Talk:Stewie Kills Lois and Lois Kills Stewie

Writers' strike

Wouldn't it be appropriate to mention this was the last episode completed before the 2007 Writers Guild of America strike? Presuming this lasts more than a week or two, this should have some effect on subsequent episodes. / edg ☺ ☭ 07:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

i guess we could keep it in for now. Although there are a few episodes that are very close to being done, and they could just hire temp help to put the finishing touches on as the article states that this is the last one he will be part of until the strike is over. Im just saying that once the strike ends this info should be removed, so if thats the case should it even be added in the first place. Grande13 13:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this was the last episode made before the strike. These episodes are made well in advance. If you listen to the DVD commentaries the staff are already talking about episodes that haven't come out yet.

Not according to Seth MacFarlane. mrholybrain's talk 01:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

More like a cameo.

I just watched the episode and the two American Dad characters only had one line each. It seems to me that the true definition would be a cameo appearance rather than a full-blown crossover. JesseMeza 02:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Right. Fixed. WODUP 03:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Related Episodes

Little Orphan Millie, Death Picks Cotton, and Lois Kills Stewie aired right after each other, and each one involved people not actually dying. Little Orphan Millie had Kirk and Luann, Death Picks Cotton had Cotton Hill (although he later died), and Lois Kills Stewie had Cleveland Brown and Stewie Griffin. Anyone else think this strange? mrholybrain's talk 03:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

More than likely, it's just a coincidence. JesseMeza 03:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, and Stan Smith was dead for six minutes after Haley killed him on American Dad. Weird. WODUP 03:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Merman Reference

The part invovling the merman reminded me of the Futurama epidsode The_Deep_South_(Futurama), where Fry says, "why couldnt you be the other kind of mermaid, the one with the fish part on top." JohnDLG 05:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Maid

When Joe is handing out fliers, he goes to the lair of Superman and the maid from 'Believe It Or Not, Joe's Walking On Air' answers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.138.131 (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Is that maid supposed to be Latina? She doesn't alot like one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.87.214 (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Stewie's drawing

Isn't that drawing Stewie showed to Peter a reference to the cutback from Bill and Peter's Bogus Journey where Peter and Lois make fun of Stewie's drawing?

I'm positive it's not; Stewie said he made that picture the other week. Also, Lois was missing at that time, so there'd be no way for her to make fun of it. Also, if I may share a bit of personal information, I almost hated Peter and Lois for saying that stuff to Stewie's picture in that episode. I have to say that all the stuff that happened later (with Lois sleeping with Bill Clinton and feeling both she and Peter bad about it) almost made up for it to me, though I don't really know why. This episode also seemed to make up for even more, since we see Stewie in a way getting revenge for pretty much everything that's happened to him in general. Also, I wasn't too keen with Lois re-hooking Stewie to breast milk in "I Take Thee Quagmire" and being oblivious to Stewie's unhappiness, though this episode definitely made up for that as well. Immblueversion (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Tom and Katie

Should be some mention of the Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes bit after the power goes out -- it was the funniest scene in the parts of the episode that I happened to see... AnonMoos 12:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Closing the eyes reference...

From the Cultural references section:
"Peter closes Stewie's eyes after his death, a reference to The Boondock Saints."

Somebody closing the eyes of a dead person is a common scene in many movies and TV shows. Was there something specific in the way this was done in Boondock Saints to distinguish it from every other movie has used it? And was that same distinction made in this episode? --ΨΦorg 07:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Note section deleted

It looks like the note section has been deleted from the article on this episode. Why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjurbeck (talk • contribs) 23:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Because there's a vocal bunch of anal retentives on Wikipedia whose panties get twisted up whenever they see something fun like trivia in an article. Wl219 (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Trivia, articles are supposed to be organized as meaningful prose, rather than unsorted lists of random information. Inconsequential detail, items that cannot be verified (and might be made up) and other things that don't belong are usually just removed. Wikipedia:Handling trivia is a pretty good guide to the process.

Wl219:If Wikipedia:Manual of Style bothers you so much, why are you even here? If all you are looking for is a playground, there are plenty of other places where you could either contribute meaningfully or just have fun. everything2 and Wikinfo are usually happy with unsorted information, and the Family Guy Wiki always needs help. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

An "if you don't like it then go away" argument? Please. Wl219 (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lois vs stewie.png

Image:Lois vs stewie.png 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 (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up Goofs

An explanation of my editing of the goofs section. There are clearly 3 issues/disagreements about how FG episode pages should be handled, and they are 1. Cultural References 2. Trivia and 3. Goofs.

I'll make my case on goofs here. I might feel goofs are pointless to include at all and just serve to clutter reasonable info on these pages, but for the moment I'll concede that they might have use. However, using the goofs sections to identify every perceived tiny error for every single episode is cruft, non-notable, and cluttering. It makes it harder to get actual useful info from the page.

In the case of an animated show, the potential for "goofs" is limitless. On this list, there are goofs over the position of characters in frames, where bullets holes appear, how sound is synced up. These "goofs" are common if not totally expected in cartoony animation and the identification of every single one simply doesn't come across as notable or encyclopedic.

