Talk:Love, Blactually

AIRPLANE!
The Pinnochio scene is an airplane! parody, that should be in the cr section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.117.241.124 (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Making Love?
Not to criticize, but I think the term "making love" should be changed in this article to "having sex". i mean, was there really any love going on here, on Carolyn's end, anyway? She did it with Cleveland in public, and then with Quagmire. Enough said. What do you think? 99.142.27.233 (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think what you are saying is right, but for all the wrong reasons. "Making love" is not an encyclopaedic term, "having sex" is a scientifically correct, encyclopaedic term. Whilst I agree it should be changed I think you're looking a bit too deeply into this, it should be changed regardless of the context of the sexual intercourse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.71.78 (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed it, hope that's okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.106.82 (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC) lol i always have diffrent tabs open to read while a page loads and i swear to god i just edited a talk page to ask if "seduced" was the right word for what meg did to brian in "barely legal" and i click the other tab to read this lol  i agree btw 174.42.145.253 (talk) 06:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Title a pun on Love Actually
I removed the 'citation needed' from the sentence "The title is a pun on the movie Love Actually." but it was reverted because "we cant assume to know the intentions of the writers" (according to user Dp76764). Sorry but is that not ridiculous? Of course we can 'assume' that the writers intended the title as a pun on Love Actually... there's no such word as Blactually and it doesn't sound like any other phrase. Also, Love Actually isn't a phrase in common use... try googling it and you'll just get 60 million hits about the movie! What citation are you likely to find? Another website commenting that the title is similar to Love Actually? A writer spelling it out in a quote? I don't see what qualifies the sentence as a disputable fact when there is literally no other explanation for the title of the episode.Retro junkie (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And thank you for showing that it is indeed WP:OR to make the claim in the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom  21:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, 'assumptions' are pretty much the definition of original research. Ideally it would be nice to have a staff or writer commenting on it in an interview.  Sure, it probably is intended as a pun on that, but we can't prove that it is, thus it needs a citation.  DP 76764  (Talk) 21:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I get it... I know that in general an assumption is original research and needs to be backed up. It's just that in this particular case, it really isn't in any doubt whatsoever that that is the origin of the title. Wiki guidelines are just that. Common sense should also be used.Retro junkie (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can't beat them... I added a couple of citations that seem as reliable as The Recapist blog used to back up similar 'facts' in the article.Retro junkie (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure either of those sources qualify as reliable, as they are both user-submitted (and editable!). But the effort is appreciated =) DP 76764  (Talk) 15:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I did think that but at least IMDb is checked before it is updated - I'm sure it is used as reference on many articles here.Retro junkie (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Since those citations have been removed, I go back to the original point - it is not a disputable fact that needs verification. It might technically be an assumption but it is not simply somebody's opinion. There is literally no other explanation for the title. Can the sentence not be rewritten so it is no longer implying a deliberate attempt at punning? I just think there will never be any citation that will satisfy the people here. The writers will never even bother commenting on it because it is so obvious!Retro junkie (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (outdent) There could easily be other explanations for it (maybe it's an inside joke among the writers); the problem is we can't know FOR SURE without a source. If we can't find a citation for it, we should probably just remove it (if it's that obvious, people will notice it on their own and won't need it to be pointed out here). $0.02  DP 76764  (Talk) 23:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It should probably be moved to the 'Cultural references' section anyway. Could it not be written like "The title is similar to the movie Love Actually" (ie not inferring a pun) or would that just be irrelevent and pointless?Retro junkie (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the Cultural References sections are usually pretty heavily policed for OR and unsourced material; I think you'd find it removed quite quickly from that section. My next question is, why is this tidbit of information important in the first place?  Does the plot of the episode mirror the plot of that movie?  These cultural references are always hard to judge whether they're notable enough or not.  DP 76764  (Talk) 00:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't actually seen Love Actually but it is basically a load of stories about different couples so... no the episode doesn't follow the film. That said, it is probably worth keeping - if I hadn't heard of the film I know I would be wondering what the title meant...Retro junkie (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I still don't see how this is important (notable) and not a trivia type of thing. If you want to add it again, go for it, but I suspect it will be removed fairly quickly if it doesn't have a good source.  I wonder if there will be something about it on the DVD commentary when it comes out; that would definitely be a reliable source.  DP 76764  (Talk) 00:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is it called "Blactually", anyway? Is this episode about black people? No mention in the synopsis. Equinox ◑ 20:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Title
Fox uses a comma for the episode name ("Love, Blactually"), so the article needs to be moved to the correct name. 96.25.248.210 (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ C T J F 8 3  20:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Love, Blactually. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081003004444/http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2008/09/desperate-house.html to http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2008/09/desperate-house.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)