Talk:American Dad!/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Vote to KEEP or CHANGE American Dad's Episode Guide

Alright, although AmericanDad86 has done a "voting thing before with five of us, we are asking that everyone to RE-VOTE on whether to KEEP or CHANGE the American Dad! episode guide.

When you vote for KEEP, you are voting to keep the episode guide to the long-season number (the way it is now) and want Season 11 as the three episodes and the TBS season, Season 12.

When you vote for CHANGE, you are voting to make the episode guide to the fewer-season number wanting Season 10 as the three episodes and the TBS season, Season 11.

Voting to KEEP or CHANGE will last until September 12, 2014. On that date, me and AmericanDad86 will either fix up the wiki for the KEEP voters or CHANGE the wiki to the fewer-season method based on the votes. I am encouraging all people who have edited on American Dad! since July 2014 to vote to KEEP the long-season method or CHANGE to the fewer-season method. On September 12, the votes will be counted and me and AmericanDad86 will act accordingly. Thank you.

When voting please vote like this and explain a bit why you think it should KEEP or CHANGE: This also counts as my vote.

CHANGE: I think that we've had enough bullshit in the past and that TBS has always said it was Season 11, but it was before anyone knew three episode would be left over. I think that reverting to the fewer-season method should fix things up and making the TBS Season 11.

I also had removed the complained reference link section and the TBS second season section. The one thing I also removed was the old voting and season number method to use. I figure it took up alot of space and would confuse the hell out of everyone. We will add the TBS second season after voting takes place. Thank you very much and please vote. Spongey253 (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: This survey is confusing; it sounds to me like the OP is trying to redefine seasons, which isn't our place to do. Whatever can be reliably sourced should be what we present to readers. Secondly, we do not achieve consensus through voting. Voting may be a way to gauge how other people feel, but decisions can't be made on feelings, they need to be made in consideration of Wikipedia policies and guidelines and in consideration of what the sources say. Wikipedia policy, for example the one prohibiting original research trumps anyone's feelings. In this case it sounds like one camp is pushing for original research, i.e. the redefinition of Season 11. Thirdly, you should post an invitation at Talk:List of American Dad! episodes for users to participate in this discussion, and I think you should also post at WikiProject Television as well, since this discussion probably warrants input from experienced and articulate users. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Basically in the past two months we can't decide whether Season 10 or Season 11 is the three episodes or if we move up another making Season 11 the three episodes and moving the TBS season 11 to Season 12. All people who have worked/edited on the AD pages may choose whether to keep or change. Spongey253 (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, it's unclear why you think it is up to Wikipedia editors to decide which season those three episodes belong to. And surely there is a third option: that where those episodes go cannot be determined at this time. We are not here to fabricate information, which it seems like we would be doing if we slapped those episodes into either of those seasons without adequate sourcing. As to your second point: "All people who have worked/edited on the AD pages may choose whether to keep or change." This sounds to me like a poor choice of words. As you know, Wikipedia is is a community project, so anybody can participate in the discussion and their opinions will carry the same weight as anyone else's, provided that they are arguing per policy and guidelines. If the regulars haven't been able to figure out an appropriately academic solution, it is irrational to think that another vote is going to solve anything, except possibly to bring the article closer to your own POV, which I'm sure you aren't trying to do. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, you are correct about the need to turn to other talk pages to get some resolution from other experienced users. However, it has been extremely difficult to do that. About 8 or 9 of us brought an issue branching to this topic about what season to use to the Wikipedia dispute resolution page where no one got involved after like a month, no consensus was found, and a random user closed that discussion on us. Also, that was after I put a notice of that discussion on the American Dad List of Episodes talk page. Cyphoid, you are also technically correct that consensus isn't a majority vote, but rather takes the feelings of everyone into consideration. I actually tried to go that route. The last time this argument erupted in early 2013, I resolved the issue by my suggestion to note the season discrepancy within the main article and even within its heading. That way, both sides of the coin had a voice. However, as a few editors have put forth the issue again, I guess that compromise is now insufficient for them. As more of a compromise, perhaps we could just altogether remove season numbers and refer to all seasons by their years. For example, "spring 2005 episodes and 2005-06 episodes on the same page but separated," "2006-07 season" "2007-08 season," etc. Perhaps that could be a compromise that Spongey and the rest of the editors who'd like this move are interested in. Let me know what you think Spongey and Cyphoid. Cheers! AmericanDad86 (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

KEEP: I don't see the logic in changing this entire season arrangement (again!) just because TBS is still referring to their upcoming first season of American Dad! as the "11th season." As far as I know, TBS never updated this information after the fucking geniuses at the Fox network decided to shoehorn these three "unaired episodes" in late September. If Fox wants to treat the three upcoming episodes as part of its own season, let them. Davejohnsan (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

KEEP: My reasons are basically what DaveJohnsan has communicated so I'd just be reiterating what he said. Also, User Cyphoidbomb noted above that a consensus technically isn't a majority vote but takes the opinions of all individuals involved into consideration, which is technically correct. I explained to him, however, that I actually tried going that route by noting "season discrepancy" within this article, even its heading. As it seems that compromise isn't enough and turning a branch of this argument to dispute resolution pages did nothing, I told him that I felt compelled to go the way of a majority vote because nothing was getting resolved. HOWEVER, I have come up with another compromise proposal that you all may be interested in. What does everyone think of throwing out the season numbers altogether since they're such a mess and just labeling the pages by their airing date? For example, "spring 2005 episodes and 2005-06 episodes on the same page but separated," "2006-07 season" "2007-08 season," and so on? AmericanDad86 (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea but compared to other shows such as Family Guy or The Simpsons and many other shows I cannot think of, do Season 1, Season 2, Season 3. Doing this just might throw people off. I think the idea might help solve our big conflict and I understand it, but I don't think others would understand it. Hmm. Should we vote on this too? Spongey253 (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Yea, I agree. It would resolve things, but I'd hope others would understand. I say give it a whirl though and see what other people think. When you put the vote together, I will call it to the attention of 20 or 30 random editors who have recently edited this article. AmericanDad86 (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Options: Here are the options as I see them:

1. Tack the straggler episodes onto the end of S10. This is probably WP:OR.

2. Tack the straggler episodes onto the front of S11. This too is probably WP:OR.

3. Remove season numbering and instead use year ranges to combine episodes.

4. Tack the straggler episodes on to the end of S10, until the mess is clarified, with a clear note a la:

†Fox originally announced these three episodes would comprise a short Season 11,^[1][2][3] while TBS announced that an 11th season would begin October 20, 2014.^[4][5][6] Because of inconsistencies between published releases, these episodes have been appended to S10 for clerical purposes based on their production codes.

5. Slap the straggler episodes into a new season called "Indeterminate". Add prose to explain why we are doing that. Change this once we know for certain which eps belong to which seasons.

