Talk:Family Guy

Family Guy Aging

The rating is actually 14, which means that it's actually a teenagers animated sitcom. User talk:MattWorks 11:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this needs further discussion; could it not have different ratings by country? DonIago (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The rating simply means it's not advised for children under the age of 14. It does not mean that it's targeted at 14-year-olds. Davejohnsan (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

And it's also just according to a particular rating system/body. These ratings vary by country.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Remove "adult" as a descriptor from the opening sentence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose removing the word "adult" as a descriptor from the opening sentence, which now reads:

Family Guy is an American adult animated sitcom created by Seth MacFarlane for the Fox Broadcasting Company.

—Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Poll

• Support as proposer for the reasons I give below—it is ambiguous, unnecessary, and WP:UNDUE. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose "Animation" is generally presumed to be targeted for children, hence why "adult animation" is a term where it doesn't exist in other types of media. (But we do have "childrens' book", "family film", "children's television", etc. because those mediums presume the work is for adults unless otherwise denoted. As long as the "adult animation" term is linked as one to that article, readers aren't going to mistake it for adult=pornographic as suggested. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  Masem: your last statement would seem to justify any WP:EGG. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  Hrm. Our article on animated sitcom is terrible and barely justifies it as a notable genre - but turning to google, it's clearly used more frequently than "adult animation". I was going to suggest that one could link the terms as "(adult animated)/(sitcom)" rather than how it is now as "(adult)/(animated sitcom)" but in terms of genre value, "animated sitcom" appears more accurate (barring the problem with that article). And given that "animated sitcom" is considered a subset of the general "sitcom" which is generally part of non-children's television, that could be valid reason to remove the adult tag. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  Or just move adult animation elsewhere in the article, where it can be worked in and contextualized in a way that's not ambiguous and awkward. It's hardly NOPV that "adult" is such a defining aspect of the show that it requires drawing attention to it in the opening sentence, anyways—nothing essential is lost by cutting it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 14:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  I can understand why some have high value in including "adult animation", but I can see why it's a problem. I would suggest (supporting the RFC) that the lede can start: "Family Guy is an American animated sitcom created by Seth MacFarlane for the Fox Broadcasting Company. The adult animation series centers on the Griffins..." which keeps that high value term there but avoids the other points of concern. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  Ironically, the last thing I wrote before Curly Turkey shot off to open an RfC was can you offer an alternative wording that still identifies the program as both adult animation and an animated sitcom?. Had he participated in the discussion we could have had this out of the way by now without any need for an RfC. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  AussieLegend: Ironically, despite your protestations, you refuse to offer a response to my proposed alternate wording below, or to retract your remarks about my psychological state and ulterior motives. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

  PamD hasn't responded either, but I don't see you harassing her. As for any remarks I have made, I don't see anywhere that I have made comments that are not supported by direct reference to what you have actually said. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  AussieLegend: PamD didn't demand an alternate wording; you did (also, she's on WikiBreak). The fact that you refuse to respond supports the first impression you gave me: you were never interested in discussing the issue. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  As I've written below, I asked for a suggestion before you even started this RfC and you refused to provide anything then. I am now concentrating on the specific question of the RfC.

