Jump to content

Talk:Family Guy season 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Season finale

[edit]

The season finale is simply two separate episodes that are airing side by side, not one long episode like the Star Wars specials, or Road to the North Pole, or And Then There Were Fewer. - Jasonbres (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and your source for this claim would be...? Why do you keep reverting to that clumsy version? You need to have a very good reason to have two separate entries for one airdate, when at least two sources refer to this as a one-hour special within a single entry, edit summary/summaries included. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the facts: The two episodes have separate copyright records (PAu003560983 for Viewer Mail, and PAu003560985 for Internal Affairs), there is clearly a slash between the two episode titles unlike the episodes I mentioned before which have no slash at all. Plus they have two separate storylines (or in this case, 6 separate storylines, 4 for Viewer Mail, and 2 for Internal Affairs). Plus Fox Flash is not completely reliable. At one point, they said that the subplot of "Mr. & Mrs. Stewie" (the one about Lois separating the bed) was going to be in "Brian Writes a Bestseller" (http://thefutoncritic.com/listings/20101101fox21/), but that ended up not happening. - Jasonbres (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The only thing they share is the exact air date so they should be in two separate entries, simple as that. -- A talk/contribs 18:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So... again, what's wrong with keeping them as one entry with the slashes? All the reasons you stated violate WP:SYNTH, as there is no source that clearly indicates a lack of connection between the episodes. Also, what does the subplot thing has to do with anything? Family Guy has been doing that for as long as they've existed! Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's my point to show how unreliable the Fox Publicity web site can be. - Jasonbres (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yet it's still the network that owns and airs FG, so we cannot exactly throw away their reliability based on an erroneous posting. Besides, the sources quoted in the article are TVbythenumbers and TVGuide. I'm still not getting your point, though. If there are six different plotlines, should we separate it into six different entries?
Bottom line: they don't just share an airdate, they're bound by the network as a two-part finale. Having absolutely no connection between plots never stopped FG from putting stuff together before, has it? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I give up. - Jasonbres (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it were really a double-length episode, don't you think both parts of the episode would have the same title like all the other double-length finales?? Davejohnsan (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may think whatever I please, but the fact remains that the sources still tie them together as an hour-long finale. As I stated earlier, Family Guy is notorious for connecting plots and even entire episodes with little to no actual connection between them. This is why they should go into a single entry, with both titles/numbers/production codes separated by slashes. Failure to do so directly contradicts the sources, which goes against our fundamental principles. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This source, at the bottom of the page, reads "Next, in the “Internal Affairs” episode," which doesn't exactly suggest that the first episode is a continuation of the first episode. Would you mind quoting your sources to give us an idea of where you're getting the impression that it's a single, double-length episode? Davejohnsan (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or why don't we just wait until the two episodes air next Sunday and see for ourselves? Seems more productive than grasping at straws over the interpretation of the way the finale was described. If there is an obvious connection between the the two episodes, then it will be appropriate to list them either as one entry or include a (Part 1) and (Part 2) next to each episode. Davejohnsan (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One thing we can agree on: airing two episodes in a row is unprecedented. Separate episodes, listed as separate entries, always have separate airdates. Don't you think that alone, coupled with the fact that it's scheduled by the network as an hour-long special, merits special treatment? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict):::Minus the finale part, this isn't the first time this has happened. These two episodes are completely unrelated but aired on the same day - and they're listed as two separate entries. Other than that, all the other two-in-one episodes share the same title and plot. It probably won't take much to prove that the two episodes that air next Sunday are connected as well, but we'd have to see it for ourselves on May 20, don't you think? By the way, if it turns out the two episodes are connected, I think it'd be better to put (part X) by each episode rather than combine them into one entry, but that's probably another issue to deal with later. Davejohnsan (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) I have written multiple times that the issue in question is not whether the plots are connected, because they're not. The question is: should we reflect the intention of the network that owns and airs the series? It's as simple as that, and this discussion is already beyond digression. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should reflect Fox's intentions, but I don't think combining two separate episodes into one entry is the way to do it. (Edit summary: If all else fails, let's just revisit this discussion after next Sun.)Davejohnsan (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't think we do "intentions". We do what's based on reliable sources. I'm going to semi-protect the article to cut down on disruption, and I hope that you all can hammer out this rather trivial matter on the talk page. No lame edit wars, please. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Intention=reflecting the source. In this case, both sources call it an hour long special, quoting Fox. This is a clear intent on the network's part to have the episodes connected, although they're seemingly not. Any more reliable? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Networks always call double-episodes "hour-longs" or "movie-length episodes", it's a promotional thing, nothing more. It's two episodes with two different stories with two different production codes. They just happen to be airing on the same night. They are completely unrelated to each other except by air date. Fox is calling it an hour-long episode as a promotional gimmick, to trick viewers into thinking that longer is better or that they might get something special. It's meaningless. That's it. They're two episodes, they should be listed separately. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but please don't tell me about going according to sources, because this is as speculative as it gets. Promotional gimmick... to trick viewers... take your pick and stick with it. Oh, and the "viewer mail" episode is actually three mini episodes, with three completely different stories. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about going with sources. There was a similar problem on the Terra Nova page and now they've got some bullshit listed about there only being 11 episodes when every source in the universe counted 13. It's two episodes that happen to be airing on the same night. Different titles, different plots, different production codes, and I'll bet my bottom dollar different writers/directors as well. They are completely unconnected. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
^Same thing with Glee, Desperate Housewives, Fringe... quite a couple two-hour finales. The way I see it: Two different production codes, two different episodes. If it were one episode there'd be one production code. -- A talk/contribs 02:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adult Swim dates?

[edit]

Really? Since when have the premiere dates on [adult swim] been so notable? - Jasonbres (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't. They were added by an IP and reverted by User:Davejohnsan CTJF83 00:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

The picture is for Volume 10 DVD release of Family Guy. The Volume 10 release features NO episodes from season 10. It ends with "Internal Affairs", which is the finale of Season 9. Therefore, I think we should find a different picture and move the Volume 9 and 10 pictures into the Season 9 page. -benmoody0220

Volume 10 page

[edit]

As the region 1 dvd "Season 11" and the region 2 dvd "season 12" contains all episodes from Season 10, like it has happened before I think we should have the photos of both box sets next to each other. (W-E (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

But there are no episodes from another season featured on the release. The previous DVD release ended with "Foreign Affairs", which aired as the finale for season nine. "Volume 11" starts with "Lottery Fever" and doesn't feature episodes that were broadcast for season nine. Having the image for the "Volume 10" DVD on this page makes no sense because none of the episodes on the "Volume 10" DVD are in this article. They're all in the season nine article. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting ridiculous because this has happened multiple times despite being explained MANY times. It's just misleading and wrong. The cover art should be the U.S Volume 11 Cover, as that is the set of which these episodes are included! Alexshunn (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Family Guy (season 10). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Family Guy (season 10). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Family_Guy_season_10&oldid=1216299712"