Talk:Quagmire's Dad

Why isn't there a photo of Ida?

Shouldn't the photo be of her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.22.6 (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• There was, and then it was replaced with an incorrectly captioned, generic image of Peter and Quagmire. I've restored the relevant image and fixed the caption. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The image was of Quagmire and Ida. Blame your uncleared cache. Gage (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Plot summary

Look. I get that you think your writing is God's Gift to Family Guy, but the plot summary is too long, too detailed, over-written and grammatically nightmarish. Comparing the first sentences of the two versions: Yours - "Deciding to visit Quagmire at his home, Joe and Peter are quickly introduced to Quagmire's father, Lieutenant Commander Dan Quagmire." Mine - "Quagmire introduces Joe and Peter to his father, Lieutenant Commander Dan Quagmire." How is the reader's understanding of the episode improved by the inclusion of the phrase "Deciding to visit Quagmire at his home"? What from the primary source tells us they were introduced "quickly"? How is the passive voice "are introduced" stronger than "introduces"?

Another example: Yours - "Meanwhile Brian announces that he will be leaving for a few days to attend a seminar in New Haven about creating a web series. Returning home to Quahog unaware of all that had transpired, Brian stops at a hotel bar on the way home. While there, he encounters Quagmire's father, Ida, and the two bond and retire to Ida's room for a sexual affair." Mine - "Brian, who has been in New Haven for a few days to attend a seminar on creating a web series, is unaware of what has transpired. Brian stops at a hotel bar on the way home where he encounters Ida. They bond and retire to Ida's room for sex." Mine conveys the exact same information cleanly and concisely, without unnecessary words.

Yours is loaded with malformed constructions like "Worried as the operation is taking place, the surgery is announced to be a success..." which as written means that the surgery is worried, and "Inviting Quagmire and his "new friend", now named Ida, to dinner later that night, Peter soon begins asking her about the surgery." which as written means that Peter begins asking questions as he's inviting Ida to dinner, which is factually wrong, and "Deciding to confront him back at the house, Ida and Quagmire discuss..." which could be read as Ida and Quagmire confronting a third person. It's just sloppy and over-written.

You clearly have some serious ownership issues with this article, as evidenced by your rude comment in your edit summary ("I'll just replace it again months down the road when I'm still working on this article, and you've gone back to stacking blocks"). I suggest you take a step back and not act like you're the final decision-maker for the article. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably a bad idea to have added the LGBT Studies banner.. Gage (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Why, because you don't want another project or other editors infringing on your territory? Newsflash, sweet cheeks, this is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and there is no restriction on non-FG project members editing it. Clearly this article falls under the purview of the LGBT project since it is obviously an article of interest to that project. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow I had no idea. Gage (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

About much of anything, it seems. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:PERSONAL. Gage (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Both of you are acting territorial and should know better. Gage, some of the same words kept popping up so you may take Cows' point to heart that the writing could be improved. Cow, you're edit-warring as well and being an ass about it=unhelpful. Plus you're not always right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.38.211 (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Because of the content of the episode, and the fact that it pissed off a lot of people in the LGBT community, suggests that it is appropriate to tag it - no doubt it will become the subject of some 'clever' LGBT studies / Queer theory paper at some point. The writing could be improved. I didn't notice any obvious issues about the content. As long as this is balanced and covers reliable sources accurately, including the response from within the LGBT community, I cannot see why there should be a conflict here. I also think it is important to remain civil and not to make unnecessary comments about other editors' intelligence. Given the subject is a TV cartoon, I'm not surprised if the editing quality is representative of the demographic aimed at. However, that doesn't mean you should not be aiming for a well-written and balanced article. It will be a better article if you try to work together.Mish (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Gage has been edit-warring against three other editors so far deleting all changes back to his version. If he agrees to work with others and stop falsely calling people vandals and personal attackers I think it will go a long way. He has stated he intends to sit on his hands until the protection ends so I guess we see what happens then. Everyone else has been pretty mature but dealing with the territorial issues has been a waste of time. 71.139.5.39 (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Editing out information such as the vomiting scene cannot really be justified on two counts: first, sources point out that 29 seconds is a 'long time' in a program like this; second, this was the focus of much of the criticism that followed. I'm not seeing Gage removing pertinent material in this instance, quite the opposite. I have only looked at the latest edits. The notability of this episode lies mainly in the response to it, we have to deal with the episode as accurately and comprehensively as possible - especially in respect to the sequences of the episode that elicited the response. I am unable to comment on the episode itself, as it has yet to air here; however, when things in it are commented upon in sources, and that is exluded from the article, I would question why. If it is notable enough to be commented upon elsewhere, it can be sourced and should be included in the article in this situation. Mish (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly the point, Gage removed the criticism and the source and called me a vandal as well. The episode is less than a week old so more sources are likely to print soon. 71.139.5.251 (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it again, the vomit is there in the edits, but it has been moved about. Not sure about the double-entendre comment. TBH, looking again I can't see what this big problem is - seems more to do with style than content. If you have specific problems with edits, you need to show the diffs and spell it out - I cannot read your mind. Mish (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It may be over for now but (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quagmire%27s_Dad&action=historysubmit&diff=361583616&oldid=361578069) is an example of blanket deletion. 71.139.26.147 (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, if there were specific things that were objected to and that can be verified, then that needs to be sourced. That way it cannot be deleted, although the correct procedure is to tag it as needing a citation first so that whoever put that in there has an opportunity to link it to the source and then it can be checked for accuracy. I agree that if something was stated about specific things being objected to, that shouldn't be removed, but without citing a source it could read as somebody's opinion about what was objectionable. As I say, I haven't seen it yet, and given the plot-line hinges on bestiality between a transsexual and a dog anyway, if for some reason the dog throwing up for 29 seconds because it had intercourse with a transsexual is more objectionable than it having had sex with a uman in the first place, that needs some kind of 'proof'. Mish (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Bestiality isn't the issue, Brian the dog is accepted as a character and sometimes him being a dog is a part of the humor. I didn't hear anything about Ida being made fun of because he was a dog but if it seems important that could be added. Brian, a main character, throwing up was in the link source. No one disputed this it was just erased multiple times by one editor as vandalism. 71.139.26.147 (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the two sources do highlight the vomiting as well as the abuse of trans throughout - so it is accurate to say this, and reference to this as the cause of the negative reaction should be noted - however, one of the sources also says that given how the program is generally offensive anyway (my point about featuring bestiality as a plot device), and about all sorts of people, it questions whether the targeting of one particular group is a step to far. Mish (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

