# Talk:Love, Blactually

The Pinnochio scene is an airplane! parody, that should be in the cr section  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.117.241.124 (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC) 

Not to criticize, but I think the term "making love" should be changed in this article to "having sex". i mean, was there really any love going on here, on Carolyn's end, anyway? She did it with Cleveland in public, and then with Quagmire. Enough said. What do you think? 99.142.27.233 (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think what you are saying is right, but for all the wrong reasons. "Making love" is not an encyclopaedic term, "having sex" is a scientifically correct, encyclopaedic term. Whilst I agree it should be changed I think you're looking a bit too deeply into this, it should be changed regardless of the context of the sexual intercourse.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.71.78 (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC) 
I changed it, hope that's okay.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.106.82 (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC) 
lol i always have diffrent tabs open to read while a page loads and i swear to god i just edited a talk page to ask if "seduced" was the right word for what meg did to brian in "barely legal" and i click the other tab to read this lol   i agree btw 174.42.145.253 (talk) 06:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the 'citation needed' from the sentence "The title is a pun on the movie Love Actually." but it was reverted because "we cant assume to know the intentions of the writers" (according to user Dp76764). Sorry but is that not ridiculous? Of course we can 'assume' that the writers intended the title as a pun on Love Actually... there's no such word as Blactually and it doesn't sound like any other phrase. Also, Love Actually isn't a phrase in common use... try googling it and you'll just get 60 million hits about the movie! What citation are you likely to find? Another website commenting that the title is similar to Love Actually? A writer spelling it out in a quote? I don't see what qualifies the sentence as a disputable fact when there is literally no other explanation for the title of the episode.Retro junkie (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for showing that it is indeed WP:OR to make the claim in the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, 'assumptions' are pretty much the definition of original research.  Ideally it would be nice to have a staff or writer commenting on it in an interview.  Sure, it probably is intended as a pun on that, but we can't prove that it is, thus it needs a citation. DP76764 (Talk) 21:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I get it... I know that in general an assumption is original research and needs to be backed up. It's just that in this particular case, it really isn't in any doubt whatsoever that that is the origin of the title. Wiki guidelines are just that. Common sense should also be used.Retro junkie (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
If you can't beat them... I added a couple of citations that seem as reliable as The Recapist blog used to back up similar 'facts' in the article.Retro junkie (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Not sure either of those sources qualify as reliable, as they are both user-submitted (and editable!). But the effort is appreciated =) DP76764 (Talk) 15:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I did think that but at least IMDb is checked before it is updated - I'm sure it is used as reference on many articles here.Retro junkie (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Since those citations have been removed, I go back to the original point - it is not a disputable fact that needs verification. It might technically be an assumption but it is not simply somebody's opinion. There is literally no other explanation for the title. Can the sentence not be rewritten so it is no longer implying a deliberate attempt at punning? I just think there will never be any citation that will satisfy the people here. The writers will never even bother commenting on it because it is so obvious!Retro junkie (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) There could easily be other explanations for it (maybe it's an inside joke among the writers); the problem is we can't know FOR SURE without a source.  If we can't find a citation for it, we should probably just remove it (if it's that obvious, people will notice it on their own and won't need it to be pointed out here). $0.02 DP76764 (Talk) 23:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
It should probably be moved to the 'Cultural references' section anyway. Could it not be written like "The title is similar to the movie Love Actually" (ie not inferring a pun) or would that just be irrelevent and pointless?Retro junkie (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, the Cultural References sections are usually pretty heavily policed for OR and unsourced material; I think you'd find it removed quite quickly from that section.  My next question is, why is this tidbit of information important in the first place?  Does the plot of the episode mirror the plot of that movie?  These cultural references are always hard to judge whether they're notable enough or not. DP76764 (Talk) 00:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I haven't actually seen Love Actually but it is basically a load of stories about different couples so... no the episode doesn't follow the film. That said, it is probably worth keeping - if I hadn't heard of the film I know I would be wondering what the title meant...Retro junkie (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I still don't see how this is important (notable) and not a trivia type of thing.  If you want to add it again, go for it, but I suspect it will be removed fairly quickly if it doesn't have a good source.  I wonder if there will be something about it on the DVD commentary when it comes out; that would definitely be a reliable source. DP76764 (Talk) 00:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Why is it called "Blactually", anyway? Is this episode about black people? No mention in the synopsis. Equinox ◑ 20:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Fox uses a comma for the episode name ("Love, Blactually"), so the article needs to be moved to the correct name. [1] 96.25.248.210 (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done CTJF83 20:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Love, Blactually/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MayhemMario (talk · contribs) 16:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Im reviewing this article and will begin my review soon. MayhemMario 16:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