It is possible that this ball of yarn will unravel over time as new promos for the TBS series air, interviews are conducted, and perhaps as DVDs are released for S10. Anyhow, I wanted to present a couple more options than just the ones on the table. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I highly doubt that the three Fox episodes and the next 15 TBS episodes would be one season on different networks. I could see the 23 episode S10 but I think that we should just add the three to its own season. Spongey253 (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep Cyphoid, those are pretty much all the options on the table that have been communicated here. It's mainly just been divides from the 7 or 8 users involved and us going in circles. That's why I've asked Spongey if he'd ask additional editors' who have edited this article what their thoughts are on the matter. AmericanDad86 (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I posted them here so there is a clear representation, since the OP's post was confusing. I've also posted at WikiProject Television because my feeling is that if the monkeys running the asylum (no offense) can't figure out a reasonable solution, then we need to invite people beyond the walls of the kingdom. And for gratuitous use of mixed metaphors, the award goes to: Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I also thought of something. If Fox Flash states that Season 10 is the three episodes and Season 9 is the 20 episodes, and if Fox Flash is the major Fox source, shouldn't we convert to the fewer-season number? Thoughts? (Voting is still on, I was just thinking of this too as my CHANGE reason.) Spongey253 (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

What Spongey said. The options seem to be ignoring the legitimate option of redoing the season numbering. 108.226.144.192 (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I cleaned up the main page a bit putting small sections that could relate to one article such as (DVDs, Crossovers) into "Other media", like on the Family Guy page and some production things into a major big section called "Production". Spongey253 (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

What will we be doing? I think this voting thing kinda didnt do much. Hmm Spongey253 (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

As it was said, a majority does not mean a consensus, but we have two right answers and everyone is holding their breath for evidence to prove one or the other. FOX isn't going to help in that department, and at least one person has already tried to dismiss any stand taken by TBS. I am in favor of redoing the season count to follow the most likely path which also conforms correctly to the season count mostly used by the media, but it seems that either we wait for WikiProject Television or is there any chance of establishing acceptable criteria for determining the season based on TBS or updated "official" American Dad information once FOX takes their hand off of it? Is it worth being in a holding pattern for another month? 108.226.144.192 (talk) 02:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we should be clear about something: consensus does not mean unanimity, consensus is not the result of a vote, but consensus is derived from the soundness and quality of the arguments. So far there are 5 options. It's unclear which you think should be kept and why. Also, you regulars might consider a RFC, which typically takes 30 days. Surely there is no rush to resolve this if the new season hasn't even started yet. Wikipedia has no deadline and we are not TV Guide. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

All five of those 'options' are stupid tbh. As time goes on, there is just more and more evidence coming that these episodes are separate and so combining them with S10 is just plain retarded. The episodes are listed separately on iTunes[1] which is something not even controlled by FOX, but the distribution company 20th Century so they're even considering it a separate season. The only real options here are either:

- revert to the one-less numbering

- leave it as-is

Anything else is just stupid. - Wattlebird (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

No shit Sherlock. I just think that if FOX and 20th Century FOX, and most sources are calling these three episodes, Season 10. Let's revert it to the one-less season number. This is why I wanted the change in the first place. We're all calling the three episodes Season 11, but most sources indicate it as Season 10. Spongey253 (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Well the discussion seems to be quickly deteriorating. It's unclear how you arrive at "most sources indicate it as Season 10". However, assuming that the discussion here leans toward adding the content to S10, (and I don't know that it does) I don't think adding the eps to S10 without including a clear note would be appropriate. That's Option 4. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

FoxFlash, Amazon.com, iTunes, and many others. If FOXFlash is saying it is Season 10 and 20th Century FOX (who distributes downloads to stuff such as Amazon.com, and iTunes) say it is Season 10, shouldn't we do the switch to the fewer-season number? Adding the three episodes to the twenty episode season, well..., we can cross that off the list. Spongey253 (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Spongey, please indent your replies so that readability is preserved. I don't think that vendors like Amazon or iTunes would be considered reliable for this sort of content. An example: Amazon lists this cartoon as having three seasons, 1, 3 and 4, when only 2 seasons were made. I don't understand what you or Wattlebird mean by "fewer-season number" and "one-less numbering". It may help to explain what it is exactly you are proposing, since your original proposition was confusing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Basically, the "fewer-season-number" and "one-less numbering" has Season 1 with 23 episodes and the longer-season-number has Season 1 (the 23 episodes) split into Season One and Season Two. And shows that are broadcast on Nickelodeon, are split. (Season One is Volumes 1 and 2 and Volumes 3 and 4 are Season Two of Fanboy and Chum Chum.) I also recall that when Rocket Power (Nickelodeon show) had release a Season 1, 2, and 4 DVD release (Rocket Power had Season 3 DVD errors), people flipped the hell out as TV Guide and Wikipedia said the show had three seasons. That was until Nickelodeon replied back saying "We don't know where the Wikipedia and TV Guide guides came from". But if you can get my point, that if FoxFlash is the major source releasing information and they state the three episodes are Season 10, we should revert to the fewer-season-method.

I'm trying to propose to get everyone to agree on to change our long-season-number episode guide to the shorter-season episode guide. I think that if FoxFlash is the "official Fox episode information source", shouldn't we revert to it? Sorry, if I'm confusing you. Spongey253 (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

To put things in hopefully a clearer term, it is recognized here on Wikipedia that there are TWO official season counts[2] which stem from a discrepancy going back to the first season. Wikipedia has chosen the "one season more" path that is not followed by FOX public relations (FOXFlash) or most of the media, but by the FOX "official" American Dad page which will be defunct with the switch to TBS and is used by very few places elsewhere. TBS has chosen to follow the one season shorter method to date[3] and the proposal by Spongey, with support by Wattlebird and myself, is to go back and switch Wikipedia over to the season count followed by FOXFlash, TBS and elsewhere. 108.226.144.192 (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

NOTICE — This is a notice to all involved parties in this discussion. I am no longer participating in this exchange. After WattleBird's use of the term "retarded" and other inappropriate remarks in response to User Cyphoid and other editor's listing of the options, I want no part of this discussion. I find this user to be disruptive, rude, degrading, and demeaning on multiple levels. I happen to have a handicapped brother, so I am repulsed by this user's lows.

I am equally repulsed that the only response to WattleBird from IP User108.226.144.192 has been nothing but talk of support in a viewpoint. This after, IP 108.226.144.192 deemed it necessary to write up a diatribe about myself on the talk page of Spongey253 because I had the nerve to argue my viewpoint in this discussion, as shown here [4]. He decides that this is reason to trash me on the talk page of another editor. Thrown off by this IP user's cattiness, I simply tried asking him/her who he/she is and what exactly his/her beef is with me. Didn't engage in the same cattiness or anything, all as shown here [5] but the user never bothered to explain his/herself.

I bring that up just because it sickens me how WattleBird has just responded to editors with how "retarded" and "stupid" everything is and all this IP has to say for it is how he and WattleBird have support in a viewpoint. IP, multiple editors have disagreed with the two of you and besides that, we have all just explained that consensus doesn't involve unanimity.

