Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation/Family Guy work group/Archive 2

message: Someone needs to make two templates. One so we can have userbox in our profiles that we are members of the project, and one that we can add to talk pages of Peter Griffin, episodes, etc. that tells that the page is part of this project.
Oh and one more thing, please invite more people to join, I can't, because I don't know any Wikipedians that are Family Guy fans. TheBlazikenMaster 21:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on it. Suggestions welcome on the Talk pages for each template. / edgarde 08:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, well, believe me adding the templates to every Family Guy talk page will encourage more members. Oh and episodes, and characters originally from FG, or something like that should have the template on the top. TheBlazikenMaster 18:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think other talk page headers go above WikiProject headers. Let's not think too highly of ourselves. ;) / edgarde 18:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't take me too literally, I meant at the top of the other WikiProjects, of course templates like the one that has link to "Be Polite" should always be on the top. TheBlazikenMaster 18:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone needs to make templates 

message: The userbox sucks but it's ready for use. Help I could use:
*Can someone please set up :Category:WikiProject Family Guy participants ?
*There's a little catchphrase contest on the Project Talk Page banner article.
/ edgarde 08:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Userbox

message: Not ready yet, but it's coming along. Could use:
*a 40px icon (non-nonFree) for the blue box. Something like :Image:Simpsons tv icon.png, as used in :Template:SimpsonWikiProject
/ edgarde 08:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk page banner

message: I need someone to push these out.
;userbox:
Please message members and encourage them to either add either
*, or
*
... to Special:Mypage.
Both methods categorize the user in :Category:WikiProject Family Guy participants.
;talk page banner:
Can someone please add  to FG-relevant articles? Add just above other project banners for Family Guy articles (cos we're the most relevant). Add below other project banners for articles not about Family Guy, but of interest (such as actors and writers).
Neither template is in its final form, but since they're necessary to publicize the WikiProject, I don't want to delay any longer. They'll do for now. / edgarde 18:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, well, believe me adding the templates to every Family Guy talk page will encourage more members. Oh and episodes, and characters originally from FG, or something like that should have the template on the top. TheBlazikenMaster 18:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think other talk page headers go above WikiProject headers. Let's not think too highly of ourselves. ;) / edgarde 18:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't take me too literally, I meant at the top of the other WikiProjects, of course templates like the one that has link to "Be Polite" should always be on the top. TheBlazikenMaster 18:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates are ready

message: Style guideline moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Family Guy/Episode citation style. / edgarde 10:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode citation style for events and character actions 

message: i went through and ran edits through all the main family members pages. that would be peter, meg, chris, lois, stewie, and brian.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Onopearls (talk • contribs) 19:33 5 July 2007 (UTC)
:Good job. I recommend including "copyedit" as your edit summary for cleanup tasks of this nature. / edgarde 11:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  edits 

message: Just a thought: nearly three seasons later, isn't it time we got rid of this Stan Thompson nonsense. I realize there have been previous discussions about this that ended with what the articles read now (Example: "Megan "Meg" Griffin is the eldest child of Lois Griffin in the animated TV series Family Guy. It has been hinted that her father is Stan Thompson, not Peter Griffin, but this could have been a one time gag."), but this was with the idea that at some point, we could possibly see Stan Thompson. But, three seasons later, nothing. And from reading from the standpoint of someone who has never watched Family Guy, I would think that Stan Thompson was a main character, and I certainly wouldn't think that he has never actually appeared on the show. I propose revisiting this issue and I think that many would agree that we probabley will never see or hear about Stan Thompson again. Remember, continuity is rare on Family Guy. Saget53 22:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Can you give me a real short explanation of what you mean by "Stan Thompson nonsense".  I'm very familiar with the show but new to the project. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'll notice, in every article having to do with Peter and Meg, it states that Stan Thompson may be Meg's real father (refer to my example above), despite the fact that Stan Thompson has never been seen on the show and was only briefly mentioned in a 3 second one off joke in Screwed the Pooch. Brian is answering questions about the family and he says something about Stan Thompson being Meg's real father. Just to clarify, one off jokes have also stated that Peter was born a woman and that Lois was a circus freak. Saget53 22:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Ah, I gotcha - yeah that's a toughy - my opinion (and this isn't any but my opinion) is that there "could" be some note of this on meg's article, but that's about it.  I wouldn't think it's the best thing to put it on every other article.  MAYBE and i mean maybe on Peter's. I'm working on filing an RFC right now, so if you want to point me to specific examples right now, i'll be glad to give you a better response. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Peter Griffin, Meg Griffin, List of characters from Family Guy. I'd like to see it completely deleted, however, at least don't put it at the opening paragraph of the article. Saget53 22:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Okay got it.  Yeah, I mean FG is perhaps even more "inconsistent" than even the Simposons.  I'm inclined to agree with you on a personal level, but thinking perhaps there is another way for us to accomplish the same thing and still have some note of the stuff in there.  I would absolutely expunge the information from the WP:LEAD sections and move it into the article structure.  I take it you'd like to remove it all together? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I own that episode too on DVD, and I think it deserves no mention at all. Brian doesn't know EVERYTHING, he could be wrong, think about it. Until we get further proof, we should just remove it. TheBlazikenMaster 23:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Certainly you can edit as you see fit.  If i were doing the editing, i would simply move the content to a more appropriate portion of the article and mention that in said episode, Brian asserts this information. I'd cite it and then do the same on other articles where editors have included the same basic information. Removing the content may only "temporarily" solve the situation.  If someone comes back and inserts the information again - your probably going to be back at square one.  If you provide a well sourced and factually verifiable statement, you *shouldn't* have those problems in the future.  Hope that helps Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stan Thompson 

