Talk:Hell Comes to Quahog/Archive 1

message: As of today, familyguy.com -> Upcoming Events -> Upcoming Events -> September confirms that the September 24 episode is indeed titled "Hell Comes to Quahog." Cromulent Kwyjibo 17:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  As of today 

message: How was this episode rated? I noticed the word “fuck” coming up at one point. — Mütze 13:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Canadian version I mentioned below had "fucking" in it.  The American version did not. - Michaelallroy 20:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Probably just cut for time. Does Canadian TV air less commercials than US TV? — Mütze 19:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One would assume so, but I'm not sure.  The content of the cut bits make me fear that they'd be censorial in nature; (1) excretory humour, (2) retard-bashing, (3) character that wants to take out gay people with an assault rifle, (4) "fucking".  I'm mostly curious if this happens every week and there's, like, 40 minutes worth of FG stuff that we've never seen south of the border. - Michaelallroy 20:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not uncommon for scenes to be temporally censored and later restored on the DVDs. The last DVD release had a number of scenes restored that did not air both here in the states or up in Canada. Even the old stuff with Osama and the JFK Pez Dispenser were eventually restored on DVD and even aired on TV even in the states. As for the word "Fucking" I do not think this has anything to do with where the episode aired as there are reports all over the Internet of that airing in some locations in the States and being censored in some parts of Canada. The scenes with Brian biting the kid and the assault rifle/homosexual jokes are also reported to have been aired in some parts of the states and not others. I watch the Canadian versions of the episodes myself and have seen episodes that have had swear words bleeped out the same as the US version. I suspect there was an over site somewhere and the FCC and whoever is responsible for stuff in Canada will proly investigate it and FOX could get a fine at least from the FCC as it's less of a problem in Canada. Generalleoff 03:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I can't wait for the whole story to come out - I'd love to know what US markets let the "fucking" and other scenes go.  I had no idea individual affiliates were able to make the call on episode edits, especially in this day and age!  I don't watch my television DVD sets enough to have done detailed comparisons, but it'd be great if a central repository like Planet Family Guy or something could start charting what gags aired where on different weeks.  Very interesting stuff!  - Michaelallroy 06:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning Censorship 

message: Can someone add an explanation about the Richard Gere scene? Also, what was the stuff where Peter was protesting in front of the store ? He said something about being gay and shouted something about "gettica". I rely on the Wikipedia articles for Family Guy a lot, especially since many of the cultural references are from stuff before my time.
:I didn't get he Richard Gere joke but Gattaca is a movie from 1997 but I didn't catch any link. The joke and the movie might not be related at all. I think their is an older 1970's or 1980's  movie or TV show with the name Gattaca or some other spelling though. If so that would be more in line with Family Guy humor. Generalleoff 05:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Richard Gere thing had to do with an old urban legend about him going into an ER to get a hamster removed from his anus.  Peter shouting "Gattaca" is a nod to how Al Pacino's character in DOG DAY AFTERNOON shouted "Attica" which was a prison in NY where there was a huge, deady riot in the early 1970s. - Michaelallroy 06:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Gere 

message: I deleted the goof about the whole "Pawtucket Patrtot" thing, because it's a mistake. Whoever added that misread it. I reviewed the episode on tape.
Mattjblythe 20:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goof 

message: ::I'm not sure the note on the tank's destructive power is warranted. You clearly see them loading rounds in manually; they could have used different types of ammunition
:: While Paddy is run over by the tank, bearing in mind the nature of the cartoon, it's presumptuous to assume that he is dead. I think this should be changed.
:::Exactly, that's why we need to cite sources for every edit.  Without a source saying he is dead or saying they did not use different rounds for the main gun, we are infering things that may or may not be true.  That is original research and is a viloation of one of Wikipedia's core policies.  Cheers.  L0b0t 14:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuff 

