Talk:The Cleveland Show: Difference between revisions
→Added 'Controversy' Section: comment |
No edit summary |
||
Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
:Sorry, but it has been removed as we cannot use blogs as references. This is especially important when adding "Controversy" sections, which tend to become magnets for any dislike a person may have about a particular series. Your efforts are certainly appreciated, however, and if you can find reliable sources (community leaders, mainstream press, and so on) that present viewpoints critical of the series, that would be go along way towards making the material fit under Wikipedia's requirements. Please feel free to ask if you have further questions about this. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Ckatz|<font color="green">chat</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ckatz|<font color="red">spy</font>]]</sub></small>'' 20:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC) |
:Sorry, but it has been removed as we cannot use blogs as references. This is especially important when adding "Controversy" sections, which tend to become magnets for any dislike a person may have about a particular series. Your efforts are certainly appreciated, however, and if you can find reliable sources (community leaders, mainstream press, and so on) that present viewpoints critical of the series, that would be go along way towards making the material fit under Wikipedia's requirements. Please feel free to ask if you have further questions about this. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Ckatz|<font color="green">chat</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ckatz|<font color="red">spy</font>]]</sub></small>'' 20:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
::Fine, but I refer you to this article in the WSJ: [[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125893981183759969.html]]. I quote the article: "... as it matures, Wikipedia, one of the world's largest crowdsourcing initiatives, is becoming less freewheeling and more like the organizations it set out to replace. Today, its rules are spelled out across hundreds of Web pages. Increasingly, newcomers who try to edit are informed that they have unwittingly broken a rule -- and find their edits deleted, according to a study by researchers at Xerox Corp." Such rigid hierarchy and posturing is contributing towards Wikipedia's downfall. Might I also remark that '''the blogosphere is probably a more reliable source than the mainstream press, etc, because it is unfiltered, statistical news'''; circumventing the press and community leaders are the very raison d'etre of Wikipedia. [[Special:Contributions/70.171.34.28|70.171.34.28]] ([[User talk:70.171.34.28|talk]]) 22:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:17, 27 November 2009
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Cleveland Show article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Television Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
|
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Animation Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
|
Second sentence
The second sentence makes no sense. 72.138.11.84 (talk) 05:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Then change it. --Piemanmoo (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism and premiere date
There's been a lot of racist crap on this webpage by a bunch of 12 year olds with nothing better to do. I say we semi-lock this page until they become less vandal-happy.
Also, where's the proof that it premieres Sep 28? There's no proof for this at all and no reference for this in the article, it still lists the show as a midseason premiere on FOX's schedule. I say we put it back to 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.188.58 (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
There's not enough vandalism to put that into place, vandalism has to be persistant and more regular for it to be semi-locked. Rob Riv (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I just want to put out that this looks like a HUGE joke, and that no spin-off will ever be aired... it sure looks like a brilliant advertisement though! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.1.201.85 (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's not a joke. The show is currently set for a 2009 air date (FOX hasn't released a specific date, but it is on the spring 2009 lineup). -Zomic13 (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly... There are no specific details, only a buzz, and alot of people are discussing about the show and about family guy, which is a great way to keep the buzz going while the show is down. that's the most brilliant thing about this advertisment.
So just because an African-American family gets an animated cartoon of their own, you can't believe its a real show? I can't wait to see your face when you're proved wrong, dude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.242.35 (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that is exactly it. Everything is about people being racist and the man keeping you down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.6.18 (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the laugh, that was great. If it can be some how misconstrued that a statement or idea is racist then you're obviously a rascist for making that statement or thinking that way. The person playing the race card is also never wrong, don't forget that rule. But yeah thanks again for the laugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usafsoham19 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- hahaha! Niggas is so crayzeeee! 64.230.85.13 (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
What about Family Guy
Does anyone know if they will completely remove Cleveland from Family Guy, as animated shows don't usually get completely rid of a sum-what main character —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.2.97 (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, according to one of the sources on the main page, Cleveland is permanently off unless they decide to do a crossover (which is highly likely in my opinion). Brian will be promoted to the bar group with Peter, Joe and Quagmire until they add another character. Toadwildride (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Has there been any anouncement of a Family Guy episode that sends Cleveland off in the same manor of the they sent off Gomer Pyle in The Andy Griffith Show? Sarujo (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
WHAT WILL FAMILY GUY DO WITHOUT A BLACK CHARACTER? 22:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)22:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)22:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)22:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.20.114 (talk)
Family Guy is most likely adding a new black charaacter in an upcoming episode "Jerome Is The New Black". Maybe, but it is likely that it will happen. Stewie-Th3 King (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Promo.
This should be added somewhere to the article. --HELLØ ŦHERE 20:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
England Premiere?
