Talk:List of Family Guy episodes/Archive 3

Macintosh Clip

Which episode is the one with the clip of Stewie and the Macintosh voice thing? It was a small clip, but I have Mac OS 8.5 and remember that! So I want that clip but cannot remmeber the episode since it was only a 3 second clip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 712345678123456 (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Website Errors

On the family guy website, They still havent updated the website, so I say that Planet Family Guy Is The Offical Website. And FOX's Family Guy Website SUCKS A TON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

STOT DELETING THIS PAGE IN THE ARTICLE WIKIPEDA!!!!!!! GO TO THE WEBSITE AND SEE FOR YOURSELF!!!

freaking idiots }:^(

It is still the official website although they havent updated it in a bit. (although the blog is updated). Tv.com and planet family guy provide sufficient secondary resources, not sure what you are mad about... Grande13 19:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, -Justin De Lucia-

Taking charge

I just created a WikiProject for Family Guy. We will take charge of cleaning up the page and all pages related to the TV show. -PhattyFatt 18:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC) There appears to be some confusion as to when Season 4 ends and Season 5 begins. For example, the DVD release of Season 4 only contains a dozen or so episodes. One would assume that the episodes after that are part of Season 5. In fact, many websites reference the later episodes of Season 4 as part of Season 5. Perhaps we need to split the Season 4 list into two parts and explain the confusion.

This has been already discussed, and its easier just to group the episodes within the broadcast seasons they aired. Most, if not all regularly updated family guy sites have the season 5 premiere starting on sept 10th with the last 30 episodes all being part of an expanded season 4. Its noted at the top of the page how there was some gaps between episodes but how everything from may 2005-2006 is season 4, so it should just be kept that way. People can look at the dates next to each episode if they have any other confusion, so it should be kept as is.

Movie airing in full?

I see Fox decided to air the movie in full instead of the three individual episodes. Are they going to air a 60 minute (roughly the length of three episodes) version or the full 90 minute version? Will they eventually air it as three episodes in syndication (three more episodes is worth a lot in syndication)? If they do air the movie in full and never show the three episodes individually shouldn't we drop them from season 4 and create a "specials" section to list the movie? While I am on that I guess we should also add the 7 minute pilot to the episode lists.Generalleoff 02:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

fox is airing the movie episodes in there tv form on may 21st. It starts 30 minutes earlier and runs an hour and a half allowing them to show each episode individually. So basically they are running the 3 tv censored episodes together and calling it the movie, although it will differ as some jokes will be cenosred and/or replaced. So its believed they are airing individual episodes as opposed to the actual movie. Saying its the movie seems to be more of a promotional stunt than anything. This means they are different from their movie form so they should still remain in season 4, although fox can always change their mind, but we should not change anything until they air so we can determine exactly what format they are presented. There still could be a special section for the movie on the list, but the 3 individual episodes should also be part of the season66.243.130.10 08:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The episodes airig on may 21st are the tv versions of the movie's episodes, so they should remain as they are going to be in different form with a few different jokes as wel from their orignial uncensored versions, so they should remain on the list. When the episodes due air on each episodes page it there should be a list or something noting the differences between versions Grande13 21:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Featured list nomination? Yes or no?

I think this list deserves to nominated as a featured list sometime in the future. (After a little more cleaning up, of course), but it's really shaping up. See List of South Park episodes as a guide for what a featured episode list should be like. Zone46 02:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I proposed this a few weeks ago, there is still the task of giving a fair use rational on all images. Myself and another editor are in the process of getting screengrabs from the DVD's, so that all license information can be the same. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 02:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be good if all the descriptions were roughly the same length, at the moment some are only a few words whereas a few others are about 5 lines. I guess 1 or 2 sentences is enough when it's only a summary page so maybe some trimming is needed. Jimbow25 19:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Images in this article fair use?

Settle it here rather then fight about it on the article page by removing and replacing them over and over. Generalleoff 09:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No, they aren't. Take it to Wikipedia_talk:Fair use if you like. ed g2s • talk 17:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't personally have an issue with it. In fact I think you are right and they are not fair use. I simply feel the matter could be handled in a more professional manner. The very instance this matter came into dispute after the first image removal this discussion subject should have been created and the matter settled without the need for constantly editing and restoring the article. We do have a discussion page for a reason after all. Generalleoff 22:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to encourage those editors who are inserting all of these images into this list to review Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Fair use. We don't use unfree media to decorate our lists. Jkelly 04:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• List of South Park episodes has screenshots, and it's been declaired a featured list. The images are fair use, since they are low resolution, and they emphisize the subject at hand, being that particular family guy episode. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 23:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of South Park episodes -- the image question was contentious there. The list was promoted after a Fair use rationale was written for each one. The images here have no rationale. I think that was a mistake, but I'll stop removing the images if an editor here writes a rationale for each one of these. Jkelly 00:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I will write a fair use rational for each of them later this afternoon, when I have time. I know at least some of them have a FUR, since I've uploaded 1 or 2 of those images. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 11:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks lightdarkness, I feel the images are one of the main things that make this episode guide stand out from the rest.Grande13 22:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I feel that, when adding new photos, we should try and maintain the pattern of the image size to nearest as possible to what it has always been. Two obvious flaws of this resides under Brain Goes Back to College and You May Now Kiss The..Uh..Guy Who Receives. If anyone could change these images to a different size or a different image, it would make the it all look that much better.Patesta 23:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You need a fair use rationale, detailing why the image is essential to illustrating the episode summary. You can't simply argue that the images are really useful or "they emphisize the subject at hand" (sic.); that may be the case - but it's not enough for fair use. ed g2s • talk 15:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Its not that hard to do and i had checked a few of the seasons the majority of the images did relate to the main plot elements. While the editors of this article including myself have been a bit slow writing the rationales simply removing the images is disruptive and leaves the images open for deletion. Please try to explain to people the need for the rationales rather than just removing things. Discordance 22:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Also why were the DVD images removed? ed g2s please re-read fair use, the only requirement for DVD covers is that they be used to indentify a DVD discussed in the article. All the DVD images were fair use and I had written adequate rationales for them removing them was completely uncalled for watch what your doing in future. Discordance 22:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No, fair use is allowed to illustrate an article of significant sub-section. The discussion of the DVDs only as part of a larger list, and hardly requires illustration. The article is about a list of Family Guy episodes, so the DVDs are included to show how the episodes have been grouped for release. The design of the covers hardly adds to anyones knowledge of this subject0, let alone significantly. {{DVDcover}} is not a carte blanche to use these images wherever the DVD is mentioned. ed g2s • talk 09:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The same would be true for any article discussing the DVDs by your logic we should completely exclude DVD covers as useless. They are fair use and can do little other than identify a DVD under discussion, here we have talked about the quality of the DVDs and their arrangement what else could we possible discuss about the DVDs in any article. Take your copyright paranoia elsewhere, people can hardly look at the picture and imagine themselves a copy of the DVD. Discordance 12:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If you still disagree I suggest you get an outside opinion as all the editors here disagree with you, although we do need to write the rationales for the episode screenshots. You are hardly a fair use expert any more than I am. Discordance 13:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The images justify fair use. They are realvent to the subject and have proper copyright. But if you think we need to turn down the resoultion, change them into .gifs. The Republican 18:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Now half the images are gone. I doubt that's any better Patesta 19:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Adding all the pictures back?

