Talk:Family Guy/Archive 3

message: Some "contributor" from IP 59.167.43.197 is repeatedly placing a POV statement into the "other peers and critics" section.  The quote in question:
"The irony itself being that many of the shows created by those who oppose Family Guy, share the same, if not poorer quality animation and character design, such as the Simpsons and South Park."
This quote was first (rightfully) removed by 65.200.136.182, who correctly stated: "Removed misuse of irony and posters value judgement", to which the incorrect original poster responded (while restoring the inappropriate comment) "Restored Irony comment, perfectly valid"
At this point, I removed it yet again, saying "Statement is POV/opinion, as such it is invalid and should be removed." but the contributer restored it again, saying "Statement is NOT a POV/Opinion. South Park does NOT have hte same quality of animation as FG and simpsons animation is same quality.".
Now, I'm fairly certain that most of the contributors here have been in grade school.  I seem to remember learning the difference between "fact" and "opinion" pretty early on.  As with every other aspect of art, the quality of animation is in the eye of the beholder and one cannot definitively judge one work as superior and inferior to another.  I contribute to this article as an admitted "Family Guy" hater, I started the "criticism" section and I believe that dissenting views enhance the validity of Wikipedia.  It is obvious to me that the poster at IP 59.167.43.197 considers the animation in "Family Guy" to be equal or superior to it's peers.  I do not, and since the opinion is far from unanimous, the comment has no place here.  For my money, The animation in "South Park" excells in terms of character design, "acting", and interesting location design, and the crude style is enormously endearing, whereas "Family Guy" features bland, unappealing and derivative characters with an incredibly limited "acting" range and uninteresting locations.  That is my opinion, and just like the opinion of 59.167.43.197, it has no place in the "Family Guy" article.
:: I agree that it does not belong in the article. I don't agree with your opinion on Family Guy having "... bland, unappealing and derivative characters with an incredibly limited "acting" range and uninteresting locations." but this is a better place to voice it, rather than in the article. -- murder1 04:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree 100% with murder1. Act further if author continually adds that sentence. - Wezzo 08:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Warring by 59.167.43.197 

message: I'm not a big fan of meaningless lists and I think that this section is one of those. So how about we create a new article, Pop culture references in Family Guy, and style it like the Issues addressed in Nip/Tuck article.  I'd be willing to contribute a lot to this article if some other authors will too. Jtrost 18:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it would be more productive to list pop culture personalities and shows that have been referenced in more than one episode and give a representative example of each. Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: To be honest I don't see the point in that section.  Unless it includes proper citations anyone could come along and add misinformation so very easily, if only from their only personal interpretation.  It hardly adds anything to the article when it doesn't say when the reference occurs.  violet/riga (t) 22:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that list could go on forever. Maybe a few examples in a sentence somewhere wouldnt go amiss, but a whole section is just ridiculous. Theres been too many; its like listing all the references in Spaced. Although it would be nice to have an article explaining all the references instead, i think that could get out of hand too. -- jeffthejiff (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My edit today will hopefully take that section in the direction I mentioned last week. Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Can we just do away with this section altogether?  I think the AfD for the main article pretty much sums it up. Jtrost 16:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop culture references 

message: The episode list is listing broadcast seasons not production seasons I don't understand why we are calling the latest season, 4B except as a snub at FOX, its clearly explained in the episode list article that the latest season is still part of the season 4 production schedule, and similarly to futurama while there has been 5 broadcast seasons there will be 4 production seasons released on dvd. I know this is fairly trivial but the page is listing broadcast seasons from FOX, their stupid decisions aside this is still the 5th broadcast season. Discordance 15:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See http://www.familyguy.com  The episodes are listed as season 4. Jtrost 15:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Nevermind they didnt do that they merged season 4A and 4B which is reasonable. The page needs tidying slightly now though. Discordance 21:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Season 5 or season 4B?