  The fact that you refuse to respond supports the first impression you gave me: you were never interested in discussing the issue - There's an old saying: You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  I'm not interested in "catching flies"—I'm here to improve poor prose. If you are acting in good faith, show us all by responding to the proposal you demanded. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  Your response is contradictory and if you do not understand why then your opposition to the word "adult" is completely understandable and a demonstration of what I said earlier, here. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - As explained above in the discussion that Curly Turkey barely participated in before opening this RfC, I explained why we are forced to compromise with the wording unless a better set of words can be found. The program is clearly adult animation and an animated sitcom but we can't write "adult animation animated sitcom" so we are forced to compromise slightly. The fact that this is adult animation and not traditional animation is a significant point and we should be writing for our readers. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Why not say "animated sitcom for adults", which would make more sense to readers and avoid all of that awkwardness? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Pointing out the demographic a program is aimed at is information we should provide, as long as it's properly referenced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Beyond My Ken: given that most articles do no such thing in the lead sentence, why make an exception with Family Guy? Especially when the wording is ambiguous? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
    • WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. That other articles do not do so is irrelevant, since I can go right now and add it to them, if you like. The question here is about this article, and this consensus discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Beyond My Ken: Okay, then please tell us why the lead sentence is the appropriate place to specify the target demographic on this article, and why doing so is so essential as to allow an ambiguous wording to stand. Nobody has suggested removing demographic information from the article, so your oppose rationale doesn't address the issue. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
        • It addresses the quesion posed by the RfC quite directly. Incidentally, the formulation "...for adults" works fine for me too. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
          • BTW, please stop WP:BLUDGEONing every response. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: It is an appropriate descriptor for the program and helps define the intended audience, though if the concern is the porn euphemism issue, then rephrasing how the word is used, as in "directed at an adult demographic" or something similar to the ideas suggested by WhatamIdoing in the discussion below, might be a reasonable idea. WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments really are beside the point, nothing prevents the same descriptor being added to other articles. Montanabw^(talk) 16:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I'm not sure the statement that "animation is generally presumed to be targeted for children" is still true. If someone can provide a good citation for that, maybe I'll change my opinion. Kaldari (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • There's one in the article, right after "adult", although it says more that cartoons are traditionally for children acknowledging that this has changed in recent years.[1] If you look back through all of the cartoons that have been produced throughout history you'll see that this is true. When I was a child in the 1960s there were no cartoons not meant for children. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
    • The article you link to seems to undermine your point with its opening line: " I think, honestly, we're all well beyond the point where I need to open up this feature with a 'Hey, did you know that cartoons aren't just for kids?" paragraph.' But that's not the point—the purpose of the RfC is to remove an ambiguity. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
      • The article is saying that animation isn't just for kids any more but that doesn't mean that animation wasn't traditionally for kids or that it isn't generally for kids even now. History proves that it was traditionally for kids and a simple comparison between the amount of children's animation and adult (not porn) animation shows produced show it still is generally aimed at kids. As for your perception of ambiguity, again, most mature people don't immediately equate adult with porn so there isn't really an ambiguity. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
        • That might depend on where you're from. For example, in the U.S., "adult bookstore" is pretty much universally understood to mean pornography store. Kaldari (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
          • I'm sure that "adult bookstore" means the same anywhere but that's a matter of context, not location. I doubt that most people would immediately associate "adult prices" with pornography. The issue that the nominator has is with the single word "adult", despite being linked. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support. "Adult animation" is easily assumed to be "pornographic animation". The current wording is unclear. I think we should all be able to get behind an alternative phrasing such as "Family Guy is an American animated sitcom created by Seth MacFarlane for the Fox Broadcasting Company. The program is targeted at an adult audience." I would support such wording. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Adult animation" is not written in the article. The word "adult" is linked to adult animation. In order to assume that "adult animation" is "pornographic animation" you need to follow the link and then completely misunderstand the fairly clear explanation in the linked article. Alternatively you have to not even bother to follow the links and assume that "adult^[2] animated sitcom" is a pornographic sitcom for adults and, really, how many of those exist? It's a completely unrealistic and illogical assumption and ignores the "^[2]" after "adult" in the middle of the text. Anyone reading that would surely follow the reference to find out what it all means. If they ignore two links and a reference, there's not much more we can do to make it absolutely clear that it's not porn. Some people just can't be helped. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
    • AussieLegend: You're then saying that the reader must click through the link before finishing reading the first sentence of the article. I address this in my rationale in the "Discussion" section—that is extraordinarily poor writing. Could you please visit the "Discussion" section and respond to my alternate wording proposal that you demanded? It's been three days now. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Please don't misrepresent what I say because I said nothing of the sort. The links are provided for convenience. A reader who is unable to comprehend what is written has the option of clicking any or all of the 3 links to have their question(s) answered while an editor who is able to understand will not need to do so although they may wish to do that if they would like more information. As for your alternate wording, I asked for that before you even started this RfC and you refused to provide anything then. I am now concentrating on the specific question of the RfC. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
        • So like I said—you're not and never have been open discussing it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry but I see that as a completely irrational response given the fact that I opened the initial discussion on this talk page,[2] and very clearly asked you for an alternate wording.[3] Clearly, based on the evidence, I was more than willing to continue discussion. That you refused to provide an alternate wording, instead rushing straight off to RfC,[4] and are now accusing me of doing exactly what you did, not to mention the personal attacks (which you've also accused me of making) gives me very little incentive to reply to any more of your, to be quite blunt, puerile responses. I'd suggest you follow the earlier advice given not to WP:BLUDGEON the process and take heed of the advice yet another editor gave you on your talk page.[5] Have a nice day. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Weak support, with the condition of including a change like BU Rob13 or WhatamIdoing had suggested. Cartoons/animation still have a stigma in the West as being aimed at and primarily produced for children. Although obviously shows like Family Guy, The Simpsons, and others are fairly well-known for being aimed at more mature audiences, Wikipedia isn't meant to be assuming of its readers and their prior knowledge. Although I can see how "adult animation" can lead to the wrong idea, it better conveys something more than just "animation" or "cartoon". To be fairly honest, I think this is a small potatoes thing, but if we really wanna go ahead with making this change, add some text about how it is targeted at the adult demographic, as per the suggestions I referenced. JaykeBird (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm with BYK above. We should point out the demographic target of an artistic piece when it is in the sources. --Adam in MO Talk 09:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Adamfinmo: The proposal is not to remove demographic information. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Curly Turkey: As I have stated, I am opposed to the removal of the word adult. Cheers. --Adam in MO Talk 11:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support The loss of precision here is secondary to the common misunderstanding. The goal of any content is to be accurate as well as easily comprehensible. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 17:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: First of all, "adult animated sitcom" is used elsewhere on the wiki, so the argument that other shows don't use it is unfounded. Secondly, a quick google search of the phrase will show you its pervasiveness in society/culture. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Nihlus Kryik: As is its use to mean "porn": (711000 hits for "adult animation" vs 393000 for "adult animation" porn—meaning 55% of all hits for "adult animation" are for porn, not including sites that don't mention the word "porn".
    "the argument that other shows don't use it is unfounded": the argument was not that other "adult animated sitcoms" don't use the term "adult", but that other kinds of shows do not (such as fantasy shows). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Curly Turkey: Unfortunately, Google doesn't do well with comparing index numbers, as they are unreliable. Look here for a more accurate depiction of different variations. Anything with adult and porn in the search register zero interest level. The related queries also fail to show your assumed relation between the two words. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
      • "adult cartoon porn" doesn't get zero—in fact, it gets more interest than "adult animation". "Cartoon" is by far the preferred search term over "animation", even though we prefer "animation" on Wikipedia. On this page, though, we are concerned with what the reader is reading, rather than what they are searching for, and asserting that "adult animated" will not be read by anyone as "pornographic animated" is beyond silly. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
        • Yes, if you change the words enough, you will find something that fits your narrative (however, "adult cartoon" has much more interest than "adult cartoon porn", thereby disproving your point again). However, we are talking about the word animation and not the word cartoon. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
          • ""adult cartoon" has much more interest] than "adult cartoon porn", thereby disproving your point again"—this is your most absurd argument yet—every instance of "adult cartoon" contains every instance of "adult cartoon porn"—if the former were smaller, it'd indicate a bug in Google's software. But let's get you on the record: are you asserting that readers will not read "adult animation" as "pornographic animation", and therefore there is no ambiguity? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
            • That's not how Google Trends works. It looks at those exact phrases and how they are searched. It does not include "variations" of the words in the phrase when determining the analytics. So, no, my argument is not absurd. I would recommend you stop attacking everyone who comments on this RfC just because they disagree with you. Please read WP:BLUDGEON before continuing. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
              • Could you answer the direct question instead of dodging with WP:BLUDGEON? Given that the RfC is about an ambiguous wording, and your own result clearly show the wording is ambiguous. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Could you read what I asked you to since your behavior has been disruptive to the process (WP:IDHT)? My results do not show the wording is ambiguous, it actually shows the opposite. The words are not ambiguous in this context at all, and even if it were ambiguous, it is linked in order to provide context is someone needs it. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 02:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, I misspoke. I don't know why I wrote "your own result". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose in the specifics per AussieLegend, et al, but suggest alternative because the issue is real: is an American animated sitcom, intended for adults^[1] (or just "for adults"). Or move the adult thing to a new sentence. It is not necessary to use the exact phrase "adult animation" when doing so is redundant ("animated sitcom" already tells the reader it's animation). MoS rule #1: Rewrite to avoid dispute or confusion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support per nom and Rob. I would support Pam's change proposed below, but at current the phrasing is heavily ambiguous. Keira1996 04:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support There is no need to classify cartoon comedy series as "adult" or not. Spongebob Squarepants is also a cartoon which adults enjoy and yet it was targeted for children and the audience grew. Same with Buggs Bunny. So many others. No need for "adult" Damotclese (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The difference here is this series is specifically targeted at adult audiences, while the others that you mentioned are targeted at children, which is where animation is traditionally targeted. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support. "Adult" implies this is something not of interest to children, or intended to be kept from children (such as the cartoon porn example mentioned above). Family Guy targets a wide audience. Presence of "adult" jokes do not by themselves make the show inaccessible to children. This labeling reminds me of older discussions proposing FG be given the labels like "black comedy". The problem is it defines FG by one of its elements, rather than summarizing the whole. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The linked article specifically says that adult animation is any type of animation work that is mainly targeted towards adults and sometimes also teenagers. It does not imply that children won't be interested. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Why this argument is problematic has already been discussed below. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support changing to ""animated sitcom for adults" or equivalent. This is less ambiguous, more informative, and more encyclopedic. I do not understand the arguments that want "adult animation"; even if it's not misinterpreted, it still sounds objective or even pejorative, all with no benefit to the readers or WP. We should at least attempt to have WP appear better than this. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Using "adult" in this context is poor writing because it is:

