Talk:Meet the Quagmires

message: <Snip>
84.92.51.203 12:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of point on differing attitudes towards time travel?

message: 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)
thread_title: discrepancies with other episodes

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Where would this information go? Felicity4711 03:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quagmire's Children

message: All I'm saying is...be prepared...SuperSonicTH 13:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive Rick Astley flood... 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's probably meant to be a gag only, it was indeed started by the expired coupon. OwnerA 05:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Starting the feud 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Goofs Incorrect 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  "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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  cultural references 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Walking into a minefield 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That explains it, I have never watched Saturday Night Live.--Jackyd101 00:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: 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)
thread_title:  Season Finale 

message: 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)
thread_title: Song Question

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lois' age 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  9/11 joke 

message: 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)
thread_title:   Censorship wrong? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Censorship 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Fgjetsonspoof.png

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:FGmeetquagmires.jpg

message: --172.166.37.145 02:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probably the best of the new Family Guy episodes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  earth Angel 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Velvet Underground reference. 

message: See discussion at Talk:Rickroll--Will2k (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the rickroll 

message: 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)
replies: text: Axel-F --76.68.105.77 (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Error in Notes section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is the "Axel F" track that is played in the episode from a soundtrack? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  That "Axel F." Song 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Horace's accident 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Madtv Reference 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified