Talk:I Take Thee Quagmire

Untitled

As of today this episode is listed in the "Freakin' Sweet Calendar" at familyguy.com. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Whose voice was used for the maid? I suspect it was Nicole Sullivan, but don't have any proof. tedder 20:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked on TV.com and planet-familyguy.com and couldn't find anything. Maybe we'll just have to wait for it to air again. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need the "cultural reference" that one of the letters Peter picks is the Batman symbol, considering he identifies it as such during the episode? I'm going to remove it unless anyone can give good reason.

Just saw the episode on Adult Swim, and I noticed two things that might be worth mentioning. After Quagmire fakes a heart attack, Peter says you know someone is actually dead because they void (can't remember if that was the word used) their bowels. I think this might be of note because it is a running gag in South Park, and given the history between the two shows, it might have been a sort of reference. - Also, I noticed in the closed captions that when Cleveland asked Quagmire if that was a banana in his pants or an erection in his pants, erection was blanked out. I saw the same thing during the commercials, but I figured they censored it because of the time of day. Any thoughts? --Gero 06:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The South Park thing, if you can tie it to specific episodes and show it's a deliberate similarity, I think it's worth noting. As for the captions, I think they use Captions Inc., so details in CC might not quite be "canon." Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The gag was used twice that I know of ('Something Wall-Mart This Way Comes' and 'The Return of Chef'); I can't think of a way to tie it to those episodes or a way to show it was deliberate reference though, aside from South Park recently having the Cartoon Wars two-parter, which Family Guy played a major role. --Gero 06:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is this page being considered for deletion?

Great Space Coaster

Anyone know what the "great space coaster" cut-away references? --Scharb 04:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Presumptions are fun

"Stewie's teething was addressed way back in season one's "Mind Over Murder", and he also celebrated his first birthday then. He has also eaten solid food through the series, so presumably he should be already weaned, or Lois shouldn't be still lactating as profusely as she does here. However, babies and young mammals are known to continue suckling long even after their mother's milk has dried up, because it offers them a sort of "security blanket"."

What the hell is that? A massive pile of assumptions smeared with a nice layer of ignorance? I removed it, because frankly it is silly. Women can keep breast feeding for aslong as they keep doing so, up to 10 years. Suckling after milk has dried up? A bit on the redundant side...

Censorship section.

What Meg says, in my opinion is notable, as it isn't even available on the Region 1 DVD.

Are any reasons why it isn't notable? I have a similar question about what Cleveland said. TheBlazikenMaster 21:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

• 1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) There are quite a few of run-on sentences that need fixing. I did fix quite a few spelling errors. (b) The lead might be a little long, there is too much jumping around at the beginning between Lois breastfeeding and the other plot details. I'd put all the breastfeeding together. When Joan is seeing the video the guys made, there is too many "then's", if every detail of him "getting killed" is even needed. I know it's hard to find, but if possible, add more to reception section. too many "meanwhile's" in the plot. A little copy editing wouldn't hurt

• 2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:

(a) provides references (b) provides in-line citations from reliable sources } (c) contains no original research.

• 3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:

(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details? refer to 1B for this

• 4. It is neutral
• 5. It is stable
• 6. It is illustrated

Ctjf83 ^talk 05:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the plot jumping back and forth: I completely agree with you here; I try to keep it in chronological order (as I always write it while I have the episode playing in the background), so I will group the points together. I'll start that now and begin addressing the other concerns shortly. Cheers, Qst 13:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot Grouping —  Done. Qst 13:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• I try to make the leads of good length, as WP:LEAD states it must summarise every aspect in the article, so by the time you have guest stars, plot and a litle bit from the production, it comes to about the size it is now, so I think this is unnecessary. Qst 13:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Not going to unnecessary details —  Done. Qst 13:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Reception —  Not done. Sorry, I spent 45 minutes looking through Google and other places to find some, Family Guy episodes receive very little, if any reception compared to The Simpsons. Unfortunately, that is the best I could do for this episode, sorry. Qst 13:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Ctjf83 ^talk 20:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Reception section sorely lacking

The section is supported by very few reviews, and in reality, the section is the most important, as it shows us that it was noticed by others, that it got critical reception, and that it was worth mentioning. Without a stronger reception section, it could be merged, and of course demoted from GA status. Please fix; I'm no inclusionist, but episodes should also hold themselves up to a certain standard. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

False statement

The following quote, taken from the entry, is simply not true: "The scene where Peter is promoting 'Crystal Pepsi' was shown only on the DVD, because it is prohibited to promote one product over another on television." I challenge anyone to point out the law that supposedly prohibits product promotion on television. McFarlane may claim on the commentary that this is the case, but it is not illegal or "prohibited" to show products in television shows. The prime motivation for blurring out brand names on television is because networks prefer for companies to pay them for the honor of plugging their product. A particular network may prohibit such actions, but that is not the same as product placement being prohibited by law, which is clearly what is being implied by the sentence I quote. Companies can perhaps sue for trademark dilution or trademark infringement, but that is nowhere near the same as a blanket prohibition. It takes about two seconds on google to find articles dealing with the legality of product placement. Hint: It's not "prohibited".74.138.45.132 (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)