• ambiguous—as every adult knows, "adult" is a common euphemism for "pornographic", as in "adult book" and "adult film" (the latter of which redirects to Pornographic film). The Adult animation article reinforces this perception by opening with the message: "Not to be confused with cartoon pornography." Avoiding ambiguity is a goal of formal writing—especially encyclopaedic writing.
• unnecessary—we don't refer to Ulysses as an "adult novel", The Human Centipede as an "adult horror film", or Game of Thrones as an "adult fantasy drama television series", nor other animated works such as Ghost in the Shell.
• surprising—such strangely conspicuous use of the word draws undue attention to it, a mere half-dozen words into the article, giving readers pause to wonder why the word is being used at all.
• in violation of WP:EGG—the word "adult" unexpectedly links to Adult animation. Worse, this makes the assumption that the reader will have to read the linked-to article to understand the context the word was presented in—this is not what links are for. Links are for curious readers to find more to read, not to figure out what context a word is being used in. The way the word is shoehorned into the lead suggests the editor is more interested in the proliferation of links than in the clarity of the writing or the appropriateness of the terms linked.

Let's write for the benefit of the reader, and not to satisfy our hobbyhorses. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: You don't have to make a proposal just to remove a single word from a sentence in an article. Be bold, and make the edit yourself. Philroc^{My contribs} 14:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Philroc: I did—see the discussion immediately above, where I'm accused of bizarre ulterior motives for having removed this single word. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 14:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd address Curly Turkey's claims here but I already did, in the opening of the discussion above, before he had even participated. Curley Turkey's main point seems to be that he believes adult=porn. This was his original reason for deleting the content. That was even his reason for chasing me on my talk page. Even though nobody else has ever indicated a problem with use of "adult" in the four years in which the text has been in the article, it seems prudent to link "adult" to adult animation to make sure that even one person isn't misguided. I would have been happy to continue discussion of this above but he chose not to. --16:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, adult does mean "porn" – in some contexts. Curly's correct that this is ambiguous, and a person who knows nothing about the show would have no idea if that means "sexual animated sitcom" or "animated sitcom for an older audience". So how about making it clear? We could write something like, "Family Guy is an American animated sitcom created by Seth MacFarlane for the Fox Broadcasting Company. The main audience is adults" or "Family Guy is an American animated sitcom for adults. It was created by Seth MacFarlane for the Fox Broadcasting Company" and remove any possible confusion.

While we're at it, someone could also re-write the line "immediately generated controversy regarding its adult content" to be clearer. I have no idea whether the controversy is about sex or about swearing or about actual adult life, which seems to involve a lot more things like paying the bills and washing the laundry than things that get labeled with the euphemism "adult". I think we can do better than this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's me. I don't see "adult" and immediately think "bow chicka bow wow". I followed the link to see in what context the word was used. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Family Guy is an American animated sitcom for adults, as suggested by WhatamIdoing, is unambiguous and an improvement over "adult animated sitcom" which to many readers will suggest porn or thereabouts. PamD 17:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

"Curley Turkey's main point seems to be that he believes adult=porn"—my only point has been that the wording is ambiguous, and thus poor writing. I've been awfully explicit about that, but you appear to be as poor a reader as you are a writer. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a blatant personal attack and you should know better. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

AussieLegend: I've retracted it. I hope you'll retract yours, and acknowledge the point. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Curly Turkey's being awfully explicit; does he need an X rating? LOL. CT's point seems pretty clear to me, and it's weird that anyone would assume that pointing out the ambiguity equates to identifying with one side of the ambiguity. This article's lead really does need to be rewritten on this point, and one doesn't have to share the "adult = porn" perception to realize that some people do have that perception, and that we thus need to write around it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'd argue that if some people see "adult animated sitcom" as meaning porn, the same people are probably going to have the same problem with that wording, which doesn't lend itself to linking to adult animation at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think it has the same risk of confusion. But if you want to eliminate all risk that this will be confused with the euphemism, then why not get some sources and write a detailed description of the audience? Then you could describe it as an "animated sitcom mostly watched by young white men aged 20 to 35", or whatever the main demographic is. This news article says that the median age of viewers was 28 years, and this newer one says age 31. This one includes some information on teen viewers. This one says it's particularly popular with younger men, which draws advertising dollars. I'm sure that a good search would turn up better ones. But the bottom line is that if you don't want to include the word 'adult' at all, then it could be eliminated and still communicate that this is not a children's show. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• We don't have to worry about "risking confusion" if we drop the non-essential word "adult" from the lead sentence. Adult animation can be linked elsewhere in a non-awkward, non-ambiguous context, as I suggested to Masem above—assuming there's any pressing reason to mention it at all. I mean, most people assume fantasy's for children, but we don't go out of our way to call Game of Thrones "adult fantasy", do we? How is Family Guy such a special case that we have to highlight it only six words into the article? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• @AussieLegend, WhatamIdoing, and PamD: How about if we were to add a line like "the show's target audience is teens and adults" somewhere in the lead? Of course, it would also have to be added to the body, as the lead is meant to summarize the body—it's surprising there's no info on the show's demographics in the article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Works for me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I've made my position on the RfC question quite clear. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
    • AussieLegend: that doesn't answer the question. What objection do you have to the proposed rewording? It appears to solve every issue you have with the removal. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
      • You have my answer. I'm sorry that you don't like it but it is what it is what it is and please stop pinging me EVERY time you reply. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
        • You're demonstrating exactly why this RfC was needed. Why demand a discussion you refuse to participate in? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree on adding "targeting teens and adults" or equivalent. Agree on including this in the main while adding it to lede. But, as it's been mentioned a couple times in long discussion, we need a source to state any such judgement about the subject. If we can't find a source for this, we shouldn't say anything about what amounts to just different editors' opinions about the target audience. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Non-issue; that takes about 5 seconds to find [6]. I'd suggest the News & Observer article as the quick-pick source. Or use a different one if you want "teen" included, but I think that's desperation. See much earlier thread on the OR mistake of equating a rating system's labeling of it for mid-teens as a minimum age, with the producer-intended audience.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
• Has the term 'adult-oriented' been considered, (viz. Adult-oriented pop music)? Cpaaoi (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • No, but it's worth considering. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Lots of things are worth considering, but some people aren't willing to talk. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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/20110511105240/http://screencrave.com/2010-01-20/interview-dwayne-johnson-for-tooth-fairy/ to http://screencrave.com/2010-01-20/interview-dwayne-johnson-for-tooth-fairy/

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) 02:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

post-RfC cleanup: what wording, if any, should the article go with?

