# Talk:Meet the Quagmires

<Snip>
84.92.51.203 12:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Alex again. It's up. Forget stuff. 84.92.51.203 14:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't this episode have mayor discrepancies with older episodes? Especially with the Griffin family history and how Lois and Peter met? Shouldn't this be mentioned? Philipp
another thing, this kinda goes against something mentioned in season one, episode one.  When Peter goes to apply for welfare, he says he didn't have gas until he was 30, which then cuts to a scene of Peter in (what I assumed to be) a 70's setting, with Peter in 70's clothes.  Goof in the continuity?  Peter couldn't have been 30 in the 70's if he was 18 in 1984, like in the episode.
I think this should be mentioned somewhere, but I'm not sure where, nor how to write it. Just thought I'd mention it for others.
you do realize this is a cartoon right, that has numerous unrealistic things every episode with a storyline that pretty much is never consistent.  There are almost contradictions every episode to the story if you wanted to be picky, so its not worth mentioning Grande13 07:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Grande13, of course you are right, there are a lot of minor contradictions in a lot of episodes. It doesn't matter if they say that Peter is 41 or 42 years old, it is a minor information and they just forgot to state the right age. Regarding "Family Guy", it is very difficult to say what is canon because of all the flashbacks - what is real, what is just a joke? Yet, there are some ground conceptions. Thake "The Simpsons" for example: The family lives at "Evergreen Terace", they mentioned that name in nearly every epsiode, it is common knowledge for 17 seasons. If they would just start to call the street "Mainstreet" beginning with the next episode, telling they always lives at the "Mainstreet", that would be a major discrepancie. In the Simpsons universe, it is a known fact that Marge has two sisters. They appeared in a lot of episodes. If Marge would state that she never had any sisters and the two would just stop appearing, that would be a major discrepancie as well. It's the same with this Family Guy episode... in the second season, they made a special episode, showing how Lois and Peter met. And in later episodes, they always reconnected to that storyline, gave us new facts about it. And now, they changed everything, basically saying: Up to this point, everything you heard about how Lois and Peter met was wrong, it was not cannon, forget the episodes in season two, forget the flashbacks, forget the talking. Personally, I think that this IS a mayor contradiction... they changed the Family Guy universe. And yes, there are more important things in live than that - but still, in an articel about that specific episode, it's worth mentioning it. Philipp

I can think for the new characters in this episode:

Meg Quagmire
Big-chined Meg, Megagmire.
Chris Quagmire
Big-chined Chris, Chrisagmire.
Stewie Quagmire
Big-chined Stewie, Stewieagmire.
Are they good suggestions? Superjustinbros. 00:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestions for what? For new Wikipedia articles? Then I'd have to say no. The deletionists would be too happy to see them. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
No, that's not what I ment, I ment the names of Chris', Stewie's and Meg's names if Lois got married to Glenn. You know, they have the big chins? Superjustinbros. 10:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Where would this information go? Felicity4711 03:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
their first names where the same only their surnames were quagmire, i don't know what your trying to say.71.65.34.160 02:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This is in the trivia section:
The song that Brian sings during the dance is Rick Astley's "Never Gonna Give You Up". That song came out in 1987, however.
yeah that's the point.  in Back to the Future Marty plays Johnny B. Goode at the dance in 1955 yet the song is not released until 1958.  That's the joke.  Plus there is no need to use the word "however" in the sentence.  I am editing it.

Question anyone else recognize the dance sequence by the 3 guys while Brian is singing?  It looks so familiar that I am sure it is from an 80's movie or something ...

All I'm saying is...be prepared...SuperSonicTH 13:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
They're already making small nicks in all Rickrolling-related pages, this episode definitely stirred up the hive. ZenOfThunder 01:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
That Rickroll could of been way better...
Seth had no right violating rules 1 and 2. Sage goes in the email field on this one, Seth. RickRoll 18:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The peter-Ernie feud couldn't of started by that. Wasn't the feud started when Ernie gave the expired coupon to peter?