Regardless, I am pulling myself out of this mess as I'm not in for the WattleBird's pejorative language use and ugly behavior. Please do not contact me. Goodbye and good luck with the article! AmericanDad86 (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Bye. - Wattlebird (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

86...I have tried to keep an open mind in THIS debate & have had nothing but respect for your arguments here. My advice to Spongey on his talk page was intended only as advice not to venture into a weak debating position with you and not to take the advice as an insult.[6] Most of us have used poorly chosen words here, but the heart of the matter, which started out as where do the three loose episodes fit in, have now fully changed into a review of the season count whether intended or not. 108.226.144.192 (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

If AmericanDad86 no longer wants to be a part of our discussion, okay then. If me, Wattlebird, and IP, and still wondering if CyphoidBomb wants to join us too. Shall we switch to the fewer-season-method as American Dad is mainly TBS's as of October 20, 2014 and they choose to follow the fewer season? Spongey253 (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone found any information about which episode will be premiering on the 20th? I couldn't find anything. I think Blondes VS Brunettes might air. I also was reading information and Fox might just add onto the three episodes making a total 18 episode season (3 episodes Fox, 15 episodes TBS). Spongey253 (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has been officially announced yet by TBS per their media outlet.[7] Odds heavily favor Blondes starting the season, but even I hesitate to commit to it yet. 108.226.144.192 (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

In addition, the TBS press release for September 18, 2014 is still reporting that they are STARTING Season 11.[8] 108.226.144.192 (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

For what feels like the hundredth time, TBS is calling it season 11 because they use the one-fewer season labeling method (as seen on their episode guide). Because Wikipedia uses the one-more, it would be labeled season 12 here. It in fact supports the 3-episode season, because otherwise they'd be calling their episodes season 10. - Wattlebird (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"Because Wikipedia uses the one-more, it would be labeled season 12 here." - Not necessarily. If both Fox and TBS are calling their episodes season 11, they can all be incorporated in one season article. It's simply a matter of splitting the episode table into two parts, calling one "Season 11 - Fox" and the other "Season 11 - TBS", noting the "confusion" in the prose. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

FOX aren't calling it season 11, they're calling it season 10 which is season 11 here since we're using the "one-more" and they're using the "one-fewer" now on the press site. Basically:

FOX's press site is calling the three episodes season 10 - with the one-fewer method

TBS is calling their episodes season 11 - with the one-fewer method

Which matches up with what we have here right now, however because Wikipedia still uses the "one-more" still, they're labeled season 11 and season 12 respectively. - Wattlebird (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If American Dad is mainly now TBS's, shall we just switch to the fewer-more? I don't see the point in making the TBS season 12, if they follow the 11. Spongey253 (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Support conditionally - If the "one fewer" season structure can be adequately sourced, season-by-season, by TBS for example, then I won't object—on the condition that a note is added somewhere obvious that explains the discrepansy between the new ordering and the old ordering, and explains how some presumably reliable sources differ from the others. If we start cherrypicking facts from disparate sources to support the "one fewer" POV, then I don't want any part of that. We have to be sure of that we are presenting the information as the most accurate, reliable sources present them, and not simply to reinforce a specific worldview. And keep in mind that if there are objectors to this system down the road, the issue can be brought up again for re-evaluation. And if on the odd-chance the sources change their minds and re-organize the seasons to the "one greater" season order, it is expected that the Wikipedia article will change to reflect this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, we'd add a note. Basically, we'd be "flip-flopping" the longer to the fewer. But if a majority of sources say the fewer is the one TBS follows we should change it. And if TBS decides to follow the longer later on, then we change it back. I am going to go ahead and change it to the fewer system and clean up the page a bit.

I believe Wattlebird, IP, and me all want the change. AmericanDad86, who I believe is the "major watchdog" , like Buckimion is of AD Wikia, of the American Dad pages, and said he is no longer involved, and doesn't like it, so be it. No disrespect to him, but if he doesn't want to be a part of the change then, okay. Spongey253 (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

What you want is not necessarily relevant. We make decisions based on the strength of arguments, not on a straight vote. From what I see here, it seems that participants are making a fairly easy fix overly complicated. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawing support. I'm glad Aussie is here as his sleuthing ability and knowledge is typically very helpful. I am concerned that we are rushing into a solution that hasn't been thought out yet, particularly if the sources are inconsistent. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the recent edits everyone, I think it's best we wait unti the TBS season and see if we should revert to the fewer in October or do what Aussie said, two Season 11's. Spongey253 (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

What's the point in waiting until October, Spongey253?

FOX called their episodes season 10 (using one fewer), and TBS are calling their episodes season 11 (using one fewer). There's absolutely no conflict here, so I don't get why waiting until the episodes start airing is going to help resolve whether we should switch or not when the answer seems very clear... - Wattlebird (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking if we should wait until October for the switch, as the episodes could be tagged onto the FOX three-episode season. But my god, if FOX and TBS both say that the fewer-season is the one they are following and that due to one idiot's edit messing up the episode season and TV Guide (and others I can't think of at the moent) following it, we are so confused as fuck. But if it's super obvious that if FOX and TBS follow the fewer, shouldn't we just switch to the fewer?

I already did switch it, but AussieLegend decided to revert my edits. Although, it may have been glitchy, I was going to fix it after. But since that AussieLegend reverted it, I just said fuck it.

Unless you want me to revert back to it and you could fix it up yourself? The only major problem I did have was the Series Overview in the List of Episodes. I seriously don't know what we are waiting for. I just don't want people reverting it when I'm trying to fix it. Spongey253 (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Please don't refer to others as "idiots". It's uncivil at best. The edits that you made caused more problems than they fixed, which is why I reverted them. They didn't appear supported by what reliable sources say, so shouldn't be restored. More investigation is needed regarding the season premieres and finales so that any changes can be incorporated correctly. It isn't simply a matter of copying and pasting. It's a rather complicated process that also requires proper attribution being included. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

What more "reliable" source do we need? We HAVE official sources by both FOX and TBS issued and confirmed within the past week[9][10] that state the short first season count is barking up the wrong tree and the VERY short 10th season is correct. These sources are not revised from earlier ones, but have been correct all along. Wikipedia has been at odds with THIS evidence for years.[11] 108.226.144.192 (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Spongey253's went well beyond simply reorganising the lists. Season names were incorrectly changed, images were inexplicably removed and so on. Much of what he changed was not supported by the episodes or the press releases for individual episodes. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

So we are addressing multiple issues other than simply reconfiguring the season count to one that is supported, starting with the long first season which was the intention all along? I am curious which images were removed & which episode press releases are in conflict with the revised season count. 108.226.144.192 (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, you know, I checked it REALLY GOOD, when I was editing. No images were removed at all. Season names were good too, might of been a typo in one or two of them as far as I know, but I didn't go "well beyond". But what else more proof do you need? We have official sources, and we all want the change. And if there were issues, us editors could've fixed them. I'd also like to see which press releases confict this and the removed images. Spongey253 (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"No images were removed at all" - Image removed

"Season names were good too" - season 5 infobox title changed from "5" to "6", and the season 5 image was replaced by a season 6 image.

