Talk:420 (Family Guy)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article420 (Family Guy) has been listed as one of the Media and drama 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 2, 2011Good article nomineeListed

Cultural references[edit]

Please add the proper sources for the following, and please do not put it in list form. Thank you. Sarujo (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stewie mentions a disliking of Ben Stein. During his song, Stewie also mentions the supposed child abusing of Michael Jackson.
  • During the song, Brian mentions a quote of H.L. Mencken that the common man is a fool.
  • Peter plans on using a parodie of Adolf Hitler's speech to exterminate all Jews. However, they can't do that because Carter gets a call from Fox News that they own the rights of Hitler's likeliness and won't have him slambered.
  • There may be a referance to Orson Welles' advertising for Norwegian fish. Peter is advertising for White Castle Burgers, but talks about how pointless it is to use dope, as if it was pointless to do the advert. Orson Welles made an advert for Norwegian fish, but started to complain of how lengthy it was for taking 30 seconds of his time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.31.250 (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a reference to harold and kumar go to white castle-- Juan Gamboa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.244.111.195 (talk) 04:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good status?[edit]

Wondering what it would take to get this article up to Good status. Looking at other Good Family Guy articles, it appears the addition of the 'Cultural references' section with proper sources (see above) and a 'Production' section are needed. With the addition of those, and perhaps a bit of expansion in the 'Ratings and reception' section, this article should be able to obtain Good status. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much production information you are going to get, since the episode isn't on DVD yet. CTJF83Talk 20:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, ok. Any idea when Season 7 might be coming out? Family Guy DVDs just says 2010. Had to ask. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No idea, the latest DVD just came out a few weeks ago, so I'm guessing several months. CTJF83Talk 04:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK controversy[edit]

Twice now, edits have been made regarding the re-airing of this episode and its delay due to the death of Michael Jackson. I do feel this could be relevant, but is there a reliable, third-party source that discusses this? If not, I don't think it should be included in the article. Any thoughts? --Another Believer (Talk) 16:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it relevant to add a UK delay in airing for an American show? CTJF83Talk 19:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's what I am questioning. With edits being made to the article, clearly some people find this to be importance. However, I cannot find any reliable sources mentioning the delay, so I am not certain it is notable. However, should reliable sources exist, it might be worth noting simply because it is an event directly relating to this specific episode. If consensus concludes that delaying an episode due to a joke presented within the episode (relating to the death of a major celebrity) is not notable, then I certainly respect that and would not be bothered by not including the "controversy". Just thought I would bring it up since the article currently mentions it, even though there is no source for the information. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is notable, unless the American premiere of the episode was delayed. The last two mentions of the UK delay were added by IPs. I say remove it unless there is notability and a consensus to keep a sourced statement on the delay. CTJF83Talk 21:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without a reliable source, its not article content. Depending on the source, and content of the source, I could easily be convinced to include it. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, unsourced, I'm removing it. Another Believer beat me to it CTJF83Talk 05:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I couldn't find a reliable source discussing the issue, so I don't think the "controversy" is notable. --Another Believer (Talk) 05:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me! CTJF83Talk 06:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination[edit]

The notification is above. Please take your time to review. Railer-man (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:420 (Family Guy)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. I'll give it a read through now and add points below as I see them. If theres any straight forward copyedits needed, I'll make them as I go through, but obviously if I inadvertently change something important, please feel free to revert. Miyagawa (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review: Plot: First line - is it possible to rephrase the second appearance of "friend" as it seems a bit repetitive.

Production: Could you re-work the first paragraph, and it comes over a bit like a list of the production crew with the line breaks removed.

Production: Second paragraph - seems set up at the end for a quote, but there isn't one.

Other than those points, I think its a job well done and very close to meeting the the GA standard. Nice work! Miyagawa (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look. I problems exist, please let me know. Railer-man (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Miyagawa; there are still some issues in the article that need to be adressed. For example, just by reading the Production section, I found the following:
  • Aside from mentioning the obligatory director and writer of the episode, the first paragraph in the Production section also mentions producers, supervising directors, co-executive producers etc. Remember, Wikipedia is not IMDB. Just listing executive producers and supervising directors etc is pretty redundant and doesn't add to the understanding as to how the episode was produced. Besides, the paragraph's source, Film.com, is a dead link.
  • The third paragraph is about the episode's DVD release. The DVD release of an episode should either be in its own section (titled Merchandising), or you could put it in Reception and rename the section to Release and Reception.
  • The last paragraph uses a dead link.
So, I'm sorry to say, the only paragraph in the section that holds up is the second, which has the DVD commentary as its source. Commentaries are usually valuable sources of information for episode articles, so I encourage you to listen to it again so you can write more in the Production section. Queenieacoustic (talk) 11:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception:
  • You need to explain the ratings (the first numbers) and shares (second numbers) of the Nielsen rating.
  • It seems a bit redundant to point out that the King of the Hill episode received a B, since you've already pointed out it tied with 420, which received a B. Also, the episode could use one more review. Queenieacoustic (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In agreement with the points raised by Queenieacoustic, those will need to be addressed as well - particulary the lack of real production information. If you take a look at other episode GA's, I'm sure you'll find a number of examples of what should be in there. Miyagawa (talk) 12:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find different sources for the Production section, but I kept on finding bad information, and some of the sites didn't even have information for the episodes cast and crew; the sites that did have cast and crew information had that of the entire series, which we don't want. I may need some reliable source examples. Other than that, I'm working hard on the other sections. Railer-man (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly recommend you listen to the episode's DVD commentary, since it does mention several notable things, including how the whole cannabis song came together. If you don't have it, I could write you a transcript. Queenieacoustic (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the DVD, so the transcript would be good for me. Railer-man (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to fail this article on it's Good Article Nomination for the time being and leave it to the editors involved above to work the article up and renominate at a suitable time. Miyagawa (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

