Jump to content

Talk:List of American Dad! episodes/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

To be announced

Would changing 'TBA' to 'To Be Announced' improve things? Mind you, if I was making a TV show I'd put an acronym as the names of four consequent episodes... -- Kizor 19:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Season two episodes

I found these by searching copyrights (http://www.copyright.gov/records/cohm.html).

2AJN01 Roger 'n Me, 2AJN05 The American Dad After School Special, 2AJN06 Camp Refoogee, 2AJN07 Failure is not a Factory-installed Option, 2AJN08 Dungeons and Wagons, 2AJN09 Iced, Iced Babies

These 3 were also found but without production numbers. They appear to be 2AJN02 - 2AJN04. Is Helping Handis a typo?

With Friends Like Steve's, Helping Handis, Tears of a Clooney

Someone should add these but I guess the 3 without production codes should be ignored until they can be confirmed. Generalleoff 04:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

NM. I saw they were added now. Generalleoff 04:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Next episode/new season?

Does anyone know when the show will be back, and whether it will be a new season? The Futon Critic says it's back on April 16th and the next episode will be episode 201, ie the start of season 2. I'm not familiar with this site, though, is it reliable? If it's as (un)reliable as TV.com maybe we should wait for another source before updating the episode list.

it probably should still be considered season 1 despite the production codes. Then when new episodes start again this fall those should be considered season 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.243.130.10 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

thats probably a smart move, assuming the show takes another break for the summer.Grande13 03:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The picture of anorexic Stan is a spoiler.

The picture for Season 2 Episode 2, "The American Dad After School Special", is a spoiler and should be changed. In that episode, they build up to that scene, with Stan getting fatter and fatter, and finally it is revealed that he is horribly emaciated and that it was only his perception that he was gaining weight. By showing a screenshot from this scene, Wikipedia effectively blows half the story. Maybe it could be removed and switched for some other screenshot? Gary 22:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

New style

Having a different article for each season is ennoying. It does not seem neccesary as there are not that many episodes that it makes it too long. It is not like for example the simpsons. The 2nd and 3rd season are not fully aired so no-one is going to be looking that far down the page. But I would like to see all the episodes together in the meantime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.17.103 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

All the episodes are together on the main page. If you want to see pictures for each episode then you need to go to the season page... Grande13 (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge discussion per AfD

Per the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American Dad! episodes expanded, the List of American Dad! episodes expanded needs to be merged into this article. Please discuss any specific of the merge and then merge the articles. Thanks! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Season division of episodes

According to commentary of the DVD, the first season is only the first 7 episodes, while "Bullocks to Stan" is the second season premiere. 206.66.217.140 22:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

just look at the official american dad site for your answer. It has a different orderGrande13

Why Elvish?

Why does the text for episode 10 of season 1 say that the "strange alphabet" is elvish? I haven't seen the episode, so I don't know if they are referring to the letters as being elvish in the episode, but the letters are clearly japanese kana, or to be more precise hiragana. It reads: "ryorora. sori (next line) riromerenyayo (next line) rayari(unsure about this symbol, could be a fast written 'hi')eyayu (next line) ryururutsuyamome (next line) wororirame (next line) eyoyamoya (next line) menyutsuri (next line) rarureyuya". There are several points in the text which have no meaning. In fact, to me it seems that the text doesn't make sense, as it is just gibberish. But maybe my japanese isn't good enough. :) I'm quite sure however that it has no meaning in japanese, as I can't see any sentence structure whatsoever. So I suggest that the text for that episode gets changed.


The episode states that the note is in Elvish, which I why imagine the author wrote "Elvish", since as you say the symbols are Japanese. It's actually somewhat of a spoiler that the note is Elvish, so I'll remove it. PGingell 19:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fix episode template?

does anyone know how to keep the current template the same, but but the total episode number as the last column and not the second?

So the order should be ep number, title, airdate, production code, then total ep number, with the summary on the bottom Grande13 16:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Season 3 Episodes

It should be noted that the episode House of Horror will most likely air in mid-October. To that effect, FOX has only one LCS to worry about and a possible game six or seven of one series will likely take place during the late afternoon on that Sunday while freeing up primetime for new episodes.208.107.168.154 01:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

episode order isnt confirmed, although you are right there should be more episodes this fall than compared to previous years Grande13 01:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"Cultural references"

Today I tagged all those articles with a "Cultural references" section with the references-needed tag, this was later removed by Grand13 (under his IP). I've again re-tagged the articles as per Wikipedia's sourcing policies.

A secondary source will be needed to backup the claim that x is a cultural reference. For example, "This episode's title is a play on the song or film When a Man Loves a Woman", who says this is so? A Wikipedian editor? Who of course isn't a reliable source. For all this Wikipedian knows it could be simple coincidence (ergo the need for a source).

Rather than simply removing I tagged the articles that require citations, policy would support me if I decided to remove them verbatim. But I didn't, and I'd rather not, but they still require sourcing.

Applicable: WP:RS and WP:V

Thanks, Matthew 15:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your concerns but please stop spreading false rumors. As we've discussed in the past I do know Grand13 and am in touch, but am not him. This was my doing, but your tagging was incredibly unncessary and lazily done. I loved how you tagged about 10 or so articles that didnt even have cultural references. This conversation has already occurred a few times on different shows, and those times it was decided you're point wasn't valid. While im sure you have good intentions, please dont suggest things that arent warranted. thanks 68.72.139.134 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Rumours? What's rumours? Read the policies, not difficult. And thank you for reminding me to revisit the production code debate, I was on semi-wikibreak at that time while most shows were on summer break. I tagged the articles for upcoming episodes because they had the section :-). Could you point out where this conversation has been held before? Matthew 16:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding back info from remaining third season episodes that comes from the copyright database as its an acceptable form for source material as was discussed in the past and agreed upon. Numerous articles, some featured, or close to featured, for a show that utilizes the copyright database as a reference use this as well. Main example, the Simpsons [1], check on one of the discussion pages for the lengthy conversation between some of their editors and a few admins for how this came to be an acceptable source if you have any qualms about it.

Also, if you would have done some more research you would have noticed that more than half of the previously aired episodes on the copyright database have the word screenplay, which is just the style that american dad seems to be registering some of their more recent episodes. There hasn't been a situation where a title has been mislabeled yet, and in the rare occurrence if some situation should ever arise there is a upcoming television show disclaimer located above the current season.

I've also added back the season 4, as its properly sourced, and is setup in a way that discourages vandalism and people adding false material.
and its not too crystalballery as you noted, as the dates are left off and episode order left blank for the time being as I am only including the verified and sourced material. If you've noticed in the past i've removed peoples attempts at ordering and speculating dates as that is a bit crystalball-ish, but with this compromise they are in an acceptable form
Now regarding the episodes. Regardless of whether the discussion decides to delete some of the later upcoming episodes, they have a valid place on the episode list as they all have sources, and are labeled with that source and detailed info on how to confirm the existence of the episode. If it is decided that the episodes are to be merged/deleted later on then the episode pages can be kept although a redirect link can be implemented that just redirects it to the season 3 part of the episode list until further more concrete info becomes available on the episode. Also some of these episodes have been confirmed in articles/interviews. Im in the process of adding the sources to each episode that has such info. I've started with 42 year old virgin which had a live table read at comic con 2007. Grande13 01:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The movie info was completely false, and made up by a repeated vandal that actually hasn't made any positives contributions to wikipedia. No info exists on that article anyway that can be found. The movie section needs to be removed. Grande13 19:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Future episodes

I'm going to remove another incarnation of this section, again. Grande please stop re-inserting it, it's been made explicitly clear to you that the source you have provided is disputed. If these are future episodes then you'll have absolutely no problem in providing another source, will you?

