Talk:Petergeist

Season Correction

Ive got the collectors (UK) edition box set, and according to that its a season 3 episode 13. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.152.241 (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Scott Colomby

While it is true that Scott Colomby never hosted SNL, he is indeed a real actor. The line about "fictional host" is a bit unclear. He was in Caddyshack and the Porkys movies in the 80's.

Jesus's name

Stewie referred to Jesus as a Hong and Chinese. This is an allusion to Hong XiuQuan, leader of the Taiping Revolution, who believed he was the brother of Jesus (yes. Christianity made an impact on Chinese history.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.33.73.165 (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As an armchair Chinese historian, I love this connection and I really hope it's true, but is there any evidence for it? Something from Seth MacFarlane or the writers, maybe? The Mink Ermine Fox (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Indian burial ground

The Indian burial ground was not a reference to Pet Cemetary, but to Poltergeist, as the episode title and plot suggests. PrometheusX303 18:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Good Episode

Brilliant episode, I think being axed was a good thing for Family Guy, because when they came back they were even more funny! One of the best shows on television JayKeaton 08:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Braille Joke

I got bored, so tried to figure out the Braille Joke that Peter Tells to the Blind Man:

Peter: "Hey: Bump, bump, no bump, bump, three vertical bumps, four bumps in a square."
Blind man: "Haha, yeah i've heard they all look alike.

I have no idea. Only the letters L and G are interpretable: I didn't think it was meant to be interpretable anyway. JaffaCakeLover 01:31, 09 September 2006 (GMT)

New Zealand

Do we really need to know New Zealanders got to hear some swear words? I propose deleting the section. Great country, pointless facts. Lots42 02:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FGPetergeist.jpg

Image:FGPetergeist.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Jim J. Bullock

When does he appear in the episodes...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.250.120 (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Petergeist/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I began to review the article, but I'm afraid there are just too many issues to pass the article or place it on hold for the time being. I am naturally comparing it to "Flaming Moes", which I passed a few days ago. Compared to that article (which is an article on a pre-Internet episode) this one is seriously lacking.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   I've begun to list some issues below, but the whole article needs a fairly thorough copyedit. There's informal language, strange linking, typing errors, poor grammar... I'm not saying it's utterly awful, but it's really not hitting GA level. The short paragraphs are also not great; for instance, in the plot section.

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   I can't help thinking there are a lot more sources out there worth citing.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   The sources that are cited are of a good quality.

   C. No original research:

   Third paragraph of the production section lacks any refs.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   It goes with the sources really- I'm just guessing there are more things to say concerning the production and references. I appreciate this perhaps isn't the most popular episode, and that does make it harder to produce a high quality article, but that doesn't mean we can lower our standards.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   The informal language does compromise the neutrality somewhat in the lead.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Image is a little large

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The article is just nowhere near ready.

• "from season four of" Link to season article/list?
• Links to go with character names?
• "Indian" is a bit ambiguous. In any case, Native American would be more accurate.
• "As a result, a poltergeist haunts the Griffins' house and spirits drag Stewie away to the other side, followed by even stranger events. ." A bit too adverty. Also double fullstop.
• "started" typo...
• Odd capitalisation in the gueststar section of the infobox.

As I say, the above bullets are by no means the only issue. There's just too much to be done with this article to place it on hold. If, once you've dealt with my comments, you resubmit, feel free to leave a message on my talk page and I'll review it as soon as possible. Alternatively, I understand if you would prefer for another reviewer to take a look, but you would have to wait. I am also happy to offer further advice/explanation regarding this article and this review- again, feel free to contact me on my talk page. J Milburn (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Lord of the Rings

Why no mention of the Lord of the Rings reference? When Herbert fights the Evil Tree, that's Gandalf Vs Balrog in Moria. Simanos (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source which says so? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's one http://www.familyguyfiles.com/gandalf-geezer-saves-chris-video/ Simanos (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

What makes that a reliable source? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was sort of an official site, I may be wrong. You can also find tons of other sites that say the same thing. It's not that hard to notice yourself either. Did you watch the episode and have you watched the Gandalf-Balrog fight? It's practically identical, on purpose of course. YOU SHALL NOT PASS! :p Simanos (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)