This probably explains why he gave peter the expired coupon! KingDaveRa 18:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It's probably meant to be a gag only, it was indeed started by the expired coupon. OwnerA 05:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
But, the episode where he is given the bad coupon is when Quaohog is destroyed as well as most of the world because of Y2K. In theory that episode and all references arent considered to be part of the story and this episode explains why they fight <.<
Family Guy isn't the show you should really debate canon. You can't really decipher whats true and whats not. Since the episode that Ernie the Chicken first appeared involved the destruction of the whole earth, and ended up all being a dream, you can say it never happened. Then it doesn't make sense the Chicekn came back to fight Peter for a second and third time. Your not suppose to think about it, its just for laughs. We can assume the fight did happen though. Also, the fued didn't start with that punch. The fued started with the coupon. It was just a joke when the guy said "You'll probably never see him again."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemniwinks (talk • contribs) 00:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The bit about the music stil playing when Brian looks at the photo is a direct take of a perceved goof in Back to the Future, Marty's hands start to vanish but the music is still the same untill he falls over. Djarra 14:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

this episode has nothing to do with the star trek episode tapestry, so i removed the reference. has more similarities to mr. destiny or any back in time movie than that episode.

these were fun.  someone took all the fun out of the article real fast.
Who just ruined this article?

Thanks for asking.  Here are some links to the policies and guidelines that govern articles about television episodes: Verifiability Policy, Original Reasearch Policy, Reliable Sorces guideline, Television Episode Guideline, Rules for writing about fiction, and guideline for trivia/cultural references section.Homefill 12:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Look at the articles for the rest of the Family Guy episodes; although they may not strictly conform to the guidelines set forth by Wikipedian administration, they're a hell of a lot more interesting than what you've got here. You seem bent on enforcing them regardless of their effect on an article's quality. I would argue that the "Cultural References" section is an essential part of any Family Guy article. C1k3 23:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough.  The guidelines and policies are established by the community not any kind of "administration", and as such, you are welcome to try to change them.  The place for that discussion is on the talk pages of the individual policies in question.  However, until the policies are changed, they stand, and all must abide by them. Homefill 23:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
As an aside, I tend to agree.  Family Guy does make copious use of topical humor and that concept can be dealt with within the establised policies and guidelines.  We must be watchful however, to avoid just listing things that can be seen by anyone watching the episode.  The article should not be a substitute for viewing the show.  I urge everyone interested to check out Writing about fiction and Episode to see the type of real world commentary these articles should contain.  Also, sourcing is of paramount importance, the episode itself can only be used as a source for things that happen in the episode. Any other claim requires a reliable 3rd-party source to satisfy our requirements for verifiability and original research. Homefill 01:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The instant Snobipedia begins having too many ways of doing the most simple things, too much red tape, other than the basics, the more it becomes a Nazi State that will drive readers away. You may not agree, and indeed there are procedures as you mentioned (aka more unnecersary red tape that won't be solved easily or professionally because the site's interests prevail over the independent freedom of expression) but that's where the problem lies the most. The stuff that should be there should'nt be filtered out with the rest of what should'nt be there.
And "scientific basis"...good god, who cares about that? Prinston University does'nt watch FG for what they can learn in a classroom or here. This decision, endorsed by the administration or who are happy to ensure there happy, was obviously done to give articles related to similer subjects a viewership boost. I'm changing this, to hell if it's changed back, I encourage anyone with any sanity and hope that this site can get it's head out of it's toosh to do the same. "Cultural references" will remain.

Dr. R.KZ. 16:02 26th May 2007

I don't understand the reticence to comply with the long-standing policies and guidelines that we have established here.  The editorial standards that we have to abide by here regarding verifiability and original research are very lax, and quite easy to follow.  I must stress again, that the problem lies not with the information itself, but rather, the way in which it being presented.  You have to cite sources, things should be written as prose (not a bulleted list), and there is no place in the encyclopedia for most trivia (trivia, by definition, being unimportant facts.)  Please thoroughly read WP:EPISODE, and WP:WAF to see what episode articles are supposed to look like. Homefill 15:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll read whatever the hell I like, mounting rules upon rules upon rules to maintain power admins no longer have beyond repremandation  does'nt exactly impress me at all. It's blatant attempts to control what people contribute. TV.com went down the toilet the same way when it became too mainstream for it's own sense of being. 
Dr. R.KZ. 03:50 267h May 2007
Why in the world would you take away cultural references?  It's like the very core stone to Family Guy!  As Quagmire said, "You take the venom out of a cobra, you got a belt."  Cultural reference is fun, and is important.
Faatupfeng 16:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
As I have posted above, the problem is in most cases not the information you are trying to add, it is the way in which you are adding it.  Bulleted lists are not really suitable for an encyclopedia article (unless the article itself is a list) and there are well establised editorial criteria and standards of inclusion that must be adhered to by all editors.  If you would care to read the article you would see that most of what you are adding is already in there.  Please read WP:EPISODE, WP:WAF, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NOT, and WP:AVTRIV to gain a better understanding of the way articles are supposed to be written. Homefill 17:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
So if you're claiming that our way of adding the information is wrong, you should alter the format, rather than deleting the whole thing once and for all.  Be mature and don't just delete everything without a clear mind what to do.
Faatupfeng 02:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If you would care to read the article; I did not just delete everything.  I rewrote it and incorporated the infornation in prose form. Homefill 02:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
You rewrote them poorly and only referenced half of what was in the episode, you even left out the use of music.
I don't think you are remotley qualified to handle this article any better than the people you think don't, and I'll see that someone higher up is aware of the vice grip you currently have on it so you are releived of it. 
Dr. R.KZ. 03:57 267h May 2007

I'm sorry we have a misunderstanding here.  I no more own the article than you do.  I will however point out that the edits you are making are  are doing harm to the article.  The important info is already in the article, the rest you are trying to add is not up to our standards of inclusion for sourcing, original research, fiction writing, and trivia.  I am more than happy to discuss these issues with you but I must insist that you assume good faith, maintain civility, and stop reverting the article to make a point.  Homefill 03:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I respect that you do care about the standards, just know that I don't and I find them complete elitist bollocks. You'll have to forgive my heated opinions on this, not to mention I've had tons of Pepsi lately.
I will be a little more cival now, but I am curious as to why you are not paying attention to the other Family Guy episodes that have the layouts that you have been removing from this paticular article.
Dr. R.KZ. 04:24 267h May 2007
I respect, as well, your feelings about the standards. I hope that your dislike of the policies won't keep you from following them.  As for the other FG episodes, some have been cleaned up but it's a constant job and I edit in many other subject areas.  The Simpsons articles have been getting better and so have some of the South Park.  Even though you don't like the rules, I do urge you to read through episode, and writing about fiction and also check out featured articles to see what we are striving for. Homefill 03:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I am kind of new to wikiediting, so I don't fully comprehend every single rule of writing articles.  But I know this:  The spirit of Wikipedia is to put information in record and make things easier for people to look for.  I hardly believe that scrambling everything in a disordered fashion other than point forms could make things any easier.
Give our cultural references back; I believe many of you guys are on our side as well.  Speak with one voice.
Faatupfeng 11:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Put that stuff back in. It was relevant, informative and interesting. It is really annoying when the WikiNazis delete edits that people make cause they're outside the little WikiClique of moderators and long-time users that dominate the site. 219.169.90.2 11:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this, if this is what the "proper way of doing an article" looks like, Wikipedia might as well shut itself down.
Dr. R.KZ. 15:55 27th May 2007
Being a Jew, I'm going to have to demand that you IMMEDIATLY strike through or remove your comments above where you call me or any other editor a nazi. Homefill 15:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

