Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation/Family Guy work group/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Christian Bale reference on Family Guy

Sweeeeeeeeet. Will be interesting to see what sort of reception this gets in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:08, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

This is fancruft

It does not belong in an encyclopedia. It should be worked on elsewhere. It is what makes wikipedia look bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.57.163 (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Many people feel this way, but this broad statement isn't too helpful—it does not specifically identify problematic content, and anyway the distinction between "encyclopedic" and "cruft" is partially a subjective matter that is best established via a consensus of Wikipedia editors. Perhaps you would care to help with editing and discuss article content you feel is unencyclopedic on article talk pages. There is much that can be improved.

Some helpful links:

/ edg ☺ ☭ 13:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess if a consensus of editors think listing all the porn stars is encyclopedic so be it. I can speak out when I see Family guy larger than Faulkner. This whole project is just a message board with a lot of links. Grrr. A big social game. Not a work of scholarship 72.82.57.163 (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Glenn Quagmire#Age

I've protected Glenn Quagmire for 24 hours to put an end to the edit warring over Quagmire's age. Please visit the above linked discussion to develop a consensus as to whether or not it should be included. –xeno (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the protection and 'time out'. For other contributors, 2 points of discussion on this topic are here (old archive) and here. DP76764 (Talk) 17:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

And further discussion on Template talk:Family Guy character. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on ages

User:xeno has me wondering if project members could agree on an in-project guideline for treatment of ages in Family Guy character articles. My own point of view (which shouldn't trump anyone else's):

age field in Template talk:Family Guy character: more trouble than benefit, best to leave out, per discussion on Template talk:Family Guy character, and Talk:Brian Griffin/Archive 3.
numeric ages in general: worth a mention for some characters (mostly the Griffin kids); otherwise ages are unclear, and speculation on such is prone to WP:OR and WP:IN-U errors given the sometimes loose continuity of the show. Example: FG's writers will not be bound to ages hinted at but not made explicit (such as deriving Lois's age from Peter's once-declared age minus 3, based on dialog from two shows) so we cannot report hinted-at ages as being correct for the character.
age timelines: Family Guy ages are not fixed, nor to they increment in real time, so there is no persistent year of birth for any character. For example, a character identifed as being 16 years old in an episode aired on 1999 cannot be presumed to have been born in 1983.
new developments: Since the show has been on for 10 years (more or less) now, new developments do not affect the characters earlier in the series, so a character given an age or year of birth in a late show is not necessarily that age throughout the series.

This is all a bit dashed-off, and intended as a starting point for discussion, so please feel free to make suggestions. In case anyone is new to this and wondering, the discussion that spurred this question in Talk:Glenn_Quagmire#Age. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Change to Template:User WikiProject Family Guy

I'm proposing we change the image to the FG image as shown here. While I understand that Peter and company drink a lot, I'm not sure this image is the best for the userbox for a FG project. Thoughts? CTJF83Talk 21:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration for "420" episode

Does this wikiproject have a collaboration of the week? I was unable to find the link for it. If so, I'd love to see the "420" episode brought up to Good status, like many of the other episode articles are. Just thought I would ask! If there is no collaboration, then perhaps this request will spark an interest in working together to improve the article among project members. Keep up the great work! --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I formatted the references, corrected some of the links, added external links, etc., but if someone is able to add proper sources for the cultural references (see talk page) it would be much appreciated. With a bit of expansion in the 'ratings and reception' section and a 'production' section, this should be able to reach Good status. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Cleveland Brown

I'm thinking we might need 2 pages for Cleveland, one for FG and one for the Cleveland Show. I'm predicting lots of conflicting information, since he already has a new family, and TCS hasn't even started yet. Any other thoughts.CTJF83 Talk 23:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there any precedents for separate articles like this? I could see it being all in one article (condensed reasonably, of course). DP76764 (Talk) 01:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Off the top of my head I don't know of any two shows that has the same character, but with different family members, etc. So, you think 2 different sections, one for each show? CTJF83Talk 04:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Me personally, I'd have it one page. But then for like "Background"/"history", have separate sections for what we learned from each show. I would also do the same with with a "family" section as well as others. It's not really that he has two different families. If, on the new show, his past was totally wiped clean and he was starting over as a single father, then got married, etc., it would be understandable. But with the way it is now, he's the same character, just two different wives. It's as if a celebrity, or anyone else, was married more than once and had children, half-children, or step-children. We wouldn't make a totally new article for them, we'd just note it in paragraph or section form. But then again, that's just my opinion. --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 09:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If a second article were created, it might not last long. In my opinion, the solution is to just note his situation and role in both Family Guy and The Cleveland Show in each section. Look at video game character articles; they do the same thing without creating separate sections for each game the character appears in. Tezkag72 (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a slight preference for a single Cleveland Brown article with sections on each show, so that all Cleveland-relevant information is in one place. The Cleveland Show would be a redirect. I doubt there is so much encyclopedic information on Cleveland that more than one is really needed. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

