Talk:Whistle While Your Wife Works

Untitled

After this episode airs, it might make sense to update List of Peter Griffin's jobs accordingly. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

can somebody fix my error

I made a error in the infobox

it should be fixed now...

Who deleted all the trivia and notes?

Care to give a reason, your freakin' Cyberhighness?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.248.60.252 (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2006

Yes, please see WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:WAF, WP:EPISODE, WP:AVTRIV, and WP:TRIVIA for the rules governing articles about television episodes. Also, please sign your posts with 4 tildes, it makes it much easier to see who posted what and when. Cheers. L0b0t 20:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, see any other FG episode page... Also all the stuff you mention is not "rules governing" anything, but "guidelines" which should be followed, but only at contributor's discretion. FG is quite unusual in the way it uses cultural references; these make up a major part of the show's appeal. As for guidelines, your edit clearly (considering FG episode article established SOP) falls under WP:VAND since it should have been discussed here first and thus I have reverted it for the time being pending resolution of a discussion that would if your point was accepted involve major edits of each and every FG episode article posted to date. Dysmorodrepanis 21:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Dysmordrepanis. Also, look at any Simpsons episode page, and you will see a list of cultural references, some of which are minor but others playing a major part of the episode. I also read the WP:EPISODE page and viewed it not so much as hard and fast rules/official Wiki policy but guidelines and recommendations. Yes, no page (FG episodes included) should be cluttered with utter bulls*** or non-notable trivia, and such contributions should be deleted. But most of the cultural references included previously was legitimate and should be restored. [[Briguy52748 00:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)]]

Sorry, if you look at the above posted Policies (WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NOT) and Guidelines (WP:WAF, WP:AVTRIV, and WP:EPISODE) you will see that there is no place in the general purpose encyclopedia for unsourced original reasarch. Using other poorly written articles as an excuse to write poorly in this article just doesn't hold water. All the cruft is being removed from the articles you referenced, it just takes time. Please look at the featured articles to see the type of writing we are aiming for. Cheers. L0b0t 15:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont see any TV shows on that feature articles list, so what are you comparing this too...

Please see WP:SIG to learn how to sign your posts, it makes it much easier to keep track of these threads. As for a lack of TV related articles in FA status, that's kind of the point, most of the television writing on Wikipedia is just awfull, not even secondary school level. We can and should do better. L0b0t 15:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well usually TV has more cultural references than those other types of featured articles. Im just saying dont remove it all at once, as to give people some time to reformat some of the sections with the existing info. by removing it all at once people will just be inclined to add it at a later date again...

The articles about episodes should contain information on how the episode has impacted pop culture, NOT a list of pop culture appearences in a show that almost exclusively consists of satire on pop culture. All these cult ref sections are is an attempt to explain the jokes in the show to the slow-witted viewer. That is proscribed by WP:WAF. None of this information is lost, it remians in the edit history if you really need to find it. However, if you want to add it to the article you need to cite a reliable 3rd party source that has already published this info in relation to the episode, otherwise that edit will be removed. L0b0t 16:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There then should be an exception for family guy, as most of it is using 80 references that a good portion of the viewers dont understand, so this is an area that helps reference the obscur parts of the episode. It acts as an encyclopedia informing the viewer on the history and background of each reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.177.121.212 (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2006

Well if you want to change the established policies and guidelines, the place to do that is the discussion page for that particular rule. Until the rules are changed there will be no exception for television show X. There are many, many, many, many outlets for fan critique, obsercation, and analysis but the the general purpose encyclopedia is NOT one of them. Please sign your posts. L0b0t 16:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

L0b0t, I disagree. These references are in every other episode, and your personal opinions do not set policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.209.237 (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2006

To everyone involved in this apparent edit war — Just noticed links to two discussion threads which have been created to hopefully resolve this recent dispute:

• Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Verifiability of television episodes
• Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Television episodes#Cultural references sections

Hope this helps. [[Briguy52748 23:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)]]