message: Theres two edit wars that have been going on, 2 anon accounts keep altering the dates of the upcoming episodes, ip 24.46.122.195 is in the wrong i checked the dates on familyguy.com and asked him to stop on the talk page. And now two registered users (G11 is 67.184.154.139 registering part way through the revert war, 24.46.122.195 may be patesta trying to edit anon) user:patesta being the most disruptive slowly reverting the page back to an older version over a few hours, user:G11 and him then reverted the page 10 times each I think?? I'm reporting them both for violating 3RR hopefully other users can help me keep an eye on things Discordance 01:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit warring on the episode list

message: I noticed that the only fansite forum that is linked is the forums over at Quags Corner. I gave the other major players a mention, Planet-familyguy's damnyouall.net, and Spooner Street's Beautiful Peoples club.--Fish 13:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that MANY of the fansites need to be removed according to the WP:EL policy. Jtrost 15:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fansite Listings 

message: I like the older one better (with all of the characters).  I'm not sure why it was changed, but is there any objection to changing it back? Jtrost (T | C | #) 17:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Title cards are the uniform standard for infoboxes all over Wikipedia. From I Love Lucy to the Facts of Life. I makes sense that all sitcoms should have their show's title card on the infobox. HeyNow10029 19:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The television wiki project has no standard.  In fact, the image used as an example on that page isn't even a title card.  Just because a couple of shows have the title card doesn't mean that every shows should have it. Jtrost (T | C | #) 19:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just an example, true there's no 'official' standard, but just because it isn't official doesn't mean it isn't prevalant. The trouble with using cast photos as images in the infobox, are the questions that arise. For instance, in a show like ER where the original cast members are all long-gone, what cast picture would you use? A current one? Or a cast picture during the height of the show's popularity? Title cards make sense because they're the one consistent thing that represents a show. Plus, it makes sense that if a person were to go from page to page that there would be some kind of a uniform image in the infobox. HeyNow10029 23:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox image 

message: I see that someone has changed the GI Joe reference picture. --Fish 02:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: er, nevermind, I must have been viewing an older version.--Fish 02:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Somebody vandalised the whole page. I will revert it. The Republican 16:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture Vandalism 

message: I read this article about 3 months ago, and returned today for some information on Family Guy's comedic approach.  I notice that the article has been significantly cleaned up, the information flows nicely and all of the superfluous fan-fare rumours have been removed.  Congrats to all the wikipedia contributors who made this article great! Vanessa kelly 18:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurray Wikipedia contributors! 

message: Unless someone can convincingly argue otherwise, I am going to remove the part of "controvery" reffering to derevational and simplisic comedy. It's clearly POV and if someone else described it as such it needs to be referenced. I've noticed that Criticisms/Controversy sections in articles are too often a place for people to insert their own POV, instead of the POV of people who actually matter (like myself- :-P). Angrynight 02:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in Controversy 

message: Ooops i reread WP:CITE and controversial edits should be moved to the talk page. So heres what i removed:
When young boys exhibit matricidal characteristics, many are quick to jump to the conclusion that this is an "effect" of watching too much Stewie Griffin.
A pretty useless comment unless its been reported in mainstream media, I had a little look for sources but couldn't find any please provide one if you think it should stay in the article. Discordance 15:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Matricide

message: This isn't any critique since I like both Simpsons and Family Guy but isn't Simpsons trying to be alot more realistic while Family Guy has some outright real unrealistic things in just about every episode? Even go as far as breaking the laws of logic and physics 81.229.41.44 14:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from the Simpsons not having aged in 17 years, I agree. Prometheus-X303- 14:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also agree. For some reason scenes from family guy that crack me up are usually unrealistic, and scenes from The Simpsons that I hate are realistic(such as hugging and family bonding moments). Tutmosis 14:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just remember, though that The Simpsons originally aired on Sunday nights: Family viewing time.  Prometheus-X303-16:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simpson -- Family Guy realism 

message: A good addition to the article (I think, anyway) would be, how it is produced. Is it produced by tradional animation or computer animation (like South Park). I think it's computer, since the episode animation is always so "clean". Does anyone know for sure? - RHeodt 14:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is animated.  If you have the DVDs, listen to the commentary.  At least twice, when slow motion scenes were used, they mentioned how the animators hate the scenes because they have to draw twice as many frames.  Futurama is a blend of computer and hand animation. Prometheus-X303- 18:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. The reason I thought it might be like South Park, was because, in comparison to other hand drawn shows, like the Simpsons, it looks "clean" (again, can't think of a better word to use). And yes I do have all three Seasons, but they're R2 so don't have commentary (and S4 isn't out here yet). - RHeodt 12:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  It does look a bit "crisper" than the Simpsons (especially the first seasons) and other animated shows.  It probably has something to do with the style of coloring the cells or something like that.  I wouldn't know the details on how that works.  Prometheus-X303- 21:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manner of production 

message: Why are there 2 sections regarding controversy and family guy? I will have a go at combining them and removing duplicate entries. -Localzuk (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 Controversy sections? 