CTJF, in terms of another '1 character, 2 shows' situation, here's an example: Frasier Crane DP76764 (Talk) 16:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, those are all good points! CTJF83Talk 17:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Lou Grant (fictional character) is also a character from two shows.--Music26/11 20:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

DVD commentary access

Does anybody at the wikiproject have access to the season four DVD audio commentary. "North by North Quahog" is currently at FAC, and a reviewer wondered if anybody with access could expand the production section.--Music26/11 20:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I own it. What information are you looking for, and how would it be citeable? Tezkag72 (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Combining Stewie Kills Lois and Lois Kills Stewie

I'm thinking we should combine these into one article. It is basically one long episode, divided into two. It worked well for The Simpsons episode Who Shot Mr. Burns?. The only problem I see is naming the article. CTJF83Talk 20:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Best I can come up with: have the 2nd title redirect to the first. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So you think we should combine them? How about Stewie Kills Lois/Lois Kills Stewie or is that too long/doesn't look good? CTJF83Talk 18:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The slash-delimited compound name is ugly, artificial, and an unlikely search term. I would suggest the main article be Stewie Kills Lois, and Lois Kills Stewie redirect to Stewie Kills Lois. The first line of the combined article should name both episodes in bold. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears they were merged at one point, so might not be bad to merge them back [1] CTJF83Talk 18:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea, lets try it. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I wanna get a few more people's opinion first. Also waiting for a response from User:Immblueversion to see if there is any specific reason he unmerged them. Should be an easy remerge situation though. CTJF83Talk 18:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why the title should be "Stewie Kills Lois"; this seems to be giving one more importance than the other. How about just Stewie Kills Lois and Lois Kills Stewie, and redirect the titles of both individual episodes to that? They are closely related and not much information exists about either one individually. It works for articles like Pokémon Red and Blue and The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, though I wonder about having both individual titles be simply redirects. On the other hand, it would be a simple and eloquent title (and one that doesn't give more importance to one episode over the other). This would be a good solution (as would the initial suggestion). DP76764 (Talk) 03:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

So do we like the and better than my / idea? CTJF83Talk 05:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominate family Guy for FA.

I think we should nominated to a FA standers, who think so. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

Uhhh, not at all! How about trying for GA status first? The article is horribly written. I suggest you look at The Simpsons for advice on how to get this up to GA and FA. CTJF83Talk 20:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Good idea i'll check on it. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 22:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"Horribly written" is a bit of an overstatement, but it would need more than a bit of work to even become a GA. Tezkag72 (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Disscusion

should we make

should we make a Family Guy Barnstar. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You can if you want, for people who have contributed significantly to the project. Tezkag72 (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

what aout this. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good! It looks like there is a lot of extra white space around the star, which needs to be fixed CTJF83Talk 18:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you help me to eliminate that space. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Done A little better, I might be able to remove more white space later tonight, I have to get going right now CTJF83Talk 19:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

		The Family Guy (Freaking Sweet)-star
		To the WikiProject Family Guy --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Those it look like family guy. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

How do i make it like oficial.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinion needed.