From one Jew to another, I'm inclined to agree with the "WikiNazi" accusation; it appears that most of those who have chimed in on this discussion view the changes you've made unfavorably. And, apart from you, I don't think anyone has had the slightest problem with the manner in which Family Guy articles have been written. Yet you insist (a la Dwight Schrute) on altering a viable formula that existed long before you even joined the ranks of Wikipedia. The community doesn't seem to be on your side, Homefill; please surrender your crusade to the will of the majority. C1k3 19:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
WOW, First of all HOW DARE YOU!!!  You are comparing a disagreement over the format of a website article on a television show to the torture and slaughter of millions of innocent human beings.  You should be ashamed of yourself.  Secondly, I'll be happy to back down when the article conforms to our long-standing policies and guidelines.  The wishes of a few editors, or even the wishes of an entire wikiproject, just do not trump the editorial standards that have been established here.  I'm sorry you don't like it but that's the way it is.  If you would like to change the policies to allow the inclusion of unsourced material, original research, and trivia then you are more than welcome to do so.  It has been tried in the past and went absolutley nowhere though.  Until those policies are changed however, we ALL mus abide by them even if we don't like them.  Look as has been pointed out, there are many, many, many outlets for fan expression, trivia, speculation and commentary.  Wikipedia is not one of them. Homefill 20:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, look, I am not comparing our disagreement to the Holocaust (apart from being offensive, the analogy simply doesn't fit). I'm referring to your refusal to deviate from established rules, regardless of the conflicts that result. This wasn't a problem until you made it one. Why are you so adamant about changing something that has worked so well for so long? C1k3 23:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
And to Faatupfeng, please read through WP:V, WP:OR, WP:AVTRIV, WP:EPISODE, and WP:WAF.  These are rules that ALL editors must follow.  I don't understand the problem here.  If you don't like our editorial policies, that's your perogitive, you don't have to edit here.  There is already a dedicated Family Guy wiki, just as there is one for The Simpson, Lost, or just about every other TV show.  Thsoe are the places for the trivia and the jokes, not Wikipeida.  Wikipedia is a GENERAL PURPOSE encyclopedia, not a fan's guide to their favorite television programs. Homefill 15:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of rules, written or otherwise, the established format for Family Guy episode pages — Plot summary, Notes, Cultural references, Goofs, and (sometimes) Censorship — is one that works just fine for the subject. The same cannot be said for the format currently on the page; "Scientific basis"? "The 1980s: Peter Griffin style"? How is this supposed to be an improvement over the tried-and-true format that we're all familiar with? The established format is one that informs and illuminates without being pompous or mind-crushingly boring; I say bring it back. Wrightaway 03:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I know that Wikipedia has a policy of no personal attacks, but if you thought that calling someone a "WikiNazi" was a serious insult then you really need to lighten up. It`s a EUPHEMISM! "Nazi" is a common euphemism for being too controlling and rude. I was just saying that you are too anal-retentive about the content of this article. Jeez. You guys really are Nazis. The ironic thing is that the people who are in charge of editing a Family Guy article apparently have no sense of humor. 202.221.129.6 04:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"Nazi" is only a "euphemism" to the ignorant and immature, who have no grasp of the depths of evil that party represented.  For the rest of us, for those who get it . . . no, it's NOT a fucking euphemism.  --63.25.5.94 (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Homefill,
I came back to this page looking for some helpful info about this particular episode and what I find instead is a sterile wad of proto-intellectual rubbish, atypical of an article of this nature, and from scrolling down this discussion page I can only assume it is the handiwork of your apparent bloody-minded and misdirected enforcement of the Wikipedia policy(ies).
It is great to know you can handily provide all those concise quicklinks to the rules and guidelines you so humbly expect everyone including yourself to abide by, but damned if you grasp the basic underlying concept of this website -- in my own words: the convenience of the provision or procurement of free, accessible information. Understand this, champ, this is not an article about the declaration of independence or the general theory of relativity, it's Family Guy. Try getting it through your head that the nature of the documentation of TV programs with topical and cultural references dictate that barely anything can be cited here by traditional means, i.e. newspapers, books, independent research, library archives, etc., so how would you expect 95% of the editors here to maintain the quality of this article at the highest possible standard? Seriosuly, are you that bored? 
You're in a minority so you may as well quit while you believe you're still sitting on that pedestal. I am not going to continue this dialogue as I've said all that needs be said - and  for Christ's sake, get a life. Cheerio. --203.214.78.210 12:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
And you need to read up on WP:CIVIL, and WP:Assume good faith. The article being about a fictional topic is no excuse to contravene long-established editorial policy.  Take a look at WP:FA there are many featured articles about fictional subjects.  You will not find trivia, cultural references, or unsourced claims in any of them.  Again I must stress the information itself is not the issue, it is the ham-handed manner in which people are trying to add it.  I'm sorry you think you are somehow being censored; I assure you, you are not.  If you don't like our editorial policies, then leave, noone is making you edit Wikipedia.  You state  "the nature of the documentation of TV programs with topical and cultural references dictate that barely anything can be cited here by traditional means"  well you are just wrong.  Check out any college's Media Studies department, go look at the Film and Television section of your local library, read the media critics in your local newspaper.  These things are available all around you.  If you think television articles can't be sourced, then you need to continue your schooling.  If you think television articles shouldn't be sourced then you need to contribute elsewhere as there is no place for you at the encyclopedia.  Homefill 13:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I have truly no idea why Homefill would still insist upon himself on this; maybe he knew he was kind of wrong on this but just couldn't find the stairs to leave the conflict without people pointing at him?
Anyway, we're not here to set up a conflict or player-hatred, we're here for the article.  Just as Mr.203.214.78.210 said, he couldn't look for what he needed.  And what's wiki for?   The information seekers.  If you are banning the cultural references of Family Guy, you are also banning all the trivia and cultural references of the Simpsons, American Dad, and so forth.  It would be a chaotic move.
Please, just quit from the stairs to the left and give us our peaceful article back.
Faatupfeng 13:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll make sure to probe the other FG episodes so the "Culutural References" remain, or indeed to see if they are still there despite this page being constantly abused and robbed of them. This all comes down to one person's clear abuse of power and bullying other editors with this notion of kissing up to management's "preferences". 
That'd be fine if I swallowed his excuse people are "too busy" to handle every episode of FG with "Cultural References", if this "sturcture" was an insistent mandate, it'd be enforced as vigerously as other terms of editorial violation. The fact it is not proves it's not a problem, indeed it's been the opposite.
Until I see this happen beyond this episode alone, I don't buy this is what the admins want at all, and even if they do, there pretty lax about it. When this article is unlocked, the Cultural References are going back in. Put it to a vote if you want, it's for the better of the community, not the stuck-up elitist system who ruin things FOR their intended audience.
And what the hell is this? "If you don't like Wikipedia, leave?", whatever happened to "If you don't like it, try to change it so you don't HAVE to leave Wikipedia?" his condescending attitude speaks volumes more than his "professional" conduct.
Dr. R.KZ. 15:24 28th May 2007