message: On a related matter, is anyone fed up with this bit of original research? It's discussed on the Talk page, but unbelievably we couldn't get a WP:CONSENSUS to remove. / edg ☺ ★ 04:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Would you like to have a WP:30, I'd be glad to mediate. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel like there could be dozens of little opinions like this one. There'd be no end. At this point I'd just as soon leave it broken and see what happens. / edg ☺ ★ 05:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I would strongly suggest that you explore WP:DR.  Although I have "joined" the project, I'm suspecting that most of my time here will be as a "mediator".  I don't have the passion for content creation here like I do for WP:NFL related pages, but I am as familiar as anyone with the show.  If you want to point me to a specific portion of a discussion, I'll be glad to chime in with some thoughts on Olivia. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basicly I'm asking this WikiProject for a 3rd opinion. I'm familiar with the DR procedures, and I don't want to start a DR process over something this trivial. The discussion (also linked above) is at Talk:Stewie_Griffin#Wife_.28putative.29:_Olivia_Fuller. / edg ☺ ★ 06:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Wife (Putative): Olivia Fuller" in [[Stewie Griffin]] infobox

message: Of the two volunteers for WP:FGdesk, one has been banned. The new season of FG starts in two weeks, and we don't seem to have enough people to make this work. (FWIW, the remaining vol is User:Cromulent Kwyjibo, who seems great for the job.)
There are other practicalities, but if we had the vols to staff the desk, we could give it a go. On the other hand, maybe it wasn't meant to happen.
Any suggestions? / edg ☺ ★ 11:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference desk project status

message: I've added  to the Talk pages of all articles linked from the  template (at page bottoms). I'm currently doing episodes for season 2 (skipped s1), with the Edit summary " add WP:FG ".
It would be really helpful if someone took on a couple other seasons.
Suggested ratings:
;Class
*"Stub" – unsourced plot synopses and trivia pages, pic, and little more.
*"Start" – probably the default class
*"B" – may be none out there. Don't give a B to episodes unless you find something extraordinary, and ready to submit for GA review.
;Importance
*"Low" importance if only linked from other FG pages, default
*"Mid" importance episodes are of non-trivial importance outside of FG.
*"High" importance for the Stewie DVD feature, or a significant controversy (for example, one of the 2 episodes for which the PTC asked the FCC to fine fox).
*"Top" importance if mentioned in a Presidential speech.
So Talk pages for most FG episodes would start with ...
 
Ratings other than Start/Low could use an explanation in the episode Talk page. (Example: Talk:When You Wish Upon a Weinstein) / edg ☺ ★ 07:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction: details on Importance should be added to the Assessment /Comments section, linked from the  banner. / edg ☺ ★ 16:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pushing out the project banner 

message: What about adding external link to the episode pages on the wiki Rob is suggesting? TheBlazikenMaster 11:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a template we can use: . Star Trek episodes do something similar, linking to their equivalent on Memory Alpha. / edg ☺ ★ 12:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly, there is some controversy on WikiProject Television on whether Wikia links should be included. I don't think it means we cannot link to the FG Wikia, but it could be argued that Family Guy Wiki isn't very established, and contains copyrighted information. / edg ☺ ★ 01:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have an idea. 