### Overall Look
Having a look at the overall article- I can see it has many problems- just using the tools to my right.
Sources
Im not going to go into a full review untill (if you can) these problems have been fixed- at the moment the articles not looking good. 
1. The title isnt what you say- it is just 'Family Guy-Love Blactually'.
2. No mention of what your quoting in this source. (i.e. USELESS.) Also- is 'comingsoonnet' a reliable source?
3. The title is 'Family Guy, Vol. 7 (2009)'
4. Again, 'Family Guy - Season 8 (3 Disc Set)' Okay also, Source 3 can source this quote. I think as Amazon is a much more reliable source just use this to quote both. (i.e. Delete this source and source the information with Source 3)
5. OH DEAR. This soruce is excatly the same as source 1. (i.e. Delete this soruce/ merge with soruce 1)
6. This source is dead, which means either a) delete all the information this soruce quoted b) find an alternative source c) puts 'cituation needed' tags- (look messy though).
9. I don't honsestly think your using this source to its full potential. Im not sure if it is relaible- but I think there is much more quotes you can get from that source. 
10. See Source 9.
- On hold for 7 days untill further action is taken by the reviewer. MayhemMario 18:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

There's been no action in two weeks; should it be failed? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree, I thought i'd let the user have a chance but its been too long. MayhemMario 16:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Failed, no action taken. MayhemMario 16:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Love, Blactually/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: M.Mario (talk · contribs) 15:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Reviewing per request at my talk page.


### Infobox
Put who the two guest actors played


### Lead
Space between Actually.The
Rmv "however", not needed.
Are you going to put Brian (actor's name)?
"It received mixed to positive reviews from critics for its storyline and many cultural references." -> just put mixed.
"It received mixed to positive reviews from critics for its storyline and many cultural references." -> no reviewer talked about cultural references, so put; "* "It received mixed reviews from critics for its storyline".
"According to Nielsen ratings, it was viewed in 9.2 million homes in its original airing" -> "According to Nielsen ratings, it was watched by 9.2 million viewers in its original airing".
"along with several recurring guest voice actors for the series" - Reword. -> "along with several recurring voice actors from the series".


### Plot
During a costume party, Lois suggests that Brian find a new girlfriend. -> Link Brian (seperate section), and "During a costume party, Lois suggests that Brian should find a girlfriend."
"he finds out that Carolyn began to date Cleveland" -> "he finds out that Carolyn has began to date Cleveland".
"Feeling sorry for Brian, Stewie suggests that find Cleveland's ex-wife, Loretta, and convince her to reconcile" -> Need to expand on the sentence - why do they look for her?
Fix correct link to The Cleveland–Loretta Quagmire.
"Since both Brian and Cleveland have been cheated on by the same woman, they make amends." -> for what?


### Production
"It was written by the show's main voice actor" -> Makes it sound like Henry is the main character of the show.
Rmv "and veteran writer".
"In addition to the regular cast, actress Kat Foster portrayed the voice of Carolyn, and actress Meredith Baxter portrayed herself" -> Reference?
"Recurring guest voice actors" -> Dodgy term of phrase.


### CR
"The episode's title is a reference to the British romantic comedy film Love Actually" -> Source?
"Woodstock also makes a cameo appearance" -> Explain what show he is from.
"Cleveland's deadpan exclamation of "...and boom goes the dynamite" during sex with Carolyn is a reference to an Owen Wilson line from the film Shanghai Noon used during Ball State University student Brian Collins' appearance as television sports anchor, which became an Internet sensation." -> Too long and Reference?
"Cleveland and Carolyn meet at a Starbucks" -> Back this up with an overview of the episode.


### Reception
"Family Guy" -> Italics.
- Tell me on my talk page when you have finished/if you have any questions. — M.Mario (T/C)  15:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixed everything you listed. Pedro J. the rookie 18:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Passed. Well done for restoring the article! — M.Mario (T/C)  21:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. Pedro J. the rookie 21:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Love, Blactually. 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/20081003004444/http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2008/09/desperate-house.html to http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2008/09/desperate-house.html
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 17:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)