Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation/Family Guy work group/Archive 3

Herbert (Family Guy)

does anyone else think the "appearances" section is a horrible amount of list cruft? Ctjf83 ^talk 07:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue with this is WP:NOT#PLOT; recapping of all this character's appearances puffs up the article considerably with in-universe content. This is wrong for several reasons, some probably listed in WP:WAF.

Herbert (Family Guy) has about 2 paragraphs of real-world info, sourced from unspecified, non-footnoted DVD commentary. A freestanding character article needs secondary sources establishing notability outside the show. I imagine these exist or will soon enough, so I'd rather not send Herbert to WP:AFD, but it would be an uphill battle to make that article encyclopedic.

Two possible approaches:

1. Leave a fan-WP:USEFUL but unencyclopedic Appearances section, since the article won't pass GA any time soon.
2. Convert some list items for episode citations where they support statement about the character, and delete the Appearances section, along with remaining list items. Be prepared for much wailing.

That's how I see it anyway. / edg ☺ ☭ 09:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Family Guy books

It has recently come to my attention there are several notable Family Guy books, even by searching on Google books alone, I found quite a few which are notable enough to have an article, I've started with Family Guy: Stewie's Guide to World Domination and have also created {{Family Guy books}}, if anyone is interested in helping out. Let it be known that I have omitted a couple of books from that template, i.e. the ones with not even enough information avaialable about them to make a stub, as its better than redlinks. Qst 17:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, great idea. I'm sure some of us have these. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter Griffin's fathers.

Both of his fathers have been merged. But in my honest opinion I think they should have been merged into Peter's article, because they are his fathers. What do you guys think? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree Peter Griffin is the best article for these guys. If someone wants to make this section, I'm sure changing the redirect is okay. The point of these AFD decisions is that neither of Peter's fathers merits a freestanding article. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of Cultural References items on Episode pages

I posted this on the The Cleveland–Loretta Quagmire page.

"I am trying to get to some consensus on these way overlong sections. I went and cleaned this one up, and it was reverted.

Two examples of things that I removed, which were then reverted to be included.

"Peter says the CPR dummy is “hard, jagged and tastes like alcohol—just like kissing Faye Dunaway.

After a wrestler berates the locals, Peter punches a child and shouts, "Take that Macho Man Randy Savage!" "

If I am going to be reverted on these, please explain the notability or need to include them in the section. Citations have nothing to do with it I don't believe as they are known simply from watching the episode. Gwynand (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)"

If I am going to be reverted on my cleaning up of the massive cultural reference sections (not removal of them) then I'd like to see what the consensus is in the project. Use the two items I gave as examples. For one I think they do nothing more than simply state what celebrity was referenced on the show--cruft, not notable, etc. Gwynand (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying your actions were wrong, what I am saying that rather than removing them all with somewhat misleading edit summaries, you should have posted here and asked, because, as it happens, I have season 4, 5 and 6 on DVD, so I will almost certainly have a DVD commentary and be able to add a reference to the valid cultural references. Removing them is not helping the encyclopedia, we should be trying to move forward with 'our' articles, not backwards. If I cam over as somewhat hasty when reverting, I apologise; but removing them is unnecessary, in my opinion. Qst 17:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I rather dislike these sections because they tend to repeat jokes from the show, and the example items Gwynand lists above do not seem like encyclopedic content. Qst: do these two lines have potential for inclusion in a GA-promoted version? You are one of a very few editors who could change my mind on something like this. If the deleted text had potential, restoring with edit summary like We're going somewhere with these might help. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, a lot of the fiction cruft in bullet points is only telling half the story so-to speak. I have to correct it and reference it after watching the DVD commentary, so I know that a lot of it does have potential if it had a reliable reference and was wrote correctly. But, on the other hand, some of those cultural references I know for a fact are not worthy of mention on the DVD, but some I think have a high chance of being notable (e.g the Superman one). I'll tell you what, after I finish Road to Rupert and Peter's Two Dads, I'll start on the above article and then it will have referencable information in it. Don't get me wrong, however, I think Gwynand has the articles best intentions at heart, but, given the state some of the episode articles are in, we should be aiming to keep as much as we can in and, eventually, I will get round to doing some of them. Qst 17:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure we are getting to the heart of this. I think the Family Guy articles are actually full of info, more so than most show's episode pages. I also think they are simply better than most show episode pages. However, it is obvious to me that some are overdoing the inclusiveness to the point of excess. The two examples I gave were not cherry picked... the were right next to each other in the most recent edit I did of one episode (of over 100 now). QST, I am glad that you are defending your point on the only things that matter, notability and verifiability, but is it just that we are disagreeing on the notability of some of these? Specifically, I think if Faye Dunawaye's name is simply uttered as part of joke in the episode, that is barely a "cultural reference" and no where near notable enough to be included. I think the same thing is a song is sung, a real-life product is used, someone imitates Robin Williams, etc, and believe me, the pages are filled with things like that.Gwynand (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, indeed. I completely agree that some of the items which you removed were not suitable, but a few were and, I think we would be better off listening to the DVD commentary of the episode to see if they are mentioned (if it has a commentary, that is.) Qst 18:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Seth MacFarlane for FA

