Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Family Guy episodes/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 12:53, 21 September 2010 [1].

List of Family Guy episodes edit

List of Family Guy episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Gage (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. I hope to address any concerns about the list, as best as possible. Gage (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Nomader (Talk) 19:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — there are quite a few issues in this list, especially the lack of referencing in most of the list portion. For now, I'm regrettably opposing. Striking oppose per my comments being mostly fixed
  • What is "total" in the key? It doesn't seem to be clear to me.
    • Done. I attempted to explain it based on other FL's indication of the numbers. Gage (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list for the most part lacks any citations. Could you add citations for the writers and the episodes somewhere?
  • The three movies mentioned in the seasons section should be italicized per WP:ITALICS (unless they were actually TV specials, but I don't think they were).
    • Done. I've italicized the first special. The other two are considered episodes. Gage (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Release dates should be cited for the release of the DVDs and the seasons.
  • Why does the lead mention Stewie Griffin: Untold Story, but not Something, Something Dark Side and Blue Harvest?
  • I think reference 2 should cite the Boston Herald as the publisher, not pqasb, which just seems to be the archival service that the newspaper uses. It was originally printed in the paper.
  • In reference 5, IGN is not a newspaper or a magazine but a website, and per WP:ITALICS should not be italicized.
  • Same with reference 6: imdb should not be italicized.
  • Judging by the discussions about imdb (i.e. this one), I'm not sure that it's the most reliable source for the award information. Could you replace it with a more reliable source, or would that not be possible? Nomader (Talk) 06:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — one last thing, you should add some citations to the season nine episode that's listed. After that, I'll support. Nomader (Talk) 19:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. --Pedro J. the rookie 19:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — All of mine and Dan's concerns have been addressed, great work on the list. Nomader (Talk) 19:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 10:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Dan Dassow (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* Comment
  • Comment - You've address all of my concerns. Great work. Once you address Nomader's comment concerning citations for season nine, I will support. --Dan Dassow (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Pedro J. took care of the remaining known issue. I replaced the link for ref 124 (Pedro's citaiton) with a non-redirecting link. --Dan Dassow (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great work to both Gage and Pedro, the article looks great, and is extremely well sourced, good work guys! CTJF83 chat 20:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Since this list uses information already present on the season pages, I would suggest using sublists to keep the data consistent.
      We used to have that but it was changed by Gage quoteing him on the reason "it eliminated a lot of the unnecessary formatting that came with the previous template". --Pedro J. the rookie 22:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also notice that episode ratings are missing. They should be included in the list.
      • That is completely a matter of opinion. For no reason should they be required to be included in the episode templates, especially since ratings for the first three seasons are nonexistent. Gage (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Eight seasons have aired. Without them the list does not meet the criteria of comprehensiveness. Ωphois 22:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please inform me where in the criteria it states that ratings have anything to do with comprehensiveness. Gage (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The definition of the word "comprehensive". Ωphois 01:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • You still have yet to explain why ratings would be considered comprehensive according to the FL criteria. Gage (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • "It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items". As Bignole has already pointed out, the article has no reception information, which is pertinent to episodes. Ωphois 03:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel that the Key explaining production numbers is overly detailed and should be trimmed.
      • That was completely based on the Keys from other featured lists. Gage (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The heading links should be removed since Main Article tags are used.
    • The DVD section should include Region 2 and 4 releases, as well as any Blu-Ray or HD DVD releases.
      • Done. Blu-Ray have always been released on the same day as the DVD. HD does not exist. Gage (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The table still only lists DVD's. If Blu-ray is released the same day, it should be noted and sourced. You should also take note that Blu-Ray regions are different than DVD's. Ωphois 01:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The only Blu-Ray released has been added. Gage (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, didn't notice that section. "It's a Trap!" will also be released on Blu-ray, so it would be better and more visually appealing to just create a separate table for Blu-ray releases. Ωphois 21:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I was considering giving its own table, but considering only one Blu-ray has been released, with only one more planned at the moment, I think a table would be largely unnecessary. Gage (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list of awards should probably be removed since this is just a list of episodes.