Per the RfC above, the "adult" wording has proved to be problematic, and I've removed it. What alternative, if any, would be appropriate? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Pinging those who took part in the discussion: @Masem, WhatamIdoing, Beyond My Ken, Montanabw, Kaldari, and BU Rob13: @JaykeBird, Adamfinmo, QEDK, Nihlus Kryik, SMcCandlish, and Keira1996: @Damotclese, Edgarde, A D Monroe III, Cpaaoi, and PamD: Note: I haven't pinged AussieLegend, as they've instructed me not to. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic

Not relevant to the discussion

Please don't be childish. I told you not to ping me every single time you replied to a post of mine, which is what you were doing. Please also note that I am an individual, not a group of people, so "he" is the correct word to use, not "they". --AussieLegend (✉) 08:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC) Could you stop with the PAs already? You might want to check out Singular they, a construction that has been near-universal in English since Chaucer's time, and hardly something to take offense to. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC) I'm going to have to agree with AussieLegend, it is inappropriate to "ping" peolpe just because they responded to the RFC bot. Please don't do that, Curly. Damotclese (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC) And I disagree. It's routine to ping RfC respondents when a post-RfC decision has to be made to get beyond what was in the RfC's closure. People are more apt to complain about being left out than included. And pinging everyone except leaving out AussieLegend would open the ping'er to accusations of selective canvassing. Frankly, it's not any editor's responsibility to try to remember that AussieLegend in particular doesn't want pings about some particular topic or from some particular editor. None of us GaF, and we are not here to play personality games. Far more time has been wasted on argument about AL's personal preferences and their personality conflict with another editor that would have been spent just responding to question posted.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC) Leaving out someone with whom you've disagreed is particularly likely to draw complaints. Even if AussieLegend didn't mind, someone else might think it was an intentional slight or an effort to stack the deck. I think Curly made the right choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC) I fail to understand your conclusion given your argument. I specifically asked Curly Turkey not to ping me EVERY time he replied, not to never ping me. He was pinging me every time he posted in order to get me to post a response to something that I had provided a response for and it was getting annoying. His failure to notify me of this discussion was inappropriate at best. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC) This is so incredibly dishonest—I pinged you because you refused to respond to the issues raised. You have yet to give a rationale as to what issue you have with explicitly stating the demographics elsewhere in the lead. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Yes indeed it is incredibly dishonest, OF YOU. You pinged me several times to elicit a response from me even though you already had my response. Eventually I had to post saying I've made my position on the RfC question quite clear[7] and when that didn't satisfy you, You have my answer. I'm sorry that you don't like it but it is what it is what it is and please stop pinging me EVERY time you reply..[8] Unfortunately for you, the page history is available to everyone. Now, can we please move on? --AussieLegend (✉) 14:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC) It might be best if at least one of you "moved on" to a different article. This acrimony is reaching the point at which I suspect that an WP:IBAN could be requested. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• I'd prefer the demographics were made clear, explicit, and unambiguous elsewhere in the lead (with the precondition of it being included with proper sources in the body first). Something like "The show targets is viewed primarily by an audience of adults and teenagers" or whatever—as teenagers make up a significant portion of the target audience, we should avoid wordings that could suggest the target audience is adults (thus "for adults" and "adult-oriented" are misleading and unhelpful). It has not been made clear why it would be appropriate or desirable to include an inevitably awkward and potentially ambiguous or misleading variation in the lead sentence. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Per the suggestion made by the RfC closer I believe "animated sitcom for adults" is appropriate. Alternatively, "adult-oriented animated sitcom" as partially suggested by Cpaaoi is appropriate. Appropriate wikilinks should be included. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Agree with the above "animated sitcom for adults". Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Agree to either/both the following: 1) clarifying the target audience as adults, and 2) explicitly stating it's an "animated sitcom for adults", though in my opinion, the latter option is pretty crude. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 11:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• What about "animated sitcom targeted towards adult audiences"? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, that sounds fair imo, the first just seems like a more cleaner approach. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 06:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• It is. Could those opposed to it tell us why? It's not much of a "discussion" without giving rationales. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Again, what do the sources say? I wouldn't bother to object to "for/toward adults", or adding "and teens", in any form, but it would be far better to use a phrase that's actually per sources (at least one) rather than crafting our own, which borders on SYNTH. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• As I indicated below, there was a source in the article but it's not really any help in that regard.[9] --AussieLegend (✉) 17:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Use "animated sitcom for adults". The idea that it's intended for teens is original research based on the minimum age classification it was given in ratings systems, which does not translate to authorial or studio intent.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • What "original research"? WhatamIdoing provided a New York Times article as a source giving the size of the show's teenage audience (over 20% are under 18), and we haven't seen a source giving "authorial or studio intent"—the source provided for "adult" opens by calling Rocky and Bullwinkle. The article also lists The Spectacular Spider-Man, which ran on Kids' WB. Demonstrating why we have to be careful about cherrypicking sources that say what we want—if such a source is appropriate here, then it will be appropriate to do the same at the articles for those other shows. Simply stating the demographics avoids all this—I've thus altered my proposed wording above. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 19:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

    "we haven't seen a source giving "authorial or studio intent" – Yes, exactly. The OR is in equating a min. age rating with such intent and declaring what the intended audience is. Same goes for deducing such intent from a 20% audience figure (which is much lower than I would have expected, actually). It doesn't say anything about what the intended audience is, only what kids will watch when parents don't strictly control what they can view (they actually will tend toward adult fare; HBO, Cinemax, etc., banked on it in the heyday of wired cable TV, airing fairly racy stuff from about 9pm onward, well under the bedtime of the average teenager). Anyway, consider that it's not necessary for WP to try to precisely identify the intended audience. If we don't have the sources to say with absolute certainty that it's beyond adults, then we shouldn't say just because we might think it's True.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• As long as it is clear in the lead that this isn't a program for children, reflecting the often crude and adult-themed content, the precise phrasing has flexibility. Pointing out the ratings is one way to do so, noting the demographics is another, marketing analysis is also useful. Or, all of the above. I would, however, point out that it IS adult-focused and just because those under 18 may watch it does not change the clear tone of the show. Montanabw^(talk) 21:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Curly, maybe it'd be good to boldly add that information to the body of the article, without waiting for the discussion about the lead to resolve. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The last time I made a bold edit to the article, it resulted in an editwar, accusations of having psychological issues, and undying acrimony, with PAs and accusations of bad faith directed at me as recently as yesterday. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
    • You exaggerate. You made a bold edit yesterday,[10] and there has been no edit war. As for the claims of personal attacks and bad faith, I do believe you're being overly sensitive. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
      • There was nothing "bold" about the edit, and you're doing everything you can to keep this personal and avoid discussion. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
        • Well, technically it was a revert of the closer's reasonable amendment in light of the close but I was assuming good faith. Now, instead of avoiding a response and making excuses, is there a reason that you can't make the bold revert that WhatamIdoing suggested? --AussieLegend (✉) 14:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
          1. Please go read WP:LISTGAP before replying.
          2. Curly is correct than in the WP:BRD model, "reverting" is not considered a "bold" edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