message: Only two volunteers, new season starts tomorrow. Are we following through with this? Desk volunteers
vote here. / edg ☺ ★ 00:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of ''Family Guy'' Reference desk 

message: One-shot character in Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story.  Where does the article go?  Merged?  Redirect to the movie? ColourBurst 02:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for spotting this. One-time characters belong to their episodes — merge to Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story. I gave it a prod; it seems unlikely someone will search for information on this character. / edg ☺ ★ 03:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Vanessa Griffin]] 

message: This episode was cited by the media. With the filed lawsuit, When You Wish Upon a Weinstein may receive additional review by others. If anyone has the time, it would be really helpful to rework the article with reliable source material. / edg ☺ ★ 03:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When You Wish Upon a Weinstein 

message: I'm about to propose this template for deletion. It's redundant with the current episode succession box.
Any objections? I can't see the value of offering a re-sorted, incomplete episode list from the perspective of one of the syndication networks. / edg ☺ ★ 23:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is {{Tl|Family Guy (TBS)}} really needed? 

message: I'm seriously sick of removing pointless trivia from countless episodes stating that he can be understood. So can you guys please help me keeping an eye on that? With the exceptions happening every 5 or less episodes or so, they aren't exceptions at all. Stewie is understood but not being taken seriously because he's only 1 year old.
Think about it, I wouldn't take someone THAT young seriously. So please stop with the trivial crap. 
If you agree with me, try to help me removing those trivial stuff from the articles. TheBlazikenMaster 13:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we agree this isn't notable? If so, I'll certainly remove what I spot. (I don't watch all the episode articles tho.) / edg ☺ ★ 22:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we can agree on that, that's why I was bringing it to the WikiProject's attention. TheBlazikenMaster 22:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Believe it or not anyone (including the characters in the show) can hear [[Stewie Griffin|Stewie]] 

message: This is pretty cool. Someone fixed the Cultural references bullet list in "When You Wish Upon a Weinstein", turning it into readable prose. Helps that the episode has a general theme to its references.
Any FG episode article that wanted to reach FA status would need this kind of cleanup. / edg ☺ ★ 22:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A ''Cultural references'' section delistified 

message: As a heads up, I'm removing them from the episode articles. They show no importance. Things are edited all the time when they are moved to a new format (movies to TV, movies to DVD, and so on). How Family Guy differs from it's original airing compared to syndication/reruns isn't that important. RobJ1981 20:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the censorship sections are a lot smaller than cultural references ones. I think censorship section could be useful if we include a reason for the censorship. (of course obvious ones like fuck censored, or blurred penis shouldn't be there) Sometimes people are offended and censor. If the censorship is notable it should undoubtfully be there. Only if it's notable. I mean like scenes that aren't on TV. And has some stuff that aren't normally censored on TV, but gets censored because of something the TV guy finds inappropriate. Yeah, the notable ones should be there, but not the obvious ones. And I think the reason for the censor would be needed. TheBlazikenMaster 23:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Censorship sections in episode articles

message: I took a hacksaw to this template because it contained many problematic fields, most of which aren't distinguished for more than one character (if any), so they're unneeded. Keeping fields for date of birth, favorite beer, favorite drink, political leaning, vehicle, favorite band, favorite sport, disliked sport, only encourages original research and especially pointless edit wars.
It would be helpful if editor could watch  for unhelpful new fields. Date of birth was recently restored without explanation. / edg ☺ ★ 01:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Template:Family Guy character]]

message: Just cleaned up Meg Griffin, and at least one editor (could be two) is restoring Stan Thompson WP:OR I had neatly footnoted. Would appreciate someone watching out for these. / edg ☺ ★ 03:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll keep an eye out. I'm pretty adament about seeing that not come back. Saget53 21:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Stan Thompson warring 

message: Just a 411: I have listed Blue Harvest (Family Guy) up for peer review. The review can be found HERE. The Chronic 00:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the suggestions of the (quick) peer review, I'll be working on improving the article on my sandbox. If anybody wants to help, they're free to do so. Thanks! The Chronic 00:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestion: Blue Harvest (Family Guy) receives edits almost every day. Unless your sandbox is completely experimental, you might want to work on the live document so that your finished version doesn't overwrite other editors' work. / edg ☺ ★ 04:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. Thanks for the suggestion! The Chronic 17:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review notice - [[Blue Harvest (Family Guy)]] 