AfterElton addresses the bestiality aptly "And for those you wondered why we were upset over the reaction to Ida, but not disturbed by the fact Brian is a dog having sex with a woman, well, Brian is a talking dog so it's kind of hard to really view that as bestiality as I'm not aware of too many talking dogs out there." (http://www.afterelton.com/bgwe/05-14-10?page=0%2C5) He also adds (summary here) that Seth MacFarlane was attempting to do something positive but isn't "talented enough writer to pull off satirizing such a sensitive subject. And it is sensitive because transgender people are still so demonized in this country. With that being the case, I do think MacFarlane had an obligation to be extra careful with the material. ... [he] has an obligation not to cause harm to those weaker and less fortunate than he is." 71.139.30.77 (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Funny old world, if a dog talks and it has sex with a human, it isn't bestiality. I see. What grade of English does this rule kick in? (getting worried about the way our Jack Russel keeps trying to tak to us...) Mish (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

update please

{{edit protected}} I think the sentences in the plot that currently reads "Quagmire becomes frustrated when conversation turns to Ida's surgery and new lifestyle and storms out. At the Quagmire's home, Quagmire tells his father that he isn't sure he can deal with her new body. Saddened, Ida leaves Quagmire's home." should change to "When conversation turns to Ida's surgery and new lifestyle Quagmire leaves in frustration. Later at his home he tells Ida he is not sure he can deal with her transition. Saddened, she leaves." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.18.18 (talk • contribs)

Anyone object to this? Also, please sign your posts using ~~~~. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. CTJF83 chat 16:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

caption change

{{edit protected}} Can we get a caption change to something like "Quagmire's dad, Ida, after Sex reassignment surgery" flows better to me. CTJF83 chat 20:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Please change the caption "Quagmire is introduced to his father, now called Ida, after her sex reassignment surgery." to "Quagmire's dad, Ida, after sex reassignment surgery". 71.139.1.193 (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki to :es

This article is protected against edition, so I can't edit in this one, I'm working in the translate to Spanish language for the Spanish Wikipedia, but I need someone add the interwiki [[es:Quagmire's Dad]]. Thank you very much. --Ravave (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

 Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 17:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am reviewing this article and have made some mostly minor copy edits, including adding a bit more information to the lead to round it out. If you would prefer to add different information or reword what I put in the lead, please do.

Otherwise, the article is well written and fulfills the GA criteria.

Xtzou (Talk) 17:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Gage (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: Clearly and concisely written.

   B. MoS compliance: Complies with required elements of MOS

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources: Reliable sources

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects: Sets the context

   B. Focused: Remains focused on the topic

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

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:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Pass!

Congratulations! A very nice article. Xtzou (Talk) 22:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Quagmire's Dad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711021928/http://www.foxinflight.com/tv/15/ to http://www.foxinflight.com/tv/15/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100512163250/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/05/10/tv-ratings-abc-wins-another-slow-sunday-amazing-race-lowest-finale-ever-celebrity-apprentice-up/50897 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/05/10/tv-ratings-abc-wins-another-slow-sunday-amazing-race-lowest-finale-ever-celebrity-apprentice-up/50897
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100513151543/http://www.afterelton.com/TV/2010/5/seth-macfarlane-complete-idiot to http://www.afterelton.com/TV/2010/5/seth-macfarlane-complete-idiot

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)