          "Now, instead of avoiding a response and making excuses"—I've already told the closer that, as this has been so contentious, no such edits should be made until a consensus has been reached. You obviously whipped out the "instead of avoiding a response" to mock me. Just where is the response I've been asking you for weeks for? What, concretely, is the issue with exlicitly stating the demographics elsewhere in the lead? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

          • @Curly Turkey and AussieLegend: Both of you are constructive editors and I think honestly it's time to bury the hatchet. This personal feud has been going on for a while and in the long run, it won't benefit either of your causes or this community as a whole. So, let's call it a break and stop with the constant jibes alright, both of you do good work and it would impress me if you both could work to resolve this together, consider this my personal request to you both. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 07:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
            • I've been more than happy to discuss this since I started the discussion. I'm still hoping we can move forward with proposed wording. We already have some proposals and we should be concentrating on discussing those, not this. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
              • Great! Now that we've put this behind us, could you please tell us what concrete issues there might be to stating the demographics elsewhere in the lead? I haven't seen anyone present an argument yet against this elegant, unproblematic solution. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
                • I don't think anyone can determine whether the solution is elegant or unproblematic without an example of what you mean. Do you have some wording in mind? --AussieLegend (✉) 21:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
                  • I provided an example in my first comment. It's similar to a proposal BU Rob13 made during the RfC—you responded to his comment, but not to his proposal. JaykeBird supported it. I also proposed "the show's target audience is teens and adults" during the RfC—you also responded to that comment, but not to the proposal. Whatamidoing supported it, and made another similar proposal. We have at least four explicit supports for something like that, several implicit or unopposed, and not one criticism against it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
                    • Your first comment was this and I don't see a proposal. Or do you mean this? If so, it's more wordy than it needs to be for the lead. The audience that views it is not so important as the audience at which it is targeted, and that's clearly adults. SMcCandlish has already pointed out that claiming it is targeted at teens is a bit ORish. You countered that claiming that a source showed viewing figures for teens but "who watches it" and "who it is targeted at" are two different things. Using that source to support a claim about the target demographic is WP:SYNTH. I provided a source saying that the series is targeted at adults. You claimed it was cherry-picked but it was most certainly not. I did a search and that was the first source that I randomly picked from page 1 of the results. I'm afraid I still prefer "animated sitcom targeted towards adult audiences^[1]" - it's short, conveys the important information, includes links to provide additional information to our readers and is sourced. It's also had support from other editors. We really don't need to turn this discussion into War and Peace. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

                      Well, it's at least potentially ORish; there may well be a source that shows that the actual intended market is inclusive of teens, though if you actually watch the show, that seems pretty implausible to me. I'm reminded of the ongoing mega-dispute at WT:MOSFILM about secondary sourcing for changes in critical reception of a film over time. It's the same issue. We need secondary sourcing (WP:AEIS-style) of the actual intended audience of the show, not WP-editor assumptions about it based on what a "nanny ministry/agency" thinks should be the minimum view age (I'm surprised they didn't set it much higher, given the filithiness of show. >;-) Even aside from that, it's almost wearily focused on parental concerns, and nothing in it speaks to those of teenagers; the ones in the show are mercilessly used as the butts of cruel humor that's all from an adult perspective. PS: ""animated sitcom targeted towards adult audiences" seems like the right links and structure to me but the wording's a little clumsy; "animated sitcom targeted at an adult audience" is shorter and more logical ("targeted toward" is the same glitch as "centered around"). "Aimed at" would be a tiny bit shorter but would result in too much alliteration. Just "for" might be an overstatement.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

                      • SMcCandlish|: this source has some interesting things to say about the show's demographics. Of course, it leaves in the air why the show's demographics are opening-sentence material in the first place. Have you seen the editwarring over this stuff happening at The Simpsons? An FA that got along happily without this info until last month, and has since become a battlefield over the word "adult" (and no, I'm not involved). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

                        Yeah, hopefully our big-ol' thread here will come to a solution that can be applied more generally. As for the article you link to, I don't buy the premise. This is written by someone who doesn't understand (or remember their own) teen psychology. Teens watch a show like that because it's getting away with something. It's like sneaking a drink from Dad's liquor cabinet. Anyway, the intent of the piece seems to be that the producers should be targeting teens more, and change the nature of the jokes from '70s and '80s references (my demo) to ones that 15-year-olds will get. So, it's against the idea that the show is presently targeted at that demo, just that its fairly popular in that group despite who it's actually intended for. The fact that Peter just made a joke about anal sex with a pig is why the kids like it. It's transgressive and they'd be in trouble if Mom caught them watching it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

                        Well, that's subjective on both our part and that of these opinion pieces. Cramming this info into the lead in the first place I thought was a compromise—I'm not alone amongst the commenters here in thinking it doesn't belong in the lead at all. The opening sentence is the last place I (as a reader) would want or expect to see it. The Sinking of the Lusitania—with its politcal intent and horrrifying scenes of death and destruction, including a helpless drowning mother unable ot save her baby—sure as ducks wasn't aimed at children, but it'd be extraordinarily inappropriate to have "adult animation" anywhere in that article. It's POV to assume as a default "cartoons are for children" in the first place. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

                    • (edit conflict)
                      1. "First comment" of this discussion, obviously.
                      2. Your source is extremely problematic, as detailed below, and thus cannot be used. It's an article about shows that are enjoyable for adults, and includes several shows targeted at children.
                      3. SMcCandlish did not call reporting the stats from the New York Times source SYNTH.
                      4. "too wordy"—more than one !voter suggested not mentioning the target audience at all, in which case your five words would be "too wordy". I don't disagree with those commenters, either—it wouldn't bother me to see such superfluous information dropped from the lead entirely. If included, there's no reason to clutter the opening sentence with it, nor to misrepresent the show's viewership.
                      • You're giving the impression that you will under no circumstances consider moving this information out of the lead sentence. Perhaps to demonstrate good faith, you could show us a standalone example you'd find acceptable. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