Remember that the onus is yours to adequately source the section as you are the user restoring content.

As it stands you've still not proven how these are future episodes, "it's very likely" is not reliable. The copyright database has indexed scripts, that's not proof these will ever become episodes, nor does it state what season they have been written for. It's original research to speculate on the season (exactly what you're doing) and that they are "future episodes". 

   * Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, nor a forum for promoting one's own point of view; all material must be verifiable
   * Facts must be backed by citations to reliable sources that contain these facts
   * Interpretations and syntheses must be attributed to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses

As I say, if the information is accurate then provide a reliable source that can also backup your claims. Policy and guidelines very clearly support me (WP:V, [[WP:NOR and WP:RS). You've yet to provide anything to back you up other than "some users and an admin [wow!]" think it's reliable, the fact that some other people are confused does: a) not make the source any less disputed or b) any more reliable. Matthew 07:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

sceptre was in agreement with this setup if you had checked....It seems you are the only one currently going against this. Grande13 12:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe Sceptre is trying to compromise with you. I myself am only interested in getting a reliable source. If they will be real episodes you'll have no problem providing another source, right? Matthew 12:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

All it states here is that to include things you need an official source. While it might be recommended that you have additional outside sources to back the claim, there is nothing saying it MUST have multiple sources to be included on wikipedia. As long as its a respectable source and not just some fansite. Over time additional sources will be available, but for now we have one valid source, so its enough to at least include their titles. This is not OR, as its coming from a reliable database. This is not an an interpretation of the ideas from that site either. While its not definitely clear what season they fall under on the copyright database, you can be sure anything on there will be an episode at some point down the line. Since the production cycle for these cartoons is approx 9 months, you can make conclusions, which is interpretation, but leaving them in the future episode category is legit. Grande13 19:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Grande, listen to yourself. I've not asked for multiple sources, I've asked for a different source (which would need to be a reliable source). You're clearly incapable of doing this, ergo I will continue to believe you can't provide one.
What you don't seem to understand is this: assumption is original research. However much you try to sweetcoat it with more assumption…
You say "[Y]ou can be sure anything on there will be an episode at some point down the line", why can I be sure? Because you say so? You know that you are not a reliable source. You're assuming that because the script (not an episode) is listed in the database that it will become an episode, that's fine and dandy but you can't prove it. Can you–without a doubt–prove that American Dad! will not suddenly be cancelled? No you can't, ergo your reassurances mean nothing to me.
To quote policy: "Facts must be backed by citations to reliable sources that contain these facts." (WP:NOR). The copyright database does not confirm that listed scripts will become episodes, or that they are potential episodes and it also doesn't confirm the season. You say there will be reliable sources in the future, well lets wait for them… unless there's a policy saying we MUST include the information now? There's no rush. Matthew 20:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
this isnt some database that some kids just threw together. This is a government run database. As policy states, facts must be backed by citations. Fact is an episode was registered with the database. It is merely being cited and placed on the episode list. If the info is available there is no reason not to put it on. Also, there are quite a few people that know its available and its found easily on other sites as well, which is just going to lead to people attempting to add it in their own way here. This can all be prevented by just including it now. If we weren't using a real reliable source then i would just say wait til something more concrete is out, but registering the episode in the copyright database is a valid representation of that episode existing by a reputable place that can be cited and traced. Grande13 22:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
A script may have been registered, not an episode (more of your OR assuming it will be). It doesn't matter if it's gov't run, it still doesn't backup your claims. All the registration proves is that copyright is important. I'll repeat myself again: if true you'll have no problem in providing another source. If you don't they'll just be repeatedly removed, you can moan about what you think and what your emails says all you want. Matthew 22:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
its not necessary to have multiple sources when there is one valid source, I dont see how you dont see it being valid. Its not OR, its legally registering episodes into the database, which counts as a reliable source for future episodes. If it had been wrong multiple times then maybe I could somewhat see where you are coming from, but your assumptions that just because its in the database doesn't mean anything has no merit. Its a quality source, that can be backed with reliable results. You seem to make quality contributions to wikipedia, so please take your efforts elsewhere where they are actually needed. Again, in time other reliable sources will surface, but there is nothing anywhere saying that multiple reliable sources are needed to add content. One quality source is enough, while multiple just supply verification. Grande13 07:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not asking for multiple sources, I'm asking for a different source (one that can backup your claims that: they will be episode and the season they will be a part of). You can moan and groan all you wish saying it's a "quality source" (which you've yet to prove), or you can provide another source.
I will repeat myself again, but patience can only go so far: The copyright database lists registered scripts, not episodes. You cannot prove these will actually be episodes, for all you know the show will be cancelled during production and they will simply remain scripts. Grande you need to listen to yourself because you make some absurd claims which you clearly can't backup.
If you can provide a reliable source then please do, if you can't then please don't re-introduce the content as you will just be reverted. Your source will also need to backup the claim they are possible episodes/will be episodes (WP:V). Matthew 08:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
So they need to claim only what we know, that they are scripts and nothing more. -- Ned Scott 10:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess that works, and yes Matthew i understand you are asking for a different source, but im saying it doesn't mention anywhere that multiple sources are needed to back up an already reliable source. Grande13 13:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Season 1 Episode 17 "Rough Trade"

Stan and Roger do not experience "a Freaky Friday type switch" - they merely swap roles, not bodies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.74.165 (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge

The season three and four episodes do not establish any sort of notability, so they do not require articles. They need to be redirected here until such a time. Arguments that do not address establishing notability per WP:N have no weight, so do try to avoid using them. I'll start another discussion for the other seasons afterward. TTN (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Episode notability

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Result: No consensus to merge sub-articles to this article. --W.marsh 18:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

All of the episodes of this series fail the notability guidelines for television episodes. The way for these articles to be improved is through the inclusion of real-world information from reliable sources to assert notability. That is unlikely to happen, and these only have certain bad aspects (though all may not apply) like containing overly long or one sentence plot summaries, trivia, and quotes. Per that, they need to be a small part of this list.

