Talk:Prick Up Your Ears (Family Guy)

Untitled
Many of us tried to include a list of pop culture references in this entry last night, to have them deleted over and over again because for some reason they are considered "cruft" (a word I had never even seen until last night) and have no place here. But every single episode of a TV show with a plot summary on this site has included a list of pop culture references. What's going on? Had this policy always been in effect or has there been a change, and if there's been a change how recent is it?

I believe that people reading about this episode would want to see a list of so-called "cruft". I fail to see what makes it so objectionable.--Fingerknöchelkopf 14:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Airplane Reference
When watching the episode I noticed how one gag (when a line of people queue up to try and calm Stewie) down is almost exactly the same as a situation in the Airplane film. I think this should be added to the cultural references. Family Guy: []

Airplane: []

Cultural references
Warning to the two editors L0b0t and special:contributions/216.177.121.212, you are in an edit war, please talk it over in the discussion page or action will be taken. To L0b0t, I believe that cultural references are of importance of comedic value and has precendence from all episodes of Family Guy, therefore it would seem to be a convention to include that.--Janarius 14:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

yes, maybe we someone should set up some sort of mediation because i dont see this really being resolved anytime soon by itself... Grande13 14:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What makes it objectionable are the following policies and guidelines: WP:EPISODE, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:WAF. Unless the show's creators said it in the media or a 3rd party source that passes muster with WP:V and WP:RS publishes it somewhere, it is original research and needs to be removed.  No longer can we tolerate edits that restate jokes from the episode or say that a scene in the episode looks like a scene in another work or is a parody/homage of another work in its entireity  Here are some of the relevant sections; the emphasis is in the original, I've highlighted the meat of it in green.

WP:EPISODE, a guideline, instructs: "* Content about television episodes must conform to Wikipedia content policies, including but not limited to Verifiability and No original research. Avoid excessive trivia and quotations.
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
 * Extensive quotation from episodes is a violation of copyright and unlikely to be fair use.
 * Here are some ideas for what information to include about a television episode, where possible:
 * The plot summary of the episode
 * The episode's relevance in ongoing story arcs, if any
 * How the episode was received by critics
 * The episode's impact on popular culture
 * Information on production and broadcasting of the episode
 * Elements which are best avoided in any episode article :
 * A scene-by-scene synopsis. An overall plot summary is much better; the article should not attempt to be a replacement for watching the show itself, it should be about the show
 * Particularly for comedies, no attempt should be made to recreate the humor of the show. This rarely works, and is contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia."

WP:NOT, a policy says: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply: Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic."

WP:V, a policy, is clear: "The policy: Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
 * 1) Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
 * 2) The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishingtoinclude the material, not on those seeking to remove it."

WP:OR, a policy, states: "

That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliablepublication in relation to the topic of the article."

WP:RS, a guideline, reads in part: "Popular culture and fiction

Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included."

WP:WAF, a guideline, tells us: "Wikipedia policy on verifiability requires that articles "rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." However, articles written from an in-universe perspective are overly reliant on the fiction itself as a primary source. Lacking as they are in any critical analysis of the subject, these articles may invite original research. In other words, lacking critical analysis from secondary sources, Wikipedia editors and fans of the subject often feel compelled to provide such analysis themselves. Consider this analogy: Would it be acceptable to write an article on flight based solely on watching birds flying? Furthermore, much of this analysis might seem on the surface to be quite sound. For example, assume that an editor creates an article on a starship recently introduced on a science fiction TV show. Using the episodes as reference, he or she writes, "Finn-class starfighters have purple shielding and can fly faster than Mach 3." But how do we really know that all Finn-class starships have purple shielding? What if there are green ones that just have not been introduced yet? And what if later episodes show that Finn-class starships come in slower or faster varieties, too? The editor has made an inference, based on limited fictional information. Framing things from the perspective of our own universe eliminates the problem altogether: "In Episode 37, Commander Kinkaid obtains a Finn-class starfighter with purple shielding. Vice Admiral Hancock calls the ship 'a real space ripper' and says that she can 'make it past Mach 3'." I'm sorry you think there is a place for this in a general purpose encyclopedia, but there is not. There are many, many, many outlets for fan commentary and observation but wikipedia is not one of them. Cheers. L0b0t 15:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The reliability and verifiability of the info: the only source is the show itself and can be verified by people who saw it and I can attest that these scenes were there. The same goes for original research. --Janarius 15:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The policy for episodes is not respected, if you sampled some Simpsons and South Park episode articles. Some of them don't respect that and there's a lot. Unfortunately, as WP:NOT, some users would argue that the info is important and this should be address to users who are fans of the show.

Yes, that is true, the rules werent specifically intended for television epsidoes, so action should be refrained until the issues are ironed out.