I am thinking about nominating this article for FA. Any suggestions for improvement? Miranda 06:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It definitely has the potential, but, as it only recently got its GA status, I don't think we should hurry it to FA, maybe just let it be edited and improved a bit more. It's definitely something to consider in the future, though. Qst 18:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There have been articles in the past that have been promoted to GA, and have made featured soon after the nomination. I don't know. Maybe if we wait until the strike is over. Miranda 22:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose when you put it like that, you're right. The strike could take months to finish, so we could be waiting a lot time, unfortunately. Lets see what others can input here, and then work from there :) Qst 22:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Chris Griffin & Mayor Adam West articles

I am trying to get these to more encyclopedic quality. As the newest member of this WikiProject, I'm just learning the ropes of it so if I make any mistakes, let me know on the talkpage.

If you can help me, please feel free to discuss either at my talk page or the respective articles' talk! Thanks, --Solumeiras ^talk 18:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Episode navigation box

I've been reverting A LOT lately, and there are some unregistered users that keep adding those. We must do something about this fast. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If we're all agreed these gotta go, I'll remove them when I see them. I'm watching the first four seasons, and some of the later. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree removing them would benefit the articles. Qst 18:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with the episode navigation boxes. It's just a more convenient way for people to navigate through the episodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberhawk241 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it really just more clutter on the page? There's a perfectly good navbox on the top of each episode article. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Censorship notes

Hi all, I reverted some sections which were removed on censorship (i.e. material in FG episodes which had been edited out due to censorship concerns). I figured it was good to keep in for a couple of reasons. First, it results in more copmmentary and discussion about an episode rather and hence reduces article emphasis on a plot summary, and second, censorship in itself is a pretty notable topic and more so for this show which, shall we say, certainly sails close to the wind....however it would be prudent, nay, essential, to get some references and discussion on hte topic. My connection is slow so I may take a bit of time to list the 5 episodes I reinstituted stuff on. All help appreciated. Later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Exciting news!

I've just found a bunch of freely-licensed family guy images (yes, including some pictures of production staff.) I'll upload these tomorrow. :) Qst (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Qst, you continue to amaze. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Road to Germany

Okay, I'd like to request some input on this. Road to Germany has been the subject of some edit warring over these past few days (including myself) over whether it should be a redirect, or an article. I myself think it should be a redirect, as, although it has references - its already getting trivia added in to it about it being the third Road to [...] episode and stuff like that. I'd like to request some input on whether it should be an article, or a redirect so I can act upon it in light of consensus. Cheers.Qst (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Road to Rupert for FA

Any edits welcome. I'm going to work on it some more (hopefully with the assistance of Cirt, a valuable and experienced FA contributor,) then send it to peer review, and hopefully, it will be ready for FAC within the next few weeks. So please, feel free to improve this article and be bold. :) Qst (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Family Guy trivia essay