Can you please add all the family guy pictures back please!!!--67.34.215.195 00:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've taken them out again as it needs to be clear which images need replacing, as a lot of the old ones are a bit dubious. To fully satisfy fair use the image needs to illustrate the main plot point given in the summary in some way, which means no gag pictures im afraid, youll have to take those to the episode pages themselves. I've restored as much of season 3 that was suitable and about half of season 4. I will finish off the suitable season 4 images now, but im afraid i dont have time to look for new ones right now. If anyone wants to browse familyguyfiles.com for the missing season 3 and 4 images and all of season 1 itd be a help. If you find something suitable about the plot ill try to write the fair use rationale for you after you add it to the page. The images need correct sources too so tell me if its from somewhere other than familyguyfiles.com. A fair amount of season 2 was ok as well ill go through those later in the week unless someone else can do it. Discordance 01:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've readded the remaining old images that were acceptable so go ahead and fill in the gaps. Discordance 03:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

With new images please anons. Discordance 00:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the Article

This article should be split so that it does not have to be split later when article gets too big. An example of this is the List of Simpsons episodes article. Zweinstein 01:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, 75 or so episodes isn't that many for one page. South Park has a lot more episodes and its episode list is a featured list so they must be doing something right.Jimbow25 23:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

People seem to bring this up from time to time, but no its not a good idea to split things (see WP:SIZE, lists should not be broken up and are not included towards the 32kb guide length) unless it gets to the extreme level simpsons did. If Family Guy does last ten years and end up like simpsons your internet connection wont have a problem with the page... Please take the tag down. Discordance 00:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Tag has been removed Zweinstein 02:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Discordance 11:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Quotation signs

Is there a particular reason for the article to have quotation signs (") on all the titles? --213.67.162.10 20:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes its part of the wikipedia style guide WP:MOS-T#Quotation_marks. Discordance 11:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

CAN YOU PLEASE BRING BACK ALL THE FAMILY GUY IMAGES BACK!!!!!--67.34.214.144 21:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hrm, isn't there any correction on talk pages for all uppercase with improper punctuation?
Anyhow, the image on the Emission Impossible page seems to match the episode, although it might spoil a bit on how Stewey intends to stop the impregnation. --MooNFisH 22:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

WOULD SOMEONE STOP DELETING THE IMAGES!!!!!!!

HEY PEOPLE, STOP DELETING THE FAMILY GUY PICTURES BEACAUSE I AM NOT GOING TO UPLOAD AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN, SO WOULD YOU PLEASE STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!--Jsalims 16:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

As I've noted on your talk page, we have to give a proper fair use tag with rationale for the images to be included here. Otherwise, they infringe on copyright laws. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 16:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Season 4 / Season 5 Split

There appears to be some confusion as to when Season 4 ends and Season 5 begins. For example, the DVD release of Season 4 only contains a dozen or so episodes. One would assume that the episodes after that are part of Season 5. In fact, many websites reference the later episodes of Season 4 as part of Season 5. Perhaps we need to split the Season 4 list into two parts and explain the confusion. Jmacdonagh 19:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

at the top of the episodes page it details how the season 4 was divided into 2 segments, nothing further is needed as the airing date is also next to each episode, so people can be aware of any gaps —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs)

The definitive answer will come when familyguy.com makes up its mind and posts episodes in its guide beyond patriot games. Discordance 09:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm in the UK and the box set being advertised as Season 4 goes up to the episode Jungle Love. The next FG box set due out is called Season 5. Freddie McPhyll 16:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well this family guy page goes by how its ordered in the US, so using that criteria season 5 starts in sept 06

This is what I don't understand. The commercials that aired for the first episode in September 2005 specifically billed it as a "season premiere", making that the 5th season, and the current one (06-07) the 6th season.GeneralDuke 02:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Fox just messed up with their promotions a bit. Regardless, look at the official episode guide at familyguy.com which states we are currently on the 5th season, enough said.

i think the problem is that this is volume 4 when on other box set (which i have) it says its Season 5 -it clearly says 'season 5' on the front of the dvd case, and as the article is written using 'seasons', not 'volumes', i believe it should be split up into seasons 4 and 5 Scotty.n 00:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey you not read the previous posts? This guide is according to the region one format for the series, and since it was only mislabled season 5 in some other regions then it shall remain as the 30 episode season 4 that it actually is, which can be verified, as stated above, on the familyguy.com website.... Grande13

Although the wewbsite you say to look at( ^ ) says only 27 episodes for Season 4?? In the UK (& elsewhere??) season 5 runs from "PTV" to "Griffin Family History" and is only 14 epsiodes long.. surely it should be explained somewhere in the article that different regions have different season numbers?? ~Aurelius~

Well they are a bit behind on updating the official website, although the guide on wikipedia has filled in the rest. If you want to make comments you can now do so on the individual season pages, but the current season is 5 and season 4 consisted of episodes North by North Quahog all the way through the Stu and Stewie's Excellent Adventure. Grande13