Hello, and sorry to bother you all. Seeing as this project deals with all Family Guy related articles including Something, Something, Something, Dark Side, I thought I'd bring this here. Another user and I seem to be encroaching on an edit war over a reversion (or lackthereof) of an original edit made by the user. I was wondering if we could get your opinion. The two different versions are located here. Thank you. --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 15:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Your version looks cleaner. Seems like the other editor is experiencing some ownership issues. DP76764 (Talk) 15:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur CTJF83Talk 17:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. If the user reverts again, I'll direct them here. Ha ha. Happy editing. --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 17:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, we will keep an eye on it, just in case. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 22:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all very much. I'm not much involved in this project, but I do love Family Guy and I've seen pretty much every episode, so if anyone ever needs anything, just let me know. I'm on just about everyday. --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 22:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I'll keep that in mind, for any edit I could need help for. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so sorry to bring this here again, but it deals with the same article and same editor. Do you all believe "EazyDVD" and "Amazon UK" are reliable sources for this/any article? I don't wanna go to war with this user so I finally just did some cleaning on their additions with these sources, but I don't believe they are. Can anyone else help? --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 23:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have talked to him and he still those the same thing than try to make him understand, if none of those things work come back and we will see what we can do, we also may keep an eye on the artical, and probably a dumb question, who is the editor? --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't like to necessarily mess with people on the Internet, I think it's stupid, but Ctjf83 has courageously stood up for my efforts as well as contributing his own opinion. But the user is Wattlebird. --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 00:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Do not worry it is just to now, and is it the same edit, the same thing? --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The edits this time are, as I said, the addition of two possibly unreliable sources. --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 00:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll go check on them. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay I don't think there reliable, so it seems that Wattlebird has some ownership issues. Tell i am going to keep an eye on it, but seeing that Ctjf83 is helping that will surely make it right. And it is true mess with people on the Internet is quite stupid, but sometimes needed. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I know this is kinda late, but EzyDVD and Amazon UK are considered reliable sources. Ω phois 18:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

stewie

those the stewie artical look good. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 13:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

GA or FA

can brian, stewie or peter be nominated for GA or FA. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

NO! They are all still in bad shape. You are still using unreliable sources. You can't use fan sites like http://www.freakinsweetnews.com/, http://www.cucirca.com/, http://www.planet-familyguy.com/, etc. You need official and reliable sites, and better yet, you need to watch DVD commentary. Did you even read WP:V like I suggested on your talk page? I mean come on, you used Yahoo Answers as a source, how could that possibly be reliable? You need to actually read and understand WP:RS CTJF83Talk 05:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

check out Brian and Stewie out now and tell me how to improve. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you even reading my suggestions? I said watching DVD commentary is a great way to get inside info from official FG people, but see that you've added none. Still using horrible sources. Still horrible grammar, example "Brian won the 32 place on the best 100 cartoons" it's poor grammar, and actually you need to remove it, because it appears to be some random person's opinion. A GA isn't something you can just get over night, they take weeks, if not months. CTJF83Talk 17:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and references need to be in "long form" if you will. Go to User:Ctjf83/Ref to see format. CTJF83Talk 17:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Help

I now i am a hard headed, countinuing idiot, who countinos to bug many editors with my rather anoying, gramer and bad scource, so i amvery sorry specialy to you Ctjf83, but i am trying to help(and i know before anyone comments on how not helpful i am being) so i am going to ask you editors can you help me, out in some articals, put something on my talk page, and if any of you need help ask me and i will help you(no comment about this), so what do you say can any one help me.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Using Kara Vallow (producer) and Seth Mcfarlane twitters as source for dates

There is nothing that says twitter can't be used. It says not to use it to create articles, which this isnt doing... and not to use it if its about a living person or is the basis for an article. In this case its only a date, and its confirmed by the creator and producer on their pages. Its fine to use and once more info becomes available on the subject it can be added to the article.

While some feel other sites might be more reliable this is coming straight from people directly connected with FG and I can't figure something is more reliable than that, but there is no reason why a date and a line or two about HD cant be sourced from twitter... Its not like the info is used to create an article for the 2010 season premiere as its just a brief mention. Im in agreement twitter by itself wouldn't be enough to create the page now for the whodunit episode, but for just giving a mention of it on the episode list page seems fine.Grande13 (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It mostly just comes down to: does it follow this and this? Because they're not third party, which it clearly says most sources should be. So, if it follows those guidelines, it should be fine. --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 13:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Just getting my opinion out there. I don't care if we use twitter as a source, it follows the guidelines in this case. But I prefer using third-party sources and since there is no deadline for getting the information, I would be willing to wait until the date is confirmed by other sources. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 13:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I just question how we prove who is in control of said twitter account. I agree on the deadline thing, there is no rush for the info CTJF83Talk 13:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, lets wait ti'll we confirm the account and then will see what we do. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 13:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The Macfarlane account was linked from his official site, and it was the first to have the something, something, something darkside DVD release date. It was also the first to post the where's my emmy video clips that have be done. I know there is no rush for the info, but if its available and from such a reliable source, putting in the correct info now, will prevent numerous vandalism and rumors from being spread and inserted into the page. Once more sources become available we can update them and add them to the info, but until then why not have the correct information directly from the people behind the show.Grande13 (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