Those were just two examples that I found very quickly. I even warned you about those on your talk page.[12] --AussieLegend (✉) 06:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

1. The image removal was done as part of reconfiguring the season counts. There is no image available to recommend for the short 10th season. (See Season 11[13])
2. It appears you are failing to separate the broadcast seasons from the "DVD Seasons", an issue stemming from using Reg. 2-4 DVD covers instead of Reg. 1 covers. The reconfigured broadcast season count has been demonstrated to be a more accurate method than the one currently being used and is what Spongey was approved to update. Due to another FOX error in marketing, there is going to be some discrepancies in using DVD covers as a season representative image that will have to be corrected. 108.226.144.192 (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Spongey said no images were removed but clearly they were, and there is no way to know his thinking because he didn't leave an edit summary explaining what he was doing. I don't see any "approval" for changing the season 5 infobox to read "season 6". There's a proposal in discussion at the moment and there shouldn't be any changing until consensus is determined. Even then, changes have to be reasonable and in accordance with policies and guidelines, especially WP:V and WP:NOR. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see any reason to comment to what AussieLegend said as IP did it for me. But the DVD covers are kind of one-ahead, for each season. We could always use the Amazon/iTunes download covers, but that doesn't seem that great to me. And yeah, maybe I should've explained what I'm doing. Anyway, if I already got approved to change it, what the fuck are we waiting for? Spongey253 (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

So now there is nitpicking that a revision led to image(s) that were no longer valid being changed or removed? AmericanDad86 admitted that he somewhat mistakenly gave Spongey the go-ahead [14] but proposed that we continue the debate. I for one, took that to mean everything should stay in place while we hash things out, rather than a blanket reversal which I feel was over-reaching. The key players that have been and continue to be in this debate seem to HAVE reached a consensuses in that while both methods originally used by FOX were correct and could have gone either way, TBS has chosen the particular path that is at odds with Wikipedia's information so that we should change to the second approved method that keeps things straight. Dissenting voices will never be totally satisfied, but there is no room for doubt any more as to which season count to use and delaying a complete change is just making Wikipedia & the editors squatting on the information look foolish. 108.226.144.192 (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

No, there's no nitpicking. Spongey made two claims that weren't supported by the facts and I responded accordingly. Your decision to defend Spongey's action was tangential to that discussion and has taken the discussion off-track.

"I for one, took that to mean everything should stay in place while we hash things out," - That's exactly what should happen.

"The key players that have been and continue to be in this debate seem to HAVE reached a consensuses" - There are no such thing as "key players". Depth of involvement in a discussion does not give any editor's opinion greater weight than any other editor's opinion. EVERY Wikipedia editor has equal voice in any discussion. Unlike the schoolyard, if an editor is bullied out of the discussion, it doesn't mean that his opinion can be discounted. Nor can the opinion of a new editor be discounted just because he's new to the discussion. In fact, we have a process called Requests for comment where we seek input from editors outside the discussion to comment, to gain wider opinion from the Wikipedia community. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

IP 108.226.144.192, I'm going to make this as clear as a whistle to you: keep my name out of your mouth, don't put words in my mouth, and watch your mouth. Now that we've got that out of the way, it was my intention to stay out of this discussion but since IP couldn't leave my name out of his skewed writings and AussieLegend asked for my take at my talkpage, I feel compelled to state my case.

Just to correct IP 108.226.144.192, I DID NOT mistakenly do a thing. User: Spongey215 DID NOT make his intentions clear just as he HAS NOT made his intentions clear in this very overhaul he's pulled without a clear edit summary nor a thorough consensus. And that's evidence by the involvement of new users who are now complaining about his actions.

Just because the three of you (IP 108.226.144.192, Spongey and WattleBird) have more time on your hands to continually reiterate your standpoint until you're blue in the face DOES NOT change the fact that multiple editors have disagreed with you, now including new editor to the discussion, AussieLegend and Cyphoid. Just as a note to Aussie, the multitude of editors at the beginning of this discussion who disagreed with them simply have not had the time to reiterate themselves like they have so I guess they've taken that to mean consensus.

User Spongey, no consensus has been made for this overhaul you've taken it upon yourself to pull so kindly stop acting like there has been. What you're doing is completely and totally inconsiderate to other editors who have different feelings from you and all the work other editors have done with these articles. For that reason, you need to wait for consensus and that's what Aussie has been trying to explain to you with great patience. What you can do is reign all of that back in, start communicating clearly and stop making sloppy edits that remove images and create a mess. Thank you! AmericanDad86 (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Most sources indicate that the "fewer-season numbering" is more common and due to the one person who confused the hell out of everyone caused this. FoxFlash uses the fewer. Many digital download sites use the fewer. TBS now uses the fewer. If TBS is now an American Dad original series and they follow the fewer, and if FoxFlash and digital download sites use the fewer, why must we keep arguing, bickering, and debating about it. Yes, I've heard many times that "I MUST WAIT FOR CONSENSUS". Why the fuck must we wait for consensus and allow other editors to join (some might not even know about the season confusioning) if most sources indicate it are right? I don't see the point in waiting for consensus.

You giant bloody hypocrite, User:AmericanDad86. Earlier in this situation when you felt that you had "the numbers" to win in a vote, you were more than happy to let consensus be reached by a mere vote, yet when people who originally disagreed actually took the time to read information that we were presenting some of them "turned", and now you're saying consensus isn't reached when people are still disagreeing. And we're not re-stating our stance over and over until we're "blue in the face", we're having what is called a conversation when what you wanted to have was a monologue that would have ultimately got us nowhere. Not to mention you would pretend sources we presented didn't exist and wouldn't read them unless it backed up your stance, which happened when you decided to back a source we gave when you erroneously misinterpreted another user's comment thinking it backed your stance, then when this was pointed out, you went back to pretending it didn't exist again.

Please go back to not wanting to be involved, because your hypocritical, pig-headed views were not missed. - Wattlebird (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

That's kind of the reason why we should've voted. People who know about the AD numbering might be able to input good help while the people who don't might just fuck things up anymore.

And yes, I do understand that Aussie has tried to explain to me. I get it, but I see no point in consensus when most sources are correct. And my edits weren't sloppy. I added the new three episode season photo (the one with the blue background with Stan) and it got removed. And the Volume 5 DVD was in the Season Four article. Nothing was sloppy fucking.