message: I agree that goofs aren't very useful for an encyclpoedia, especially since the animators can animate their characters any way they like, so I'm going right ahead and remove all the sections I spot with the title "goofs" or "errors", I hope you don't mind. TheBlazikenMaster 15:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Goofs]] 

message: ===Bob's Poetry Magazine===
As discussed here, citations for "Bob's Poetry Magazine" were added to almost every FG article (including episodes), perhaps in a token attempt to demonstrate notability. This reference fails on multiple levels — self-published, superficial in coverage, not at all scholarly. Whether it always or just usually makes no reference to anything in the article is hard to determine because it is never cited correctly.
Regardless of intent, I think this should be treated as spam and deleted on sight. Any opinions? / edg ☺ ★ 08:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited references

message: As discussed here, citations for "Bob's Poetry Magazine" were added to almost every FG article (including episodes), perhaps in a token attempt to demonstrate notability. This reference fails on multiple levels — self-published, superficial in coverage, not at all scholarly. Whether it always or just usually makes no reference to anything in the article is hard to determine because it is never cited correctly.
Regardless of intent, I think this should be treated as spam and deleted on sight. Any opinions? / edg ☺ ★ 08:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bob's Poetry Magazine

message: I'm also not happy with Steve Callaghan's episode guide being added to articles without proper footnoting. I think it is footnoted correctly in List of characters from Family Guy, but no attempt at in-line citation was made anywhere else. I think is okay (for now) to keep this on character articles, but this is a broken citation without  tags and page numbers. (Quotes would help too since this publication is not very freely available.)
If anyone has this book and wants to help by adding this information, but isn't confident about formatting and template usage, they can add it quick'n'dirty between <ref> and  tags. Were I alerted about any such addition, I would be happy to help with formatting. / edg ☺ ★ 08:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Family Guy: The Official Episode Guide Seasons 1–3''

message: I can't believe I had to add it on most episodes, but I'm glad it's finally over.
I understand that edg can't add to everything, but I'm glad we are finally finished tagging all the episodes, and please when new episode is announced  that deserves an article, please add the template to the talk page, thanks. TheBlazikenMaster 19:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory I can. It just takes me hundreds of years. Thanks for getting this done. / edg ☺ ★ 17:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I added the right template to the rest of the crap. 

message: Please cast your vote here. TheBlazikenMaster 19:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Blind Ambition (Family Guy)|Blind Ambition is being renamed]] 

message: I don't want the discussion to get locked, and then discussed further, because there weren't enough people that were part of the discussion. TheBlazikenMaster 16:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common you guys, I need your opinions. 

message: I have a lot of Family Guy episodes on my watchlist, and we're doomed.
The bot told that our important images are about to be removed.
Some people say that Wikipedia is getting worse, they are right. But I'm not gonna sit on my ass doing nothing about it, (I'm here to help after all.) so I brought it up here so I can get help. TheBlazikenMaster 21:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed all the images so they shouldn't be a problem anymore. Grande13 21:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work Grande. / edg ☺ ★ 17:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: At least fix this, somehow. I can't stand much more repetitive sections. It's filling the page with unnecessary warnings. Find a good fair use. This page has way too much of those bot messages. TheBlazikenMaster 16:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is worse than I expected, the image is gone. But seriously someone needs to clean up the talk page or Running Mates. TheBlazikenMaster 21:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We're next. 

message: See here for more. TheBlazikenMaster 17:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New discussion for deletion. 

message: Can we please get rid of it? It makes sections hard to find. And episode articles are meant to be easy to browse, people shouldn't have to scroll to find a particular section. TheBlazikenMaster 14:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean in all episode articles? I guess. If someone is going to go thru all 100+ episode articles, we should make a checklist of what else should be standardized. / edg ☺ ★ 14:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: unless the episode pages get longer there is really no need for a table of contents as its all basically visable on one page.  The table of contents would be a good chunk of the page and on some of the episode pages that previously had it it would distort things.  Grande13 14:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, articles should not have the __NTOC__ removed, no matter how long the contents may be, I'm sure it ays somewhere on the Manual of Style. Qst 18:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If we decide to mass-remove this, I'm wondering if we could ask the Cydebot to do the work for us. / edg ☺ ★ 03:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  __NTOC__ 