I've been meaning to write a guideline to encourage removing excessive Family Guy trivia from non-FG articles. Such a guideline is probably not as helpful as actually removing such information, so I've not put much into it yet. Suggestions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Family Guy/Family Guy trivia. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You did a damn good job making this page. I added it to my watchlist. It can be improved I'm sure, but since I don't waste time practicing about guidelines or essays I don't know how to improve it. But I'd love to take part in any discussions on this page that will be in the future. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I Never New This

I never knew this exsisted. I'm glad because I just went on about 110 images, and categorised it. I think i'll join, if i can. SimpsonsFan08 ^{talk Sign Here Please and get Award} 19:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Seth MacFarlane

Nominated this article for featured status. miranda 05:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Stewie Loves Lois

There's more written about the subplot with Peter than the main plot with Stewie and Lois. Could someone add more detail to the Stewie/Lois plot? --DrBat (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll get to it, as I was the original writer who brought it to GA. Qst (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, after looking at it, the storyline of Peter being raped takes up a lot more of the episodes time. Going into further detail over Stewie losing his teddy bear would be excessivee.I think its okay as it is, although feel free to comment. Qst (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Stewie Griffin

Input required as to whether or not Stewie should be added into an LGBT category. Qst (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 187 articles are assigned to this project, of which 101, or 54.0%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:

{{User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription|banner=Family Guy WikiProject}}

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Family Guy participants...WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises' scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on multimedia franchises. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help the project get back on solid footing. Also, if you know of similar projects which have not received this, let Lady Aleena (talk · contribs) know. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. You can sign up here if you wish. Thank you. LA @ 21:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Franchise naming convention discussion at WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Family Guy participants...WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA (T) @ 22:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Family Guy

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Bertram

Bertram should be in the infoboxes of Peter, Meg, and Chris. If he's in Stewie's infobox, he should be in their infoboxes. The King Gemini (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Should probably be removed from Stewie's page then. If you're going to add Bertram, why not add Peter's real dad or Meg's real dad too? They're all 1-2 shot jokes. Dp76764 (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure they are just jokes, but he is only in 2 episodes that I can remember, and infoboxes are meant for major details, I think it is ok to list him in the article, but not the infobox. CTJF83Talk 00:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be there. But calling Peter's true father a one-shot joke is wrong because there was a whole episode focusing on that. There was also a whole episode focusing on Bertram if I remember correctly. I believe these could be mentioned somewhere in the article, but not in the infobox. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well actually 2 episodes, Sibling Rivalry and Emission Impossible, but yes, 2 out of 110+ isn't enough of a major character for info box. CTJF83Talk 00:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I never objected the fact that it's not a major character, it is in fact a minor character. My point is, it belongs to a character list and maybe in Stewie's article, but nowhere else, not even the infoboxes. Same goes to Peter's Biological father which only belongs to the article about Peter. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree with you, I was just pointing out, for arguments sake the 2 episodes he was in :) CTJF83Talk 01:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Two whole episodes revolve around him, therefore he must be included as Peter's son. 87.69.177.35 (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, but not in the infobox. CTJF83Talk 22:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:FGwiki Nominated for deletion

I have nominated Template:FGwiki for deletion. The discussion can be found here CTJF83Talk 15:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Religion, Heritage, Hair color for FG character infoboxes

More input would be welcome in this discussion. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Cultural references - Family Guy exempt?

I understand the template "toomuchtrivia" and its purpose throughout wikipedia. However, cultural references are big parts of Family Guy episodes. Shouldn't they be listed? I understand that the idea is to put the information "into prose", but really this is not always possible for many Family Guy articles — scenes are random clips to things, how do you put that into prose? Anyway, I think the best way to handle this is to respect wikipedia by eliminating these sections of articles, and then to link to the appropriate page on the Family Guy Wiki (where hopefully the information exists or where someone can add it). Does this seem like the proper way to handle this? Timneu22 (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I would delete them because they don't refer to the episode's storyline. It's all trivia and cultural refs. Does "Could've had a V8" have anything to do with how Peter found out about his dad? No. It's uneeded. Whil they are important, it's best to just have section reffering to the gags in the main article, instead of listing uneeded trivia. Just my 2 cents. Simon^KSK 23:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, if there is discussion in secondary sources, material could be added to a Cultural references section. Cirt (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)