                        Hmm, moving this stuff to another sentence in the lead might actually be the solution. I'm a big fan of MOS:LEAD's admonition to write around disputes. [Then again, I wrote it, so I'm biased. ;-] Agreed with "It's an article about shows that are enjoyable for adults, and includes several shows targeted at children." There are likely better sources to use. AL says he just picked that one as the first search hit, so probably not a big deal. NYT: Not synth as stats, but extrapolating intent from who's watching would be synth. The fact that this is complicated is a strong argument for moving the audience-related material to another sentence or two.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

                        Which, of course, is my point. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

                        Yes, I'm agreeing with you that moving it out of the lead sentence is the probable solution. It gives breathing room to include clearer language, and to work in different sources on different aspects, e.g. what the declared intended audience is, and how that compares to what ratings authorities say, and what the known actual demographics are. The same technique could be applied, for that matter, at the Spider Man TV show's article; it's potentially encyclopedically interesting that a show intended for kids had a significant adult audience, and that this had an effect on the show. Our Doctor Who article is probably the best model for addressing that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

                        Handled well outside the lead, I see. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

                        Yes, but a different issue. The actual nature of the show has markedly changed (and more than once). That's not the case here; the demographic thing is a pretty simple matter, comparatively speaking. It seems lead-worthy even if it's maybe not helping in the first sentence.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• I could live with "animated sitcom targeted at an adult audience". I don't see a real problem with that.

It's POV to assume as a default "cartoons are for children" in the first place. - Regardless, that's how cartoons have traditionally been seen, at least since the '50s and '60s and Saturday morning cartoons. You might be too young to remember those.

Your source is extremely problematic, as detailed below, and thus cannot be used. It's an article about shows that are enjoyable for adults, and includes several shows targeted at children. - The source is reliable, it's titled "The Top 25 Animated Series for Adults", and it specifically includes Family Guy in that list so I don't see the issue. If your opposition is because it listed Rocky and Bullwinkle and The Spectacular Spider-Man as "adult" series. Meanwhile, the New York Times tells us that over 20% of the show's viewers are under 18. then I don't see that as a valid argument. Rocky and Bullwinkle has clear adult themes and, as I've already pointed out, who actually watches it is not necessarily the same as the target demographic.

SMcCandlish did not call reporting the stats from the New York Times source SYNTH. - I never said he did. I said that, for the reasons explained. Using the people who watch it as justification for its target demographic is clearly WP:SYNTH.

You're giving the impression that you will under no circumstances consider moving this information out of the lead sentence. - Keeping it in the lead sentence is consistent with WP:TVLEAD and the way that we write TV articles. Moving it somewhere else just leads to writing multiple words when a couple will do. Why overcomplicate the text when simplicity works? You're not being paid by the letter. KISS. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

You went way off the edge whe you attempted to defend use of that ridiculously inappropriate source, and you're not giving the impression you're interested in consensus-building at all. Just what is this obsession with polluting the lead, here and at The Simpsons? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, there's a good faith response. Not really much to say to that. BTW, I haven't been involved at The Simpsons. Maybe other editors don't have the same beliefs that you do. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Non sequiturs contribute nothing to the discussion, and you've undermined your credibility by defending your use of that source. We have five explicitly in favour of moving, one (two if you include me) in favour of outright removal, and the rest have stated they would accept it, are unopposed, or have not stated opposition, with the sole exception of yourself. If you want consensus to go your way, you'd better ditch the tactics you've been using and properly engage in the discussion. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The continued aggression in your posts is not conducive to a positive outcome. I'd ask you to please "back off" a bit and try to be more tolerant of the opnions of others. The RfC is over and the outcome, as stated by the closer, was the "rough" consensus was that "adult animated sitcom" was undesirable and, essentially, we need to come up with something different. In the post-RfC discussion, 11 editors have so far participated to this end. Of those, only two (you and SMcCandlish), have suggested moving the content out of the lead sentence as a possible action. I don't know where you get five from. Nobody has suggested outright removal, including you. The proposed wording has progressed from "animated sitcom for adults" to "animated sitcom targeted at an adult audience" an that is where we stand at this time. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

"I don't know where you get five from."—from the RfC, of course. This is explicitly a continuation of that discussion. As it stands, there is no mention of demographics in the article, and nothing like a consensus to add "animated sitcom targeted at an adult audience". You can prefer that all you want, but if you're not willing to engage properly in the discussion, then you should give up hope on consensus falling on such an outcome. Those opposed have given concrete reasons for why it's problematic or otherwise undesirable—reasons that don't amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Per the relevant guidelines, the only outcomes from the discussion as it now stands can be (a) no consensus, thus the lead stands as it is with no mention of demographics; or (b) moving demographic info to somewhere else in the lead.

I'm open to either of these outcomes. If you don't like either, the onus is on you to build a consensus for your desired outcome. Making personal comments about me didn't help you in the RfC, and it's not helping you now, so I'm advising you (again) to change your tactics. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The involvement of those in the RfC terminated with the closure of the RfC. That's why you had to ping the participants, to get them to participate here. Those who chose not to respond to your ping have not contributed to this discussion. Their opinions were relevant at the RfC, but not with the "post-RfC cleanup", which has to be based on the RfC closer's determination of the outcome. What that means is that you can't stack the results here with comments made by the RfC participants.

nothing like a consensus to add "animated sitcom targeted at an adult audience". - Based on the participants at this discussion, we have 5 of the 11 participants who initially agreed with "animated sitcom for adults". Of those, 3 later changed to a preference for "animated sitcom targeted towards adult audiences", most prior to tweaking that wording to "animated sitcom targeted at adult audiences". Another indicated support for "animated sitcom targeted towards adult audiences" without stating a preference for "animated sitcom for adults". Two editors made no comment on wording, one made general comments but nothing specific and another only suggested that "Adult animation" may be a suitable wikilink. So, of the editors who commented on the specific wording, all 6 expressed support for either "animated sitcom for adults" or "animated sitcom targeted toward/at adult audiences". How is that not consensus?

if you're not willing to engage properly in the discussion - What is that supposed to mean? I am participating! I'm certainly not disregarding opinions I don't like.