If there are no objections, these will be redirected soon. Otherwise, discussion will take place here. Please remember that this is not a vote. If you like the information, that's fine and dandy, but your opinion doesn't really count towards anything. The only opinions that do count are ones that that lean towards the inclusion of real world information. TTN 19:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


The information is more useful as it is currently presented. To the deletionists, stop trying to kill wikipedia. --Kieran Bennett 07:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The information is most useful in its present state, and there is no rational reason to put it all into the same article. Please stop making changes only because some Wikipedia guidelines makes it possible. Besides, all plot summaries are non-problematic since episodes constitutes a primary source itself, and it is seldom a problem to reference "Cultural references" or "Notes" in episode articles. Please use your energy to make these articles better, or else take your Wikipedia guidelines somewhere the sun seldom shines.Ramskjell 10:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

More and more outside sources are becoming available for the show such as official episode guides and DVDs and such and there already is some notability on a few episodes. So please focus you're efforts elsewhere where'd they be more productive, thanks Grande13 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TTN. These episode articles contain nothing but plot summaries and loads of trivia, and should be merged like all other similar episode articles. In order for them to stay they need a reception section and reliable sources. The Prince of Darkness 21:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

  • No merge - Sorry but I'll have to agree with the above not to merge the episodes into one since it would defeat the purpose of the wikipedia. Also the show doesn't have bad ratings, lasted longer than one season and in list format will loss all cultural/pop references listed in each individual episodes. StarSpangledKiwi 21:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
As I said above, WP:ILIKEIT "votes" do not really count at all. So far, three of these are those, while the other is a very vague promise of information. At this point, these will still be redirected. TTN 21:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

For a 20 minute show, many plot summaries are excessive. I had a look at about 10 episodes, which had no out-of-universe information except for what little was in the infobox. Notability not established once except for Pilot (American Dad!), which needs sourcing. Merge/Redirect seems like the best option for at least the vast majority of episode articles. Why not consider transwiki-ing in addition? – sgeureka t•c 22:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

  • It's grand that WP:ILIKEIT is stated but as it says at the top of that article... it is an essay, not wikipedia guidelines or policies. The main reason voting is done is due to deal with disputes by consensus not by one person basically saying, and I paraphrase, "I want it this way so I'm going to do it the way I want it." This may cause an edit war. StarSpangledKiwi 22:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • It explains why the opinion is not counted. This is not a vote; numbers are irrelevant unless backed by policies or guidelines in some way. The reason for that is policies and guidelines represent a larger consensus that cannot be trumped by a smaller one. If you think that WP:EPISODE is wrong, you have to change it there. It cannot be just passed off here. TTN 23:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The shows fan base and popularity has been on the rise and is slowly approaching the simpsons and family guy figures, at least according to the ratings. That and like previously mentioned above, There are now more and more official and outside sources coming out with DVD including commentaries, guides, books and even qualified sites talking about the show. A few shows might need work, but they certainly dont all merit the merge. I'll try to fix them up a bit this week when i get the chance, so do not merge 68.72.139.134 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That kind of information is available for many different shows. Nothing guarantees that they can be used to actually do anything with the episodes. You can just work on them in a sandbox, and bring them back when they're ready. TTN 15:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
the negative with just removing them, will just cause people who see an article that doesn't exist to create it from scratch, as i've seen this happen a lot. They end up adding repeat info as they try to rebuild everything as some people are not completely aware of how history work. If the episodes get deleted then the history factor is even gone. Point is with the individual articles being left up, it sets up a more productive system for people to add quality info, especially with the sources that are available or will be available soon. Merging them basically assures that there will never be individual episode articles as people aren't going to want to go through the process of making the page first, when all they might have is a few lines to add from outside sources. Keeping them intact allows the pages to remain open and if they are closely watched, which i do anyways, information that is OR can be removed, while worthy information that contributes to the encyclopedic value of the article can be retained much easier. Like i previously stated before, once i get time either this weekend or early next week i'll go through all the articles and remove useless info that is basically just a retelling of the episode in bullet form, and add some sourced info ive been accumulating. 68.72.139.134 22:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Strongest possible NO MERGE. There are too many unique details from individual episodes to merge into a master list. Content like the cutaway side stories about Roger's gold poop, among other series elements, would have no place to go. I will go ahead and boldly use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and say that individual episode articles exist for shows that have had far fewer episodes. Wl219 04:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. The strategy here is to target episode articles for shows not as many people care about. If they succeed in getting these deleted, they will feel they are gaining steam towards deleting episode articles for shows more people care about, like Family Guy and Desperate Housewives, or even classics like Star Trek and Buffy. Cromulent Kwyjibo 15:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No Merge. For the reasons stated above, keep the individual pages as it would be too much information to have it all in one list.--Wraithdart 15:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of the plot-only information will be cut. If these articles lack real-world information, and only serve as plot summaries, then they need to be trimmed down or outright cut. -- Ned Scott 20:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge ones with only plot, evaluate any that contain some form of real-world information and merge ones where said information is notable and can fit on a LOE. If there are any left after this, mark them for cleanup and see if anything happens later on. -- Ned Scott 21:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
None of these have any real world information past basic ratings. Anything else is purely speculative OR with nothing to back it up. I honestly doubt there is one valid reference within all of these. TTN 21:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No Merge. The episodes that are just titles have been redirected to the episode list, but for this for which there is info should remain as more and more outside sources become available. Grande13

No Merge. What is wrong with this guy? You've already killed off Supernatural. If you look through my edit history, I first got into Wikipedia by editing such TV shows that I watch with loads of information, sometimes even screen caps. I see and read the policies your citing and they make sense, yes... But I think a majority of users are not happy with this. Including me, now if you want to be a Dictator. Enforcing policies that really don't have anything to do with Episode Lists and their child articles, No ones going to agree with you ever, and by looking at your Talk Page, It's already showing, Hope that Star makes you sleep at night. oh and I forgot... NO MERGE, If something is wrong, Tag it with the clean up and I'll see to it that I find some more information to satisfy "your" policies. augrunt 02:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No merge. I think there is enough info (cultural references and such) in these articles that they are notable on their own. — The Last User Name Ever (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No merge. There is enough info for these episodes to have their own pages.- JustPhil 15:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we should remove the merge tags now. Its been a month or so and a few editors and making there way through some of the early episodes of this show and family guy and attempting to make them all the new versions achieve good article status. Also, some of the issues that were previously at hand, like placeholder pages for episodes way in the future have already been redirected per the results of another discussion, and now things are only added with their own page after an outside source has provided info on the subject. Its also an up and coming show with a slow and steady increase of weekly viewers which in turn will allow for more recognition from outside sources and also should hopefully provide more editors as the show becomes more and more mainstream. The process is under way to go through all these and family guy episodes pages like previously mentioned, so there is no reason to be redirecting these now. Grande13 (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2007 (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.
this discussion is over for the time being with really no consensus reached. for now the tags should be removed, and if this issue is brought up again in the future then the tags could be re-applied, but for now they are serving no purpose. Grande13 (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. It's gone. --98.212.148.50 (talk) 10:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Citations on New Episodes

In the last two days, somebody added to future episodes of season four with a possible airdate. Some research on the Web, however, didn't give me any results that confirm that information. Thus, I have to assume that the given airdates are just speculation. We don't need speculation because everybody can do that. All we need are resources and information we can rely on. I added the [citation needed] tag and hope that somebody can give us the citation.

I have two websites that show that the next American Dad episode will be shown 1/25:

So, please keep the information valid on those pages because it is just a pain in the a** for me when I am researching on the latest American Dad episodes.