the only info being added is that Something Something Dark side will air in May, and that next season will be in HD with a premiere of the "who done it" episode that was brought up at comic con this year [2] Grande13 (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If (as Grande13 says) this is confirmed as an official source, then it can be considered reliable for citing what official sources have said. Language to the effect of "official sources say" or "MacFarlane's Twitter feed announced" is recommended, and independent, secondary, reliable sources should be added as soon as they become available. (This is especially true with MacFarlane, who is prone to facetious remarks.)

Since tweets are neither a secondary source nor an independent source, they cannot be used to establish notability, which in the instance of the release date is not a concern. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

$0.02 here: I'd rather be a little patient and wait for a 3rd party source, but if the tweets are absolutely confirmed to be MacFarlane's then I'd support using them as a 'place holder' until a 3rd party source arrives. DP76764 (Talk) 17:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

So it seems that we all mostly agree with the fact that it's not the validity of specific Twitter accounts, but, if other editors are certain what is being produced from these accounts are in fact real, they will certainly be published by reliable sources. So, in essence, Twitter may be correct, but we'll wait for more reliable coverage. Am I correct? --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 17:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I still say we use the source for just the date, and once another 3rd party source arrives we update the link. The problem with not having the date here as it was announced a long time ago that it would most likely be the season premiere, so now everyone believes its going to be the first or second episode of the season. Now that more info is available such as the DVD release date and info about the episodes themselves it seems that if a date is available do us we should use it. Again, we arent using the source to create and article, just to establish a date and hopefully close off a large opportunity for people to insert rumors here (you can already tell by the page's history of all the weird things that have been inserted into that slot. We can monitor and make sure nothing else notable is used from that specific source. Grande13 (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Grande, do you have any proof the twitter is from MacFarlene? All you've said to me is "account that has been confirmed in articles" can you show me these articles? Right now all we have to go on is your word. CTJF83Talk 20:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

i had seen them in the past and i'll look for something in a bit confirming them. Twitter also will tag accounts that they know are fake and seth macfarlanes and kara vallows arent labeled as such. Each account has released info in the past that wasnt available to the public such as something, something, something darkside dvd release etc, and both have posted the emmy youtube videos before they were even released by FOX, anyways i'll get to finding that article where i know he was asked about twitter and how everyone around their offices uses it and where he gave the accounts Grande13 (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

this isnt the one I was thinking of so i'll still keep searching as well [[3]] [[4]]again we are just using it for the date of an episode and that next season will be in HD. The family guy project should strive to have correct information with quality pages and this only adds to the episode list page, and offers a reliable place for people to reference past episodes of the series Grande13 (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm expecting a source form like EW magazine or something for sure reliable. We should strive for correct info, for a reliable source, that no one questions as being reliable. CTJF83Talk 21:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What sense do you think it makes to release the DVD before they air the episode on tv? None to me! CTJF83Talk 21:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Family guy already has released something on DVD before it aired...remember Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story? Anyways they figure now that people are less likely to buy it if they've already seen it on tv(especially if it doesnt get the best reviews), so they figure it will increase sales to make it available first on dvd so if people want to see it then their only option is to buy it. They are also aware of the fact that once something airs on tv its easily available on the internet so they are just trying to get as much profit as they can.So it makes sense they can get more money if its released beforehand exclusively.Grande13 (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It may not make sense, but a lot of them are doing that now. Caprica did it. And I follow the Seth account, and Twitter has been taking their time lately to verify accounts. His isn't as of right now. --H E L LØ ŦH E R E 23:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Twitter is first only focusing on using that authorization thing if there are fake accounts and the real one needs clarifying, although they have stated they do plan to expand that soon to others. The celeb twitter sites have him listed as real though. Grande13 (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure, is it confirmed completly. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 16:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

the sole purpose of those websites is to determine if the account is real or not. anyways i've added an article from NY times about how the show is getting new showrunners for the 9th season (next season that airs in fall 2010) and how the first episode is a whodonit.Grande13 (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for your comments