New nomination[edit]

The notification is above. Please take your time to review. Railer-man (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:420 (Family Guy)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 17:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'll be reviewing this article. There are a few problems with prose and only one major problem (discussed in general comments section)

Specific comments
  • "the day before 4/20" Should be written in prose, April 20, maybe with brackets notifying the 420 reference.
  • "centers on anthropomorphic dog Brian's" seems clunky, needs rewording, take out anthropomorphic dog.
  • "from baby Stewie" Do we really need these clarifying terms this late into the episode articles? Just Stewie would do.
  • "he recently adopted and named James and prefers to spend more time with him than with them." All needs rewording for grammar.
  • "kills him with a straight razor." Kills "it" to save confusion.
  • "hide his body" ... hide its body.
  • "use the urine of Stewie" Stewie's urine, surely?
  • In production "episode for the season" episode of the season
  • "staff writers have planned on writing out the character." Needs a tense change, had planned on writing out the character.
  • The first reference's link needs changing so that it lands on the correct page displaying 420.
  • The Yahoo! source looks a bit dodgy, should be replaced with something more reliable.
General comments
  • The cultural references section reads like a list of miscellaneous events! These should be integrated into the production section (under its own section), with a more officious style of writing, and the original section should be removed.


  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): --> (per changes) (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Quite a few prose issues and the main reason the MoS failed is because of the Cultural references section which just reads like a bunch of trivia slammed into a section, that bit needs a lot of work if this article is to be passed, everything else is just small-time corrections need to be made, then this article is go.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): (citations to reliable sources): (OR):
    No real issues, apart from the one source change needed for Yahoo! ref 3.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Perfic'.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Comments above
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Your concerns have been addressed by Railer-Man. Gage (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous work! And it's passed! That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 06:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Good Article status[edit]

Removed {{Good article}}. The article does not meet criterion for Good article status. The plot section has no references. Per good article criterion, good articles need to be "Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

An easy fail, a section that's entirely unreferenced. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The plot section doesn't need references. They never have, also you can't just remove an article's GA status, you have to put it through good article reassessment. Aranea Mortem (talk to me) 05:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 420 (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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 01:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 420 (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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Toking man and his anti-weed dog[edit]

The article doesn't mention this bit; the crudely animated insert in which the man and his dog discuss weed (the conversation presented in written form rather than being spoken). Presumably this is a reference to something. If so, what? Martyn Smith (talk) 08:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done a bit of research and have added a relevant comment within the article Martyn Smith (talk) 09:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 May 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move to "420 (Family Guy)" (non-admin closure) buidhe 23:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Episode 420 (Family Guy) → Episode 420 – "Episode 420" already redirects straight here, it's pointless to have the page's title specificity the series. Grapesoda22 (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC) Grapesoda22 (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per the nominator's rationale. Aoba47 (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Though, if you'll forgive the musing... Wasn't this one just called "420"? I guess the DVD says "Episode 420", but the press release, IGN, and BBC seem to drop it. So, perhaps the WP:COMMONNAME is in question here. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to 420 (Family Guy): although the DVD says "Episode 420", "420" seems to be the name of the episode most commonly used on various distribution and on-demand platforms (e.g. BBC iPlayer, Apple TV/iTunes), on the press release, on most reviews, and on IMDB. Sceptre (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: Do the previous participants have any thoughts on Sceptre's proposal? @Grapesoda22, Aoba47, Nohomersryan, Lugnuts, and Ortizesp --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah I agree with it per what I said in my own comment, it seems "420" is more common. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Sceptre's suggestion since it seems to be more common. Aoba47 (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. I would argue that "Episode 420" is more common. It actually is listed as "Episode 420" on iTunes, and Hulu and IMDB listings aren't generally accepted as sources of information on Wikipedia. I would say that the official studio-sanctioned DVD would be the most accurate source in this context. I would not be opposed to having this discussion closed in favor of debate of "Episode 420" vs. "420". Grapesoda22 (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm fine with it.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – "Episode 420" is definitely an ambiguous title, as there are multiple series that have run 420 or more episodes (e.g. see List of longest-running scripted U.S. primetime television series for starters, and that doesn't cover daytime soaps, or long-running TV shows outside the U.S.), so oppose the current proposal (indeed, I would advocate deleting Episode 420 at WP:RfD). That said, I think Sceptre's alternative proposal has merit. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Episode 420 but Support 420 (Family Guy), but leave it where it is if absolutely necessary.
    Episode 420 is overly ambiguous per IJBall. Despite there only being one Wikipedia article, you could effectively have a disambiguation page pointing to any number of episodes, being either the 420th episode of something or season 4, episode 20 of something. I don't think that's a worthwhile use of anyone's time, though.
    Regarding "Episode 420" being "the official studio-sanctioned" title, that may be on the DVD, but FOX themselves were inconsistent. This was their own official episode recap site at one point: 420, and others have already pointed out the initial press release. This is WP:SYNTH, but my guess is that "420" was the original title, and then they thought "Episode 420" would be less controversial, maybe even specifically for DVD release. Looking at TVGuide archives, it looks like "Episode 420" only started seeing use sometime after 2015 and before 2017. Seems to make sense with contemporary reviews/articles/etc. using "420" per the citations in the article.
    Regarding what purchase/streaming options say, it looks like things are split, but I see far more "420"s. Despite "Episode 420" at iTunes and Hulu listings, all these providers (Amazon, Vudu, YouTube, Fandango, Google Play, and Microsoft Store) only list "420".
    I would second IJBall in sending Episode 420 to RfD. -2pou (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

"Episode 420" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information icon A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Episode 420. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 21#Episode 420 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:420_(Family_Guy)&oldid=1197040414"