Again, I am "banning" nothing.  The information itself is not the issue.  the iisue is the way in which it is presented.  As for trivia, check out the rules: avoid trivia sections in articles.  If you would please take the time to read and understand our policies and guidelines, you would understand where I'm coming from.  If you don't like the policies, then try to change them.  You can start that process by posting on the talk pages of the rules you would like to change.  If you have an issue with my behavior or methodology, then please report me at WP:ANI or try any one of our dispute resolution outlets.  As for other Family Guy articles looking like garbage, you're right, they need cleaning too.  See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, the existance of articles that contravene policy is not an excuse for other articles to contravene policy.  Why is sourcing such an issue for you?  Why do feel that citing sources is such a difficult thing to do?  Seriously though, I'm not going anywhere, so get used to having your feet held to the fire when it comes to editorial standards, this is an encyclopedia after all, not the Family Guy wiki. Homefill 14:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, and with that, you've just exposed yourself for all to see. No longer the "professional" you were last night, you are now resorting to commonplace thuggery. Spewing threats of harrasment simply because you get off on controlling the conduct of one article. 
Wait, so now, instead of saying "you don't like Wikipedia, leave", you're now saying what you SHOULD have said? Seriously, you're untrustworthy, and self-contradictive. Leave this article before you humiliate yourself further, you've been reported.
Dr. R.KZ. 15:50 28h May 2007