Per the relevant guidelines, the only outcomes from the discussion as it now stands can be (a) no consensus, thus the lead stands as it is with no mention of demographics; or (b) moving demographic info to somewhere else in the lead. - That's not the case at all. We've had all editors who have commented on the wording agreeable to one of the changes as suggested while only two editors have discussed moving the content out of the lead sentence. I suggest you re-read the discussion more thoroughly. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, for my part, I prefer "animated sitcom targeted at an adult audience", "animated sitcom targeted at adult audiences", one of those with "toward" instead of "at", and finally "animated sitcom for adults", in descending order, and with the terms linked as shown in examples above. I think, at this point, much of the dispute would evaporate if this material were put in a second or later sentence in the lead, but retained in the lead. This would also make it less likely to cause further disruption if additional demographic info is added at some point, since the "precious" lead sentence will not be at issue. If it's really necessary we can have another RfC, but this seems like trivia to me and others may feel the same way. That said, it's not uncommon to do a followup clarification RfC short on the heels of one that failed to resolve all the questions. So, permissible but not always the best option.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see why we need to move the content from the lead sentence. How is doing that any better than "Family Guy is an American animated sitcom targeted at an adult audience"? It's especially difficult when we don't have a current draft of the proposed alternate text breaking up the first sentence. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

You're working from the assumption that it needed to be part of the opening sentence in the first place. You've yet to provide justification for its inclusion at all, let alone in the opening sentence, and your opposition to moving it has been "it would be a few more words"—which is hardly an argument at all. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The point is that the content was there and the RfC outcome was that we find alternate wording. Your answer avoids answering the question that was asked. i.e. Why is splitting the content better than the proposed wording. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I've explained why ad nauseam, and "Your answer avoids answering the question that was asked" was obviously worded to get under my skin after your stonewalling during the RfC. This is a tactic you keep resorting to. To reiterate: it's misleading, awkward, and WP:UNDUE, and I've gone into each of these points in detail here and in the RfC. Again, you're avoiding giving any sort of rationale for putting this information in the opening sentence. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

"The involvement of those in the RfC terminated with the closure of the RfC."—that would be extremely convenient for you, but it doesn't work that way. You've WP:CANVASSed, by the way, and I'll be reporting you. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm getting mixed signals here. You actually agreed that the proposed text was fair,[11] but now you claim it's misleading. Family Guy is an animated sitcom, it is targeted at adult audiences so how is that misleading? The text is clear, it's not awkward at all and it's certainly not WP:UNDUE since this is basic information. I just don't see the problem with it and you're not convincing me that there is any problem. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

You've not made it clear why you think this is "basic information". It sounds incidental to me, and I removed it because it stuck out like a sore thumb, as we don't see these disclaimers opening articles on comics, video games, or fantasy novels. I was willing to compromise by having it included elsewhere in the lead, though I'd prefer it were left out—that much should be clear from my initially removing it. You still haven't told us how the article would suffer from moving it to another sentence (or removing it entirely, for that matter). To repeat, it would be helpful if you could tell us: (a) what makes it "basic information", and how such an assertion is NPOV; and (b) how the article would suffer by moving it out of the opening sentence. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Participant survey

The previous RfC left two open questions:

1. What particular wording to use
2. Where to put it.

Resolving this here may also help resolve a near-identical dispute at The Simpsons, the talk page of which has been notified of this discussion. [This is a procedural RfC tagging; the discussion was already opened and has the character of an RfC but wasn't tagged as one, and clearly more community input would help us arrive at a clear consensus this time.]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  17:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Notifications about the opening of this thread (not by SMcCandlish, who just put an RfC tag on it later):

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that QEDK (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that A D Monroe III (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
— Note: All other respondents in the earlier discussions have now been notified of this one, and I've put an RfC tag on this, since it's basically a follow-up RfC to the last one. Also notified Talk:The Simpsons, an article with editwarring about essentially the same questions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  17:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• I was asked to clarify my support, which I am happy to do. I support either "animated sitcom for adults" or "animated sitcom targeted at adult audiences". If this is not the correct place to have posted this, please feel free to move it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• I support either "animated sitcom for adults" or "animated sitcom targeted at adult audiences" as the new text to replace that which was removed, with a preference for "animated sitcom targeted at adult audiences". --AussieLegend (✉) 23:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• I support just "animated sitcom" (wikilinked) with the target audience in a later line as first preference; that is the way to keep the lead sentence crisp and concise. I'm also fine with "animated sitcom for adults" and "animated sitcom targeted at adult audiences" (both wikilinked as above), albeit both as a secondary preference. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 08:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  I would clarify that if the action is finally deemed to be canvassing, strike my vote sure, but my opinion isn't biased in any manner and is purely objective; further defence of my statement at ANI. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 17:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• In order of preference, I support (a) keeping the demographics out of the lead altogether; or (b) properly explicating and contextualizing them elsewhere in the lead. Such information in the lead is problematic for the reasons I've stated in the discussion above and the preceeding RfC, and it is awkward, WP:UNDUE, POV, and unnecessary. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• I think it's important to note in the 1st sentence that FG is neither a children's cartoon nor some kind of porn (via linking Adult animation by that name, which might be misconstrued by some). I would prefer the wording that was actually reflected in sources, but barring that (since no such sources have yet been identified), I'd not oppose any wording that tended to have those two effects. Then, let's move on, okay? I'm sure we all have better things to spend our WP time on. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Hear him. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Premature assessment of consensus

With that, all editors who previously commented on the specific wording have now confirmed their preferences and it's safe to say that, with one dissenter, there is support for "animated sitcom targeted at adult audiences". The dissenter, Curly Turky, and SMcCandlish have suggested moving the text but that has not yet received support from other editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with wording along the lines "animated sitcom targeted at an adult audience", but don't care too much about the exact wording. I think the demographic info should be broken out of the lead sentence and put into a second (or later) sentence in the lead section, especially because there are strong indications in above discussion that a) people are looking for sources that the show is targeted at teens as well, and b) we've already found sources that teens are about 1/5 of the audience regardless what the authorial/studio marketing intent is, so there will be a desire to expand the demographic info, which would make the lead sentence even more unwieldy and subject to dispute. We include this kind of demographic info in the lead (usually not lead sentence) when readers might not intuit it on their own; I posted some examples here. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  17:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • As pointed out elsewhere, the fact that it is viewed by teens doesn't mean that it is targeted at them. The two are really separate issues. There are a lot of, for example, children's cartoons that are watched by adults but that doesn't mean they are targeted at adults. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    • They are separate, but correlated, and people are logically going to want to group them together in our article, which will make for a very clumsy lead sentence. If it's move out of the first sentence, audience info can be expanded without making the first sentence a mess.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
      • For four years the lead sentence was "Family Guy is an American adult animated sitcom" and nobody ever tried changing it to "teens and adult" (or any variation). Nobody ever had a problem until this. I really don't see it happening. Even if the target demographic does change, adult animation covers teens so the fix is simple, adult audiences becomes adult and teen audiences. It's really very simple. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Untrue: MattWorks opened a discussion on the subject in the #Family Guy Aging section above, and others have changed it before. Again, you're trying to re-litigate the outcome of the RfC. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
          • he didn't have a problem with "adult" being equated with "porn". His issue was a misbelief that parental ratings defined the target audience. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• I believe the current wording ...