Thanks for your attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.146.202.52 (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism

The templates on each individual episode with the rest of the episodes in that season is messed up. It just shows the season 1 episodes, no picture from that episode. That's it. I don't know how to fix it. Could someone please fix it?

Tman7776 (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Clean-up or Merge

For the record, since it is or was apparently a hot topic, I am tagging for notability the individual episode articles that do nothing to indicate how the episode itself is notable. Personally I think those articles should be deleted and the relevant content merged into the List of Episodes, but I see from the above that that's a contentious issue. I would like to see the currently non-notable episode articles expanded so that that's no longer a concern and would encourage editors who feel the individual articles should be kept to expand them. I would note that I consider arguments that there are episode articles for, say, The Simpsons and Family Guy to be an indication of a problem with those articles, not a precedent for maintaining individual articles for American Dad! episodes. Doniago (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record those are 2+ years old. I think we can get every episode to meet GNG, like with reviews from the same reviewers as The Simpsons and Family Guy....it's just a matter of a user doing the work. CTJF83 chat 15:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Massive clean up

Most of the episode articles are completely unreferenced, contain mostly or only, and are just poorly written. There is no reason that every episode should get its own article just because of the show it's from. I think almost every episode article has to either mergered or cleaned up. JDDJS (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No disagreement here, though there is a 2007 consensus not to merge sub-articles up above. An editor recently used that discussion as grounds for removing notability tags from a number of American Dad! episode articles. Doniago (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Season 6 or season 7?

According to Fox's Full Episodes page, the current season is season 7. The show titles match this articles season 6. Has this page been vandalized, or is this a Seth Macfarlane joke?
Kreetox (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any indication of vandalism....hmm, with out all the seasons/episodes listed on Fox, it's hard to come up with an answer, I'll look into it more. CTJF83 chat 18:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks like they split the first season, the gap between June and September looks like Fox's split between 1st and 2nd season. CTJF83 chat 18:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The American Dad series page on FoxFlash breaks down the seasons as links, and the dates seem to coincide with our count, even acknowledging season 6 as 2010-2011, and making no mention yet of a season 7. On the other hand, the episodes in the gallery photos for season 2 includes Finances With Wolves, a late season 1 episode by our tally. KnownAlias contact 18:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
So, another case of where Fox can't get their own stuff right...common for Glee. CTJF83 chat 18:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.fox.com/americandad/recaps/season-7/episode-15 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.232.175.190 (talk) 07:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Every proper source now has episode lists corrected, so why do you guys think you know better than Fox and everyone, typical wikipedia problem. I just know that you will jump on anyone who tries to change it from established order to what it should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.239.30 (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that editors follow the most official source as opposed to secondary sources. Fox is the official distributor. The new Fox.com episode format[2] is now incorporated into TheTVDatabase which is used by MediaPortal, XBMC, etc. The decision has been discussed at [3]. A summary of the new episode listing is available here. Shawnc (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, as I mentioned above, FoxFlash, the Fox press site, acknowledges us as currently being in season 6. I would proffer that Fox's press site, the purpose of which is to disseminate information, would be a more official source than Fox.com, whose purpose is purely promotion. And that information translates to TV listing sites like The Futon Critic and TV Guide. Even the official press release for the show's renewal calls the next season the 7th.
P.S. Took a quick peek at your discussion, which started right off with IMDB's ranking of the seasons as cause for this debate. Here on the encyclopedia, IMDB is not considered a reliable source and shouldn't be considered in the weighing of facts. TV.com either, for that matter. KnownAlias X 13:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Season 7 would refer to Fox funding the production run no. 7, but broadcast series may contain episodes from different production runs. Either way, it's obvious that nothing is reliable and everything is unreliable, so it really doesn't matter any more. N.B. wiki calling imdb/tv.com unreliable is ironic don't you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.239.81 (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

LETS FIX SEASON 1 AND 2 PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!

Season 1 ONLY contains episodes 1-7 Season 2 contains episodes "Bullocks to Stan" -> "Tears of a Clooney"

Every other season needs to be INCREMENTED BY 1!!!!!!!!

Thus, we are CURRENTLY ON SEASON 8!!!

Thank you, from all the people furious that Wikipedia is the only website to have this WRONG.

And yes, I see the discussions above, but this is ridiculous. Who cares what their P.R. department says. FOX.COM should be the ONLY source of information on this. Please people.

Citation:

http://www.fox.com/americandad/recaps/season-1/episode-7 FOX!!! I think they would know about their own show!

http://thetvdb.com/?tab=seasonall&id=73141&lid=7 --Phelanmt (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Colors

I don't know if it's custom to do that in en:, but who had that weird idea? There's no use for that penetrative colours (as it doesn't sign any difference between the seasons) and it doesn't make the article prittier, especially season 4, 10 , 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 only have the advantage to make my eyes hurt. (c'mon bright blue and almost black blue? that doesn't help when reading) If you use colors it shouldn't be chosen randomly..

Another thing: It's funny because in german Wikipedia it's the opposite: episode-articles get mostly directly deleted because of failing relevance :D

Last thing: Why the hell does anybody need to know the production-code? ;)--SamWinchester000 (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I now know about the reason for the colors.--SamWinchester000 (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"Can I be Frank With You"

The Airdate for Season 8 Episode 3 is wrong, it states the original Airdate for the episode was the 21st of October 2012, but to date (The 26th at the time of this writing) it has yet to be broadcast, can someone either change it to the correct airdate, as I don't know what it is. Until then I shall change it to TBA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.71.138 (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC) NO MERGE

If I want info on an Episode that is where I would to find it. I would not want to be redirected to the episode list, that would give me ZERO info about the Episode--75.212.21.92 (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No merge They are as notable as any other episodes, especially since many of them are spoofs of other productions, and this is just evidence of TTN's attempt to seemingly try and merge every television episode on Wikipedia into a single article. Kuralyov (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

NO MERGE Every episode of the Simpsons has its own page, and who watches that junk anymore... Smarkflea (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

NO MERGE Also, your attempt to limit the basis for the discussion i.e.. "Arguments that do not address establishing notability per WP:N have no weight, so do try to avoid using them" is not the way to start a real discussion on the subject. You've been reprimanded again and again for merging articles with little or no consensus, which seems to be a personal vendetta of yours. I think you'll find almost no support for your crusade, especially since you lost a virtually identical vote for merging here almost exactly one year ago. 72.84.238.145 (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

NO MERGE And where do you expect me togo to get an episode description??? Should I Just pull one out my ass or just go to wikipedia??? mmmmmmm

Don't merge. This is just a tricky slippery-slope approach to get the Family Guy episode articles deleted. They figure we don't care about the American Dad! episodes as much, so they'll get those deleted while we're not paying attention. Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to merge here. Instead of trying to get people to say why they don't want a merge, try coming up with good arguments as to why they should be merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.254.52.208 (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

None of you are helping the case to actually keep these around. TTN (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't really see season articles establishing any sort of notability. This doesn't seem to be anywhere close to being too large, so larger summaries can always be added without much trouble. TTN (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • You lost this argument once before a year ago (the discussion of which is archived above). It's up to you to convince people, not the other way around. You haven't made any case to merge them, and everyone so far disagrees with you. Unless we are in some bizarro world where opposite things happen, I'd say we are headed very quickly and cleanly towards yet another "No consensus to merge." 72.84.238.145 (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

NO MERGE Absolutely no decent reason given for why they should be merged. Go away. --Simonski (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose, WP:N isn't a policy, no matter how much anyone would like it to be. Merging the articles would make this list too big. Since Wikipedia is not paper, there is no reason why we can't have articles for each episode of notable TV shows. You may want to spend your time working on articles for your legendary Pokemon cards, Nemu. --Pixelface (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


It is absolutely ridiculous that this is still an "issue" - and frankly, it seems like it's only an "issue' to a few vocal people. It would be unthinkably bad to merge these.