Now what are we gonna do about this conflict thing? I still recommend that we change it to the fewer as most sources follow the fewer. Spongey253 (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Err... why has Wattlebird posted a comment right smack-dab in the middle of Spongey's comment so that Spongey's comment is now separated by a bunch of pissing and moaning by WattleBird inserted in the middle?! As of Sunday, September 28, 2014, that is at least the case. Wattlebird's bumbling posting skills are not unlike his skills in logic and communications I see but I digress. AmericanDad86 (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, your statement "I see no point in consensus" either implies that you don't understand what consensus is, or you don't care. If you don't care about consensus, you shouldn't be here. If you do care about consensus, then you may wish to brush up on it: WP:CONSENSUS. Per your comment, "That's kind of the reason why we should've voted", no, that's absolutely the reason why I, a person who's probably never edited this article, stepped in, because it looked like the dispute was trying to be a popularity contest. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Secondly, you've twice said "most sources", but nobody here is in a position to say what "most" sources say; that's conjecture and would otherwise be WP:OR if it weren't assumed to be hyperbole. I seem to recall that there are inconsistencies even with the reliable sources for example the TBS press release announcing an 11th season. We can't cherrypick sources that agree with our worldview and disregard all others. We can't decide what are the correct accounts, and what are the incorrect accounts. Either we wait until the mess is straightened out, or somewhere there is a reasonable middle-ground, or perhaps there is another option not yet presented. There is no deadline. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia went down the wrong path, plain and simple and there isn't anything more left BUT to fix what is broken. We are not cherry picking facts, we are not conducting "individual research" and I requested an answer to what would otherwise satisfy a proof requirement and did not receive an answer. People keep demanding vague requirements to keep THEIR own little view in place when TBS has JUST settled it once and for all with their recent press release. Is there some sort of "magic bullet" that you think will erase that? This is NOT at odds with FOX, only those who hate to have been revealed to have been stubborn fools for the past several years. For that matter, why DO those refusing to change insist THEY are correct? I have yet to see the latest arguments, especially in light of the latest developments. The only thing going for them is their tenacity for reversals.

"I for one, took that to mean everything should stay in place while we hash things out," - That's exactly what should happen.

Now you are using me out of context. The edits already done to the page were to stay in place. 108.226.144.192 (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I was a little bit "fucked in the head" when I wrote that. I agree we can't cherrypick sources, but. What I meant was, we should follow the newest sources for American Dad. TBS is now American Dad's and they follow the fewer, according to the recent press release.You guys might follow the longer, but TBS kind of ended it once and for all, but you guys keep saying "Nope, let's keep it this way".

And yeah, I care and know what consensus is, but I don't see any point in it. Spongey253 (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

IP 108.226.144.192, you wrote "Wikipedia went down the wrong path, plain and simple." And you won't be doing any road construction along that path until you care to get to consensus. In case your eyes are deceiving you, this path isn't a one-way street with a "wrong way" sign up directed towards what you're in disagreement with. It's a subjective matter that has no set right and wrong, thus consensus counts, big guy. As for their being "nothing more left to do but fix what is broken," I hate to burst this bubble within which only you and your opinion exist but when consensus has not been reached and there's others in disagreement, there's plenty more left to do before taking it upon yourself to impose your will above everyone else, big guy.

As far as all this commentary regarding TBS having the final say on the matter because they now own the program and anything else is vaguely supported at best, what Wikipedia policy is that in accordance with exactly? Do tell. Because the only Wikipedia policy I've found in relation to this is one that effectively takes away from your argument and that is:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. (found at WP:PSTS)

So as far as Wikipedia policy is concerned, TBS has the least say on the matter. And if it were such a case that primary sources carried more weight than secondary sources, I should think that Fox which owned the program first and for a whopping 10 years would have more say than TBS which hasn't even owned the program for more than a few weeks if even that.

Bottomline, the "TBS has the final say" argument is out the window based upon Wikipedia policy so enough with that. And there's a plethora of secondary sources that do not support your one-season-less/three-episode-season preference so can the baseless claims that "most secondary sources across the Internet agree with us." That is, unless of course, this is based on your purchasing of one of those handy dandy American-Dad-Internet-Source-Scanners that traces the entire World Wide Web to see how many sources agree and disagree with you. AmericanDad86 (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

FOX was a split decision with TWO possible right answers and there is no way you can say the other one was pulled out of the ass. This argument has been going on for years and now you are on the losing side of it since TBS has made a choice which one to follow. Does Wikipedia's "policy" mean ignoring the overwhelming support by both owners because they BOTH differ from YOUR view? In addition, I'd like a definition of "plethora" because I have little doubt that the long first season model is supported by a whole lot more secondary sources than the short version instituted here. 108.226.144.192 (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that this discussion needs to be collapsed, and a new discussion, with fresh minds, and fresh threading needs to start. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. AmericanDad86 (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. We need someone else other than us, to choose and decide. Spongey253 (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Somewhat agree...but do we send it for a higher level of moderation than already done? I think this is a different enough topic than the three-episode deal, but can we get a party to tackle it without just punting it back again? 108.226.144.192 (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

What is starting a third section (the first section was deleted) to discuss this going to do? No-one's opinion is magically going to change, and it's just going to eventually end up where this section has already (as this is exactly where section #1 ended). Although a new thread will hopefully feature less hypocrisy from a certain user - who managed to leave "forever" and then return just 10 days later in the same section. lulz. - Wattlebird (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

What are we doing with the AD pages? TBS is now American Dad's, and they still are counting it as the fewer. Just wondering since the first episode info came out. Spongey253 (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

In a new development, TBS has changed their season count to the short first season, and appears to be including the last three FOX episodes into their "Season 11". [15] So now what? 108.226.144.192 (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate 108's posting of this info as it underscores why rushing to assert a particular vision of disputed content is not in the interest of a global encyclopedia. Sometimes we have to wait, or find a way to explain discrepancies without taking a position one way or another, as frustrating as it might be. If there is a continuation of this discussion, I hope that we have elevated to constructive discourse, and that we can find a solution that considers both the facts as well as the discrepancies. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, if TBS is now following the longer, okay then. As long as TBS gets its Season 11 I'm happy. So we'll combine the three-episode season and the TBS season into one big 18 episode season 11, I suppose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spongey253 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

With the "3 episode season" claims being effectively shot down, I have corrected the American Dad (season 11) article to represent an 18-episode season that incorporates the three Fox episodes. I have also removed all information at the List of American Dad! episodes suggesting a 3 episode 11th season and a 12th season, so that it now correctly indicates an 18 episode 11th season. If there's any further clean up to be done as far as the actual American Dad! article itself, I'll scan for that. Other than that, I think my work here is done, folks. Thanks to all editors involved in this discussion. Cheers! AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I admit I never expected TBS to muddy the water even further although I had considered possible scenarios. As I see it, there are now at LEAST three possible season counts:

1. Short first season, FOX final episodes incorporated into the primary TBS 11th season. This choice runs contrary to the FOX information of the stand-alone short 10th season and with FOXFlash/PR/Media.
2. Long first season, short FOX season 10, stand-alone TBS 11th season. This is now at odds with the latest TBS info.
3. Short first season, final three FOX episodes as season 11 and TBS as season 12. This does not agree with FOX or the latest TBS press releases, although it may find itself taking a stronger hold in the future with TBS' own "official" American Dad page linked above in the future. (Or in other words, it is the series page vs. PR all over again with the roles reversed.)