I am not US American and I take strong exemption to the claim that the removed items are "things anyone sees" when watching the episodes. L0b0t, please tell me: what harm does it do to leave it? Dysmorodrepanis 01:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If you cite a specific example, I will be happy to discuss it with you. Just show me the diffs. Cheers. L0b0t 02:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What are we, royalty, to hand out information at your own discretion? I ask you again nicely: what harm does it do to leave it? Dysmorodrepanis 13:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought you had a question about a specific item. If I have removed something with a summary saying it is something that anyone sees when watching an episode, then that is exactly what I mean. The info is presented without any real-world context as to why it might be important enough to be listed in a general purpose encyclopedia. Here is the first example I came across in my edit history [1], this is just something that happens in that episode that anyone watching it sees. There is no context here as to why this is important trivia or information and if it goes in the encyclopedia at all it should go into the synopsis section. Again, if you have a specific example you would like to discuss, I am happy to do so. As for harm, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Nothing in an online encyclopedia (outside of WP:BLP) is capable of causing harm to anyone. However, if you take a look at our few, rather simple editorial policies you will find that an article on a television episode should be filled with real world context not just a summary of things that happen in the episode. How is this episode important, did it introduce any new cultural memes, did it win critical or popular acclaim, did it break new ground or boundries? This is, after all, an encyclopedia not a fan's guide to television show X. Cheers. L0b0t 15:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sayings its something everyone sees is your own opinion. Just because you understand it doesnt mean everyone else does, as Im sure there are instances where you dont understand a reference while others do, and this place can provide the resource for finding that info. 68.72.128.54 02:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Why dont you just fix the many other tv sites that are formatted the exact same way, as it seems like you are only causing problems here, and not fixing anything... 68.72.128.54 02:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we need protection?

Is there a way to request protection, temporarily at least, for this page? It's apparent there's an edit war going on re: the validity of cultural references, trivia, etc. on Family Guy episodes (i.e., removing it and another editor putting it back in), and I think that a cool-down period is warranted — or at least until this issue can be resolved fairly and rationally. [[Briguy52748 22:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)]]

go to these two links to help the argument over acceptable material for the family guy pages, both conversations are near the bottom of the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Television_episodes#Cultural_references_sections

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Verifiability_of_television_episodes

Grande13 23:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Peters Fingers

Is it just me, or do they only retrieve 3 of peters fingers, whilst its shown that hes lost 3 fingers AND a thumb? 82.12.110.220 23:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

its mentioned on the official family guy blog blog.familyguy.com what happens to the 4th as it was cut for time Grande13 00:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Joke

Alright so how can we fit that joke i added, but someone else deleted, into the article because it shows Jillian's stupidity in having those kinds of friends?

why is this even needed in the article. you are just explaining the joke which is not what wikipedia is for Grande13

the joke is also representative, not just funny.

whatever you think it is it really doesnt have a valid reason to be in the article. Its already common knowledge that Jillian isnt that intelligent, and that she hangs around with friends of similiar intelligence... Grande13

it's not common knowledge that she hangs with friends of similar intelligence, that's like the only time you see her with her friends. wikipedia can be for explaining jokes. what are all those explainations of gags for then?

what does it matter who she hangs out with? its just a joke so it doesnt fit in wikipedia, let it go. if you want to add details like that to episodes go to familyguy.wikia.com Grande13

first of all, i already answered why it matters. so now you're saying no joke fits in wikipedia, ok, lets just delete all the jokes... are you serious, almost anything can go into wikipedia.

if you havent noticed they are going around cleaning up all tv shows as they are changing the guidelines, cause technically wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site for tv shows. Yes, you answered why the joke matters, but the answer wasnt enough for it to be included here. Like i said, just go to familyguy.wikia.com , you can put whatever you want about the show there.

and there is no place for it in this article. It's not a goof as you initially listed, because that was a joke and one hundred percent on purpose. Cultural references are used to explain jokes and suggest the obscure things they are referencing, and your statement that you wanted to include didnt fit in either of those classifications. Grande13

where are you coming up with these crazy definitions, seriously. please be clear on your so-called "definitions" because they are not very clear. where are these "guidelines" you speak of?

some are here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Television_episodes , just add it to familyguy.wikia.com and forget about it Grande13

Umm

Shouldnt it be said about the different beggining that shows the stage part going wrong... at least on trivia...Mt 1994 14:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Porn scene tune

In the scene where Peter goes through all the automatic doors to get to his porn: what is that tune that plays in the background (the jazzy tune), or at least who does music similar to that? I'm just wondering. 76.115.45.252 04:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The Get Smart theme music, or some knockoff of it that they could pass off as original, I suspect. Daniel Case (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of cultural references section