      • When the awards specifically refer to the episodes themselves, it is a matter of interest, and should be included in the list. Gage (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead uses the phrase "However, reruns on Turner Broadcasting Cartoon Network's block called Adult Swim drove up interest..." I think it would be more appropriate to phrase it "However, reruns on the Cartoon Network block Adult Swim drove up interest..."
      Done Pedro J. the rookie 22:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "FOX" should be listed as "Fox". Ωphois 21:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right now most of the cells are aligned to the left. #, airdates, writers, and directors should be centered to be more visually appealing. Ωphois 01:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is a matter of opinion. Gage (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The tables also are of different sizes. They should all be the same width. Ωphois 01:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is unfixable, due to the length of several of the episode titles. Gage (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The width can be set to 100%. Ωphois 03:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Due to my computer's small screen resolution, despite adding a width of 100%, they all still look the same as they did previously. Please let me know if a difference was made. Gage (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree with Bignole's concern of the order of the column titles. It would be more appropriate for airdate and production code to be placed last. Ωphois 21:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ωphois 06:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The lead is really good, but appears to go into a bit too much detail about the show being cancelled and the reasons FOX brought it back. The lead should summarize the article, not introduce a lot of new information that isn't covered in this article in more depth. I think you could trim it down to a basic understanding that the show was cancelled, but audience (use "audience" over "fan", as it's more professional) response over re-runs on Adult Swim led to it being renewed in 2004. I'd cut the "100th" episode info. It's irrelevant on this page, and all TV shows go into syndication with their 100th episode. It's the criteria for syndication. Also, you seem to go into specifics on who won which awards and for what episode in the lead. Again, too much material being introduced for what is really just a summary page. They key is to "summarize". I would trim some of that out, and then think about adding a brief mention of the voice actors who voice the main characters. I know MacFarlane voices a lot of people, but it's kind of important to point that basic info out. Lastly, why are seasons 4 onward containing a source for every individual who wrote and directed an episode? It's unnecessary since they have aired and the episodes themselves can verify the info. At best, you'd just need a single source (like TV Guide or MSN) at the top of each season table where we can verify the episodes for that season.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A source for each writer was added because it was requested. Gage (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know who requested a source for each writer for each episode in the manner in which it is presented, but that's simply overboard. Plus, it's inconsistent since the first 3 seasons are not like that. Find an episode guide source (e.g., TV Guide, MSN, etc.) and just list it at the top of each season table. There is no need to list it next to every single name. In addition, shouldn't "Air date" and "Production #" come after "Title", "Director", and "Writer"? They're far less important than the other three categories. I would also say that the page needs some ratings info. In the least, maybe a section for season averages and ranks. Otherwise, there's no reception on this page, and just about every LOE page that's FL that I can think of covers reception in some way.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • To my knowledge, such a source is nonexistent. Gage (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • This doesn't exist? You're using it in the article already to source the writers and directors. The difference is, you're applying it to every specific episode page. Just link to the overall episode guide. You are not required to link to every specific episode page for something non-controversial as a list of the people that wrote and directed the episodes. Just list each season's page in the season table itself. Anyone that needs to check a name can click the source and then click the episode itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I guarantee if I had linked it in that manner previously, that it would have been unacceptable. Regardless, I've changed the article to your suggested format. Gage (talk) 03:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, technically if there isn't a direct quote being sourced, then in-line citations are not required by any policy or guideline. They are suggested, but not required. So, in theory, if there are no quotes in the article all your sources can simply be listed at the bottom of the page (just in case anyone every says "they have to be next to every statement" - not true, unless you're dealing with a quotation). But, just listing in the table makes it the best of both worlds. ;)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That format is fine. Isn't Lacey Chabert the voice actress for Meg in the first season?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. How should it be indicated? Gage (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if Kunis didn't take over till season 2, then you don't need to mention her at all. She wasn't part of this season if she didn't do any episodes in it. If she did, then I would probably indicate Chabert first with a note later indicating that Kunis took over later in the first season. I don't know when she took over, I just recall that Chabert voiced her first. If she only voiced her in two episodes, or something like that, then do the reverse. Leave Kunis and note later that Chabert voiced initially, but was replaced at the start of the season.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chabert only voiced Meg for the first eight episodes. Since then, she has been voiced by Kunis in the latest 139. Gage (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason I kept thinking I was looking at the page for season 1. Duh, this is for all the seasons. I think you're find the way you currently have it, with both listed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I figured, actually, as I wasn't really sure why you suggested Kunis shouldn't be mentioned. Gage (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  • "on January 31, 1999 the show" needs a comma after 1999.