If I see a goof that deals with a plot point or is some other way significant to the events of the episode, then I'll leave it in. Goofs on things like which way an elbow is sticking or how it is "impossible" for Joe to do things because he is paraplegic will be removed. It has to be accepted that FG is a cartoon, is a joke, isn't real life or takes place in a real world.Gwynand (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Willem Dafoe as Himself?

I just saw this article say that Willem Dafoe guest starred in this episode as himself. Now I definitely saw Dafoe, but I'm positive that he was played by a common voice double like almost all celebrities are on these shows. Besides, I never saw him mentioned for the guest stars of this episode. Maybe you can tell me after checking the credits if anyone has access to them, because I don't; not now anyway. Immblueversion (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

{{fact}} tagged this; remove if unsubstantiated. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, better to omit correct information than to include false information. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually many famous people are indeed played by themselves on family guy. I am not saying it is the case here but your reasoning behind it is somewhat fallacious --71.131.30.178 (talk) 08:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

A little off topic but Dafoe's page says that he voiced himself in the episode. Should that be removed until it can be verified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.199.129 (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Differences between individual episodes and hour-long version?

By all means, keep the information up about how this episode was merged with the previous episode and aired as an hour-long episode, but I must ask something. I did not watch that episode when it aired as an hour-long episode and, as such, I do not know what was changed, if anything was changed at all. Could you tell me? Immblueversion (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of goofs

Agreeing with everything said above about the cleaning up of the 'goofs' section, I have removed it completely. The one 'goof' mentioned is very small, if true, completely irrelevant to the article and above all unreferenced. DanTheShrew (talk) 08:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

May 18 viewership

I just came across a Broadcasting & Cable report saying that a rerun of the episode on Sunday night was the highest-rated program that night on Fox, even beating the new episode of The Simpsons that night! Fox.com does confirm that this episode did rerun last night, but Eggerton of BroadcastingCable.com misidentified that airing as the "season finale" --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Derek

Wasn't Derek a Neo-Nazi rather than a white supremacist? That's what I took of it, since they had Swasticas and insulted Jews. Preceding unsigned comment added by Montaced (talk • contribs) 21:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The in-episode dialouge specifically stated he was a white supremacist. Also, white supremacists may or may not carry swastikas, and always hate Jews, as they're not of the Aryan race. C. Pineda (クリス) (talk) 07:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Unaired musical number?

Should we mention the musical number that was cut from the TV version for time? 208.67.166.146 (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It might be appropriate for a "Production" section IF it can be verified in a reliable source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I just saw it on the DVD version. 172.130.13.154 (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

New GAN

The note is above. Railer-man (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SCB '92 (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I think Family Guy jumped the shark after airing "The Juice Is Loose". But these two episodes are classics.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the lead, I think it should fully read "Lois Griffin" and that Peter is her husband, and Stewie is her (baby genius) son.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   ref 2 puts equals' in the retrievel date (YY=MM=DD) instead of hyphens (YY-MM-DD) like it should be; change it.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   I think it should say how many viewers it received when each episode aired, with Nielsan ratings and demographic.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Looks okay.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No edit wars.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   I think there should be a screenshot of the episode, but whatever.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I guess it's good enough to be a good article, just minor problems that can be quickly fixed. So I'm passing this article. Well done!

Plot summary?

Kinda weird that this article has no Plot summary section, even though almost all other episodes have it and this one is about two episodes so you'd think there is enough to write about. I guess it's familiarization to a certain article layout. --82.171.13.139 (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Split

I think this article would be better in the two bits Stewie Kills Lois and Lois Kills Stewie. This is the only article I've seen anywhere in which the two episodes share an article and I think this would be much better in two articles, though I would be willing to accept a compromise of the two episodes sharing an article name, but being clearly separate on the page (an extended disambiguation page, if you like).--90.217.236.77 (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is clearly about 2 episodes that were intended to be linked. Given that it has good article status, I don't think this article should be messed about now. Op47 (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Current title

Since the article describes two parts with their own titles, why am I feeling that the current title for Wikipedia is... awkward? Should it be "Season 6, Episodes 4 and 5 (Family Guy)" or "Season 6, Episodes 4 and 5"? --George Ho (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Willem Dafoe

According to this interview, Willem Dafoe says that it was not actually him in this episode. He claims to "not know the show" and he only saw his scene after the fact when someone told him to find it. I am going to edit the article accordingly. DarthBinky (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stewie Kills Lois and Lois Kills Stewie. 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/20110510223108/http://television.aol.com/tv-celebrity-interviews/seth-macfarlane to http://television.aol.com/tv-celebrity-interviews/seth-macfarlane

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 14:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stewie Kills Lois and Lois Kills Stewie. 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/20110610212358/http://www.movieweb.com/dvd/DVy8zBBHQm8BCy to http://www.movieweb.com/dvd/DVy8zBBHQm8BCy
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/13/writers.strike/index.html

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) 00:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)