Adding the Rest of the Pictures to Season 3

Can you please add the Rest of the Pictures to Season 3?--Jsalims 13:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Needed

Okay, the episode articles need cleaning up a bit. For one thing, the guy that captioned all the pictures seems to have a very tenuous grasp on the English language. And for another, the episode descriptions for season four are poorly-written and confusing. Seriously guys, they're looking worse than Little Britain's wikiquote page. *rimshot* 80.41.44.251 19:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Season 5 spoilers and news source from Comic-com 2006

incase anyone was wondering.... http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=7941 Grande13

The picture quality

I suppose it doesn't matter for this article, but for the linked episode articles some of the pictures look very crappy, like someone forgot to apply auto contrast or auto brightness or something (look at the picture in One If by Clam, Two If by Sea, for example). On the other hand, see how vibrant the picture in Sibling Rivalry (Family Guy) looks! Michiganotaku 17:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that looks beautiful (the picture in "Sibling Rivalry"). I'm going to have to ask whoever uploaded what they did to make it look so nice. Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Season 5 airdates

Hey guys, I just noticed that Stewie Loves Lois, and Mother Tucker got switched. I was wondering where you found this info, I checked at Familyguy.com and there was nothing new.--Fish 01:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The schedule or upcoming events for september shows the episode order for the first three episodes and states the premiere is Stewie Loves Lois - Grande13

thanks, for some reason it didn't show up last night. I see it now though.--Fish 22:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Details on Season 5 Finale and Season 6 Premiere

Yes its a bit early, but since the information is available it should be updated, so please dont change without further discussion here.

From Greg Colton (Rare Hero) on damnyouall.net

"...The one they've been calling the 100th episode is actually the 99th (Part 2, the '07 season premiere is really 100) ....and - the 3 episodes that made the DVD Movie aren't being counted"

so its appears the offical count is off by 3 then meaning the advertised 100th episode is really 103 - Grande13

I'm still skeptical of damnyouall.net. The official familyguy.com has its own blog. Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

yes most people probably shouldnt be trusted on damnyouall.net, however there are a few exceptions, one being Greg Colton (Rare Hero username) as he is one of the directors of family guy, and it has been confirmed that Rare hero is actually Colton, so the information is pretty reliable Grande13.

what happened?

Why are some of the episodes empty, they weren't empty before? Pece Kocovski 13:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Because the person that added them provided no source, if a source is found, then they will be added back

What do you mean, "no source"!? why would you need a source, there episodes of a cartoon??????

Because without a source anyone could just make up some episodes and add them. A source could be a quote, article, or anything like that. Snotplinkoid though is not completely legit, while some of his titles may end up being correct, he's been known to add random false info onto pages. He recently added episodes for American dad using stories from past family guy episodes and was just changing the characters names for American Dad characters. Thats why material that doesnt have some sort of source can't be used for episodes to air in the future.

Change

Hey, can I change the cutural references? Like what they did in Planet Family Guy? :C

Season 4/5 Confusion

there is a lot of confusion of the fact where season 5 starts and season 4 ends. I have checked other websites and they say that season 5 begins with 'Model Misbehaviour' so i thought we should explain the confusion.

Its already noted at the top of the episode list page about the gaps between episodes

220.101.137.152 06:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Mase 21/9 16:15

I was thinking the same thing. aI thought this season was the fourth when its the 5th.74.195.3.11 00:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I just got Family Guy Vol. 5 and is Season 5 Part 1 in the US. and the first episode according to it is Stewie Loves Lois.

Episode Title Change

In an interview with Alex Borstein, she states that her book and episode of the same name "It Takes A Village Idiot, And I Married One" are both coming out in the spring. She originally stated on her website a few months ago that she was writing an episode tentatively named "Lois Pewtershmidt Griffin", that would coincide with a book release. this is why I have updated the title.--Fish 05:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Take Away

Should we take Stewie B. Goode, Bango Was His Name Oh! and Stu and Stewie's Excellent Adventure away? Because they don't show it on http://www.familyguy.com/ or other websites! They don't even show it in the Volume Four box set! (67.83.168.230 00:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC))

Its should be included in season 4 and should be considered the finale to that season. It was initially assumed that the 3 tv versions would make there way to a season dvd set, but it has to yet to be known if they will be included on a future release

New Episodes and Titles

Posted by Greg Colton, Director of Family Guy,

Remaining production 5 eps

5ACX01 - Prick Up Your Ears 5ACX02 - Chick Cancer 5ACX03 - Barely Legal 5ACX04 - Road To Rupert 5ACX05 - Peter's Two Dads 5ACX06 - The Tan Aquatic with Steve Zissou 5ACX07 - BIll and Peter's Bogus Journey 5ACX08 - Airport '07 5ACX09 - No Meals Oh Wheels 5ACX10 - Boys Do Cry 5ACX11 - No Chris Left Behind 5ACX12 - It Takes A Village Idiot, And I Married One (Previously,Lois Pewterschnidt Griffin) 5ACX13 - Meet the Quagmires 5ACX14 - Movin' Out (Brian's Song) 5ACX15 - Believe it or Not, Joe's Walking on Air 5ACX16 & 5ACX22 - Blue Harvest (Full Hour Episode) 5ACX17 - Stewie Kills Lois 5ACX18 - Lois Kills Stewie 5ACX19 - McStroke (Formerly Peter Strokes His Meat) 5ACX20 - Padre De Familia 5ACX21 - Peter's Daughter

Grande13 06:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Episode article section order discussion

This is very likely the first time this is being formally discussed. In the past, the most important guidelines on this came from the user who was foundational to the articles on individual Family Guy episodes, and that user is User:Cromulent Kwyjibo.

The two major trends for these articles have been: addition of infoboxes and extreme PowerPointization (indiscriminate use of bullet points even when paragraphs might make more sense). The first is a good thing, the latter is bad. Bullet points give deletionists ammo in the argument that these articles are little more than fancruft repositories.

By placing notes before cultural references, and limiting notes to those items that contribute to an understanding of each episode in the context of the entire oeuvre, I hope that these articles can be steered more towards becoming encyclopedic and insightful windows on these little masterpieces.