Why exactly do you think is a good idea? Do you just hate the show, or are you bitter that people are so interested in it that they're willing to write full articles detailing them? Do you think that Wikipedia is about things that only you find notable? How many people find information from these pages relative to those for some of the esoteric subjects in advanced physics? Are those suddenly no longer notable?

Try taking a little poll and seeing how many people HAVE benefited from these. For example, I just used one of the American Dad! pages to help out with a research project on depictions of amnesia in the mass media.

This is more than consensus enough and there always has been consensus - the merge tags have been deleted and they should not be restored without a very good reason (i.e. sitewide policy change). It sure looks to me like there's plenty of "notable" information on S3, and the S4 pages are works in progress. --98.212.148.50 (talk) 10:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge- I've selected a few episode articles at random and they are, let's face it, just not up to any sort of encyclopedic standard. They're full of trivia sections, which are discouraged, many are written in an in-universe manner, they have but a single source (the Internet Movie Database) and this source doesn't back up the majority of the statements in the article, making it original research. If I were to go into these episode articles and prune everything that wasn't attributed to a reliable source (which, by policy, is exactly what should happen), there'd be not much left except what's already in this list. Even if the manual of style concerns and policy violations were fixed each episode would still need to demonstrate notability. Reyk YO! 04:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Hold on, then keep or merge. I spot-checked several AD episode articles, and didn't come across one that was close to GA - no production section, no critical reception section, unsourced cultural references (i.e. original research), and viewership figures that can as well be noted in the LoE (User:Reyk also illustrated this nicely above). Fan support is admirable, but in the end, the quality of articles matters. Instead of piling on enthusiastic do not merge fan votes and making this personal about the nominator, might I suggest to base the future of these articles on their potential? Pick an arbitrary episode and try to improve it per standards set at WP:GA. This will give results that are objective: Either it's possible and the other articles just need more time to be improved, or it's not possible and a merger (LoE or season article) is the right option. Wikipedia will win with this approach either way, and that all that matters to me. – sgeureka t•c 08:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
    What Sgeureka said. Sceptre (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    I agree. While there's no reason not to have episode pages, the current pages are very poor.-Stu42 (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't Merge. I dont see why these should be merged, when say, Family Guy and The Simpsons still have every episode in there own pages. Seems like picking and choosing to me. If we merge American Dad's pages, we should seriously look at Family Guy, The Simpsons, South Park, etc. --Evildevil (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Lack of descriptions

So why is it the List of Family Guy Episodes article has a description for every episode, whereas the American Dad episodes only have like 12 descriptions? --76.105.145.143 (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably because nobody's been invested enough to add them. You're welcome to be bold and pick up the slack though! Doniago (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

These links have been here for years, although every once in a while they get removed for some spurious reason, and they always return because people recognise their usefulness. These links are uniform across all three of the MacFarlane shows and should be left. It's much easier to jump between episode lists by having these wlinks at the bottom of each page, instead of constantly having to go through Wikipedia's crap search function. Podagrycznik (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

So, it was removed again because it was said it isn't relevant, I disagree (surprise!). Considering who is involved in the show, and how they're intertwined, I think they're relevant (in the addition to what I wrote above). I don't see how any harm has come by removing those useful links at the bottom of the page. It's not like they take up a huge section of the page. I was asked to write something here, so I did. I find it amusing that rather than address my points, the links were simply just removed again. Podagrycznik (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
You are correct that the removing editor shouldn't have deleted the information without saying anything here given that there is a discussion, but it would be best to assume good faith; it's entirely possible they didn't realize there's an active discussion. Let's see what they have to say. Doniago (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Whilst normally I would have joined the discussion, I chose to immediately revert Podagrycznik for several reasons. 1) Three editors are opposed to the inclusion of the unnecessary links: myself, Doniago and NikkiMaria. NikkiMaria gave her reasons which are self-explanatory. 2) Doniago did ask "please discuss at Talk rather than simply reverting" in an edit summary. While Podagrycznik did indeed start a talk discussion he also went ahead and reverted. In short, Podagrycznik is edit-warring and clearly going against the wishes of a majority of editors. Despite my better judgment I will hold off immediately reverting Podagrycznik. Perhaps tomorrow. 3) Podagrycznik's tone and accusations. He accuses us of removing the links for "spurious reasons". He also refers to "Wikipedia's crap search function." He should consider civility in future. 4) I assume that Podagrycznik can bookmark pages he likes. 5) Other shows' "list of episode" articles do not link to genuine spinoff series' "list of episodes" articles. 6) An after-the-fact comment, but the shows are not truly "intertwined", notwithstanding the occasional cameo. The shows are independent of one another. While "FG" did begat "TCS", neither show begat "AD!" nor did "AD!" begat "FG" or "TCS". I fail to see how "who is involved in the show" warrants adding the links. I also do not see why we need to link to the "American Dad! Wiki" in this article. The place for that - if anywhere - may be the main "AD" article. Again, I'm not sure fan sites warrant a link. I will have to check wikipedia policy about this. - Fantr (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts regarding the above-

  1. My reversion was not an oppose per se, but rather a feeling that we should adhere to WP:BRD and that the matter should be discussed here if anyone has strong feelings about it rather than revert-warring.
  2. I agree that Pod shouldn't have reverted. Next time you've been reverted more than once Pod, it would be appropriate to start a discussion without reverting again. You may wish to review WP:3RR.
  3. As noted above, I agree that Pod didn't seem to exactly AGF. I hope they'll make more of an effort to do so going forward.
  4. - 6) All make sense to me. Barring compelling reasons in favor of keeping the links I support their removal. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting me Doniago. I've now read wikipedia's policy on external links, in particular the "American Dad! Wiki" link Podagrycznik keeps putting back in this article. According to wikipedia:FANSITE
Links normally to be avoided
5.Links to individual web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising.
11.Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)
12.Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.
Further, the linked wiki is not an "official site". Wikipedia policy asks us to "Minimize the number of links." On this basis I'd say that link #2 "Page with Auto-Screenshots from Episodes" from a German fansite also clearly fails especially as it appears to be flagrant mass copyright violation. These two links I will remove. Wikipedia also asks us not to link to multiple official sites ("If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate, under a very few limited circumstances. However, Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website.) however these I will leave for now. - Fantr (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Further comment to Pod's original argument. The fact that the links have allegedly been here "for years" is not justification for keeping them. - Fantr (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested Move

There is a discussion on changing all the seasons with season 7 becoming season 8 etc. See Talk:American_Dad! (season 7)#Requested_move. Some input in the discussion would be good.--Salix (talk): 09:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Series overview

Can someone please change the series overview DVD release dates to reflect the new changes, cause there all wrong at the moment. Koala15 (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Seasons Wrong??

