Talk:Family Guy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleFamily 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
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
August 27, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
November 22, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Family Guy:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Other : Address issues before bringing up to WP:FAC.

Split suggestion[edit]

There is no definitive answer to this. The article is not large enough to demand a split and the information fits fine here as is. However, it is justifiable to have the franchise article. It will ultimately come down to whether someone is interested in doing so. Just be aware that this a Good article so we do not want the quality of this one to decrease. The new article however will not carry the GA status over, so will need to go through WP:GAN if that is desired AIRcorn (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
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.

  • See The Simpsons and The Simpsons (franchise) for comparison. Basically it allows the TV series article to have a smaller scope and devote more time to the TV series.--Coin945 (talk) 08:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Based on the size being over WP:SPLIT criteria I support this. The other media section would be perfect to be spun off. - GalatzTalk 12:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
      • At this time there is only 40kB of readable prose in the article. That's barely over the <40kB boundary where "length alone does not justify division" and well below the 50kB "may need to be divided" boundary. --AussieLegend () 14:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
        • It's not just a maths equation about article length. The article is covering two different scopes. The tv show and the larger franchise. The scope will be better defined in this article if it's streamlined.--Coin945 (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
          • Actually, it pretty much is just down to size. The franchise article would be a stub. Everything in this article, including the franchise information, is relevant to the article subject. The scope of this article is Family Guy and everything related to it, which covers the franchise. A split really can't be justified based on specious arguments. --AussieLegend () 05:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I think the Simpsons model works well so would support this change. Dunarc (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
      • The Simpsons model works well because there is enough content to support two articles. Here there is not. The Simpsons has 54kB of readable prose while The Simpsons (franchise) has 21kB. This article is only just over half of that combined total. Quite apart from there being no real justification to split, there is simply no need to split. --AussieLegend () 05:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Size alone is not a reason to split the article, but there's no reason not to split if someone's willing to put in the work and there are sufficient sources. It shouldn't be split merely for the sake of splitting if nobody's willing to honestly put in the work, though. RE: The Simpsons—see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:01, 10 February 2018 (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.

I have completed the split and I believe did not harm the GA in the process. I would appreciate a second set of eyes as well on both here and the new article. Thanks! - GalatzTalk 15:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2018[edit] (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sakura CarteletTalk 02:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


Can protection be removed from the page? (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

May I ask why you would like the page unprotected? It was protected, admittedly a long time ago, due to frequent vandalism, and given the popularity (some might say notoriety) of this tv show, I'm concerned that unprotecting it would simply result in a resumption of vandalism. In any event, you could request it at WP:RFPP, though you may need to be a registered user to do so. DonIago (talk) 04:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
So I can add information. I also asked Nyttend if he could unprotect it, but said I can propose changes tp its talk page. (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm an administrator, I've looked at the block log and I won't unprotect the page. Admittedly it has been protected for some time but looking at the block log tells me that every time it has been unprotected previously it has been protected again almost immediately because of vandalism. Unprotecting it is more likely to damage Wikipedia.
Nyttend is correct, you can use the talk page to propose changes. What changes would you like to propose?--5 albert square (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
There are currently 1,163 people watching this page. There is a safe bet if you want to post a change in the talk page here that it will be seen. - GalatzTalk 01:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm declining my request. (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Request to add category: Television series revived after cancellation[edit]

Attempting to add category to Family Guy for revived series after they were cancelled. Article already mentions revival, with the number of shows being revived it would make sense to create a hub for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGAB312 (talkcontribs) 00:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Disregard, I missed the category that would make adding this redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGAB312 (talkcontribs) 01:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)