The idea that section headings should be "alphabetized" is a misguided confusion. As Robert Happelberg pointed out, that applies to categories, like "Category:Fictional blacks." Section headings go as is more logical to the topic in question.

I volunteer to go through each of these articles, as I have already begun to do, and clean up various things. But as I do have a day job and a class, I can only do a handful of episodes at a time, or at most an entire season. Plus there are other topic areas in Wikipedia that I keep watch of. Anton Mravcek 00:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

sounds good, just make sure you do the same to everything...I'll fix the format for the episodes that have yet to come, so just work on the ones that have aired Grande13 01:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I look at the article on the Odyssey and I think that's pretty much what the TV episode articles ought to aim for in terms of quality. Putting the notes up is something that might help in this direction, but more thoughtful edits are needed. That will take careful review of the canon (e.g., watching the episodes) and reflection upon them. Cromulent Kwyjibo 00:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

We also need to distinguish carefully what belongs in those sections and what doesn't. Given the huge amounts of poorly written fancruft that have barnacled on those pages, it's a difficult and time-consuming process. In my opinion,

• Notes contain inter-episode continuity and subtle factual errors that are not revealed as such by the humor.
• Cultural reference are references to pop culture, but need to be grouped into paragraphs according to what is being alluded to
• Trivia is stuff that only hardcore fans and certain highly specialized academics are likely to care about.

We must also take care not to simply copy press releases verbatim. Not that we'd get sued or anything, it's just so that we can look at ourselves in the mirror. ShutterBugTrekker 23:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

TWO-PART

There's another miniseries coming up in 2007. Its about Stewie getting a grip on reality as he thinks Rupert is real thanks to Brian. Peter, Lois, Cleveland all end up in jailed after neighborhood cable and mail robbery. This is all tentative as they started production for season 6. It's title is Stewie Kills Lois (1)74.195.3.11 00:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are these miniseries episodes listed four episodes into the 6th season? The 'Lois Kills Stewie' episode is listed as 'a continuation of the fifth season's finale episode. ', so I'm confused Expert10 23:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

production ran behind this season and the two parter will now just be a part of season 6. There will only be 18 episodes of season 5 as indicated by the episodes list. the official family guy blog has more details Grande13

Australian Seasons of Family Guy

Reading this article, I have noticed something. The Australian seasons have been split differently to the US seasons. Any reason why this might be? The Australian DVD releases information can be found at these web pages from EzyDVD:

• Season One
• Season Two
• Season Three
• Season Four
• Season Five

Looks to me that Season four (US) has been split up into two seasons for Australia. Does any other countries do this? Is it worth including in the article that this is the situation for Region 4 releases of Family Guy? Thanks for any clarification I may receive. --Lakeyboy 01:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This can be found in detail on the Family Guy DVDs webpage. While the DVDS for austrailia are labeled as slightly different seasons it is just due to the marketing team for Fox over there. Season four was split into two dvd releases and for some reason those regions decided to divide it into 2 seasons even though everything official was saying it was one big 30 episode season 4. Regardless, you could still work on updating some of the info over there at the Family Guy DVDs page, but in reality they are on the 5th season as well broadcast wise, although the scheduling overthere has gaps that were much longer than were found in the US markets Grande13 01:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I used to live there. Australia, does it to give them more time to edit newer shows that have yet to be broadcast. One episode they skipped entirely.74.195.3.11 01:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

not really, I believe it has more to do with broadcasting rights and finding a free time and channel to air the episodes on. Grande13 01:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not just seasons 4 and 5 that are different. Our season OWene DVD has 14 episodes, even though this page says season one only has seven. These extra seven episodes apear to be rendomly selected episodes from season two. Amazonis 05:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I didnt think they choose them randomly as they just released the DVDS by production seasons, which in that case season one is 15 eps or so long. I believe this is all explained on the DVDS page as well Grande13 11:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey

the family guy logo file is being replaced with a PNG version. please could you find any instances of the JPG version and replace them with the PNG version?

Link to discussion about image deletions

Please note that a number of images used on this page have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 December 30 (use the table of contents to locate the discussion on that page). I believe that community involvement should be solicited. Please note that to be a constructive discussion will require more then just "don't delete them", "they are fair use" or "get rid of them" - it requires considered reasoning. Also, please keep in mind WP:NPA.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 16:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In short, the issue is that a number of screenshot images have the big "Planet Family Guy" watermark clearly visible in the lower left. IMO this is inappropriate for Wikipedia, and the images should be easy to replace, so they should be deleted. Mangojuice^talk 16:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

after you find the replacements go ahead and delete them Grande13

Episode Descriptions

I can understand the image controversy (sort of) but can we at least keep the episode descriptions? There's no point in keeping this list if we have to go by the (already vague) episode titles alone. D4S 03:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all its a list, as you can see in the title, so it does have all the info found in a list. anyways you can see the pictures and descriptions if you click on each seasons individual page Grande13

This list looks bland without the descriptions, and I doubt anyone wants to go through so many links to finally find the episode they're looking for. Plus, featured episode lists (like South Park) have descriptions. D4S 06:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I found it to both look more appealing and be easier to navigate when it was in the more simplistic Simpsons page list style. All the fields are uniform in size where as with the pictures and plot descriptions, inconsistent image sizes or text would cause field distortion. It also loads and scrolls much smoother without tons of images. It was just much more professional. Generalleoff 14:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There are many other sites that list the type of guide you are looking for with no descriptions. The Wikipedia guide really stands out as its a quick place to scan all the episode descriptions looking for the one you want, without having to click on each episode for a summary. Also, unlike the simpsons guide, all the family guy pictures are relatively the same size, and until family guy has a few more seasons having the more compact form isnt really necessary Grande13

Pictures

You know those great pictures with shading? those arene't screenshots, the are actualy drawings from Seth, the creator. of Family guy. The drawings start from season 4.

Don't beleve me? Watch the episode and find out for yourself.