  Family Guy is an American animated sitcom created by ...

  is sufficient for the lede. Sitcom suggests an adult audience, and the linked Animated sitcom article confirms this by saying "Animated sitcoms have been adult-oriented and more controversial than traditional cartoons from the onset." The article body already mentions in a few places that this is "adult animation"—in fact, excluding the phrase Adult Swim (mentioned six times), the string adult occurs an almost defensive-sounding five times. I don't wish to argue this issue any further and request no more pings. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Hmm, except most children's programming that isn't adventure fiction is also sitcom in form.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• The current wording is the best. I think "animated sitcom" conveys the target audience well enough. Kaldari (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Most of these suggestions are fine. I find my own opinions lining up most closely with QEDK's. Separately from the question of what to say in the first sentence/paragraph/section, I support including details in a separate section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  Sure. Anything summarized in the lead is supposed to be given in detail in the body.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  To clarify: the lead summarizes the body. This lead currently does not. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

  Then we need to fix the body, which has already been suggested.[12] --AussieLegend (✉) 05:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

  A point of universal agreement. Progress!  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Adult animation

Adult animation may be a relevant article or wikilink regarding this article. Softlavender (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Softlavender: yes, but the issue is how it is linked in running text—aside from deeper issues regarding the naming of the article itself. The fact that it opens with "Not to be confused with cartoon pornography" shows how poorly the article itself is titled and conceived—amongst a pile of sourcing, focus, POV, and other issues. Check out the article's talk page archives while you're at it, and you'll see that the article itself used to include substantial material on cartoon pornography. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Pointing out that issues with the term "adult animation" being potenitially confused with "porn" date back at least to 2006. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Softlavender, the article was linked to Adult animation before Curly Turkey reverted the RfC closer. There was also a reference removed.[13] --AussieLegend (✉) 15:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The cherrypicked reference was problematic: it listed Rocky and Bullwinkle and The Spectacular Spider-Man as "adult" series. Meanwhile, the New York Times tells us that over 20% of the show's viewers are under 18. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 19:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• The link should continue to be used; just pipe whatever language we settle on above, e.g. [[Adult animation|animation for an adult audience]] or whatever. It does a disservice to our readers to hide the fact that we have a relevant article on the subgenre, just because someone doesn't like the title; they can take that concern to WP:RM about the title of the article Adult animation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Is this done to benefit readers, or to satisfy the POV of certain editors? We don't appease genre warriors at music articles by allowing them to cram every genre they can "source" into an article's opening sentence. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• The aim of the link is to avoid ambiguity by directing the reader to an article that clarifies what is meant by the term. Ironically, this is also to correct any mistaken POV. Of course we're always going to get readers who just don't bother following links. You can lead a horse to water... --AussieLegend (✉) 08:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • If the only way to avoid ambiguity is to follow a link, then the text is broken. I've asked you several times now—what concrete issue do you have with spelling out the demographics explicitly elsewhere in the lead? Can we finally get an answer? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
    • As I have said before, the text is only ambiguous if you have some pre-conceived notion that doesn't match with society in general. For some reason there are people like that and we have to cater for them. The link is simply an aid. (and no, "aid" does not mean "sex aid" ;)). --AussieLegend (✉) 14:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
      • The outcome of the RfC disagrees with your interpretation. Are you going to re-litigate? A problem has been identified and you're committing yourself to blocking a solution. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how linking to the one relevant genre article equates to "appeas[ing] genre warriors ... by allowing them to cram every genre they can 'source' into an article's opening sentence". There is no slippery slope when we have a totally flat surface. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The point remains: is this for the benefit of readers, or to satisfy an editor's POV? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

But "the point" is just that your PoV is that some other editors have a PoV, so it's kind of a circular pattern. It's clearly factual that adults are [among the] intended audience and that children are not. It's a disputed claim that teens are also among the intended audience. Absent better sourcing, I don't see a way past that. I also don't think it needs to be resolved right this second. Better wording can be put in place now, and this side dispute resolved when it's resolvable. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

SMcCandlish: Leaving out a piece of information in the lead that is normally left out is not "PoV". We don't see this issue with comics, fantasy novels, or video games, which all suffer from the same prejudice of "being for children". Nobody has called for slapping this label on The Playboy, despite the uncensored jizzing penises. The PoV is:

(a) the assumption that animation is inherently for children, thus we must "think of the children" by providing them with a warning that this instance is not (something Wikipedia does not do); and

(b) the assumption this information is so central to the subject of the article that it must be in the lead sentence.

And this is ignoring how problematic it is to label it as "for adults" in the first place, which, for example, could mean "targeted at adults", or "appropriate for adult audiences" (which is the meaning AussieLegend's source adheres to, and which he continues to defend).

Look at it another way: remove the demographic information from the lead, and what is lost? Anything at all? Nobody missed it in the firt 16 years of the Simpsons article, and its addition there has drawn a lot of opposition. Compare that to dropping "animated" or "sitcom"---in those cases, we break the article. Clearly "adult" is not a defining identifier. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think censorious disclaimer waiving is the intent at all (however clumsy some of the approaches have been). Whether an assumption that cartoons are usually for kids is a good one to make (clearly not since ca. the early 1990s, and longer in Japan), many people do make it, so having at least some basic demographic information in the lead is arguably part of accurately summarizing the topic, which is what the lead is for. The Simpsons case is different, since the show is clearly targeted directly at teens and their concerns at least as much as at parents and theirs. FG's primary distinction from TS is that it's targeted firmly at adults, with a lot of sexual and "teens really need to just STFU" humor. It's not unusual at all for WP to indicate the demographic in the lead if we think readers might not intuitively get it. E.g., to return to Doctor Who (the demo of which has become muddied, even just in the last few seasons), our article on the spin-off The Sarah Jane Adventures makes it clear it's aimed at children, and on the spin-off Torchwood that it has an adult demographic. Notably, neither do so in the lead sentence but both in the lead section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  17:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Neither article defines the shows by its demographics, does it? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think our articles define anything, but summarize and logically [we hope/attempt to] arrange sourced facts about them. Demographics/audience will often be a part of that for a topic like this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The article defines Family Guy as an "animated sitcom" and Doctor Who as "a British science-fiction television programme". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• NOTE: The POV pushing re: "adult" has recently been going on at the Simpsons: someone added "adult" to the lead last month, which was shortly after removed, reinstated, removed again, and most recently reinstated as the vomitous "The Simpsons is an American animated sitcom aimed at adolescent children and adults"—this involved at least four editors on an FA, and I have not been involved. Perhaps those intent on slapping this link everywhere they can could give some sort of rationale? I've seen nothing deeper yet than WP:ILIKEIT. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

  That is indeed pretty vomitous.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

  Oh, look! Someon'es changed it back to "adult" again! This editwarrior should be blocked. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

  I tried a compromise edit [14].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)