message: "Also, Teletoon shows unedited reruns of the series." I don't understand this sentence. I changed 'unedited' to 'edited' as Teletoon censors parts of the series. For example, in an episode in the first season, a priest talks about Job, and when God says something, Teletoon mutes the voice of the priest and skips the part when God talks. Is this what you guys mean by 'edited'? --Richard x 22:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They probably mean "unedited" in the sence that they aren't edited for syndication - that is to say removing sections entirely like many stations do with Simpson re-runs for example. Censoring would be removing controversal or in-appropriate content (which I'm sure they do) where as I think this article means editing in context to editing for time. :: ehmjay 23:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited or Censored? 

message: Would anyone object greatly to the creation of an article on film and television references in Family Guy, namely listing as many as possible?
That's a terrible idea.  Why would you want to do a thing like that? Brian G. Crawford 02:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? I've seen much more pointless wikiarticles Satchfan 03:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There's a pretty good list of references on one of the Family Guy Web sites ... let people look there for them. --Dennette 17:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film/TV References in Family Guy 

message: This is currently on the page:
There are many similarities, or even stolen ideas, from The Simpsons.
*In one episode, Stewie Griffin sings a song "Grown acustomed to her face" about Lois, which is practically the same as when Sideshow Bob of The Simpsons sang about Bart.
This implies that Family Guy stole it from The Simpsons, yet the Sideshow Bob episode in question aired several years after the Family Guy episode! It's also a reference to "My Fair Lady". 81.157.111.86 11:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Trivia 

message: Suggest merging in List of Peter Griffin's jobs.  --John Nagle 18:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad idea. Merging into article on Peter Griffin is probably a bad idea, too. In fact, take a look at the history of that article. Might give you an idea why the article "List of Peter Griffin's jobs" was created in the first place. Take a look at List of Homer Simpson's jobs while you're at it. ShutterBugTrekker 21:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't merge. I agree, it's a lousy idea. ShutterBug's probably got the right idea as for the reason, but for everyone's benefit, I'll say it explicitly: the article on Peter Griffin was getting bogged down with listing, among other things, Peter's jobs in throwaway gags. Probably something similar happened some time ago with the article on Homer Simpson. The solution is the same. Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't merge. Anton Mravcek 21:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't merge   I'm not sure I'm happy with the idea of such an article, but as argued above this is probably the best solution.  And the precedent certainly exists with Homer Simpson.   --Deville (Talk) 22:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't merge   Just delete it instead, its awful. Damiancorrigan 23:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to nominate in Articles for Deletion if you feel strongly enough about it. Cromulent Kwyjibo 20:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't merge but don't delete either. Though it's not yet complete, it's handled better than List of Homer Simpson's jobs, in my opinion. Robert Happelberg 16:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this constitutes a concensus not to merge. Cromulent Kwyjibo 20:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge in [[List of Peter Griffin's jobs]] 

message: I think we should be careful when using flashbacks to establish facts.  A great many of them seem to be throwaway jokes. Plus, it seems that Peter has a difficult time distinguishing his memories from television or films he enjoys. PrometheusX303 14:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but also we should be careful to distinguish between historical flashbacks and throwaway gags. Peter as towel boy at Cherrywood is the former, Peter as magic mirror for Kevin Federline is the latter. Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it's a very clear distinction.Joeyramoney 02:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That example is.  But on the Peter Griffin page we see "In the episode "PTV", a cutaway shows Peter and Jake from Sixteen Candles talking about Peter's birthday. They lean for a kiss, then Jake throws Peter to the ground and rapes him."  I think this is an example of Peter confusing fantasy/fiction and reality.  Obviously, "Jake" does not really exist, so could not have raped him.Another line reads "Peter also admitted to losing his virginity to another man while being tackled in a football game."  Peter was on bottom, so he didn't couldn't have lost his virginity that way.  It's likely that he thought he did...PrometheusX303 04:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flashbacks as canon 