Still don't beleve me? then take a good look on the drawing and you'll find Seth's name and last name. (24.184.46.20 16:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

There are times when one format is more appropriate over the other. Simpsons is a 18-ish season show with so many episodes as to be practically unnecessary. Using a condensed format there is not only appropriate, it's required. With a show like Family Guy, which has run just barely past the norm for animated series, a more expanded episode format is appropriate. When this show hits ten seasons, condensing may be appropriate. Until then, bigger is better. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 19:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

What the **** are you talking about?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? (24.184.46.20 16:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

Scaffolding showing

We got some 'scaffolding' showing in a lot of the episode pages. The bottom of the main infobox has "{{{prev}}}" and "{{{next}}}" instead of links to the previous and next episodes. There's another infobox at the bottom that shows up correctly. I want to consult here before making any changes en masse. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Stewie Kills Lois (2) Season 6 episode

It says in the description of that episode that it is the continuation of the season finale from season 5. Is that the case or is the description incorect? Help me out please. Zweinstein 02:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Season 1/2

The 7 episodes of season 1 that aired alongside season 2 episodes are all mixed in with the season 2 list. These should be moved to the season 1 section (Antriver 16:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC))

they are orderd based on how they aired...if you look closer you see that the 7 eps of season 1 ended in may, and then the next season started in september, which is when new seasons start... Grande13

More image removal discussion...

... as if there wasn't enough, please see the discussion on the Admin Noticeboard: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#List of Family Guy episodes about the images. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about what the admin says, I'm removing his editing (let's see if it works).

...except that the page is protected. --Iamunknown 20:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

... yes, I'm a moron. Wikifan21century 20:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, its okay. I've done it before too ;) --Iamunknown 20:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

unprotected

I have unprotected this article. Please don't add more fair use images until a consensus has been found about them; it is clear at least that there is not consensus for them to be included. CMummert · talk 01:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots

Okay, I counted up the screenshots before they were removed. Ther were 110 screenshots. How many screenshots is this article allowed to have? Superjustinbros. 22:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody knows. The policy seems to be in flux. In any case, each image will have to be individually justified; there won't be a numeric cutoff. For the time being, it's probably better to wait until the policy firms up. CMummert · talk 22:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Stewie Kills Lois / Lois Kills Stewie episodes

Are these no longer the beginning and end of series 6 and 7? I've noticed that both episodes have been moved to series 7.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.95.250 (talk • contribs)

Viewer-Submited Episode Made & Aired

Do you think that they would make and air an episode that a fan sent in if it introduced three new characters and they could change it all they want (while keeping the plot intact)? Please answere this, I want your opinions.--BrianGriffin-FG 19:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably only through a contest and only if they started that contest, so I'd say no. Definitely no. But you can try. --MooNFisH 03:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

SCREENSHOTS

soryy, but to be frank, the screenshots are essential to this article.

with the screenshots this article is the best episode guide to family guy on the net.

without, it is mearely another list.

121.209.232.120 11:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Prod. codes

What's the source for these? Matthew 16:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

thefutoncritic, familyguy.com, and the copyright database,

usually its familyguy.com and the futoncritic after they air, and copyright database before they air, although the futoncritic usually posts them a few weeks prior to the original airdate Grande13 18:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The US Copyright Database states nothing of the codes being production codes. The Futon Critic also states nothing of them having production codes, also here's an example press release for "Chick Cancer", the code listed here is "5ACX02", could you tell me where "5ACX02" is stated in that press release? (it isn't) I can't even find anything resembling the codes listed here on familyguy.com. So, I'll ask again (more clearly): What's the source for these, that explicitly states them as production codes? Matthew 18:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Database

A reliable source is needed to prove that the episodes cited to the copyright database are part of season six. Assumption is not reliable. Matthew 18:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

the database lists the production number with episode title. Its stated on the list the current order can change. Plus, its known that there are 22 production episodes for each series, so most titles with 6ACX will appear in the 6th season. There is a reason we don't put what number in the episode order it is until its confirmed for the current season. 67.184.160.211

Even with Wikipedia's capability for frequent update, I still think it would be better to err on the side of being too slow than on the side of constantly changing stuff around. Some of the episodes in question are still a good year away from airdate. There's plenty of time. Let's calm down and not hurry up. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"The database lists the production number with episode title": Source me to that, please? It states nothing of the random code being a production code, for that matter the database is cataloguing scripts and you've no source these will become episodes. "Plus, its known that there are 22 production episodes for each series" Grande (or are you his "friend" (lol!)), provide your source for that (that season six will have 22), please. Matthew 23:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

When Fox orders episodes of family guy they do it in 22 production series segments. They plan on having 22 eps per season, but sometimes unforceable circumstances arise. If you searched the database for family guy, you could see the different production numbers and episodes that come up. All of which are correct, unless there was a last minute name change, which so far has only occurred once. Familyguy.com, while not updated recently, includes the production codes in the title. Somewhere on the official blog it mentions that 404, is = to 4ACX04. As you can see from the guide 404 comes before 403, and if you compare the production numbers that is what they are.

Also, in every episodes credits it includes the production codes for further reference. Regardless, people obviously have a better idea of whats going on here than you, so you should put your efforts to better use elsewhere where they can be appreciated 68.72.133.224

"They plan on having 22 eps per season": Source? Do you have a source season six will be 22 episodes? It simply appears to be assumption to me. "If you searched the database for family guy, you could see the different production numbers and episodes that come up. All of which are correct, unless there was a last minute name change, which so far has only occurred once. Familyguy.com, while not updated recently, includes the production codes in the title. Somewhere on the official blog it mentions that 404, is = to 4ACX04": 1) I see a random code that comes up, nothing that states it's a prod. code. 2) Please show me an example where FamilyGuy.com explicitly states it has production codes (I don't see them!) and 3) Source? Please prove this and also remember a blog isn't reliable. "Also, in every episodes credits it includes the production codes for further reference": I see a random code, but I don't see anything calling it a production code -- please cite your source. "People obviously have a better idea of whats going on here than you, so you should put your efforts": Clearly not, you've failed even provide a source yet that agrees with you. I'll be removing the "production codes" quite soon unless a source is provided that explicitly refers to them as production codes, the onus is yours to provide a proper citation (as per WP:V: "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.") Matthew 08:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

wow give it a break man, as you obviously don't know as much as you think. All shows use production codes, and in most cases it is included in the credits. Go mess with the simpsons or basically any of the other million or so pages on wikipedia first, as you've met resistance that doesn't agree with your flawed reasoning. They are production codes. They numbers appear on familyguy.com, have been confirmed by various family guy directors, appear in the end credits, appear in most press releases, and also appear in the copyright database. changing will just result in an edit war 68.72.133.224