That sir, is yet another gross mischaracterization of my position.  I have tried to assume good faith throughout this discussion; presenting my reasoning alongside wikilinks to the applicable policies and guidelines.  The unfortunate response from some has been abuse, vitriol, and hyperbole.  This is just not acceptable behavior at Wikipedia.  Never have I said "you don't like Wikipedia, leave".  What I do believe is that if an editor is unwilling to follow the encyclopedia's long-standing editorial policies, they should not be editing the encyclopedia.    As for the issue at hand, Wikipedia has editorial standards regarding, amongst other things, verifiability, sources, and original research.  You have to abide by policy, we all do.  For, what I hope will be, the last time.  The information itself (cultural references, topical humour, cutaways, ...etc) is not the problem.  The problem is the way in which the information is being added.  You have to cite a source for your claims, this is not up for discussion, this is a core policy of the encyclopedia.  If you can't cite a source for your claim, then you can't put it in the article.  Sources in episode articles was discussed and settled here back in 2005.  Please read the policies and guidelines that I have referenced; you'll find that these issues are dealt with. Homefill 16:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
How can you cite a source for a reference? If Family Guy does a parody of "Back to the Future" you have to have someone else make an article that says "Family guy did a parody of Back to the Future" before you can put it in an article? Whatever happened to common knowledge that doesn`t need to be cited? What`s the threshold for being able to cite a source of a reference? It seems like the current policy doesn`t allow these kind of things to be added at all. The people who are editing the article should argue amongst themselves as to whether or not it`s a proper reference, not have to go find some non-existant sources for it. 202.221.129.6 07:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:CITE for how to cite sources, common knowledge is dealt with at WP:CK.  There it is all explained for you.  How to cite primary sources (the episode itself), how to cite secondary sources (books and news stories about the episode), and why we don't like to cite tertiary sources (encyclopedias, web forums, fansites).  Please see the references section of this article where the "cite video" template has been used to list this episode as a source.  Remember however, that a primary source can only be used for information about itself.  That is to say, that the episode itself can only be a source for things that happen in the episode.  If you want to claim that the show's writers intended to parody or spoof another work, then, yes, you would need a secondary source (A news story, or interview with the writers where they say they intended to parody or spoof that other work.)  This is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.  Wikipedia can not contain any claims or theories that have not already been published by a reliable 3rd party source.  This is not hard to overcome; the bookstore is packed with magazines that cover television, your local library has a section on film and television, your local university has a media studies dept. or a film school.Homefill 13:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
What the f**k. The cultural references are the heart of the articals. After I watch the episodes, I always like to wait a few days and get on and find out these things. It's even beter when they spoof something I reconize (sorry about the spelling) but I can't remember the name. Take that Sixteen Candles refrence in Boys Do Cry when Chris holds up the underwere. I knew what they were refrencing from watching I Love the 80's on VH1 (yes, I trully have no life) but I couldn't remember the name. When that happens, I want the cultural references section, no only there, but as bulletpoints with the reference and the point of when it happens so I can quickly get the info I want. Again, I say. What. The. F**k. Well, that's my argument. Where's your's? --BrianGriffin-FG 15:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
One: Common knowledge does not need to be cited. Have you seen the episode in question? I don't see why this is an issue. Two: As a side note, why is this article being singled out to enforce these Wikipedia "rules?" There are apparently thousands and thousands of articles with uncited common knowledge cultural references. Just wondering. Regardless of the rules, common practice on Wikipedia is to write the article as it was before the article was locked down. 219.169.90.2 17:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Just ignore him, so long as we keep reverting the crap he adds, he won't be a problem. He's so obviously in a minority consensus he has no legs to stand on
Dr. R.KZ. 19:47 29h May 2007
I vote that the cultural reference lists stay in the articles. Felicity4711 01:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
C'mon now, Homefill. Nobody agrees with the changes you've made. Family Guy isn't a good place to start a campaign for orthodoxy. Start on an article that nobody cares about; there are plenty of those.  C1k3 06:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a picture of the Jetsons gag, yet the reference isn't listed in the "Cultural References" section. 207.38.193.213 15:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I've fully protected the page for 48 hours due to edit warring, there seems to be a number of users close to a 3RR block. You know the drill guys - discuss duscuss and then discuss some more before you start making any more changes. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey all, I did a cleanup/rewrite on the synopsis before realizing there was a war in progress.  I've stayed away from the issue of cultural references...just edited the synopsis for readability and clarity.  Hope I haven't annoyed anyone.  --Bigscarymike 20:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Who was Joe Piscapo (sp?) mentioned in this episode and why is he not mentioned in the cultural references in this article?--Jackyd101 22:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Joe Piscopo was a member of Saturday Night Live in the early 1980s, but for some reason he didn't find a lot of success after he left. He started bodybuilding in the 1990s, which is what the joke is about on the show. As to why he's not mentioned on this page, I don't think anyone can agree on what to put on this page right now. Wrightaway 23:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
That explains it, I have never watched Saturday Night Live.--Jackyd101 00:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently this episode is the season finale, but wasnt that supposed to be Stewie Kills Lois or something? Why isn't this the case anymore? I'm a little confused.
Thanks in advance—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.95.250 (talk • contribs) 

the remaining episodes werent done in time so they've been pushed back to next season Grande13 13:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
FG's season order has always been a pain the butt to follow. Season four part two is season five in the UK, any kind of delay means part of season five is season six or seven etc...