EDIT UPDATE FROM FOX which i emailed last night in regards to this

Ask Fox Ask.Fox@fox.com 1:07 PM (3 hours ago) to me

With animation there is a difference between PRODUCTION "SEASONS" (which we have now started internally calling "Cycles") and AIR SEASONS

Due to the nature of animation (it takes between 9 months and 1.2 years to produce just ONE episode), we order more episodes than what could air in one year - so a "Production Season/Cycle" could last 1, 2 or even 3 Air Seasons. And that is the case with ALL of our animated shows

With AMERICAN DAD - this year that just concluded (the 2011/12 Season) we aired mostly Production Cycle 6 episodes + 2 Production Cycle 7 episodes - airing in the 8th Air Season

This coming Season, we will air the 9th Air Season of the show - using Production Cycle 7 episodes

ASKFOX

With this I think we need two have two sections of episode lists to make every one happy since there is two sets of seasons

Air Seasons /and Production seasons/cycles since both information is wrong and right at the same time just on how you look at it


................................................................................. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.51.100 (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC) I'm gonna keep this short. Here is my source. http://www.fox.com/americandad/recaps/season-8/episode-18 

   Table comparing Wiki season breakdown to Fox season breakdown
Season Wiki Eps Fox Eps
1 23 Eps 7 Eps
2 19 Eps 16 Eps
3 16 Eps 19 Eps
4 20 Eps 16 Eps
5 18 Eps 20 Eps
6 19 Eps 18 Eps
7 18 Eps 19 Eps
8 TBA 18 Eps

This is strait from fox. So this should be the best source out there right?


I agree and vote that we should update the current format to that posted by FOX, and mark the current 2012-2013 season at the 9th.Ssilipino (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Volume 1's commentaries never makes notice of Deacon Stan being the last aired or even produced episode of the season. Likewise for Bullocks to Stan as the first of the season, and in addition official websites always screw up their orders. The cast and crew during interviews and at public meetings have also called them by their appropriate seasons always. (ex. "For Whom The Sleigh Bell Tolls" as season six) It was always season 1 up until Tears of a Clooney and always has been. Just for more clarification, the back of Volume 1 itself says "Contains the first 13 episodes of season one!"--Angry Dad (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Original articles

Why were all the episode articles deleted? What kind of genius idea was that? Sage94 (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a very civil way of asking. I suspect most of them were deleted because they failed the notability guidelines, likely due to a shortage of any reliable sourcing. I'm pretty sure there must be an American Dad wikia if you're looking for articles on every episode regardless of notability. Doniago (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


Wrong number of seasons

There is an error with the classification of the series in this page. For some wierd reason season 1 have been divided in two, making every season past season 1 numbered one season too high. The present season is season 9 not 10. It should be fixed ASAP Rphb (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Already discussed up above. DonIago (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
It may have been discussed but it hasn't been fixed, it is of constant irritation to me and countless others that the seasons are listed wrongly on this site Rphb (talk) 13:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
When the season discrepancy was changed to its current status, I thought that this would resolve the ongoing complaints from all the people who alleged that Wikipedia was "behind the times." Now the people who have the opposite opinion are here, equally vocalizing their thoughts on the matter. There is just no way to please everyone, is there? Davejohnsan (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps not, but if anyone feels the above consensus should be revisited, they're welcome to discuss their reasoning here, or pursue dispute resolution. DonIago (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Fox.com states plainly that the current season is season 09. Hulu also lists the current season as Season 09.It is most definitely NOT season 10. Even their press releases have said that it is Season 09. Fox itself would know best, and the previous "evidence" of the season order isn't valid as it isn't sourced. Sources: http://www.fox.com/american-dad/ http://www.hulu.com/american-dad 130.68.249.215 (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Then why are there clips from season ten? Davejohnsan (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The issue of non-free content

Hasn't the issue of non-free content been resolved? The warning on the page is obnoxious and unnecessary now that the issue has been settled. 76.20.47.0 (talk)

Season 11 & 12 dispute

Hello all!

There is a dispute regarding the seasons between myself and another user that I am requesting input in from the community. I have started up the discussion on the American Dad! talk page here Season 11 & 12 dispute. Please join the discussion and offer your feedback. AmericanDad86 (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Redirect of episodes

I've had this discussion before, but we need to have it again apparently. I strongly feel that an episode article that only has 2 sources has no reason to exist and it just makes sense to redirect it. Editors often say that they can be improved, but talk is cheap. If the articles are improved, I'll leave them be. JDDJS (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. If an episode article can't/won't be improved to the point where there's multiple sources and it's established that the episode was generally notable in some manner than a redirect is preferable. DonIago (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't really have an opinion as to whether each episode should have it's own article or not. Some of theme might have enough information to warrant their own articles, but if the consensus is to revert them back to redirects, could you please also revert the talk pages back to Redirect-Class? Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 13:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so i'm the guy that recreated all of the episode pages. They are definitely improvements from what they used to be. But i can't find a lot of info for the episodes that aired before 2007, so i was hoping some editors would come along and add to them. It wouldn't make sense to have articles for only half of the episodes, but i will try my best to see if i can improve them. Anyone else could also help out if they want to. Koala15 (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I know that other tv shows here have an approach of "articles for episodes that received a high degree of attention, redirects for all others" (the Stargate series come to mind most immediately), so I don't think it would be an unreasonable approach. Unfortunately digging up sources isn't really one of my strong suits, and I suspect that in most cases finding sources for anything other than reviews could be a bit of a challenge. DonIago (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
If you can't find sources, then it's proof that they should be redirects. JDDJS (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Give me a few months and i will try to improve all of them, and if i don't you can redirect them. Anyone can feel free to help out, also. Koala15 (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you use a WP:SANDBOX? JDDJS (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather see the articles remain as redirects until such time as they've been improved, than be left as articles needing improvements for months until they're redirected. DonIago (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
What part of i will work on them all in the coming months do you not understand? There are plenty of worse articles on the encyclopedia. Koala15 (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Getting defensive when all I've done is express my opinion on the matter isn't going to incline me towards supporting your perspective. I see no harm to the project in leaving the episode articles redirected until they're ready, and as I already said, I don't care to see poor articles for months. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
It will be done. "I don't care to see poor articles for months." Well there are plenty of them so leaving these up won't hurt. "Doniago". Koala15 (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
With all due respect, you wouldn't be the first editor who claimed that they'd improve articles but then got sidetracked by life or other projects. Hence my feeling that it's best to un-redirect the articles when the improvements are in place. In any case, there are other editors involved in this conversation too; this isn't about what I want personally, it's about establishing a consensus. I recommend letting them have their say. As for other poor quality articles, so what? WP:OTHERSTUFF. DonIago (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I've already started working on a few, i'm just trying to dig up info. Koala15 (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that episode articles that are just plot summaries (regardless of sources), or episode articles that do not make a claim to notability, backed up with multiple citations to independent reliable sources, should at best remain redirects to the main programme page. In general, individual episode article fail because they make no claim to notability. --Bejnar (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