"All shows use production codes": No, not all use production codes (that shows your amazing knowledge...) "They numbers appear on familyguy.com, have been confirmed by various family guy directors, appear in the end credits, appear in most press releases, and also appear in the copyright database.": You've yet to cite your source, if you can't do that, then they'll be removed -- simple as :). Matthew 14:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Splitting off categories

Postcard Cathy has asked that the categories of Family Guy episodes be split off by season. For example, "Road to Rhode Island" would be in the subcategory of Season 2 Family Guy episodes, and that subcategory would be hierarchically under the category of all Family Guy episodes. I don't know why we would want to do that, and I'm waiting for a response from Postcard Cathy. Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

She replied at my talk page. Here's her response:

I didn't start that sub categorization. I was categorising an episode, noticed the subcategory and followed something I saw in a category for either Columbia Univ. or Harvard Univ. alumni where it asked people to go through the big list of alumni and sort it into the subcategories for the med school, law school, etc. So, I figured if it was ok for someone to ask that that happens for that school, it is ok to do it with the family guy episodes category! Postcard Cathy 21:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story episodes not to be on Volume 5?

I've heard that the three episodes that make up the Family Guy movie aren't going to be on the Vol. 5 DVD release. If so, that means the only DVD release of those episodes is the uncut DVD movie. I think that we should note that the last three episodes of season 4 is on that DVD. -(Vert Bandit 17:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

technically they arent the same versions as the tv versions are cut and have some different jokes and censorship. It is already noted that the final 3 episodes of season 4 were part of the family guy movie. Grande13

Yeah, I know that the TV versions are a little different. They are a little more tame and have a little (emphasis on the little) new material. I saw that it has been noted that those episodes make up the end of season 4, but I am talking about mentioning it at the top on the chart that shows which DVD Volumes correspond to which season. A few months back, I added it to that chart, and someone removed it saying that the TV versions of those episodes could end up on Vol. 5. I think that now, since we know those episodes aren't going to appear on Vol. 5 that we should add The Untold Story to the chart as a part of season 4. -(Vert Bandit 07:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC))

just wait until Vol. 5 comes out, then the appropriate categories can be switched/updatedGrande13

Up Late

The page given as a citation doesn't appear to state that further episodes will occasionally follow this year. I think that comment should be removed, or that the text should be edited to make it clear the citation given doesn't cover that comment. However, when it comes to deletion, I'd rather hear what other people have to say, especially as the "rules are rules, burden of proof is on those who want it kept if it has no citations" principle is one I have sometimes felt was inapplicable. However, I don't want to start a discussion of that, just on whether or not an edit should be made of the "Up Late" comment. What do we think? 85.92.173.186 20:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

First Appearance

Should each episode specify if there was a first appearance of a character. For instance, A Hero Sits Next Door is the first appearance of Joe Swanson. 67.170.101.185 22:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

it can be included on the individual episode page if desiredGrande13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grande13 (talk • contribs) 23:04, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Episode Count

I noticed this on many of the pages, it says that FOX doesn't count the movie episodes in its episode numbering, well then, why do we? I mean that doesn't make any sense to me at all, because we are using an unofficial numbering system, we should go by FOX's numbering system, because it is OFFICIAL. Rau J16 10:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

We count them cause they were actually episodes. Incase you didn't notice the movie was just 3 episodes together. It would be one thing if they never aired, but they were part of a season finale and were aired as individual episodes. They also have different edits and jokes from the movie, making them their own episode. Fox also did this with the simpsons big numbers, I believe eps 100,200 and 300. They were off a few episodes but just wanted to have a big promotion for them.

Basically we are using this system because those 3 episodes are different from the movie and have aired on actual TV. plus Fox hasnt updated the official guide since the end of season 4 anyways. Grande13 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

oh, ok, just wondering. Rau J16 02:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Anything to back up Season 7?

Do we have anything halfway solid to back up the information about Season 7? Where do we get the episode titles from, for one? Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

==They were given to us by one of the directors firsthand. Same thing happened with the season 5 episodes. Since it was a shortened season last year, there were many production season 5 episodes leftover. We were given the first 17 production season 6 titles. Grande13 23:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I choose to believe you. I can't promise others will, though. Cromulent Kwyjibo 16:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

well if they argue they can just use the past history of the list. I received the same list for the season 5 episodes a good deal of time in advance and they all turned out to be right as well. Its as strong a source as possible as we are getting the info firsthand. Grande13 20:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You'll need to cite an RS. "I spoke to the director" isn't good enough, Grande… Matthew 22:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Im adding back info from the sixth season that comes from the copyright database as its an acceptable form for source material as was discussed in the past and agreed upon. Numerous articles, some featured, or close to featured, for a show that utilizes the copyright database as a reference use this as well. Main example, the simpsons, check on one of the discussion pages for the lengthy conversation between some of their editors and a few admins for how this came to be an acceptable source if you have any qualms about it.