message: :Lois was originally drawn as a blonde, which is why Chris is blonde, so Chris/Lois would be blonde and Peter/Meg would be brunette. Well after consideration by the drawers, they made Lois a red head, leaving Chris blonde.
Removed from the main text as it was placed badly, not sure if true or not either. Source? Mushintalk 23:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no source. It should stay off. That trivia is placed badly and it doesn't make any sense. --Tuspm 00:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: Is it his "Black-U-Weather Forecast" or "Blackie-Weather Forecast"? Dcflyer 00:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's "BlaccuWeather" (not sure if it's spelled like that) a spoof of "AccuWeather" --Tuspm  Leave A Message 03:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ollie Williams

message: Why is there no mention of ADULTSWIM ratings for bringing the show back, should they be added? Tspydr10 19:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adultswim 

message: This article is in pretty good shape, given its apparent tendency toward fancruft and original research and interpretation. I'm inclined to promote it, except for a strong lack of references. The line between original research and a legit inclusion in the article is a source. Continue using the cite.php format, and keep looking for references for your claims. FA candidates should have, as a 'rule of thumb', at least one reference per paragraph. That may not be necessary, but keep it in mind as a goal. I'm leaving the nomination active, but On Hold for the moment. I'll check back in a few days to see how things are coming along. Phidauex 19:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are cites but not done correctly. --Childzy talk contribs 20:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Promoted, there are sufficient URL references in my opinion. I would normally not interfere with an article on hold except there was no hold notice on the nominations page so I assumed this article had not been reviewed. Cedars 10:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA status On Hold

message: Please don't feel afraid to reference specific comedic events in the article. Statements such as "The show's writers, aware of the uncertainty of the show's future, referenced it in several episodes." could be illustrated with an example. Cedars 10:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on promotion 

message: I've searched the article, and apparently it doesn't list God as a recurring character. Now I only own the first DVD, but from what I've seen on that and on various clips on the Internet I'd say God is a recurring minor character. If I can find a good way to type that I'll do so, but otherwise, could anyone add it to the article? --213.237.66.155 20:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's discussed in List of characters from Family Guy#Supernatural characters --Dennette 19:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing about God's apperance in the series? 

message: Shouldn't there be a cast list somewhere? I also think that it should include Lachey Charbert and any info on why she left the show.
Ex.
Cast
Meg - Mila Kunis (2002- whatever) and Lachey Charbert (Whatever 2 Whatever) 
Lacey left the cast due to blah blah blah
See what I mean???? Jtervin 10:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cast List

message: I have just created List of places on Family Guy. Feel free to add and clean-up, it's obviously incomplete and looks a little bit messy. --S-man 14:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been adding places.  Also, wherever applicable, made notes of what real-world places the fictitious ones might correspond to.  And alphabetized.--Loodog 19:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Article

message: Just thought I'd let you all know about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of neologisms on Family Guy. Supposedly this is a short list that will never get expanded because supposedly Family Guy lacks The Simpsons's word-coining brilliance. ShutterBugTrekker 22:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion vote notification 

message: The article currently says:  "Stewie speaks fluently and eloquently, and even though the family can hear his ambitions of world domination and of Lois's demise, all but Brian wave it off as baby gibberish."
I believe that this is false.  From what I can tell, the human family members respond to Stewie as if he speaking baby talk, that may be vaguely similar in temperment to the fluent speech that the audience hears, but the family shows no signs that they are hearing the same speech that the audience (and Brian) hear.  I think the article should be changed, but I would like to know if other readers agree.  (However, I did notice one episode early in season 4 that was anomolous, in that Chris appeared to acknowledge the content of Stewie's speech.  But I believe that to be a lone exception.)
Rldoan 06:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this is one of the running gags in the show. (It probably should be added to the list, but I'm too busy at the moment, and about to crash. :-) At the end of "E. Peterbus Unum", the whole episode turns out to be a video in a social studies class 200 years in the future. One of the students says, "I'm confused ... can they understand the baby, or what's up with that?" --Dennette 07:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Understanding Stewie 