So the current consensus is to redirect the episode articles that are in bad shape. My question, is which ones we should we redirect? I already redirected the ones with 2 references. What about the ones with only 3 references? Personally, I don't think a mention of one review is not enough, and those should be redirected too. JDDJS (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd support redirecting episode articles that have no sources for anything other than reviews and basic information. An episode isn't, to my mind, notable just because it was reviewed (maybe if it was reviewed by something like the NYT), and it certainly isn't notable just because bits and pieces of information are sourced. Let's focus on the episodes that received some significant level of attention. DonIago (talk) 13:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Just got done refining the redirects created for the episodes. If anyone can identify any broken redirects in this category, that would be great. 23W 01:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments requested

A new discussion has been started at Talk:American Dad! about three problematic episodes. It is unclear if they belong in S10, in their own S11, or if there is another way to deal with the discrepancy between sources. Your comments are requested. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Season issue again

The official American Dad Facebook page just announced some voice actors for the upcoming season 9 (airing September). This changes everything again... 151.224.91.225 (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Well if anybody would look at my previous post and just look at the additional facts that prove we're currently in season 8 this wouldn't ever be a problem. --Angry Dad (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The American Dad page on Fox [4] has the same season numbering as us.--Salix (talk): 18:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The Fox page, a few years ago, had a lot of errors for The Simpsons seasons, and just because it's from the official website in no way means it's true. --Angry Dad (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Salix would be correct and I'm unsure why this is under debate. Obviously, we're into season 9 (as of 2012-13). Next year is season 10 (2013-14). If nothing else hopefully the following season scheduling dates clarify. You can't just pretend like the February 6,2005, to June 19 2005, half season didn't exist. Just because a show has a half a season doesn't mean it doesn't exist which I'm guessing is the argument of the opposition:

Also see the recent move discussion Talk:American_Dad!_(season_8)#Requested_move--Salix (talk): 05:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

AGAIN, for clarification, and the fact that suspiciously no one replied to this comment, Volume 1's commentaries never makes notice of Deacon Stan being the last aired or even produced episode of the season. Likewise for Bullocks to Stan as the first of the season, and in addition official websites always screw up their orders. The cast and crew during interviews and at public meetings have also called them by their appropriate seasons always. (ex. "For Whom The Sleigh Bell Tolls" as season six) It was always season 1 up until Tears of a Clooney and always has been. Just for more clarification, the back of Volume 1 itself says "Contains the first 13 episodes of season one!" --Angry Dad (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

And again, don't you find it the least bit odd that ONLY Fox's website and Wikipedia have this listing. Even the OFFICIAL Hulu streaming site says it's on season 8 right now. Also the American Dad wiki, which you may not think is reliable, but is run by a real hard-ass who gets everything right, so it is. Nobody is accepting season 9 as the one currently airing, and everyone is laughing in Wikipedia's face. It's embarrassing. --Angry Dad (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you being sarcastic?! I mean, "Also the American Dad wiki, which you may not think is reliable, but is run by a real hard-ass who gets everything right, so it is." lol! Please tell me you're being sarcastic. If so, epic use of sarcasm. If not, uhhhhhhhhhhhhh yeeeeeeeeeeahhhhh.AmericanDad86 (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Uhh yeah I actually was being a tad sarcastic there, to emphasize stereotypes. If American Dad is your favorite show you would know season 9 doesn't currently exist. Pretty bullshit that that was the only response I've gotten and it has nothing to do with challenging my "research". --Angry Dad (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the personal attacks are helping anything here. Indenting comments would be nice as well (done by inserting one or more colons (:) before your comment).
Wikis are not considered reliable sources and consequently are irrelevant to this situation. It's all well and good to claim that Fox's website is inaccurate, but I think in general we would consider it more reliable for information about American Dad than Hulu's website, unless there's another reliable source making an argument that Fox's website isn't reliable for this information.
In short...if there's no source that is demonstrably more reliable than the Fox website, I think we have to use the website. If there is a site that is demonstrably more reliable, we can use it but I think we're going to need to make sure we document why we consider said site to be more reliable.
Arguments such as "official websites always screw up their orders" and commentaries not noting certain things constitutes original research unless statements are made via reliable sources that directly contradict the Fox website.
So...is there reliable sourcing that we can use to establish that the Fox website's ordering is inaccurate? Doniago (talk) 12:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Here's the official American Dad Twitter claiming (on Sep 30 of 2012) the eighth season was premiering on the west coast.
I also explicitly remember during Comic Con 2010 when they table read "For Whom the Sleigh Bell Tolls" they called it the sixth season. --Angry Dad (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Consensus here at Wikipedia is it's season 9. Regulars here who work hard on these articles and slave away at them would rather have them say season 9 and given their work and efforts, that should be respected. AmericanDad86 (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Just because a lot of people worked a long time to edit all the articles to change the seasons doesn't mean it's true. It just means some people wasted their time. --Angry Dad (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
We need to go by reliable sources twitter and wiki's are generally not considered reliable. It might be worth mentioning somewhere in the article that different numbering has been used.--Salix (talk): 22:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
If reliable sources are found what Salix has suggested could work. It could be noted that beliefs alter as to the present season with the alternate noted. Doniago, Koala, DaveJohnson, Fantr, etc., what do you guys think?! Completely changing it so that everything is reverted a season, however, I could not support. There are reliable sources supporting the current numbering. Not only that but changing the season up completely would require a major overhaul. As it is, I only just recently went through every American Dad episode article to make sure the seasons were consistent with the season articles (none of them were so I had to edit), so we'd have to go through all that again, not to mention going through all related articles so they match. So that option wouldn't get my support. AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Well if season 1 does end with "Deacon Stan, Jesus Man" like the official FOX website suggests, why does the DVD of Volume 1 say it contains the first 13 episodes of season 1 and never mentions any end to it. I realize there was a break until the next episode, but there was for season 4 of Family Guy as well, and I don't see anyone claiming the second half is season 5 here. --Angry Dad (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I guess its not our job to correct Fox's inconsistencies, just report them.--Salix (talk): 00:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I originally thought that the season that was airing now was season 8 but according to fox's website its season 9. So i think the episode list should stay as is since i was the one that worked very hard on the last move, and i think fox as a source is reliable enough. Koala15 (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors should not interpret the facts or determine the truth. We merely report the facts as stated by reliable sources. The Fox official website is a reliable source. Wikis are not reliable sources. I have no strong opinion which season number is correct though stating that the show is in its ninth season - with an abbreviated first season - seems right. I further note that notwithstanding my above points, wikipedia puts a strong emphasis on consensus. - Fantr (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious to me that I gave more evidence than just the wiki, the least reliable thing I mentioned, and the more reliable things are being ignored because you have no real way to back it up. --Angry Dad (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I essentially agree with Fantr here. It's all well and good to claim that the Fox website is wrong, but if that's so, then I think we need a reliable source (one that in this matter would be considered at least as reliable as the Fox website) that not only discusses the fact that the Fox website is wrong (and ideally why it's wrong) but also provides a "correct" listing. Do we have concrete evidence that the Fox website is wrong? If not I feel that should be our go-to source until such time as there is hard evidence of its inaccuracy. Doniago (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm watching the commentary for 100 A.D. on volume 7, and they note that there were big things coming up next season, in season 7 for Principal Lewis. The season 7 listed here has that as the first episode, but if it was in the other order, with season 7's premiere being Hot Water, he has a very prominent role in the first, third, and fourth episodes. How is this not enough proof for you guys? I'll try to find more quotes about how the listing on Hulu, AD! Wiki, IMDB, Netflix, etc. is correct and not the one on FOX and this site. But this and my other evidence should be enough already, though I know you'll spout out some bullshit nonsense that attempts to debunk it like, "ohh but we worked soo hard to make every article one season wrong!" --Angry Dad (talk) 02:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Angry Dad, you were right. I found several sources for you to support the current season (2012-13) is 8. Washington Post stated that as of the 2012-13 television season, the show was in it's eighth season (as shown here [5]). AVClub also stated that as of the 2012-13 television season, the show was in it's eight (as shown here [6]). I actually didn't realize there were so many legitimate sources supporting your position Angry Dad and the many editors that like you want this to be switched over are quite right. I am more inclined to agree with Angry Dad given these new findings. The articles need an overhaul or at least mention that it being the 9th season is heavily disputed and there are numerous reports that its the eighth season. I'm also seeing sources on Google Books that state our current usage is wrong as well if anymore sources are needed. And here is another source Angry Dad [7]. That is one in which in the creators themselves state that they were in season 8 during the 2012-13 season and that the following would be season 9. Again, I would completely support your position given this new evidence.