From that link posted a bit above about sources it states:"A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". Seems to be quite the authoritative figure especially with a proven track record. The list of the first seventeen production season 6 episodes is coming directly from one of the editors, granted some of you may think this is all made up, but I have previous proof that this source has been 100% accurate. Also, i believe this info was posted on his blog or in an interview somewhere as well sometime after I received it so i will look to eventually source it with that if im able to track down that article. Also, as one of the major contributers to the episode list here as im the one that continually removes fake titles that people try to plant, as well as I believe I have to be responsible for adding most, if not all of the episode titles after family guy's resurrection. You can confirm i've had access to such info like this in the past by looking at my posts from November of 06 that you can see at the link below. There I included the note I was sent along with titles, all that were correct, quite in advance. The only reason the list currently goes to season 7 is there were so many holdovers from production season 5 as broadcast season 5 was cut short due to contract negotiations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Family_Guy_episodes&diff=88577148&oldid=88554831

All of that info was exactly right, right down to the titles and production codes. Also, using outside sources such as tv.com, while not the most reliable message boards, has a sufficient entry system that requires verification and sources before updating there info as well. Here is the link to their confirmed episode guide.

http://www.tv.com/family-guy/show/348/episode_listings.html?season=0&tag=nav_bar;all

Im aware that tv.com isn't the most reliable source such as IMDB, although they have recently upped there verification process for user submitted info, so for all new info it has to come from a legit source(one thats not IMDB to be exact) Grande13 01:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

production codes

Well i have the first 17 production codes for the sixth season of production. I was initially emailed them exclusively, just like with season 5 production codes. I had suggested to Greg Colton, the director on family guy who sent me these episodes to post them on his blog and myspace which he did. Problems there are his myspace is private, and his blogs host was shut down. I believe this also might have been mentioned by him on the official family guy website, but just recently that site was revamped. So im trying to figure out a way to properly source this info. They are directly from the source firsthand, and most of these were already known before they appeared in the copyright database. So not sure how to source this. I wont post the email address to help keep him some privacy, but if its really needed for some odd reason then i can supply it to those who request through email or something. Here's the part of the email pertaining to the episodes

"I'll fill in some blanks for ya:

5ACX16/5ACX22 - Blue Harvest
5ACX14 - Movin' Out (Brian's Song),
5ACX15 - Believe It or Not, Joe's Walking on Air,
5ACX17 - Stewie Kills Lois,
5ACX18 - Lois Kills Stewie,
5ACX19 - McStroke,
5ACX20 - Padre De Familia,
5ACX21 - Peter's Daughter,

6ACX01 - Play it Again, Brian,
6ACX02 - Back to the Woods,
6ACX03 - Love Blactually,
6ACX04 - The Former Life of Brian,
6ACX05 - I Dream of Jesus,
6ACX06 - Long John Peter,
6ACX07 - Baby Not On Board,
6ACX08 - Road to Germany,
6ACX09 - The Man With Two Brians,
6ACX10 - Tales of a Third Grade Nothing,
6ACX11 - Ocean's Three and a Half,
6ACX12 - Family Gay,
6ACX13 - The Juice Is Loose!,
6ACX14 - Anchorwoman: The Legend of Lois Griffin,
6ACX15 - Three Kings,
6ACX16 - Episode 420,
6ACX17 - Not All Dogs Go To Heaven,
6ACX18 - TBD,
6ACX19 - TBD,
6ACX20 - TBD,
6ACX21 - TBD,
6ACX22 - TBD,
"

There already is a ton of vandalism by users adding fake info, titles, and production numbers, so if we are implement this we are just cutting down on chance for false info to be added. Im basically saying that although this was received initially in email form it was also found on somewhat reputable sites at one point or another. I also believe most of the season 5 production episodes were found with their production code on the database already.

Also as further backing of proof, you can im pretty sure any of these episodes and come up with something thats not from wikipedia or a related site. While not always the most trustworthy site, tv.com, has new rules needing verification before uploading show info, so in a worse case scenario this could be provided with as a reference for the remaining production codes as they have an updated family guy guide there as well. Grande13 22:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I went to the family guy webste and it said there was a new episode on every sunday night. So wouldn't there be a new episode on tonight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.171.150 (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Disappearance of Seasons 6 and 7

Why is this whole section of the article gone? Superjustinbros. 23:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Rememeber to respond on my talk page!

There is some dissatisfaction with the lack of reliable sources for those titles (and articles). So far we have one editor who reports having been told something by someone connected to the show — could be 100% accurate, but we probably can't accept it on faith. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Guy, season 6 episodes.

The way to fix this would be to find official sources (or credible, not self-published sources) and WP:CITE them in the articles for those episodes (and this article). / edg ☺ ★ 00:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

All i said before was I was in email contact with one of the directors, which is why we have had such complete lists now and in the past before other shows have as much info available, but yeah this current format is going to have to stay until we find a more proper way to source things i guess. Grande13 01:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Error in seasons

I just purchased Season 6 of Family Guy on DVD, and the episode list is that of season 5, I also own Season 5 (first episode being Stewie Loves Lois). But the episode Blue Harvest is Season 7, can someone please explain whats happened to the seasons? According to the article Season 6 has Blue Harvest as the first Episode, whats going on 212.219.220.125 20:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

refer to the family guy dvd page for more info but a brief answer is this page goes by the region 1 numbering system. Other regions fox mistakenly divided their dvd releases for season 4 into two parts, and call the 2nd part season 5, instead of the 2nd half of season 4, causing all future seasons for those regions to be off by one. Grande13

So does that mean that in some regions, Blue Harvest is Season 7? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.211.85 (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

not sure how they are officially labeling the seasons, but if they are going the same as their dvd releases then yes some regions have blue harvest as the 7th season premiere instead of actually being the 6th season premiere. Grande13

How can you purchase a Season 6 Family DVD since the Volume is not out yet and the Blue Harvest episode/movie was part 2 of season 5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigelark12 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Where can episodes be seen online?

Does anyone have links to sites that have complete episodes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.125.53 (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I could tell you, but you may just be one of those whistle blowers that spoils it for the rest of us. I won't give you any direct links, but you can start from here: OVGuide Work your way from there.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not that carefull. FamilyGuyNow is pretty nice. I haven' been able to watch a whole episode on there yet, but it's pretty nice. TBS.Com' Family Guy page is pretty nifte to. And the Adult Swim site is great for clips!--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Family Guy Vol. 5 Episode Mistake

The chart at the top says that Vol. 5 contains all 18 episodes of season 5, but it only contains the first 13. I've messed around for hours before, and got both Vol. 5 and Vol. 6 to align with season 5, as well as the bottom half of Vol. 6 to align with season 6. Anyway, since I really don't know how to correct this without messing around for hours, can someone change it? -(Vert Bandit 03:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

It might just be easier to wait for the next volume to come out before over exerting yourself as we have no idea if they'll continue the form of doing half season releases, or if they will do a full season 6 release with the remaining season 5 eps included as well. Grande13 04:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess you're right. Someone still needs to change Vol. 6 to line up with the last half of season 5 because regardless of how many episodes from season 6 are in Vol. 6, it's safe to assume that the last five episodes of season 5 will be on it. -(Vert Bandit 01:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC))

Theres also the chance the strike cuts this season short to maybe like a total of 8-10 episodes, if thats the case they might have a full season 6 release, but yeah things will have to be updated as the season progresses along with the dvd announcements. Grande13 01:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If you go to the Target website says Family Guy Vol. 6 is Season 5 Part 2 and Family Guy Vol.7 is Season 6 Part 1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigelark12 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Featured list possibility.