message: Drunken Clam does not seem to merit an article of its own and would better fit within this article.  My only hesitation is the size of this article already and may also suggest a "List of Family Guy Locations" (?)...except that I'm loathe to be the one to seriously suggest "List of..." articles.  Personal opinion, that's all.  Ideas?  Thoughts?  ju66l3r 06:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There really is no need for the Drunken Clam page. Merging or just giving the heave-ho would be best.
*I don't think it should be merged into this article, but I DO think it should be moved into Quahog (Family Guy).  We can just start a section on that page about places in the city, and the Drunken Clam would be one of them.  I don't see why we'd need a whole article about that place. Cheater1908 23:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of [[Drunken Clam]] discussion 

message: We seem to get vandalism on this page every other day.  It's amazing how many people think no one has ever before written "Family Guy is a derivative of The Simpsons".  Is there a way to lock this page, or make it editable by registered users only?--Loodog 01:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Seth MacFartlane".  Hilarious.  I'm glad someone brought his sophisticated sense of humor to the page.--Loodog 03:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism 

message: Would it be possible to rename this section and maybe make it seem a little less... I dunno, ridiculous and sensationalist?  I've removed the line that ended it that read "Without Seth Family Guy would have definately parished as I don't think they would ever be able to find a person who could duplicate all of Seth's voice talents.  I just think that maybe the section should be cleaned up a bit.  Or possibly removed altogether, since it's more relevant to Seth MacFarlane himself (his page already having the incident mentioned on it) than having any real connection to the show itself.--MythicFox 07:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took it out altogether - it's a piece of information about Seth McFarlane, not about Family Guy itself, and is already mentioned in Seth's own article. Robin Johnson (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ironically enough, that little piece of information is almost true for actor (and Family Guy guest star) James Woods. But there's no real citation for what supposedly happened to Seth MacFarlane, so the above tidbit really doesn't belong in this article. --Tokachu 13:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sep. 11 section 

message: The information regarding Peter and Lois' accents is largely incorrect. First of all, describing Peter's accent as that of "Rhode Island / Massachusetts" is confusing, since any New Englander will tell you that the accents of eastern MA and RI are noticeably different. And while Peter's accent does emulate that of eastern MA / Boston in some respects, it is hardly a "classic" example, since it also incorporates elements of a New York accent. It is largely Seth MacFarlane's personal creation. Lois' accent should not be classified as "New England," since it is clearly a variety of the New York accent.
I'm not sure of the best way to edit this information. The truth is a bit more complex than the current description so it's difficult to simply replace it. Any suggestions?
Also, I'd be happy to support my claims for anyone who questions them. Terr Mys 07:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, from personal experience, Lois displays a "Lawn-guy-land" accent, and would make sense, considering she grew up on the Long Island Sound. Peter's accent is certainly not Bostonian. The classic, and perhaps stereotypical, example of a Boston accent is, when saying "Put your car keys in your khakis" the words "car keys" and "khakis" are almost indistinguishable, with the word "car keys" being distorted, making the "r" silent, and using the same "a" sound as in "khakis". Peter doesn't seem to display that. I would guess that his accent is that of someone from Providence, RI. McFarlane has commented on how he based Peter Griffin on the multitude of people in RI that display a number of distinguished characteristics.
—My mother happens to be from Providence, RI, and Peter's accent is definitely not characteristic of that area. One distinct difference is in the so-called "short o" sound: Peter often pronounces it as "aw," like in eastern MA and northern New England (for example, "Oh my Gawd"), while in Rhode Island, it is pronounced as "ah" - "Oh my Gahd." Additionally, Peter exhibits the "short a"-raising characteristic of New York City, but not Providence (it does occur in Providence and Boston to a degree, but not to the extent that Peter pronounces it) - for example, instead of saying "bad," Peter often says "bay-ad" or "bee-ad."
We should certainly revise the comment about Lois sounding like a "New England Edith Bunker," since she clearly does have a Long Island accent. As for Peter, it would be fair to say that his accent is inspired by Bostonian, Providence, and New York speech, but does not represent any one of those accents exclusively. Terr Mys 21:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accents 

message: I say, it would be safe to say to take off the link to The Family Guy Reference Archives (http://www.FamilyGuyFiles.com) since they closed down? Or should the link be left up for resource sakes? I doubt the site will be ever coming back.
Also, since this website closed, is there another website similiar to that? I thought it was the best family guy reference website, and now it's gone for good. :( 71.77.31.113 05:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "No your eyes are not deceiving you. Stewie Says has merged and reborn Family Guy Files. Expect a new reference database soon. Please feel free in the meantime to sign-up, new users are granted author status so you can post about The Family Guy."
*So, It seems like they have somehow merged with another Family Guy related website. 71.77.31.113 02:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FamilyGuyFiles.com site closed!?!? 