To say this episode has no cultural references at all, when in fact the previous section had several that can be easily documented, is to lie to readers in order to avoid having a bullet-list trivia section. It can easily be rewritten in prose; in fact I will do so right now. Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, no cultural references were mentioned on the DVD at all, which shocked me, too. Unreferenced cultural references or production information is the worst thing that could happen to a television episode article (believe me, I'm experienced in this field), hence I'm reverting it back to how it was; as the lack of references for the current section is not acceptable, and it brings the quality of the article right down. Qst 11:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because it isn't mentioned on the DVD doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But I agree, we should maybe look for something reliable. Remember, DVDs aren't the only sources out there. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I know, I checked IMdb and loads of other websites, but couldn't find anything... Qst 18:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:OBVIOUS notwithstanding, the obvious ones like the music can and should be referenced to the episode itself. If we're going to pretend there aren't any simply because the DVD doesn't make a reference to it, let's just delete the section entirely so we don't have incredulous people doing what I did. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

A way it could be done

You know, you could take video clips of the short bits that set these references up from the episode, edit them together with any original scenes that would demonstrate the point, and post it on YouTube (or any other site that isn't as anal as YouTube's been getting lately about copyrighted material, even when within fair use) (See example. There have been others). That wouldn't be violating WP:OR since it would be off-wiki (and besides, if taking original pictures to prove a point you're making in an article is acceptable under that policy, making videos should be, too) and wouldn't violate WP:EL since short clips juxtaposed with other copyrighted material counts as fair use. Daniel Case (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Good article review

• First sentence doesn't make sense.
  • I don't see how it doesn't, the first sentence of the introduction, you mean? Qst 20:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • "Whistle While Your Wife Works" is the fifth episode of season five episode... there's a redundant word in there. Majorly (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Gah, thanks for pointing that out;  Done. Qst 21:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Is IMDB/TV.com reliable?
  • N Links not removed. Links to TV.com and IMDb are common for The Simpsons and Family Guy articles, and are used in several FA's, too. Qst 21:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Which other guest stars were there? Why did you choose those three?
  • I chose those three because in total they were about 10, so I chose the ones which guest starred in what could be seen as the more significant roles. Qst 14:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• "while holding" - clarify, you don't just have an accident holding them
  •  Done. Qst 14:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• "... he asks Lois to catch up on his work for him, to which she agrees; however he repeatedly attempts to seduce her, to which she eventually agrees..." To which she agrees sounds awkward and twice in close proximity isn't good.
  •  Done
• "...they decided..." Who is they?
  • Show producers :)  Done. Qst 22:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Who are all these people? Well I know because I watch the show, but would a background section on the characters be relevant? Or even "Quagmire, a neighbour of the Griffins..." would be helpful. Perhaps just link to the character's page too.
  •  Done. Qst 14:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• "Meanwhile, Brian is quizzed by Stewie as to why he failed to turn up to have brunch with him, thus leading Brian to confess he has a new girlfriend called Jillian, to which Stewie assumes she is ugly after is reluctant for him to meet her." Long and reads awkwardly.
  •  Done. Qst 21:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• "Meanwhile, Brian allows Stewie to meet his new girlfriend, Jillian — however, Stewie begins to like her, as he believes her to be pretty, however when he discovers she is a dumb blonde, he begins to mock Brian." One however is enough there.
  •  Done. Qst 14:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Should brewery be capitalised?
  •  Done. Qst 21:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• "Stewie becomes further amused" Further amused?
  •  Done. Qst 21:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• The entire plot section needs a rewrite. You're overusing "meanwhile" and "however" way too much I think, and it sounds incredibly repetitive. It is difficult to read.
  •  Done . Qst 14:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• "When Stewie exclaims "it's like she's fucking five", this was not set to broadcast at its original air date, it added in at a later date." Reads like a list.
  •  Done. Qst 20:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• "this is actually Seth MacFarlane's father singing this" This is this...?
  •  Done. Qst 20:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• "Throughout the making of this episode, much thought was put into the character of Jillian, a lot of thought was put into her personality and appearance, even though she was always meant to be only a recurring character, however the fact she was due to appear sporadically throughout season 5 was "a big thing for Family Guy"." Overly long sentence, and repetitive in places.
  •  Done. Qst 14:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overuse of "however" again in the Production section.
  •  Done. Qst 20:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge the Cultural references section with another one, it's too short on its own.
  •  Not done. Cultural references have to have their own section per WP:EPISODE. Qst 16:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot pass this, based on criteria 1a. I found it very difficult to read, and the prose is incredibly repetitive and unclear in a lot of places. The article would need a lot of work in order to fix these problems, so with regret I shall have to fail the nomination. Majorly (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

After discussion with Majorly on IRC, I'm renominating this article, as the issues have been taken care of. Qst 15:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Misquote?