Edit: I was working on my paragraph when 86 entered his info. Since the choice no longer leans sharply in a particular direction, I'm now just curious what everyone else has to say without advocating one choice over the others. 108.226.144.192 (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the edit conflict. I think the debate is resolved and that there's no use prolonging the agony of this already deathly long debate. There's always going to be a discrepancy with this program.

As I said in the beginning, so long as we're explaining the discrepancy and all of its dimensions in detail as is the case here in this article, I don't think there's any point in undergoing a major overhaul with all the American Dad pages. Now that you feel there's no sharp leaning and Spongey215 has expressed his contentment with the latest finding from TBS, it's all the more reason to leave as is and just add emphasis and detail to our discrepancy section so as to satisfy all sides. AmericanDad86 (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I probably should have left you out of that, I just thought something you may have added might jar with what I was trying to say or look out of place posting after. :) A heads up on something else I noticed. Under TBS "Season 2" is that the episodes are not necessarily in the right broadcast order, listing "All About Steve" before "Bullocks to Stan" and "A Smith in the Hand".[16] Probably inconsequential, either due to an odd job realigning the episodes on the page by TBS, or perhaps a change in the TBS air date itself which I can't prove at this time. There might be others which I have yet to discover, but it may be an issue some time. 108.226.144.192 (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

IP, you are right on the money. I just took a look and TBS has indeed misplaced these three episodes. I'm surprised you even caught that. Very observant and savvy on your part.

Looks like TBS is getting in on this whole discrepancy tradition that has become apart of American Dad! culture. What would this network move be without TBS providing at least one discrepancy of their own for us all to bicker over. The show truly wouldn't have switched over until TBS solidified its ownership with a discrepancy of their own. LOL! Or perhaps Fox misinformed TBS and this was sort of their way of saying "goodbye" to us all. I wouldn't be surprised with the mess Fox left behind.

All joking aside though, I'm thinking that TBS just made a blunder. I suspect they're still working towards a final website layout and that we'll see further and further adjustments all the way up until the TBS debut. AmericanDad86 (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

TBS Updates

Another TBS update...the final three FOX episodes are a seperate "Season 11", the new episodes on their version of the "official page" are now season 12 which appears to include their planned broadcast order for the first six episodes and an episode name change.[17] Turner Press still maintains that it is season 11. And the fun just continues... (If this sort of thing now belongs on the episode page, I don't mind if it is now moved. Likewise, if this is getting old, I'll just let it drop.) 108.226.144.192 (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

So they have switched it AGAIN?! Ugh! And with a discrepancy on their site. IP have their been any changes since this message you wrote out on the 8th of October on the TBS website? I wish the television networks were professional. I really do. AmericanDad86 (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing that hasn't been reported. It just appears that once again the public relations department & "official page" are on two different frequencies. 108.226.144.192 (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Mercy mercy mercy me with these networks! lol! Well if it helps any, I have mapped out this back and forth mess in detail in its very own section at the American Dad! (season 11) article. It just seems everyone in charge of this show is on entirely different pages, leading to arguments and confusion among its followers. It's caused a situation where very little attention is even paid to the content of this show but more about the nature of its production. AmericanDad86 (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Well who knew this would happen? [/sarcasm]

As soon as the TBS Episode Guide changed suddenly everyone suddenly decided to act on it, rather than waiting to see what would happen in the remaining days leading up to the TBS premiere - which had actually been agreed upon earlier. And now, that very source that caused the change to combine the micro-season with the TBS run has changed again to saying that the micro-season was season 11, and the TBS episodes are season 12[18]. Let's leave it for a week, and if no conflicting information is released in the remaining days before the premiere and a few days after, I think we will FINALLY have a definitive answer. Thoughts?

- Wattlebird (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Nearly all of us though this have been caught leaning the wrong way at least once, or have argued for a change in the hopes that somehow we could finally get both the media and show page to one conclusion. A three episode season? Highly unusual but not wholly unanticipated in some quarters. TBS changing their entire back history is a personal sore spot for myself, but again, I'll concede that some have argued to wait and have been proven correct there. TBS PR & show page BOTH imitating FOX with a season 11/season 12 mismatch? I don't think anyone saw that coming.

In answer to the question, I don't think there is anything to be lost in maintaining the status quo. That is exactly what appears to be going on elsewhere. 108.226.144.192 (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Leaving it at the "status quo" could be viewed as extremely hypocritical as when the source changed to the one-more labeling method, original research instantly took place assuming that it would mean that the FOX/TBS episodes would be one season - despite there being NOTHING on the page at the time that indicated/hinted that this would be the case. Now the pages have been updated and has clearly label the TBS episodes as separate from the FOX episodes from September - the EXACT same source that was used as the 'smoking gun' to end the dispute and merge the episodes.

I never pushed the original research claim because it seems like I was the only one sticking to the original plan of waiting to see what information would be released closer to the premiere and now look where we are - at the point where now everything that has been done in the last few weeks is going to have to be changed because if that source was the 'smoking gun' to confirm one point of view, then when that source changes it would be only fair to change the article(s) to reflect the change - otherwise people are just picking and choosing what they feel is relevant and all the articles instantly lose all credibility.

- Wattlebird (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Have we a misunderstanding? By "status quo," I was in agreement with your suggestion to hold things a week or as needed. And it appeared you were bucking with Spongey and myself to change up the system from the first season on when everything pointed in that direction. 108.226.144.192 (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Another update. If TBS says it's season 12, then time to change everything, again. Spongey253 (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

We have seen the "Season 12" update. Right now I believe it's waiting to see if TBS changes their mind yet again. 108.226.144.192 (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

So the agreed upon week has now passed, and TBS haven't flip-flopped again nor have they released any contradictory information (which is unlike the previous Episode Guide change), so time to bring back the micro-season? - Wattlebird (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I think so. 108.226.144.192 (talk) 00:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objections/things they want to bring up before any changes are made? Spongey253? AmericanDad86? If not, looks like the edit will go ahead. - Wattlebird (talk) 06:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Wayne Dublin Outed As A Fake

Writer Wayne Dublin outed as fake. [19] Could this be incorporated into the article? Nohomersryan (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Why would we include something like this based on forum posts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as how Andrew Hollandsworth posted it (he's one of the animation production assistants) it would be noteworthy. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

How do we know this person is who he claims to be? And what is the reasonable expectation of accuracy? Production assistants are low on most entertainment totem poles, basically interns with pay, and are not typically in a position to comment with any expected expertise on anything like this. Doesn't meet WP:V. Further, we are not a breaking news source, so it is not our place to keep the universe apprised of all the tasty gossip. This is perhaps best left for time to answer. And, since we are proposing commentary that could potentially be libelous if the alleged production assistant's alleged claims are incorrect, we should absolutely err on the side of caution per normal WP:BLP considerations. Them's my thoughts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

episode number discrepancy

I just read the section while trying to see if the season is over, and i looked into episode 150. Going by production numbers, an episode from earlier in Season, air wise, is newer, so they May be Going by production numbers. I thought this might be worthy of mentioning in the article as a theory. 66.87.113.225 (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Cringe comedy and shock value

American Dad almost never uses this form of comedy (Family Guy is an example of a show that frequently uses it), and the examples given don't fall into that category. While some of the subjects may be considered inappropriate for audiences, that doesn't automatically make them cringe comedy.