 * There are already 2 discussions underway Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability and Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Television_episodes

This article being about a work of fiction, in no way exempts editors from following established editorial policy. If you want to change WP:POLICY to reflect your view of what an article should look like the place to start that process is on the discussion page of that particular policy or guideline. Until those policies are changed however, you have to abide by them. As for the above comment about the rules not governing episode articles, you really need to go read the rules, they apply to EVERY article, and WP:EPISODE is specifically about tv episode articles. Cheers. L0b0t 15:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * These issues are under heavy discussion, and it is disruptive to the encyclopedia (as per your oft-cited WP:POINT, even!) to take unilateral action rather than discussion. As you even cited yourself, discussions are taking place at least on this talk page, here, here, here... Ignoring to discussions to do what you feel is "right", regardless of however many policies you quote, is not an appropriate course of action, especially in order to maintain civility. –Dvandersluis 15:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have cited WP:POINT exactly twice in my entire time as a wikipedian. You are correct however, that discussions are underway and I will be happy to back off until the discussions are over as long as people stop adding cruft until then as well. Cheers. L0b0t 15:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * like I said, we need to submit this for mediation because this issue isnt resolving itself Grande13 15:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Grande13. While both sides are presenting good arguments, this has become an edit war, regardless of whether the edits involve have merit; perhaps disabling the edits until this issue is resolved would also be a good idea. (BTW - I am aware of the ongoing discussions taking place elsewhere in the Wiki community). Briguy52748 00:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)]]


 * You might also want to look Wikipedia_talk:Trivia where the consensus is to completely remove all trivia and cult ref sections. Cheers. L0b0t 14:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up Cultural References section
I added the comment, "PLEASE NOTE: Do not anything speculative to this list. This list is just for direct references to other things in culture made by this episode, or information relating to references that can be sourced. If you are unsure if what you wish to add is speculation, ask on the talk page!" to the Cultural References section (perhaps we should do this for all Family Guy episode articles?), and have removed speculative items from the list. I think this may be a pleasing result to all involved parties? –Dvandersluis 17:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Again, I must stress that the issue is often not with the info itself, which is often interesting, but rather with the way in which it is presented.  Yesterday I had to remove a bit from "Scott Tenorman Must Die" that said the episode title is a parody of John Tucker Must Die it was unsourced and if the editor had bothered to check any sources they would have seen that the South Park episode is from 2001 while the movie is from 2006.  Using a primary source (the episode) is acceptable ONLY for making claims of a descriptive nature about the primary source.  When we start using words like parody, homage, allusion, and spoof we must be very careful to cite a reliable 3rd party source, not the episode itself, as these are specific stylistic devices and to infer that the writers are using those devices without a reliable 3rd party source making that connection for you is called original research and is not allowed in the encyclopedia.  Bulleted lists are also a bad idea and will stop an article from reaching featured article status quick as a wink, but that is another debate for another time.  Thanks again for that note; I think it would be a good idea to place that in all the episode articles.  Cheers. L0b0t 17:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

???
I'm not sure why you've tagged this section with, L0b0t, especially given we came to a consensus about how to display/organize the information for the Cultural References section. Especially since the data would not fit into the plot synopsis section, and, frankly, it's not trivia. –Dvandersluis 15:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * When a bulleted list section is larger than the rest of the article, I think it has gone too far. Remove the tag if you like but I do think these lists should be rewritten as prose.  You are correct that we are making great progress towards consensus, and for that I thank you, Grande13, and Briguy52748.  Cheers. L0b0t 15:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Multiple Audio Versions I was watching this episode on Adult Swim and I noticed that Brian and Stewie were reacting to the sound of Brian's Girlfriend vomiting in the Griffin's house, but there was no audio for her vomiting. Was this removed for syndication?

Tetris gag
I think that the tetris gag should be included in the list of Cultural references. I don't think that the way that 24.227.101.137 put it, "One cutaway gag parodies the popular video game Tetris." is retelling of the joke, but just shows that Tetris was referred to in the episode. Thoughts? –Dvandersluis 14:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also if I recall correctly (I'll pull tape and review the show tonight), the gag does not parody Tetris but rather parodies Peter's sexual prowess using the Tetris blocks as a metaphor. Cheers. L0b0t 14:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The lead-in to the gag was Peter coming to help Lois teach the sex-ed class. He says "You think I'm going to miss a chance to share my knowledge with these fresh young minds? Forget it, I've missed too many other opportunities", before it cuts into the tetris scene. –Dvandersluis 14:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Right you are. So it is using Tetris as a metaphor for Peter's missed opportunities not lampooning Tetris.  I think it should have a place in the article though.  Cheers. L0b0t 14:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, not sure how to phrase it though Grande13 16:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

How about:

Peter's sense of accomplishment is made light of metaphorically when the gang becomes Tetris blocks and he is unable to interlock with his compatriots.

or some such. Cheers. L0b0t 18:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Good article review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): See above  b (MoS):  See above notes.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

No problems with the article except maybe the plot could be better referenced using one at the end of each paragraph. The article passes all criteria and is now a Good Article.Mitch32contribs 23:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Joe Orton reference
Surprised after all the blurb about cultural references, there's no citation to the obvious (to me) reference in the edition's title. "| Prick Up your Ears" is the name of a biography of the well-known UK playwright Joe Orton. Considering that Orton was famously controversial - including being openly gay at a time that homosexuality was still illegal in Britain, I'm sure that the re-use of the title can't be a coincidence. Demonstrating it, or finding a relevant citation from one of the writers is beyond me - I don't care enough about authorship to waste my time trying to figure out appropriate search terms. And it's years since I read or had a copy of the book. But it can't be coincidence.

Ah, there is a wiki page for the book, and it seems to have been a play and film too.

Aidan Karley (talk) 00:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prick Up Your Ears (Family Guy). 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/20090221062706/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=111406_09 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=111406_09

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) 00:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)