Let me know when you're available Angry Dad. I'd like to get started on the overhaul with you. What do you suggest we do though Angry Dad? Go by Salix's suggestion of noting their is marked discrepancy in perspectives as to which season it is and listing that in the beliefs of many that it is season 8. Or are you thinking that this isn't enough?! Let me know! There are slews of editors who agree with you and have been reverting as well. With this new evidence, I realize that the you all are correct. AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy that people are realizing this and in my opinion the season 9 vs. season 8 thing should be at the very least be noted, but I strongly support redoing season 9 as season 8, etc. It's pretty big overhaul but I want it to be reliable. I will try to further elaborate on this a bit later as I'm pretty tired and am just reading this. Do we have the support of the Wikipedia admins? --Angry Dad (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The agreement of admins isn't necessary. There just needs to be reliable sources and I have found you plenty. Feel free to note them in the article. Should you have any issue in altering the information, let me know. AmericanDad86 (talk) 07:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I realize this but am sure there are many that still are in agreement with the 9 season thing and haven't looked here yet or something to that effect. --Angry Dad (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

In your edit summary when making the change, "as per talk page discussion" and within the actual edit provide the source. It's worth noting that there is a rather conspicuous divide in what season it is even as shown among the creators themselves. I'll try to fit it into the articles when I get some time. College is out so I have a little bit more time on my hands now. AmericanDad86 (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Same with me. I'd already have this done and knocked out if it weren't for things going on. --Angry Dad (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Angry Dad and everyone else! I made note of the discrepancy in the season numbering scheme here at the "American Dad!" article. I highlighted the inconsistency and noted that there are reliable sources supporting both systems. Does this suffice? If you have any thoughts, let me know. AmericanDad86 (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no season discrepancy FOX.com is blatantly wrong - TVRage.com went through this last year, and here is a mountain of evidence that FOX.com is simply just incorrect tvrage.com/American_Dad/forum/view_topic?fid=14089 Why are we going with FOX.com, when there is no other evidence to suggest that the first seven episodes are the first season? There is so much more pointing towards season one being 23 episodes. - Wattlebird (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Wattlebird, please look up the meaning of "discrepancy." It means "divergence" and "disagreement" as between the facts. As things stand and as you have just acknowledged, FOX.com/the show's official website and several other sources are under the impression that there are 9 seasons. You and certain others, like the program's creators, are under the impression that there are eight seasons. Consequently, because there are two groups that think differently on the issue and report diverging information as to the season, there's a discrepancy.
We can either acknowledge the discrepancy or go back to simply having it be 9 seasons with no acknowledgement to 8, which is the way Wikipedia had it in the first place. And that's because of all the users wanting it to say 9. As per the suggestion above, I've acknowledged that there's a discrepancy. Please do not remove. And btw, even if you got all the articles changed to eight, there's still room for acknowledgement that there is a discrepancy on the issue. Furthermore, to unilaterally change everything to 8 would need more consensus from more people beyond myself and Angry Dad.
Yes, I've ultimately said it was ok one way or the other because there are reliable sources for both findings. Angry Dad said it's best as 8 as well, but we are only two people I'm afraid. You'll need consensus from more people than just us if you want to unilaterally change all articles over to 8. Thank you! AmericanDad86 (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You have to be careful of which articles are used to support the nine seasons theory as they might be referencing the ninth season pickup that the show received in May 2012, but that is referring to PRODUCTION seasons. As we're almost two complete production seasons behind. -122.56.232.228 (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

American Dad!'s official Facebook page just posted this: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151531090666610&set=a.10150277527276610.329710.18957981609&type=1&theater Wikipedia again behind the times... Troggy3112 (Talk2Me) 19:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this something that we can come to some sort of consensus on? There seems to be more than enough evidence that the current episode list is incorrect and needs to be brought inline with what is commercially available via DVD/Bluray and Netflix/Hulu. Or a possible compromise to not that the episode list differs from is commercially available to the public. Because trying to track down the episode on a streaming service is incredibly frustrating when it doesn't match up with the wiki listing. If websites like IMDB have the information that matches up with THE REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE, it makes the incredible hard work and dedication of so many in the Wiki community...IRRELEVANT. As the Wiki doesn't match up with what is experienced by the consumer/end user. (I know everyone has been at this a while, but could we put an " * " next to the episodes that are disputed so we noobs, (aka me and probably countless others), know there is a discrepancy from what is listed on Netflix and we won't spend an inordinate amount of time trying to find an episode. I.e. the Halloween Episode aka "Best Little Horror House in Langley Falls" which is listed on Netflix as S06E03 and is at odds with the Wiki page). -db- (talk) 02:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Wayne Dublin Outed As A Fake

Writer Wayne Dublin outed as fake. [8] Could this be incorporated into the article? Nohomersryan (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

season 3 or 4

Is Francine 911 a season 4 or season 3 episode? Wikipedia and another site contradict each other.

Jamdor (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Given that it aired in the middle of the fourth season and is listed as a season 4 episode by FOX,[9] I'm going to say it's a season 4 episode. Even TV Guide, which has got the date wrong, agrees that it's a season 4 episode.[10] --AussieLegend (✉) 11:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This page needs MAJOR repairs.

It seems like somebody merged the season 1 section into this page. Can I get some help? (StephenCezar15 (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC))

An IP made an undiscussed merge of the season 1 and season 2 articles that broke transclusion. He/she also edited this article. This article and season 2 were fixed but nobody fixed season 1. That has now been rectified. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_American_Dad!_episodes/Archive_1&oldid=1136262147"