I don't have the skill to write articles, but I thought someone should take care of this. JoostinOnline (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on American Dad!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130927115426/http://www.collegehumor.com/video/3361684/american-dad-volume-three to http://www.collegehumor.com/video/3361684/american-dad-volume-three

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Picture Format

American Dad! production went HD starting with "1600 Candles", which aired Sept. 28, 2008. Those episodes were still 4:3. I'm not sure if FOX aired them in HD or not. The show went wide-screen 16:9 starting with "Don't Look a Smith Horse in the Mouth", Jan. 3, 2010. The show was almost certainly produced in 1080p from that first HD episode, despite FOX airing them in 720p. 1080p is far more common for HDTV production, and the later 16:9 1080p episodes that I have contain animation identical to the earlier 4:3 HD episodes that I have in 720p, differences in sharpness aside.

But the American Dad! article's Picture Format section is under the Release header. Does it really make sense to talk about the picture format of the release rather than the picture format of the production? American Dad! episodes have subsequently been released on Adult Swim, TBS, and the web, so FOX's original release may not be the most relevant. Balazer (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 17 external links on American Dad!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130910214252/http://www.fox.com/americandad/about/ to http://www.fox.com/americandad/about/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130927214938/http://voices.yahoo.com/american-dad-gets-another-22-episodes-412027.html?cat=2 to http://voices.yahoo.com/american-dad-gets-another-22-episodes-412027.html?cat=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130428165101/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/showrunners-2012-seth-macfarlane-family-guy%3Damerican-dad-cleveland-show-375974 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/showrunners-2012-seth-macfarlane-family-guy%3Damerican-dad-cleveland-show-375974
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130513053906/http://www.fox.com:80/americandad/recaps/season-9/episode-19 to http://www.fox.com/americandad/recaps/season-9/episode-19
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130913112907/http://www.fox.com/americandad/ to http://www.fox.com/americandad/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130923001639/http://tv-facts.net/movie-review/american-dad/ to http://tv-facts.net/movie-review/american-dad/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120925220310/http://www.zap2it.com/news/custom/photogallery/tv/la-et-post-super-bowl-tv-shows-pg,0,1005134,showall.photogallery to http://www.zap2it.com/news/custom/photogallery/tv/la-et-post-super-bowl-tv-shows-pg,0,1005134,showall.photogallery
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140714195914/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=062105_05 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=062105_05
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141010224625/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=062105_06 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=062105_06
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141105055054/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=091305_04 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=091305_04
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100528005920/http://abcmedianet.com:80/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=051606_06 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=051606_06
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141011060406/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=053106_05 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=053106_05
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120329105539/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=091206_11 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=091206_11
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100528010145/http://abcmedianet.com:80/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=052207_06 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=052207_06
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120102063804/http://www1.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/features/e3ifbfdd1bcb53266ad8d9a71cad261604f to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/features/e3ifbfdd1bcb53266ad8d9a71cad261604f?pn=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100413172935/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=052808_06 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=052808_06
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130324184526/http://poprepublic.tv/the-news/1-latest-news/1078-poprepublictv-it-list-awards-nominees-for-2012-announced-and-public-voting-now-open to http://www.poprepublic.tv/the-news/1-latest-news/1078-poprepublictv-it-list-awards-nominees-for-2012-announced-and-public-voting-now-open

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Character descriptions

The character descriptions in this article are far too long and somewhat redundant. Some have three reasonably long descriptions in different articles. For example, Stan Smith has a 283 word summary here, a 382 word description in List of American Dad! characters and an individual 4,270 word article at Stan Smith (American Dad!). Jeff has 420 words here and 626 words at List of American Dad! characters. Descriptions here need only be very brief, concentrating on the main points, with the more detailed description at List of American Dad! characters. Characters like Stan, who have separate articles don't need as detailed descriptions in List of American Dad! characters as characters who don't. I wouldn't recommend replacing descriptions here with tables, as they have had little support in discussions, but the descriptions here need significant pruning, as there is no need to duplicate the same content in multiple articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

In the character description for Klaus, it says that he was in the 1986 Winter Olympics. There were no Olympics in 1986. They were in 1984 and 1988. I am not sure which one of those it's supposed to be. Otherwise, I would have corrected it.98.100.39.162 (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It's important to remember that this is a work of fiction. As such it doesn't have to follow the same rules as the real world. In fiction, the Winter Olympics could have been held in 1986. It's also possible in fiction to hold the Winter Olympics in the Sahara Desert. Anything is possible in fiction, even a talking fish. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Aussie, was the character section ever trimmed? It's a grotesque cruft dump now. I've added a fancruft tag, but typically this just seems to invite people to add more cruft. 73.201.123.22 (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Season number discrepancies

I really don't think this satisfies wikipedia's sourcing requirements. As it is, all major sources list them as season 1-12, including TVGuide and the networks that aired the shows, as well as everywhere that you can buy or watch the episodes online (amazon instant, netflix) as well as the hardcopy DVD's and box sets. I see no purpose in fighting to maintain the fantasy that there are 13 seasons instead of 12. The studios own the show, they decide what seasons are what. This article is at best confusing, but appears to be some TV nerds obsession with some sort of technicality or what he perceives to be a past error by the networks. Either way, I feel wikipedias sourcing requirements demand a change, since there is no valid source that can suggest, let alone prove, that there are 13 seasons instead of 12. Like I said, ALL MAJOR sources list them as season 1-12. There is no season1 3, except for here, on wikipedia. 24.180.174.240 (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

We base episode lists on how seasons aired, and the articles reflect this. We can't reorganise everything every time TBS decides to change history, which has happened more than once now. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Well then for all the time this continues the wikipedia information will be discordant with the information and facts from the official sources. Millions of people who watch the show will know there to be one less season than what wikipedia claims there to be. This is absolutely ridiculous if you think about it and the future implications of it. Eventually this is going to have to change and I doubt it's going to be the networks and all the distributors who cave to the demands of a few wikipedians. I re-assert my assertion that this article is in error and the seasons section is downright broken (and both confusing and misleading to readers) until the information is consonant with that of the official sources. 24.180.174.240 (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on American Dad!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140822121251/http://www.foxflash.com/div.php/main/page?aID=1z2z2z28z5z5 to http://www.foxflash.com/div.php/main/page?aID=1z2z2z28z5z5

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on American 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/20130929163154/http://www.awn.com/articles/people/iamerican-dadi-touchdown/page/3%2C1 to http://www.awn.com/articles/people/iamerican-dadi-touchdown/page/3%2C1
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/NoodleIncident/WesternAnimation
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.avclub.com/articles/finger-lenting-good,90011/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090623063544/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=051909_05 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=051909_05

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) 08:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American 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/20121004225412/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com:80/2012/10/02/sunday-final-ratings-once-upon-a-time-the-simpsons-bobs-burgers-adjusted-up-666-park-avenue-60-minutes-adjusted-down-final-football-numbers/150988/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/10/02/sunday-final-ratings-once-upon-a-time-the-simpsons-bobs-burgers-adjusted-up-666-park-avenue-60-minutes-adjusted-down-final-football-numbers/150988

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) 08:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Why not this way?