"its pretty humorous how they make fun of mediocre films". After noting the grammatical error (its instead of it's), I looked up the quote in the source. The nearest thing I could find to the quote is: "Another topic that was pretty humorous in this episode was how they made fun of mediocre films". Can anyone explain this? Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look in the source, but I can remember reading that. Qst 19:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely there, fourth paragraph, first and second line :) Qst 19:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't! Them exact words aren't there—quotations cite something exactly. What is there is this: "Another topic that was pretty humorous in this episode was how they made fun of mediocre films". Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Next time, instead of just removing it, please consider changing things accordingly, rather than just removing the, as removal does not help us build the encyclopedia. Qst 19:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither does spurious quotes. I raised it in discussion, but it seems being bold in the article is the only thing that raises interest here. As for changing the quote, I'd thought that would be the responsibility of the contriutors of this article. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 29, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Y There were some issues with prose, spelling and repetitiveness. However, after copy-editing, I feel the article reads quite well.

2. Factually accurate?: Y Having seen the episode, as well as comparing to the provided sources and external links, the article is accurate.

3. Broad in coverage?: Y It covers all major aspects of the episode.

4. Neutral point of view?: Y It is.

5. Article stability? Y No issues.

6. Images?: Y Only image has adequate fair use rationale.

Good work. In improving this article to GA quality, you have improved Wikipedia. Thank you. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Lara❤Love 18:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"Balls hang out..."

Does anyone know which episode Stewie gets two novelty car rearview mirror dice and sticks them to his diaper saying "Hey B-riii... do you ever just let your balls hang out?" and also the other episode where Stewie sticks on some pubic hair and says something like "What? These? Oh, these are just my pubes..." etc.

I'm sure I've seen these but they aren't listed in season 5? --leopheard (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That episode is Chick Cancer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.175.11.99 (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Cultural Refrences

Seth MacFarlane claims on the DVD commentary track that, unlike most Family Guy episodes, this episode has no cultural references or references to real-world events, in order to focus on the Jillian storyline.[8]

Although it may be true that Brian said that but it's not actually accurate. There are refrences to the show "wings" while peter and the guys are sitting in the brewery and there are refrences to actors French Stewart(Cleveland talks about his squint) and Debra Messing (Joe says he finds her insufferable). There are also refrences to "You Me and Dupri" and "Along Came Polly". PhoenixPrince (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, Bulima is referenced in connection with supermodels. -- Gohnarch^░░░░ 19:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wording

I think this sentence should be modified:

"During the making of this episode, much thought was put into the character of Jillian, despite the fact she was always meant to be recurring character;[6] although her regular appearances throughout season 5 were described as "a big thing for Family Guy".[8]"

"despite the fact" and "although" indicate contradictions but it seems these sentences are sequential. They put much thought into a character because she would be a recurring character, and have regular appearances throughout the season. Then you can quote the generic words.

mdsl (talk) 10:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary seems untidy

I don't think that both plot events should be mingled in the same paragraphs unless they actually interfere with each other in the story itself. Each time I make an edit, it's changed back to this. What gives? And why mention such trivial plot details such as Joe planting a gun next to the bird? I don't like being confused about this stuff! Immblueversion (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look and see if I can tidy it up (and reduce it), but you keep changing it so that it jumps around in each sentence. The plot and sub-plot should be in separate paragraphs, as you said, unless they interfere. Qst (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, most Family Guy episode articles format the summaries by telling the story of one plot event first and the other later, and in that sense it can't help jumping around. Immblueversion (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it shouldn't, and most Family Guy articles are a trivia-filled mess, to be frank. Jumping around in the plot means over-usage of words such as "Meanwhile." All of the higher quality Simpsons episode articles don't jump around, either. Qst (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Different Lines

In one version of the epsiode aired on AdultSwim, Stewie says, "Is she retarded?" instead of the line "Are her parents brother and sister?" Should this be put in the main article?

No, not notable. CTJF83Talk 18:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Whistle While Your Wife Works. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221062706/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=111406_09 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=111406_09

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) 01:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Peter falls in Whistle While Your Wife Works.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)