message: The format for family guy needs to include the random references/cutways, as this site can be used as an encyclopedia in researching and further understanding some of the more obscure references. So people could use the page as a guide to further understand the jokes.  It wouldnt be a retelling of the joke, which isnt allowed, but it would be a way to understand the references behind the joke—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.177.121.212 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 15 November 2006
:Agreed: cultural references are a huge part of the show, and I myself find them useful for the ones that go over my head. Maybe there should be a cultural reference wiki separate?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.248.60.252 (talk) 
:I agree, and I'm glad that this page was protected so that this edit war can be resolved. Regardless of format concerns (and again, I agree that the references to popular culture and notes about the episode sections are vital to articles about this show's episodes), I am not sure that the policies being cited repeatedly really are appropriate to the situation. According to WP:V, content added has to be verifiable, but according to a comment thread I left on its talk page, so far it seems that, as per my own understanding, a television episode is inherently verifiable -- which would make WP:OP moot here. Also, for WP:EPISODE, I do not believe that it saying that the only mention of cultural reference allowed is the episode's own "impact on popular culture"; the "Cultural references" section instead discusses the references to other popular culture the show is making. Verifiability non-withstanding, I do not see a problem with these sections and am for bringing them back.
:In gathering information about this situation, I created two discussion topics, which you can find at
:*Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Verifiability of television episodes
:*Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Television episodes#Cultural references sections
:–Dvandersluis 18:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dvadersluis, thanks for showing some reason in creating the discussion topics. Hopefully, us Wikipedians can reach some sort of rational concensus on cultural references sections in Wikipedia episodes. [[Briguy52748 23:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I see that this article is another casualty of L0b0t and the Trivia Cleanup WikiProject.  I've already observed their butchery in some South Park episodes.  I urge anyone who is opposed to L0b0t's POV on cultural references to make their opinions known.  I previously brought up the subject at the WikiProject Council talk page, and the unfortunate response was "more power to them for clearing out trivia"; it seems that as long as L0b0t, et. al state their mandate as "Trivia Cleanup", no one on the WPC will take others' concerns with the Trivia Cleanup Wikiproject seriously. -- Pennyforth 20:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format 

message: When the tank is destroying the store, the music that's playing sounds a lot like the ending of the movie Stripes. I was wondering if the scene is meant to parody the movie in some way. In the movie, the music plays as the Americans are making a break out of Czechoslovakia in the EM-50, and destruction follows in their wake, which is the only link I see. If anyone else can provide insight into this that would be great. 71.217.221.174 09:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tank destruction scene 

message: Can someone please add a Note about the skating rink that appeared in the episode?  United Skates of America is a real rink in Rumford, RI.  Their website is here.  I remember going there when I was a kid 15-20 years ago, but I couldn't find any mention on their site (or the corporate site) that referenced how long they've existed.  I'd add it myself but I've never done any editing and am worried I'd screw something up... :/  131.128.122.15 16:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. By the way, be bold! Don't worry about "screwing up". –Dvandersluis 16:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, thanks! Maybe next time I'll consider being bold. ;) 131.128.122.15 16:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Skates of America 

message: Peter runs over Joe's legs while in the tank - this is a clear reference to one of the final scenes in the movie 'Attack' - when Jack Palance's arm is run over by a German tank. Jack Palance plays a character named Joe.
Aragonzo 02:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional cultural reference 

message: There's a parody of a Pepperidge Farm commercial in this episode, should't it be mentioned?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.25.59.2 (talk) 11:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pepperidge Farm 

message: I've re-added the copyedit tag to the article. This article has shown an amazing amount of improvement over the past year but it seems to have been written by someone whose first language is not English.  There are many odd usages and run-on sentences.  Please do not remove the tag without giving the article a thorough proofread and cleanup. 24.185.105.199 12:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've thoroughly checked through the article, and can't see anywhere which requires copyedit, I will take a second look now, however. English is my first language, by the way :) Qst 20:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am going to be doing the GA review for the article and I will do a copy edit as I go. Occasionally I get chastized for doing this, but since someone believes it to be an issue, I will undertake it anyhow. And yes, I know this is an American-spelling article, but I'm still not going to correct "chastized" to "chastised" in this comment. =P Cheers, CP 05:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy editing needed 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#:: 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#:: 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#:: 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#:: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#:: 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
#:: 
Comments:
#The lead needs to conform to WP:LEAD. Specifically, it must summarize every major point/heading touched upon in the body of the article. Currently, for example, there is nothing in the lead about the Production section.  - I didn't want to duplicate information, so I've done it to balance it out evenly.
#All one-two sentence paragraphs must either be expanded or merged with the surrounding paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone.
#I cut out some of the plot so that it fits the guide for episodes... if you feel that some of it needs to be re-added, please explain why. 
#In the Production section Madagascar should be disambiguated to the film, rather the country. 
#"When Lois learns Peter has bought a tank, he aims the main gun at her, to which she exclaims "Bocce Balls". This is a reference to the 1984 comedy film Splash." (Cultural references) requires a citation.  - after scanning the history of my sandbox.
#Ditto for "When Meg is instructed to feed "Sloth" by her superior worker, she enters the basement and feeds the characters, who informs her that he likes her, Sloth is a fictional character from The Goonies." (Cultural references). 
Since I did so much copy editing on the article, and because I feel like something is either missing or off about this article, I am going to request a second opinion. The above points, however, will definitely need to be taken care of. Cheers, CP 05:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial review 