So I know the discussions that have been done about this before, but most of those were dilemmas. Two choices that are both valid in a way. So is there any reason whatsoever not to simply change something like "season 6" to "season 6 or 7 (see season number discrepancies)"? Experienced Wikipedians will be reminded by this of the way we solve things like the humour/humor issue. As it stands it's pointless to even name the season. Most people coming to these episode pages want to read up on an episode or find an episode, and the current version makes it practically impossible in some cases for them to do so because they'll end up at the wrong episode. I don't see why there can't be a bit more explanation in places where it could help. Going fully with side of the issue makes the articles much less accessible to millions of people who see different season numbers on their TV guides. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I doubt we really have millions of people who are having trouble accessing the episode articles they are interested in solely because of this situation. More specifically, I doubt millions of people read the episode articles for this particular series. DonIago (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Season Number Discrepancies

What is up with American Dad's Season Numbers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.132.166 (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you please clarify what you mean? There is a whole section about this in the article.--5 albert square (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The seasons are labeled incorrectly. Please refer to www.imdb.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.224.33.126 (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Imdb is not a reliable source. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on American 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/20130216042405/http://www.americandadscripts.com/S02E07_Of-Ice-and-Men.php to http://www.americandadscripts.com/S02E07_Of-Ice-and-Men.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.avclub.com/articles/finger-lenting-good%2C90011/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://lynnpatt.com/watch-american-dad-the-wrestler-season-7-episode-12.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141029184033/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/07/20/fox-announces-guest-voices-for-the-simpsons-family-guy-bobs-burgers/284387/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/07/20/fox-announces-guest-voices-for-the-simpsons-family-guy-bobs-burgers/284387/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zap2it.com/news/custom/photogallery/tv/la-et-post-super-bowl-tv-shows-pg%2C0%2C1005134%2Cshowall.photogallery
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501042023/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=100207_05 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=100207_05
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/10/02/sunday-final-ratings-once-upon-a-time-the-simpsons-bobs-burgers-adjusted-up-666-park-avenue-60-minutes-adjusted-down-final-football-numbers/150988

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) 16:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Season 15 Premiere

Why is this article and the episode list calling "Santa, Schmanta" the season premiere? TBS called that episode a special, and "Paranoid Frandroid" the season premiere. Their episode numbering calls "Shell Game" S13 | E3, consistent with a "Paranoid Frandroid" season premiere. Balazer (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I figured it out. TBS indeed calls "Paranoid Frandroid" the season premiere. But they consider "Santa, Schmanta" to be a special and part of that same season, as indicated by the season numbering at TBS.com and supported by the number of episodes that they considered to be in each season (22 in season 14 and 22 in season 15). The special aired before the season premiere, leading to the numbering discrepancy. "Santa, Schmanta" is the first episode of the season chronologically, even though it's not episode #1 by TBS's numbering. Balazer (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

References

"Miscounting" by Fox

Has it not ocurred to you that the two-part episode "Saudi Arabia" may be the reason for the "miscounting" and that it is Wikipedia's editors that are miscounting the number of episodes? It's the only two-parter with a single title. An alternative to the theory they have miscounted is that they really meant "story" rather than episode. In any case, putting together sources that call it 150th and saying they are all wrong according to us is original research. I suggest removing that section and redoing the list of episodes to reflect the two-parter as one, or a note with the information here, or else finding a source that explains this "discrepency". How are the episodes numbered on the official website? If that has a different number, there's a basis for reporting the discrepency. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Jeff Fischer (actor).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

All about American Dad

Parents should know that it's for adults like Old 18 and up not 14 and up but I don't know why it says TV-14. 2601:8B:4402:3460:80F4:EE8D:A7C3:65A9 (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Parental ratings. DonIago (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Related shows

American Dad!, Family Guy and, Cleveland Show are all related shows becuse they take place in the same universe. 137.151.175.112 (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

That's not how the related field in the infobox works. The instructions specify that the field is for "remakes, spin-offs, adaptations for different audiences, etc."Simply existing in the same universe doesn't make programs related for the purposes of the infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

You both are aware that American Dad! was made as a spin-off of Family Guy when it was first created in 2005. Just something to point out. :) Yay Dad (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Citation needed. While characters have crossed over between the two shows, AD was not created to continue the stories of any of the characters from FG. DonIago (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

most of the original family guy characters themes and models were used to enhance some of the scenes in american dad .None the less , the storyline for both shows is instanteniously intriguing . Although there may be luck of originality , both shows have proven to be at the top of every family drama 197.248.95.10 (talk) 08:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Why Don't all Episodes Have a Page

All Episodes of The Simpsons And South Park have their own Page, But Not Family Guy or American Dad, Why Is That? 75.134.189.14 (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Because not every episode is notable. There probably shouldn't be episode articles if the best we can do for that episode is include a plot summary and a couple of reviews. If anything, there's probably episodes of The Simpsons and South Park that don't merit having individual episode articles, and if you look at other TV series, there are many that have episode articles for some episodes but not others (I believe Babylon 5 would be another example). If there's an episode that you feel should have an article, and for which you have information that goes beyond the basics of a plot summary and a handful of reviews, you're welcome to pursue writing an article for the episode in question. Hope this is helpful! DonIago (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Official page has regional lockout

http://www.tbs.com/shows/american-dad.html has regional lockout, if your IP is outside of USA, then it redirects to https://www.international.tbs.com/. MarMi wiki (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this is relevant? If you're suggesting it be added to the article, then we'd need for sources to have commented upon it with regard to the show. DonIago (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a technical information for people outside of the USA (ex. other wikis), so that they knew that the official page may not be actually broken.
Some may try to remove the link or mark it as dead because of the lockout. MarMi wiki (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't count on someone who's editing at other wikis to come here to check the Talk page for this wiki, but no harm done I suppose. DonIago (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Since I got here, others can too. MarMi wiki (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Page needs polish

For being a historically relevant show this page is poorly done. Absolutely we need better, more complete, character descriptions. By someone more skilled than I, thanks! Tiptopper (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)