  • Not sure you need to keep repeating Seth's first name for every role he plays.
  • Also don't think you need a wikt link to tangent.
  • "The family was conceived by" let's be explicit and say the "concept of the family" because it could be easily misconstrued as to how one would conceive a family....
  • "MacFarlane created two shorts" just "He created" would work fine.
  • "After two seasons, the Fox Broadcasting Company" any reason why you went from Fox back to the FBC?
  • "after which it was officially canceled" it -> replace with "the series".
  • "Family Guy and its cast were nominated for thirteen..." have been rather than were - the series is still current.
  • "The episode was released on Blu-ray in Region A ..." do you mean "The season..."?
  • This may have been asked before, but where are production numbers referenced?
    • The reference is located at the top of each season's table, after 'Prod.' Gage (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would prefer the columns to be the same width from section to section.
    • Due to length variations, that is not possible, at least not on my screen resolution. It may look different on your screen, however. Gage (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Director -> Director(s), same with Writer for series where there are multiple contributors.
    • I wasn't sure if you meant add '(s)' in every season's table, so I only added it to the one's where multiple Writers or Directors were listed for an episode. Gage (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the WP:MOS discourages use of # for "number" so your Nielsen ratings table fails WP:WIAFL. I'd be happy to be corrected though.....
  • Season Premiere, Finale etc, why all those capital letters?
  • TV Season -> Television season.
  • Several spaced hyphens in the references which should be en-dashes per WP:DASH.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Where specifically should the en-dashes be added in the references? Gage (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some examples: currently refs 12 to 15, 17 to 18, 21, 23, 25 to 26, (ref 27 & 30 look etc different from, say ref 18, by the way), 32, 33, 35, 38, 41, 51 to 56.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:R2D, you aren't supposed to fix redirects that don't change the appearance of the text. Courcelles 21:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to support but the seasons section lacks Blu-Ray releases, and the two episodes in the DVD column seem to be placed in the wrong place; try renaming the column as Volume/Special or something more appropriate. Also, there is no reason not to have all the tables with identical column widths. Nergaal (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There has only been one Blu-ray released, and one that has yet to be released. Both of those are indicated already. Fixed the header. And the widths all look the same to me, due to my small screen resolution, so I would be unable to fix whatever you are noticing without some sort of guidance. Gage (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The solution for varying width is to set a fixed width for #, airdate and prod #, and explicitly set the other widths with % (now, the widths vary because the names of the episodes and directors vary among seasons and the browser tries to equalize the empty space. As for Blu-rays, it might be worth saying explicitly saying that only the two specials have been released in Blu-ray; I for example would have expected to have more than just those released by now. Nergaal (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Would you mind adding the widths to the first season table, so I can use it as an example for the remaining eight? And I believe I tried something similar to this a while ago, and it ended up messing it up on my computer, but it may look fine on larger screens. And I added the Blu-ray line. Gage (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your size reccomendations have been added. Gage (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Nergaal (talk) 10:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Family_Guy_episodes/archive1&oldid=1138482052"