The fact that Roger is in the end of the episode is probably a reference to the American Dad! episode “The Best Christmas Story Never” where Stan goes back in time, with the help of the Ghost of Christmas Past, and changes America into a communist nation, while Roger invents the disco era, with a help of disco CD that Stan drops. I can’t belive that nobody has picked up on this but me. Oh well.—BrianGriffin-FG 15:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Or it could just be that everything is still slightly messed up from the past...
IMHO that’s a stretch, BrianGriffin-FG. Altering the past in such a way that Roger appears in the Family Guy universe instead of the American Dad! universe (assuming that they are two separate universes; otherwise, altering the past in such a way that Roger lives with the Griffins instead of the Smiths) is just a reference to changes in the past having unforeseen effects on the present—the law of unintended consequences; A Sound of Thunder. Felicity4711 22:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
What, like it isn't a strech. The plots are pretty much the same. The main character wants to go back in time. The main character does go back in time. The main character screws up the past & present. The main character goes screws up the past again, but to make the present almost normal again. The only diffrence is that it is with diffrent characters. Oh, they are the same universe. How could Stewie meet some AD! characters in Lois Kills Stewie if they wern't.--BrianGriffin-FG 19:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

What song plays when 18-year-old Lois first appears while Peter, Brian, and Cleveland are standing beside the pool?

Hmmm.  Can't place it, but it sounds like Kenny Loggins.  --Bigscarymike 19:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
It is Kenny Loggins, its the song playing in Caddyshack when the blonde girl jumps off the diving board in front of the caddies at Caddy Pool Day. (MDR)

Thanks MDR.  I knew the scene they were parodying, but I just could not think if that was the song in the movie or another song entirely.

I've reworded the Goof stating that Lois is two years younger than Peter.  Can anyone identify an episode that stated this?  Off the top of my head, I can't remember.  --Bigscarymike 19:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Wrightaway!   --Bigscarymike 06:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
let's go to the hop 71.65.34.160 01:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't Brian have been better to say "Meet me at 8:40 AM at the top of the North Tower on 9/11/01 and, if i'm not there, wait five minutes and something is sure to happen!" - if he really wanted to trap the guy above the impact zone he wouldn't give the guy 44 minutes from 8:00 to get tired of waiting and leave. PMA 00:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Geez, the joke is in pretty bad taste already.  Why make it worse?  ;)  (Interesting aside:  Seth McFarlane originally planned to never do a 9/11 joke in any episode, considering he was almost on one of the hijacked planes that day himself.)  Jparenti (talk) 07:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Brian introduces the song "Never Gonna Give You Up" as "here's a song by a gay guy," but Rick Astley isn't actually gay. Is this a joke or misinformation? McDanger 03:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Im not sure how it can be any more apparent that its a joke... Grande13
Being gay is funny? McDanger 15:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Dude, this is Family Guy. Tasteless jokes about people's sexuallity are the norm. They aren't saying every gay person is to be mocked. Lots42 14:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
More's the point, Never Gonna Give You Up isn't actually by Rick Astley, just performed by him. It was written by Stock Aitken Waterman. None of whom is gay, as far as I'm aware. DWaterson 22:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I finally got it: the "gay guy" reference was a "rickroll" of sorts. You "rickroll" somebody by tricking them into viewing the Astley video, and that's kind of what the "song by a gay guy" comment accomplishes: Brian fakes you out by making you expect that he's going to sing a song by an actual gay guy, but instead he plays Astley's song. That's about as close to a rickroll as you can get in a non-interactive medium like a TV show. 24.13.34.230 02:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A "rickroll" isn't simply when you get tricked into viewing the Astley video, it's after convincing you that you were going to get something else. As said above, "gay guy" was just a joke. We weren't supposed to expect a known gay artist's song; the rickroll was that anyone catching the BTTF references was expecting Brian to start playing "Johnny B. Goode".
Hey, here's an idea:  Maybe it's just not a Rickroll.  I know I saw "Meet the Quagmires" before I ever heard of the Rickroll, and I still thought the song was a funny choice.  Didn't care for the "gay guy" joke(?) but I thought "Marvin Astley"s call to his cousin Rick was quite hilarious.  Point being, the humor works on its own, independent of Internet memes. Perhaps it was written that way, as well.
--63.25.5.94 (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The article states that on the fox version that Quagmire says "It's just my wang"or something along those lines,and in the adult swim version he said penis.Are they mix up or does he say the same thing in both versions.Becuase I'm 100% sure he said wang on adult swim.Chrono master 19:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
i watched it last night and herd penis. 71.65.34.160 01:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Why was the censorship section removed?
YA AND WHY THE HELL WAS THE  9/11 JOKE REMOVED TOO??? they make fun of Iraqi suicide bombers (when stewie and brian become soldiers) and not American coordinated attacks? I DEMAND THE FCC TO SHOW THAT ON NON ADULT SWIM BECAUSE THERE IS  NOTHING WRONG ABOUT SAYING THAT. its like denying a holocaust.
--• Storkian • 02:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're a bit confused, Storkian. This forum here is for discussing improvements to the article, not why your TV station will or will not run a certain joke. I hope I made sense. Lots42 11:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I know wikipedia is not the place to discuss this issue but I think the adult swim had some unreasonable censorships. Can someone possibly discuss why that certain quote was blocked from my TV airing? Because anus and penis get used sometimes without adult swim times. Perhaps if someone finds the reasons then we should mention it in the article. Because the 9 / 11 joke was controversial which i must agree but then again why wasn't the suicide bombers jokes controversial?
--• Storkian • 23:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Usually, the Fox censors will not allow some jokes depending on their standards department's rules.  Basic cable is a little more lax.  The attitude in America is that a suicide bomber is okay for parody, but anyone who died on September 11, 2001 is no laughing matter.  Different cultures, dude.  If they aired this episode in Iran, they'd leave it in and remove the suicide bomber jokes.  Jparenti (talk) 07:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Fgjetsonspoof.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:FGmeetquagmires.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