message: Hey, I'm just looking for some comments about what you guy's think about using :Image:WikiProject Family Guy logo.PNG this as the project logo? I can create one with just Family Guy written, if necessary. Qst 18:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, it looks like a microwave. This one is better in my opinion anyway. TheBlazikenMaster 18:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The original looks like an ancient TV, with a massive ariel and you can see lines where the light blue has been added quickly, and it looks very squashed, IMHO. Qst 18:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made :Image:138px-FG-icon-2.png and I agree it kinda sucks. The TV used in FG official art is rounded and has a very tall ariel, so I kind of favor having that in the project logo. It's not something I feel strongly about, however. / edg ☺ ★ 03:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mh, I intentionally removed the ariel from that image, as most modern televisions do not have ariels, it's completely up to you guys :). Cheers, Qst 17:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New logo 

message: Does he even need his own article? I suggest we merge it into the list of Family Guy characters or his father's article? What do you guys think? TheBlazikenMaster 22:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think it's OK. It contains some good information, all it needs is a few more references. Qst 20:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, tell me. Did he have any huge roles besides the appearance in Fore Father? I have all Family Guy episodes up to Untitled Griffin Family History on DVD, and I can't find any big role of that character besides that one episode. And one episode, and few cameo appearances isn't good enough for an article. TheBlazikenMaster 22:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Qst: Do you feel a need to keep CBjr as a separate article? How about we include it all under Cleveland Brown? Better to have one richly-developed article than multiple stubs, IMO. / edg ☺ ★ 18:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Very strongly agree. I would favor merging the entire Brown family into Cleveland Brown. Separate articles for minor characters are almost always {anecdotes + trivia + WP:OR = permanently stubs}, and Brown Jr. is par for the non-notable course. This would be such an easy merge I almost want to give it to someone for a Christmas present. / edg ☺ ★ 03:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess if you feel a need to discuss it further, that's an option. My preference would be to just bang it into place. Generally, FG-related merge debates tend to (slowly) attract editors who seem to consider all changes as attacks on FG. / edg ☺ ★ 18:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Edgarde, I support the merge, as Cleveland's article would be more suited with information about his son, as well as his wife (which does have some info in it). Qst 18:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So let's merge it then. Since there are no (or very few) objections. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is done. I'll clean it up a bit more later unless someone beats me to it. Since I don't own the DVDs and have not seen every episode, I could use a lot of help with episode citations. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cleveland Brown, Jr.]] 

message: Well boys (and girls), we have our first good article relating to Family Guy, lets hope its not the last :) Qst 17:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy cow. The episode is Blind Ambition (Family Guy); current version at the time it was listed in GA was 2007-11-06T17:10:02. Qst played a very big part in improving the article. Good work! / edg ☺ ☭ 00:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cheers, I'm making the last few improvements to Mother Tucker, I think its almost ready for it's GA nomination too. Qst 13:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Our first GA 

message: I tried this section in To Love and Die in Dixie. Specifics about guest cast (which could include writers and whatnot) don't always fit neatly in the infobox, but I'm not convinced this is the best section title. Any suggestions?
Incidentally, To Love and Die in Dixie could reach GA status if we found some outside references not specific to the show, and combined the bullet-point items into a Treatment of United States southern culture section. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mh, this needs some serious work, unfortunately — I cannot help much with this article, as I've only seen it once ages ago, so I don't know the plot, and I only have the DVD's for Season 6, 5, and 4, so I can't help with production either :( Qst 16:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode-specific cast 

message: What do you guy's think? How about we tidy up the main project page so it looks neat and ordered, I'm thinking along the designs of how Wikipedia:WikiProject Syria is set out, what do you think? I'm willing to do all the work, by the way. Qst 21:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow Wikipedia:WikiProject Syria has a lot of the sections we have, only nicely arranged. Unless someone comes up with something better, copying their layout might work nicely for this project. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, I can make a start tonight, if you like. Qst 16:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Al right, but don't make it too similar. Keep in mind that Family Guy is a television show while Syria is a place, and there is a huge difference between that. TheBlazikenMaster 20:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. We don't want Dick Cheney to have us invaded. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  :) Qst 21:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lets tidy this up! 

message: I was wondering if the Comedy WikiProject is a parent to this WikiProject? Is it so and it should be noted on the WikiProject? ISD 12:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say the WikiProject Comedy is more of a 'parent' to this Project, however, although it is more of a parent, I object to it being merged, although I don't believe you are suggesting this. Qst 12:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am not saying it should be merged, just that it should be listed as a "Parent" in this WikiProject, and a "Descendent" in the the Comedy WikiProject. ISD 13:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think its unnecessary to officialy list this as offspring so-to speak of WikiProject Comedy, it is fairly obvious it already is, hence forth - I feel there is no need to make this official. Qst 16:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I never understood the importance of specifying parentage. Can someone explain this? / edg ☺ ☭ 16:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parentage to Comedy WikiProject? 