message: Does anyone want to add info regarding the accidental letting through of the F-Bomb in the Sept. 24 episode of Family Guy? Video Here :: ehmjay 23:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family Guy Drops F-Bomb? 

message: That needs to be deleted. It has much entertainment value. 75.105.100.121 00:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No entertainment value 

message: Although this is a good article in general, one thing that seems off is the large section detailing only criticism. While the show certainly seems to have received considerable criticism from some quarters, and I agree these should be listed, the current impression is that no critics considered it worthy of praise - something I doubt to be true. Couldn't we balance up the criticism section a bit, perhaps renaming it to "critical reception" or something similar? Not that I have time to do it myself... -163.1.176.254 22:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical reception 

message: I agree that this page is getting too long. I would suggest really cutting down on the opening sequence. The lyrics don't really help a reader understand anything. I think it would be best served by a short description of its nature and style and a screenshot. In addition, I think the history of family guy should be its own article. It's gone through a lot of big twists and turns, and I think many are too important to just delete, but I don't think they deserve the space in the main article either. I think the main Family Guy article would be better served just by a paragraph on its first airing, cancellation, dvd resurgance, and then return. Wren5x 09:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea.  We just need a paragraph or two to serve as summary before it's moved John Reaves
The criticism section seems a bit long as well. Most of what is posted there is already posted in the Criticism of Family Guy page. Either that section could be shortened, or someone could simply even put See Criticism of Family Guy. Stills64 00:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to move anything that isn't there to that article.  Other than that , I see no reason not get rid of it. John Reaves 01:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Eh, it just seems kinda silly to me to have all that information on this page when it pretty much appears the same on the Criticism article. It just makes this article a little longer than it needs to be. Just my two cents. :) Stills64 17:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long Article 

message: Maybe this is just me, but no one else seems to have noticed it.  Are the anchors of the Quahog 5 news, Diane Simmons and Tom Tucker, based on the anchors of 20/20 news, Elizabeth_Vargas and John Stossel?  Look at pictures of them here.  ,  OneWorld22 04:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Resemblance

message: There have been many racist acts in Family Guy such as: Stewie Griffen said that black people should be thankful, which is racist, Brian barks at Black people, Peter states that he got crack from Blacks but then said behind Blacks (a store) from some white guys, and when all of the police were gone, all of the white people in the scene took of their disguises and revealed that they were black.
:I would say that they are "racial" not "racist" as they are intended to parody these preconceptions, not reinforce them. For example, in the episode where Brian is a Taxi driver, he inadvertently speeds past Cleveland, a play on a common joke/fact that black people have difficulty getting taxis to stop for them. The explicit titling of Trisha Takanawa as an "Asian reporter" is also a play on the fact that many news stations have female Asian reporters (and relatively few male ones), an allusion to another fact of life, Asian fetish. This theme is further exemplified by a recent episode in which Peter comments "there are three kinds of people: nerds, bullies, and hot Asian chicks". Family Guy is not being racist by playing on these stereotypes -- instead, I think the intent is to out these modern, real-life examples of racism by presenting them within the comedic context of the show. VanishingUser 13:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Racism

message: Why in the name of Adam West is there no mention of this wonderful webgame in either the American Dad! or Family Guy wikis? 84.65.201.101 00:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not mentioned, because that bit of info isnt really relevant. Dappled Sage 03:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[American Dad vs. Family Guy]]

message: Uh...whats with this section? Looks like someone meant to put this in the editing section? Please fix this!Mofs 21:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Inappropriate for an article, so I'm moving it to here.   These are not my comments; check the recent history.  If a style guide reference is desired to support deletion from the main article, we can start with Avoid first-person pronouns.- PhilipR 22:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd just like to comment that the article should reflect only the American version as that is its country of origin.  Although a side note about the British version would be fine.  John Reaves 01:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Confusion over season" section 

