to mess with your shenanigans. But if you were willing to learn, I would help you. From the start you have just been accusatory. This conflict might not have happened if you had come to me and talked to me nicely. One of the templates you put on my talk page (most of which apply to you, not to me) says, "...discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page." I would rather talk to you about these personal issues on your talk page, but you don't actually have a talk page, because you are not registered (however that doesn't mean that you can't be blocked from editing, and you could if you continue the way you are).


 * Now to the main issue. I don't know if I can explain it any better than I have (and not repeat myself -- like you do). I have not changed my position (it's "all of the above"). It is the responsibility of the one adding content to give "proof" of why it should be added -- which is giving a reliable source. I have given several links, so I don't need to write a lot. You need to read those links. That's why I gave them. I shouldn't have to quote them. But, WP considers Usenet (there's the link again) an unreliable source. (I don't make the rules -- but I do enforce them.) No, the whole article does not violate "Neutral point of view" (again, read the page to know what it means) like your paragraph does -- by going to extremes. Do not ignore my messages. There has not been consensus here (and don't pretend there is). However there is one other option of how your paragraph can be added: if you would rewrite it, leaving out such words as "abusive", "attacking", "crime", "battery", and "domestic violence." --Musdan77 (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, boy... I'm probably going to regret that I got involved with this, but I have to say that I support Musdan77. It may be possible to say that analysts consider Debra's behavior criminally abusive, although you would need a much, much better source than the random GeoCities-type website that's being presented. But speaking "in-universe", you can't argue that Debra's actions are considered criminally abusive within the context of the show. They're not interpreted as such by the characters. The show is a comedy. The characters and their actions are exaggerated, and played for laughs. Zagal e jo^^^ 06:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Folks, Musdan77 is absolutely right here - it is not permissible to make claims about a character committing criminal acts or domestic abuse based on a private blog-style web site that is pushing its own personal POV. Such a site is not a reliable source, and claims that scenes from a TV sitcom constitute criminal acts etc are examples of original research or synthesis - which are prohibited by WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Anyone who continues to add such material without gaining a supporting consensus here first will run the risk of being blocked from editing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Debra is an abusive character towards Ray. All the 'original research' or 'documentation' arguments are nonsense; anyone who watches the show will see it.

BTW, this applies to articles about EVERY TV show AND movie -- citing references is not done for 90% of information in these articles ... how far the wiki-logic re this 'requirement' is taken depends on which wiki-guardian is 'protecting their turf' or censoring contributors, seemingly random most of the time.

True spousal abuse actions are in the eye of the beholder and political 'correctness' during the time in which they occur; if Debra slapped Ray in the face, is that abusive, but slapping him on his arm isn't? In one episode she commits 'battery' on his genitals, causing him to drop to the floor -- oops, no cite here, just clearly seen 'on screen' in the episode, but that don't count, right?

The best real argument is: Consider, if Ray treated Debra the way she treats him, who'd go along with that?

Marie's sister Alda
Marie has a sister, Alda, with whom she has been estranged since Ray's wedding until Marie's Uncle Gus' funeral.Both should be listed as her relatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.243.144 (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Pat MacDougal grammar errors
The grammar needs to be tightened up: "However, contrary to Hank's believes, she smokes for decades, and started smoking when they got married since she became annoyed and needed to stress out." Editor vs predator (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done General copyedit by User:Musdan77 here took care of the offending sentence. Cheers, Nici  Vampire  Heart  18:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know, I would have answered this, but then I saw that there was even more to be removed -- but it was too late and I had to go to bed. If I had seen who added that before, I would have just reverted it all, but it was too late after I made my edit. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2014
175.145.96.219 (talk) 07:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 07:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

209 episodes out of 210
Both Debra and Robert Barone have appeared in 209 episodes. What are the episodes they are missing from? Mobile mundo (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Debra missed S3, E17. (Mobile mundo (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC))
 * Robert missed S8, E1. (Mobile mundo (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC))

Amy McDougall-Barone
Change "Many issues have caused Amy and Robert to break up in the first six seasons, with one being caused by Raymond and another being that Robert had sex with another woman." to "Many issues have caused Amy and Robert to break up in the first six seasons, with one being blamed on Raymond and another being that Robert had sex with another woman." 12.10.199.162 (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done despite lack of source given, most of the plot details of this page are already unsourced and this change is not likely to be controversial. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Debra's sister Jennifer
Is not listed in 'Minor Characters' [one appearance] section. Actress Ashley Crow portrayed her in Season 4, Episode 6: "The Sister". Please add this. 149.20.203.67 (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Robert's girlfriend Erica
Is not listed in 'Minor Characters' [one appearance] section. Actress Tinsley Grimes portrayed her in Season 5, Episode 8: "Young Girl". Upon introduction by Robert to the family, she claims to be age 22, but later in the episode admits to Debra she is actually only 19, causing chaos. [ Fact: IRL she was only age 16!]. Please add this. 149.20.203.67 (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am currently watching through all the episodes to get them all updated. As you can see, I have only completed season 3 and am currently working on season 4, then season 5, etc. She will be added, just in good time. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Amy McDougal's accent
In her early appearances, Amy has a very prominent New York accent. As she is introduced as a friend of Deborah, this makes sense. Presumably, her full character profile came later. 209.93.179.192 (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)