Talk:Family Affair

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Family Affair article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Family and relationships (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Family and relationshipsWikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationshipsTemplate:WikiProject Family and relationshipsFamily and relationships articles

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Buffy's "real" name

I can't find the episode where it says Buffy's real name is Elizabeth as noted in the article. Is that so? 2602:306:CE96:AD70:D902:A224:EAA5:5BEE (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)BeaMyra[reply]

revival?

Other article (Grayson) mentions it - truth or fiction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.128.14 (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Family Affair (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 March 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the pages as proposed at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– There are numerous topics with the same name, including two British shows and the Mary J. Blige hit song back in 2001, so this does not completely qualify as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. JE98 (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mild support on page views the US show does have it, but that's only PT1, by PT2 there are so many subjects plus all the A Family Affair dab subjects too so doubt it is really the automatic topic other than among American viewers over 60. @JE98: are you volunteering to fix all the links if it is moved? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @In ictu oculi: I'll do the best I can. JE98 (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- I was going to reserve my vote for now, but there are a couple of points to consider.
1. This was certainly a extremely influential series of the time (made moreso by the tragic fates of several of the stars), and more notable than any of the other exact title matches (even the Blige song, which was 17 years ago and fading in significance).
2. A prior move discussion Talk:Family Affair (disambiguation)#Requested move resulted in a "Not Moved", and current page view stats [1] still show a strong lead by the show and "more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for" per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE.
3. The two British shows are not an exact name match (Family Affairs vs Family Affair).
4. There is a 2002 revival series which I believe should be split from this article before we do any move, because of the above-mentioned link-fixing necessary, which I am sure is confused by having two series covered in one article.

I think we'd need answers on these points before we could move. -- Netoholic @ 08:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Netoholic: Now that you mention it, I took a closer look and see that the 2002 revival is significant enough to have its own article, despite having only one season. I now think we should focus on that first before restructuring the "Family Affair" articles. However, I would like to keep this move going to get more opinions. JE98 (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the 2002 remake TV series is split out, then this one should not be moved to "(U.S. TV series)" but to "(1966 TV series)". In light of all of this, I suggest that the nominator withdraw the current WP:RM, to allow for the split-out of the 2002 remake (I'd be willing to do that if nobody else wants to tackle it...) – we can then revisit the question again in a few months once we have some new data based on page views... Failing that, I would oppose the current proposal right now, as this is all very problematic in the meantime. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:Split out proposed

Based on the Requested move discussion topic above this one, it looks like there is support for splitting out the section on the 2002 WBN revival/reboot series into its own article at Family Affair (2002 TV series). I will carry out such a split in the near future, unless someone offers up a policy-based objection to such a split. But the 2002 TV show meets the notability criteria for WP:TVSHOW, and seems to justify its own separate article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good effort, because the current article includes templates, categories, and incoming/out-going links related to that 2002 series which adds to confusion and affects the page view stats that might inform us as to the concern raised in the move discussion. Its a full-fledged series reboot (and not a continuation with a new cast) and so its appropriate to be split out. The proposed name is good. I'd leave a hatnote on this page pointing to the 2002 series once complete. -- Netoholic @ 05:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done – article on the 2002 remake series split out to Family Affair (2002 TV series). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help request