There is a discussion going on whether to to include a Category:Fictional LGBT characters on the Stewie Griffin article. The last discussion ended with a consensus to not have the category. Everyone's comments are welcome on the new discussion for an updated consensus. Thank you, CTJF83Talk 03:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

DVD comentery

Dose any one poses the dvd comentery of the fourth dvd of fg.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

thats a little vague...fourth dvd of what volume? actually it would probably be easier if you just told us what episodes you were looking for specifically... Grande13 (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Patriot Games (Family Guy). --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Cleveland Show

What is everyone's thoughts of tagging all The Cleveland Show related pages with the FG project tag? CTJF83 chat 21:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. It's unlikely that there's ever going to a be a The Cleveland Show WikiProject. Besides, the two shows are very closely related. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what I figured, instead of starting a new project for Cleveland, just tag our project on those pages. CTJF83 chat 21:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

yeah yhats sounds good though making a small task force would come in handy. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Season 5

Hello, I was wondering if anyone would be willing to help me out in expanding five of the season five articles, to help reach GA status, and hopefully promote the Family Guy (season 5) article to Good Topic status. Thirteen of the eighteen episodes are already GA, so it shouldn't be too much of a challenge. Any help would be appreciated! Gage (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

i am up for it i was planing to do it but i was working on season 4 but doing season 5 first will be a good idea.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

worked on no meals on wheels and boys do cry expanded the reception and lead but i can't expand the production as i do not have dvds.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The lead information you added on both articles needs to be replaced though, as it is basically just a duplicate of the Plot Summary already available on the article. Nevertheless, I'll try expanding them soon, as well. Gage (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

right never been that good at leads, well i will expand the recption of the rest of the articals soon.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Dan Povenmire

An image of Dan Povenmire, a director of Family Guy and therefore something under the scope of this project, has been located and can be scene here. Feel free to add it to any article he has to do with in order to better the viewing perspective of them. Also, the article itself is a current FAC, and if anyone would like to comment on it, it would be appreciate it. Peace, The Flash ^{talk} 23:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That's freakin' sweet new for our rapidly growing WikiProject. Thanks! Phil Fry (talk) 16:45, 05 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

It has been proposed that History of Family Guy be merged into Family Guy on the grounds that it is a content fork. Can editors please give their input? Discussion is available here. Thanks. Ω phois 21:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

FA for future

I am planning to make the FG page an FA but i need suggestions (suggested with refrences) to improve the artical i have ideas, i need help for cultural influences and the hallmarks--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 02:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Road to

should we make an artical about the articals of road to like the treehouse of horror series.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. The treehouse episodes are all related more than the road to episodes. CTJF83 chat 02:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but it is quite simalar, it could work like a hallmark of the show.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 22:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The only similarity is the stylized opening sequence at the start of each episode. A series article would probably only work if there were reliable sources that discussed the series as a whole. Tezero (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

User:QST

i do not now if many of you remember user:Qst, he was a great FG editor, and gave lot a work to or proyect even if he retierded he left some work, exploring his subpages(wanted to learn how he did the articals) i found a page that helped the start of the FLC status of the FG 5 season, and i found this in his sand box i now i created the FG Barn star but i think this one should at least be seen by editors, here it is User:Qst last work, hope you like it:

		*The Family Guy* Barnstar**
		I Give this to the sadly retired User:Qst who did alot for our project :).--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

GA nominations

I've started glancing through TV episodes for GA, and noticed that a bajillion FG episodes have been nominated that are in bad shape and missing important criteria. I've added notes to the individual talk pages about them, but I suggest that future nominations be peer reviewed and copy-edited first. Ω phois 17:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I'll make sure my GACs are copy edited/reviewed by another user, and I'll try and go through other GACs and copy edit them myself. CTJF83 chat 19:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

New Year Goals

I wish to put some goals for us to impuls are next year un-offical of course.

Get Character articals to GA or FA.
Get A GT.
Get Two or Three seasons to FLC
Get Two FAs the year
Elimanate start and stub articals by 60%
Get Many GAs
Try to work on Fg cast members and voice actors

I hope We can make alot of the goals come true, i joined this year to Wikipideia and it has been great My personal goal try to get the proyect to be one of the best of the fox anamation. Prospore 2010 for every one.:)--Saint Pedrolas J. ^{Hohohohohoh merry christmas} 23:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

topics

I've backed-up the progress at Wikipedia:WikiProject Family Guy/Topics for those who care. Nergaal (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)