When will this premiere in England? Peanut Butter Jelly (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- A specific airdate hasn't been scheduled yet, all we know is it will air in Fall 2009. Story V (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
jesus
I heard Jesus (family guy character) is going to play a bigger role in this show as one of the neighbors or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.88.69 (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
is cleaveland talking to quagmire about his new series really breaking the fourth wall?
i thought to break the fourth wall is to directly address the audience, or interact with something that wouldnt be present in the situation? does this really fall into this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.62.13 (talk) 03:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Breaking the fourth wall can also be accomplished by an acknowledgment on the part of the character that he/she is in a show, or not real, or subject only to the laws that govern a television show. By saying he's getting a spinoff--which is something that wouldn't happen in real life--he's admitting his knowledge of being a character in a fictional program.199.73.152.100 (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you, someone else finally understands! --HELLØ ŦHERE 23:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't remember the scene exactly, but I believe Cleveland also spoke directly to the audience (or at least looked towards the direction of the screen) and not just to Quagmire. -Zomic13 (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Nope, he was just looking at Quagmire. Stunn (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't remember the scene exactly, but I believe Cleveland also spoke directly to the audience (or at least looked towards the direction of the screen) and not just to Quagmire. -Zomic13 (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Crystal ball episodes
Isn't it a violation a WP:CRYSTAL to be listing the episodes, based soley on registration at the Copyright Office. There is no limit to the changes in the episode order, their names, how many are actually aired, how material is combined into episodes, or any reorganization of material the creators wish. There might be nothing past the pilot. Also, the source for saying there are 35 episodes in the info box, didn't say that were actually produced, only that they were "picked up" (ordered). --Rob (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Pilot leaked
Why does it not say anything about the pilot being leaked on the internet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.19.246 (talk) 06:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Because leaks are only notable in certain occasions. This isn't one of them. Can you provide a source where either Fox or Seth has expressed anger or any other emotion? Can you provide a source which states that the show will be overhauled or pushed up or pushed back due to the leakage? Saying it leaked is not needed. Things leak all the time. We mustn't make note of every occurrence on Wikipedia. --HELLØ ŦHERE 06:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Why is his article gone?
- It's not, it was moved to Cleveland Brown, Jr. some time ago. Not that it should have been. The character is yet to be proven notable so he shouldn't even have his own article at the moment.24.190.34.219 (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Why does Cleveland jr redirect to his father? Shouldn't Cleveland jr redirect to Cleveland Brown, Jr., as opposed to Cleveland Brown?
While, Whilst
I've noticed this being changed back and forth like at least 10 times already. Personally, I haven't changed it once, but I feel "while" is more correct, and sounds more natural. Is there a specific reason it keeps being reverted to "whilst"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.68.96 (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Nia Long
If you look in the credits of both the first and second episodes, you will notice that Reagan Gomez-Preston's name is not listed, and Nia Long is listed as a regular. Ergo, for some strange reason, right now, Long is providing the voice of Roberta. - Jasonbres (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- I removed her name from the Main Cast template, simply because it's really the same situation as Lacy Chabert, who voiced Meg Griffin in the first season, but was replaced by another voice actress. Maybe the Main Cast section can be expanded in similar fashion to the Family Guy article, and Long can be mentioned there instead. But it doesn't belong in the template itself. Gage (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Cleveland Show references in Family guy
- In S08 E02 Quagmire thinks he's the one getting a spin-off, walking away from everyone until he sees a moving truck outside Cleveland's house.
- In S08 E03 Peter starts using the toilet in Cleveland's old house. We later see the bathtub scene from Cleveland's new house.
- In S08 E05 Cleveland's old house is destroyed (another one of those bathtub scenes), and Peter rembers that Cleveland moved out.
- We could add those in, but you'd have to have sources first. estemshorn (talk|sigs) 00:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Added 'Controversy' Section
Being a fan of the show and watching it on Hulu, I can not help to notice the reaction from the public about its stereotyping of African Americans. A quick Google search will reveal significant outrage and debate about the shows content and its supposed proliferation of stereotypes to cater to a "white audience". Although I do not agree that the show is inherently racist, I believe that there is enough buzz out there about the show that the controversy must be addressed on this page. I implore you not to delete this section, but to add and refine it as you see fit. I have done my best to present the topic neutrally, yet in the interest of being encyclopedic, most of my references are from blogs.
70.171.34.28 (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, but it has been removed as we cannot use blogs as references. This is especially important when adding "Controversy" sections, which tend to become magnets for any dislike a person may have about a particular series. Your efforts are certainly appreciated, however, and if you can find reliable sources (community leaders, mainstream press, and so on) that present viewpoints critical of the series, that would be go along way towards making the material fit under Wikipedia's requirements. Please feel free to ask if you have further questions about this. --Ckatzchatspy 20:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Fine, but I refer you to this article in the WSJ: [[1]]. I quote the article: "... as it matures, Wikipedia, one of the world's largest crowdsourcing initiatives, is becoming less freewheeling and more like the organizations it set out to replace. Today, its rules are spelled out across hundreds of Web pages. Increasingly, newcomers who try to edit are informed that they have unwittingly broken a rule -- and find their edits deleted, according to a study by researchers at Xerox Corp." Such rigid hierarchy and posturing is contributing towards Wikipedia's downfall. Might I also remark that the blogosphere is probably a more reliable source than the mainstream press, etc, because it is unfiltered, statistical news; circumventing the press and community leaders are the very raison d'etre of Wikipedia. 70.171.34.28 (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)