message: This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 12, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: See above comments from , I agree with all of his points.
:2. Factually accurate?: I'm sure you can find some additional and better sources for cites for the Reception section.  mytvisonfire.com seems questionable, and though IGN is usually okay, it's best to supplement it with reviews from media/newspapers, etc.  Some parts of Cultural references section are unsourced.
:3. Broad in coverage?: See above comments from .
:4. Neutral point of view?: Article appears to be written in neutral wording.
:5. Article stability? Some issues are evident from a perusal of the edit history going back as recently as one month, though it seems to be stable at present.  Talk page comments seem civil.
:6. Images?: One image used, fair use rationale is provided.
Overall, I agree with above comments from .  As I believe that there are some major issues to work out including above points, I don't feel I can merely put the article on hold at this point in time.  As you address the issues brought up by the GA Review(s), you can note them here point-by-point, below.  At such point in time that you feel all above points have been addressed, I'm sure the GA Review will pass.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated.  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed.  Thank you for your work so far.— Cirt (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okie dokie, I've addressed all of the concerns raised, and left a note on User talk:Cirt, should he wish to review this again. Qst (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think at this point it's best to go through WP:GAN, to get a fresh perspective from someone else.  Cirt (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed "good article" nomination 

message: The tags at the top my be unneded by now.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sisenu (talk • contribs). 
I have a question... what was that song that played during the scene with the toilet?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.10.141 (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#:: 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#:: 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#:: 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#:: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#:: 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
#:: 
:All previous concerns addressed. Overall an interesting read and good article. Maxim(talk) 15:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: I never understood it, what was it about him and his butt or the easter egg? - thero  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.70.254 (talk) 08:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Allen Greer Reference 

message: This article is still full of strange usage and run-on sentences such as "...changed for legality reasons." and "He then exits the superstore, still driving the tank, and fires ammunition into the shop, demolishing it and giving Quahog its electricity supply back."  Sorry to keep harping on this but it really is a poor read. 24.185.105.199 (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Qst 15:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: . :) Qst 16:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy editing needed 

message: A minor note, as the store is being destroyed by the tank, the scene in which the wall around the mens room is destroyed, and in which the manager is subsequently flattened, are a direct omage to the lawyer's death (Genero -sp?) in the first Jurassic Park (film). Shaggyfish (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's blindingly obvious that this is a Jurassic Park reference, but every time someone adds it, it is reverted. Why is this?Riksweeney (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you need to add a reliable source. Maybe it has been added several times, but not once with reliable source. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is this reliablie source? I'm asking seriously, as I'm not from US and not much I know about STUFF Magazine beside what I've read here ;) Quolav (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jurassic Park Reference 

message: 1. In section "Production" it is mentioned that "The man driving in a Hummer while watching Madagascar in his car exclaims "Dude, those animals are so fucking funny", this scene was unintentionally broadcast in Canada and some parts of the USA (...)". However here (http:// animatedfilms.suite101.com/article.cfm/family_guy_obscenity_debunked) it is said, that information about uncensored US airings was hoax and such thing happened only in Canada. Also in reference, that was used in article (http://www.tv.com/family-guy/show/348/story/6489.html) it is said only about Canada. I see there also reference to DVD commentary, was there anything said about some uncensored airings in USA? I can't unfortunately check this by myself, since I don't have any access to this DVD. So, in conclusion, where the truth lies?
2. I found another review of this episode (here). Is TV Squad important site enough to mention this review in "Reception" section?
3. Why in first paragraph it's mentioned that: "The episode received mostly positive reviews from IGN (...)", while there is only one review mentioned in Reception section? Or is it just a typo, and there should be singular form? Quolav (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three questions