message: ====Confusion Over Seasons====
There has recently been an on going war between me and other Wikipedia members over the title sequence section of this page. (Along with lots of arguments with other season related things e.g. Episode Guide) BUT there is proof that the current season is season 6 and this proof is as follows: 
The picture on the box set (LEFT) says season 5....but there is also the American box set (RIGHT) ..... 
This is just saying it has been undecided what season this falls under. The (LEFT) season 5 box set was decided after the release of the volume 4 box set in the US, as it was a UK release it came long after the volume 4 box set and by then they had decided what the season they are on now currently is. So it is now proven they are on season 6 of family guy now.
Thanks to whomever removed the gibberish in the family guy article.
:I'd just like to comment that the article should reflect only the American version as that is its country of origin.  Although a side note about the British version would be fine.  John Reaves 01:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved content 

message: There has recently been an on going war between me and other Wikipedia members over the title sequence section of this page. (Along with lots of arguments with other season related things e.g. Episode Guide) BUT there is proof that the current season is season 6 and this proof is as follows: 
The picture on the box set (LEFT) says season 5....but there is also the American box set (RIGHT) ..... 
This is just saying it has been undecided what season this falls under. The (LEFT) season 5 box set was decided after the release of the volume 4 box set in the US, as it was a UK release it came long after the volume 4 box set and by then they had decided what the season they are on now currently is. So it is now proven they are on season 6 of family guy now.
Thanks to whomever removed the gibberish in the family guy article.
:I'd just like to comment that the article should reflect only the American version as that is its country of origin.  Although a side note about the British version would be fine.  John Reaves 01:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion Over Seasons

message: Due to the recent Vandalism taking place in this article, i suggest you guys protect it. Take care.
:PS:: I will join soon. --200.89.6.215 08:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I don't see why the controversy information was ever removed. It's obviously noteworthy, as many groups and individuals have been offended by and/or spoken out against Family Guy. Family Guy was even rated as one of the worst family television shows. --Gaming King 11:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change Criticism back to Criticism & Controversy. 

message: What's with the running gag where someone mentions how much theyre disturbed by people with a harelip? That's happened like 3 times.
??? You answered your own question. Its a running gag. Obviously someone on the FG writing or production staff either is disturbed by people with harelips or find the idea of being disturbed by people with harelips funny. 172.189.202.222 18:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harelip references 

message: Has there already been a discussion about the family tree?  I think it's rather poorly put together and is about half taken up by "unnamed" or "many relations".  Does it add anything to the article?--Dmz5 05:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I removed it.  Please feel free to disagree with me.  I maintain that it doesn't look good and is full of blank spaces, plus it might constitute original research.--Dmz5 10:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with you. There are too many question marks. Plus I'd take anything Peter says about his genealogy with a huge grain of salt. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family tree 

message: Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 14:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFD notice 

message: "In Episode 5, Season 5, Whistle While Your Wife Works, they, for the first time, made a "Stage Gag" by having Peter tripping on a stair on the stage and crushing one of the dancers, puncturing her lung."
Bascially, thats not true. The whole DVD-Movie is a "Stage Gag", referring to the main characters as "actors", going to the red carpet... etc. ... etc... but even if this not canon in the Family Guy universum, in "Saving Private Brian", Stewie awaits a clip with the words "Thought we had a clip here", directly breaking the fourth wall.
Some episodes have the family talking about fox cancelling them and giving them budget cut, in one episode there is even a song about how fox would never let them die, stage gags are an extremely common joke in family guy. The Danielmeister 14:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stage Gage

message: The Bit which is marked to require a cleanup is, well, too complicated. I can't understand half the words and it gives me a headache - I have tried, and failed to cleanup this article but cannot, can anyone succeed in doing this? JoWal 11:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gave it a superficial shot myself -- mostly by cleaning up a lot of the cruft. One or two examples should be sufficient for any facet of this article. Didn't remove the essay tag, however, in case it could use further examination. Captain Yesterday 07:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Essay Section

message: You know te coming soon tab from the offical site? howcome those updates arent in action?????(24.184.46.20 17:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Site updates

message: The description of Chris should read "...Your Mom..." rather than "...low intelligent..." unless it's some kind of obtuse joke.
wtf does that even mean?!?!-Jaardon 08:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stupid