Template talk:Seth MacFarlane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Glenn Martin[edit]

What does Seth MacFarlane bave to do with that show? I cant find anything on that wikipedia page, and I dont want to remove it from the template without being 100% sure... --Evildevil (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

other Animated TV series[edit]

What does "other" mean? What's the difference between Animated TV series and other Animated TV series rows? I think the second row was made for shows which he didn't create/co-create, but I it should be more clear, a simple "other" means nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioiops (talkcontribs) 07:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Navbox needs improvements[edit]

Seems a couple of IPs have been edit warring over this and made one hell of a mess of it. It had been edit protected at this version a while back but this seems to have lapsed. I tried to clean it up with this version, but an editor seems to object to this and revert wholesale to this abomination. Points that need improving in order to make it usable and for it to comply with WP:NAVBOX are as follows:

  1. For some reason this uses the {{Navbox musical artist}} template, yet this is not the major part of his career.
  2. Longstanding consensus not to include executive producer roles in navboxes, should really just be creator roles for TV series. In any case, these are covered by MacFarlane's role at {{Fuzzy Door Productions}}. Incidentally, if we leave this navbox as is, we can speedy delete {{Fuzzy Door Productions}} under WP:CSD#T3 as all the links would be included here.
  3. "Hosting" roles. The only one which could be considered suitable for inclusion here is the Academy Awards article (although even that's probably best left for {{Academy Awards hosts}}). He isn't even mentioned at two of the other three links.
  4. Voice roles. Dubious whether these should be included, as we don't normally link acting roles, but as these link to the characters he originated, probably allowable. However, we should only be linking to the characters that already have articles.
  5. Songs. These covers of showtunes and standards are not closely related enough for inclusion here. Inclusion had even led to this template being transcluded on Take Me Along and Gigi (musical)!!!
  6. Record labels are unsuitable for inclusion unless they are intrinsically linked with the artist (i.e. they own/manage it)

Think that's all... --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the concerns regarding items 1, 3, 5, and 6 without reserve.

Regarding item 2, I agree also with the concern that these templates may duplicate each other, but I am unsure whether that indicates one should be deleted. A review of the Seth McFarlane template indicates to me that it might not include everything that his company has done, and a review of his company's template indicates that it might include things which he has specifically taken part in (at some point in the indeterminate future). I would recommend TFDing the templates in question to see if a wider consensus can be found.

Regarding item 4, I agree with the gist. I would remove the link to Tim the Bear and remove the link for "Ted" since a duplicate link is present for the film. And also, call this "characters", since that would make it clearer that we do not want duplicate links. --Izno (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much Izno for your input. Regarding 2, do I take it that you would support inclusion of the executive producer roles? As the studio is effectively MacFarlane's, he'd most likely be E.P. for practically everything produced. If they are excluded (as per general consensus on E.P.s), then the duplication is less substantial and I see no problem with the two navboxes co-existing. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
If there is a general consensus regarding E.P.s, I'm fine with removal. --Izno (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


This conversation is ridiculous! Television and web are two different mediums. The user is comparing a show that airs on YouTube to something like a House of Cards, BoJack Horsemen, or Transparent just because they air on an streaming site. Those shows can't be compared to something that airs on YouTube because all of the videos air on the website. With Netflix or a Hulu you have to pay for view those programs because it's different, with YouTube it's free! YouTube is the most popular internet website. Television and Web should be separated, This show doesn't air on Fox or adult swim it aired on a website. (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The difference between a web series and a TV series is small these days. Also, it has been released on DVD... Whatever happens, it doesn't need its own group for this one item. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

::But this was released back in 2008—eight years ago. Seeing how this did premiered on YouTube, we shouldn't be combining it with the shows he created for television. The show is very similar to Louis C.K.'s show Horace and Pete, the show premiered on the Internet and it was released exclusively on his website. You brought up that that this web series was released on DVD, that doesn't automatically make a television series. Movies are released in DVD too, and soon they air on TV, but just because they do that that doesn't mean you call it a TV. If show aired on the Internet and than later on TV that would be cool, but seeing how this was am exclusive show for YouTube, they should be separated. (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't me that made that claim. I don't see any problem with Horace and Pete going in the "Series" group at {{Louis C.K.}}. Films are premiered on the web too these days - that doesn't mean we create a group called "Web films". The point here is that we're not calling the group "TV series", we're calling it "Series", so we don't have to have a group for a single entry. The alternate solution would be to include it in the "See also" section. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

::::Okay but if the show had aired on Netflix or Hulu then it would be cool to put it on the television section. But this aired on YouTube. That's like saying pewdiepie or nigahiga should be added to a television section if they had a templates of their own. It wouldn't really make sense, since those videos air on the Internet. I still strongly believe it needs a section of its own since it's not relevant to the television medium an any capacity. (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC) Read the definitions to television and web television. Please stick to the definitions of the words. (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

"Series" covers both. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)