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I am making valid edits to this article and another editor (User:IJBall) is acting uncivilly. In the first edit summary, he/she states: "That didn't help.". (Whatever that means.) In the second edit summary, he/she states: "Knock if off". (Whatever that means.) Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading about the recent college admissions scandal (2019 college admissions bribery scandal). That took me to the page for actress Lori Loughlin. On her page, it stated that she was a guest star on this show, Family Affair, back in 1971. So, I added her to the list of guest stars on this article page. Something did not quite add up, so I did more research. I found out that Lori Loughlin was never a guest star on Family Affair. It was a totally different actress, with a similar name. Namely, Lori Loughton. (See here: [[2]].) So, I went back and changed the fact that I had added Lori Loughlin to this page. For some reason, this "upset" editor (User:IJBall). His/her (snide, in my opinion) comment was to revert all of my edits and state "That didn't help." Later on, I added a necessary comma somewhere and he/she said "Knock it off." You can read the edits and the edit summaries for yourself. Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are messing up the formating of the columned list. My comments were not "snide" – they were "on point". And you are the one who has violated WP:BRD, not me – you should self-revert as per WP:STATUSQUO until you can establish consensus for your changes. But considering your changes have eliminated the columns that were previous used in that list, I am not expecting you to find any consensus for your changes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Running to an Admin over a content issue is likely to get you nothing more than a WP:TROUT for wasting an Admin's time. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much disagree with everything that you stated above. First of all, what is wrong with making an edit, then discovering it, then fixing my own "bad" edit? I should have sought consensus to add Lori Loughlin to this article? Is that your position? Also, I suspect this: The current column format looks terrible on my computer screen, but looks good on yours. I changed it. Now, it looks good on my computer screen, but bad on yours. That is my guess. I have seen that issue arise before, where two people are looking at the same thing, but they see different things -- different formats -- due to their computer resolution or screen size or whatever it is exactly. You, however, state that I am "messing up the columns". Which shows your lack of good faith and your lack of assuming good faith. If what I say is true -- that the columns looks good on my computer and I have improved the article -- how exactly is that "messing up the columns"? Once again, I disagree with pretty much everything you state above. It was clear from your edit summaries that I would need a neutral third party. Hence, the admin help request. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin: I reviewed the edit summaries of this article. I noticed that User:IJBall has a persistent habit of reverting other people's edits to this article. It happens over and over. Just read the edit logs. Doesn't Wikipedia have some type of rule or guideline that says "no one individual owns an article"? Where can I find that rule? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spacing between columns isn't an admin issue—please seek one (or more) of the types of dispute resolution for this content dispute. If you are looking for the policy that editors do not "own" articles, see here. (To answer your other question, "knock it off" is generally slang for "stop it".) Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Reaper Eternal: I thought it was obvious, but I guess not. I am not seeking help with the "spacing between columns" issue. I am seeking help with the edit war / reverts / incivility issue. Was not that obvious? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was no WP:3RR violation, which why there is no Admin action. And there was no "incivility". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no edit war (yet), so the reverts do not need admin action. Please don't let this dispute turn into an edit war.

While "knock it off" is certainly not collaborative, it's far from requiring any sort of civility action. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shared birthday.

As of December, 2019, the two surviving principal cast members, Kathy Garver ("Cissy") and her TV brother Johnny Whitaker ("Jody") share a birthday (December 13), 14 years apart.Maccb (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Children's names in 1966-71 series

There seems to be some cross-pollination of the details for the children's names between the original 1966-71 series, the 2002 revival series, and perhaps some other unknown source that created a more detailed back-story after the fact. The children in the original series were named "Buffy," "Jody," and "Cissy." As far as I can tell, their "formal" character names referenced in this article were never mentioned in the original series. Further, their last name was always Davis, not Patterson. They were the children of Bill Davis' brother, who was also presumably named Davis. The backstory provided is that the children lived in Terra Haute (referred to as "Terra Hut"), Indiana, and that there had been an "accident" in which the children's parents had presumably died. After this accident, the children spent approximately a year in the care of separate relatives before being reunited in New York, which is the premise of the pilot. In that episode, Buffy tells Uncle Bill that "you look just like my daddy did," affirming that his brother was their father. It appears that the name "Patterson" was introduced in a season 4 episode when the children reconnect with their maternal grandfather.

As such, it would seem accurate to say that Anissa Jones portrayed Buffy Davis, not Ava Elizabeth Patterson-Davis. Johnnie Whitaker portrayed Jody Davis, not Jonathan Patterson-Davis. Kathy Garver portrayed Cissy Davis, not Catherine Patterson-Davis. The IMDB details to which the formal names are attributed and cited for the 1966-71 series appear to be incorrect. If I am mistaken, I will gladly concede, but then the references should be updated to cite the specific 1966-71 episode(s) where they are identified as Ava Elizabeth, Jonathan, and Catherine (or as having used their mother's maiden name), rather than citing IMDB. Update: In Season 3 episode 1 (September 1968), one of Buffy’s friends, Lana, decides to refer to Buffy as “Ava,” because it’s the name Lana’s mother would have called Lana if she hadn’t been named Lana (presumably references to actresses Lana Turner and Ava Gardner). In the end, Buffy decided she would rather be called, “Buffy,” her real name. wWnceditor (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]