--172.166.37.145 02:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It says Luke Adams performed the version of earth Angel, but there is no version of Earth Angel by Luke Adams. Could someone find out if it is the right version.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.100.15 (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 

Currently, the article states:  

Brian asks Lois if he can "Wham my Oingo Boingo into your Velvet Underground", making a sexual innuendo while referencing 3 popular bands from the 1980s. 
Is there some rationale for referring to the VU as "from the 1980s"?  I mean, considering that even the Lou-less version of the band broke up in 1973 and all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.25.117.97 (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 

See discussion at Talk:Rickroll--Will2k (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know the name of the song that plays when Peter and Cleveland are dancing in the club?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.251.253 (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 

Axel-F --76.68.105.77 (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

In the FOX version, at least, there is a caption when Peter and Brian travel back in time stating that they went back to 1984, not 1977.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.82.68 (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC) 

I looked on the internet and all I could find were fan versions of the song or some Crazy Frog remix. 207.237.41.202 (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The song is titled Axel F. and it is by Harold Faltermeyer.
Axel Foley being the character from Beverly Hills Cop. 
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dASqLXiuomY&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ac1d665 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC) 

Since I've no source for this I won't enter it into the article but thought I'd let it out there.
The accident at the start where Horace falls off the ladder while trying to fix the television, could that be a reference to the death of British comedian Rod Hull? He died after falling off the roof while trying to adjust his television aerial. Karsini (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Meet the Quagmires/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Well done.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
In the Cultural references section, please link "Diehard" and "alien" to their correspondence articles as at the moment they stand out as a disambiguations.
I'm not sure what you're referring to as neither one links to a disambig page. Die Hard and Extraterrestrial life are used for both. Gage (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I changed both, just did one {{done}} at the bottom to address both of her concerns. CTJF83 chat 21:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
My bad. Thank you for helping me out. Gage (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Any time. CTJF83 chat 21:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Glad this was discussed. ;)
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
There's a couple of refs. that have different url link paths, so you might want to update that.
IGN refs are unchangeable. I've had this problem elsewhere on other articles, and though it shows as that in the toolserver, there isn't any way to fix it, unless you know a way. As it doen't actually redirect. Gage (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind, I think Ctjf83 may have fixed whatever you had noticed. Gage (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about the IGN one, I had to do an errand and I just added the "couple of refs" bit, and check.
B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Not that much to do. If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck!
--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Changed the 2 emmy links, but the IGN link is the same. CTJF83 chat 19:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Guess thats all. --Pedro J. the rookie 20:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you to EVERYONE for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

im surprised the madtv reference w/ osama wasn't on the cultural reference page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquibmsa (talk • contribs) 02:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Meet the Quagmires. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5rZ7W3jUV to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=052207_06
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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) 12:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Meet the Quagmires. 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/20110610212358/http://www.movieweb.com/dvd/DVy8zBBHQm8BCy to http://www.movieweb.com/dvd/DVy8zBBHQm8BCy
Corrected formatting/usage for http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=052207_06
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) 16:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)