Jump to content

Talk:Family Guy

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rattis1 (talk | contribs) at 15:54, 30 October 2010 (→‎Stuff copy-pasted from the Simpsons). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleFamily Guy has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 13, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
January 29, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 10, 2006Good article nomineeListed
August 1, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
August 24, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
August 25, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
October 2, 2009Good article nomineeListed
November 3, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
December 3, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
December 13, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Template:Pbneutral

Template:Maintained

WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by SMasters, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 29 May 2010.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
Previous copyedits:
/ 
Note icon
This article was copy edited by Scapler on 23 November 2009.

Adding Patrick Waburton as a Main Character

Title says it all. Joe is basically a main character and has appeared in a bunch of episodes. I was thinking that we could add him to the main character picture thing, rather than say he is a guest star.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Such a corrupt site that everyone only sees and responds to what they want to see and respond to.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about you WP:AGF...what does Fox say about him as being a guest or main? CTJF83 chat 22:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request: grammar

Production
Executive producers
Show creator Seth MacFarlane has served has an executive producer during the show's entire history, and also functions as a creative consultants.71.56.116.141 (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done CTJF83 chat 19:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff copy-pasted from the Simpsons

Am i the only one who has noticed that a LOT of text from this article is just copy-pasted from the Simpsons article (with, of course, any mention of "The Simpsons" changed to "Family Guy" or "Springfield" to Quahog"). For instance this sentence:

The show is set in the fictional city of Quahog, Rhode Island, and lampoons American culture, society, television and many aspects of the human condition.

or this one:

The show's humor turns on cultural references that cover a wide spectrum of society. Such references, for example, come from movies, television, music, literature, science, and history. The animators also regularly add jokes or sight gags into the show's background via humorous or incongruous bits of text in signs, newspapers, and elsewhere.

I dont know if wikipedia has any specific rules regarding this, but it just seems really, really cheap to me to write an article this way. And what's worse, some of that information doesn't even seem that accurate when talking about Family Guy. For instance, how often does Family Guy make jokes about science? I'm sure it has happen, but it's hardly something they do a lot. Also, the show doesn't have nearly as many semi-hidden text gags as The Simpsons does, so to specifically make mention of such gags in this article seems out of place (oh yeah, and the citation to that paragraph led to an article which didn't even make any mention of those kinds of jokes). And really, considering that the show is so often light on story in order to instead focus on individual gags (which stands in stark contrast to the classic Simpsons), do you really think it's appropriate to describe the show as having a lot to say about "the human condition"?.

Rattis1 (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good point. The editor who copied the information might have considered doing so a clever allusion to the alleged similarities between Family Guy and The Simpsons, however this puts forth editorial bias and should be removed. My own thoughts are that the same text could be used on any nearly dramatic work with satirical overtones - animated or otherwise - not just The Simpsons. As long as the subject matter involves modern everyday life, you can argue that anything "lampoons...the human condition." Perhaps the introductory paragraph could end in a more objective manner such as:
The show is set in the fictional city of Quahog, Rhode Island, and revolves around a middle-class American family.
The other example you mentioned should also be rephrased in a more objective manner. Phrases like "turns on cultural references that cover a wide spectrum of society" are vague and not very descriptive, so they don't belong in an encyclopedia. How about this?
The show makes use of contemporary cultural references in its humor. Emphasis is often placed on individual gags which make reference to current events and/or modern cultural icons.
Of course there's nothing like citation to support any added information. I'm certain there are plenty of print and online sources describing the general premise of Family Guy's humor in an objective manner. At any rate I'm not able to edit since the article is semi-protected, but feel free to use & alter any of those examples as you see fit. 96.252.169.163 (talk) 04:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds very good to me. I'll make some edits right away. Rattis1 (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request - condense Criticism and Controversy section to avoid duplication with separate Criticism of Family Guy article

{{Edit semi-protected}} Per the consensus reached on the talk page for the Criticism of Family Guy article, the section of this article dedicated to criticism should be merged with it. There are adequate references to write either a lengthy criticism section within this article, or to maintain a separate article for criticism; however there is no need for both. Duplicating information and exhibiting systemic bias by over-coverage of certain subjects detracts from the quality of the encyclopedia as a whole.

The simplest approach would be to remove all text from the section, except for the line "See Criticism of Family Guy" to direct readers to the appropriate article. Another option would be to condense the section within this article to a brief summary - one or two sentences - with the same line to direct interested readers to a more detailed discussion. Thanks in advance to anyone carrying out this edit request. 96.252.169.163 (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done I think you'll see that Criticism of Family Guy is far longer than Family_Guy#Criticism_and_controversy, which is the preferred way. The section on Family Guy should be a summary of the Criticism of Family Guy page. CTJF83 chat 04:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I realize that the two are not identical, but the Criticism & Controversy section of this article duplicates much of the information. While I appreciate your extremely swift response time of only 3 minutes, I would appreciate if you would read the talk page of that article and address the issues before making a decision on whether or not this request should be considered. The aforementioned section of this article is by far the longest, and much of the information is duplicated in the other article without a clear reason. This is reminiscent of devoting more coverage to lightsabers than the printing press. In order to be encyclopedic, by definition it must be a summary, and while I don't doubt the accuracy of all of the references involved I question whether they are needed to establish such a lengthy discussion on this subject in not one, but two places.
Right now, the Criticism & Controversy section is - by raw word count - more than twice as long as any other section. Don't you think that this is excessive for a "summary", considering that there is an entire article dedicated to this subject as well? 96.252.169.163 (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the summary is a bit long...would you be ok with me copying this to a subpage, that you can edit down, and then I'll read it over and move it back to the Family Guy page? I'm too lazy to trim it right now. CTJF83 chat 04:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, just point me in the right direction and thanks.96.252.169.163 (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have fun!! Notify me here, or on my talk when you're done. CTJF83 chat 05:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look. The error on the VanDerWerff reference should resolve itself when re-inserted into the article. I removed entirely some of the extraneous information. For instance I thought the partial censorship in Venezuela was unnecessary since it related only to one song and doesn't do anything to summarize international criticism. Also the criticism by Sarah Palin didn't seem important enough for a brief summary, since the opinion of one person who is not an established critic in the entertainment industry does little to illustrate criticism in general. (At the very least, we don't need to go into detail about how it was mentioned on her daughter's Facebook page.)
Criticism of individual episodes is probably too detailed for this summary, but that can certainly go on the dedicated article. I also removed the quotation-within-reference-tag from Amidi (2004) in the interest of keeping the reference section more neat and concise. Any further suggestions are appreciated.96.252.169.163 (talk) 05:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Family_Guy&oldid=393807030"