message: Click here for the nomination. TheBlazikenMaster 23:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The FCC Song]] is being concidered for deletion. 

message: We might even speed that one, but I'm not risking doing it inappropriately. So I will nominate the article, here is the discussion. Please leave no further comments here, thank you. TheBlazikenMaster 19:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another discussion for deletion. 

message: We have our second good article! The episode is Mother Tucker () Qst 17:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 3 Good articles, now. Qst 15:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should make a page soon full of list of good FG articles? If you keep up that good work, you might even in the future get us a featured article. TheBlazikenMaster 19:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only 100+ to go! 

message: Added a section to the Project page for GA and (Satan willing) FA articles, the former in a quickie table. Not married to this table format. Does anyone know how to add classes for "plainlinks" and "wikitable" for the entire table? / edg ☺ ☭ 20:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Honor roll

message: Hi. I wrote the article Thaddeus Griffin, who is Peter's evil twin. I wrote a section about his family, but it did not allow me to cite it. I have all the references needed  here so can anyone help? Because I have them all it shouldn't take more than 10 mins.
thanks;
Cf38 (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thaddeus Griffin 

message: *Template:Religion in Family Guy is in a deletion discussion.  Please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 29.  Thanks.  Cirt (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates for deletion - [[Template:Religion in Family Guy]] 

message: Discussion in Talk:Peter Griffin#Heritage. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Heritage" in character infoboxes 

message: Just look at it. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Holy Crap]] needs a new picture. 

message: Please cast your votes there. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Feel free to add these to the list of active FG-related deletion discussions: WP:FG#For_deletion. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Thaddeus Griffin]] is being [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thaddeus Griffin|up for deletion]]. 

message: Family Guy articles receive very little reception. When you compare some episode articles' reception section to the ones of The Simpsons, ours don't look to good, even those on articles which have reached good article status. Qst 16:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you say "articles" receive little reception, do you mean episodes? I don't know where to find more Reception information, but I'm sure The Simpsons gets more real-world recognition. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, by my above comment, I am referring to individual episode articles. The reception must be from a good source (for example, IGN), as polls and ratings from TV.com are not worthy of a mention in the episode articles. But please, if you know of a location as to where more valid reception information is available for episodes, please do leave a link here, as it increases the articles layout and attractiveness a lot :) Qst 16:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This is very valuable real-world content. I find reception information, especially reviews and reactions, much more interesting that plot synopses. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  You know whats a real bummer... 

message: For those who aren't following, this still-being-decided arbitration will set precedents for future Admin rulings on Television-related articles:
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Proposed decision
While most of this is user conduct rulings (not interesting to us), some of it rules on how shows are edited with disregard to the WP:EPISODE guideline, and what should be done when this happens.
"Proposed decision" is written by Arbitrators only, so please don't add comments. It's a little too late to get involved, but if you wish to contribute on the  "Evidence" or "Workshop" pages, please read the (tons of) background material before joining. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy|Arbitration]]: Episodes and characters 

message: After lengthy, contentious discussion, all Scrubs (TV series) major character articles lacking real-world notability (reliable secondary sources) are being merged into List of major characters of Scrubs. The conversation is long and occurs on multiple Talk pages, but the place to start reading would be Talk:Scrubs (TV series)#Character_merge. Applying this standard to FG articles — and this decision was based on WP:N, WP:FICT, WP:RS and WP:WAF, not local stuff on Talk:Scrubs, where there was much objection — would kill most FG character articles, and probably most episodes.
Most episode articles have already been redirected back into List of Scrubs episodes, with much (mostly in-universe) content (for episodes lacking real-world notability) discarded.
Minimally, this demonstrates the need to
*find real-world content (from reliable secondary sources) for FG articles* , and
*avoid creating articles for minor characters.
* (And I wish certain editors would get over the belief that tacking "Bob's Poetry" and the Calaghan FG book met this requirement. This fantasy solution will only result in deleted articles.) / edg ☺ ☭ 21:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Scrubs (TV series)|Scrubs]] episode and character merges

message: Hi. A discussion on the episodes MoS is here. As an article under the project's scope is used as an example, you are encouraged to contribute. Will (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about multiple episodes on WT:EPISODE