I'd like to get this list up to feautured list status, and top base it off (the already featured) List of The Simpsons Episodes and to change the episode list into a similar format, as there are a large amount of episodes for Family Guy, and having a brief plot about them on this list spoils the list. If no-one is against me revamping this page to try to get it to FL status, I'll begin work shortly. Cheers, —Qst 19:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well the simpsons has about four times as many episodes, so having a summary on each episode would make the page quite lengthy. For now you can start to build the individual season pages if you so desire, but there really is no need to remove the summaries on the main page. I don't see why they can't co-exist though, as the summaries on the main list are already short summed up versions of the actual plot that helps one be able to quickly navigate through all the episodes at once looking for something they need as opposed to have to going to each individual season page. Inividual season pages work better for shows such as Lost, that have a consistent story arc/theme for each season, while shows like family guy aren't high on consistency and really dont warrant an individual page as its just divided up all the info that can already easily be found on one easy to use page. Grande13 (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Family Guy isn't near the magic number required for splitting (around 200-250). In fact, the only show I can think of that has no summaries in the LOE is Doctor Who. Will ^(talk) 20:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

We at the Lost WikiProject decided recently to split the LOE into season pages. Our LOE does not have summaries any more, which we have left to the individual season pages. We transcluded the titles/headings. You should look that our pages if you'd like. the LOE, season 1, 2, and 3 are all featured lists. Don't believe there is a magic number. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Im not saying there is a magic number, Im just saying the current layout is sufficient as breaking down the list into seasons favors shows like lost that has separate stories per season. Its not like there are pictures on the lists anymore either, so there isn't a reason to split it based on page size either. Basically, we should keep it the way it is, but in addition to the current way im not saying there can't be season pages as well, although at this point I really don't see the advantage of having them. Grande13 (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Just throwing in my two cents: we could do without plot summaries on this page, leaving it entirely to the individual episode pages. That way we don't have to worry about people copying them verbatim off TV Guide and places like that to put in here. Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If we remove plot summaries from the main page then people will just copy the tv guide recaps to the individual episode pages instead. Doesn't really solve the problem, just diverts it. Grande13 (talk)

Lost season pages are good examples of how that doesn't happen. We have no plot summaries on the featured LOE and featured season articles with no copyright violation summaries. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Lost's pages are done well, but like i previously mentioned they are two different types of shows, so that doesn't necessarily mean the way one is setup works the best for the other. I still think its worthwhile having the brief recaps all on one list, with more extensive details and summaries available on each individual page if necessary, but with family guy sometimes all you really need is the brief recap and having it all on one page, at least for now while the show doesn't have a few hundred episodes, works fine. Grande13 (talk)

Guidelines

What the hell with all the guideline warnings?! I get that this is an "encyclopedia", but there a little bit too much guidelines! It's the same with WikiQuote! I went on the Colbert Report quote page and it looked nice. It was well organized, easy to read, only two pics, bt at the top it says "Does Not Meet Guidelines". So what! I have to go, but I'm not done yet!--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean in the individual episode articles? I understand. Some people think that just slamming a bunch of tags on an article is actually helpful. However, there are some tags that are actually helpful, such as the future television tag. It helps RC patrol monitor articles about shows that haven't aired yet. Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Cromulent Kwyjibo. Back to my point. So what! I believe that if it's well-organized, can easiyly be read, and is neat, there's nothing wrong with it! Like Cromulent Kwyjibo said, the ones that give usefull information (like if it's planed for the future) are helpful, and if it is a mess. But getting rid of the trivia sections just because it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia is just bull$@&#! It's the biggest $@*&#?* peice of %@#* I %##@%&%^@%$@ [PORTION OF THIS COMMENT WAS DELEATED BY GOD. THANK YOU]@! But I digress.

What I say is, for serious articals like the holocost and Scrubs (Hee hee), have the guidlines. But for articals about TV series, especally comedy like Fam Guy and Robot Chicken, don't have all the guidelines. And if you don't like a section, like the trivia section, don't read it! Like my good friend Stewie would say, "Well that's my argument. Where's your's?" --BrianGriffin-FG 17:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

New format

Okay, I'm bringing this here, people. After discussion on my user talk page, it seems one user is not please with my partial revamp on this page (which is still ongoing), namely because I have remove the brief plot summaries from here. I aim to bring this list to FL status, I am basing it off the already featured, List of The Simpsons episodes. I think this list looks a lot less cluttered and much neater without the brief episode synopsis; I am planning to create individual season articles over the next few months; these would contain brief plot guides (see The Simpsons (season 1), for an example]]). I would appreciate some comments here, but I believe the articles looks much tidier and much less cluttered without the episode synopsis, thus increasing its chances of one day becoming a featured list. Qst 23:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Im just saying there is no reason to remove the short recaps from each episode. There is nothing that states an episode can't achieve featured list status while having those intact. While the simpsons list is a good guideline to follow, it doesn't necessarily make it the list to follow, as the show is a special circumstance and has more than 3 times as many seasons and episodes than family guy. Maybe the summaries can be reduced further, but they are a vital piece of navigation and help the searching process by including it all on one page. Season articles can still be made and include more specific items for the episodes such as guest stars, directors, writers, etc. Although season pages tend to work better on shows with a general theme for each season as opposed to family guy which rarely carries anything over into the next episode.Grande13 (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You're both right, to be honest. While there's no need to remove the short recaps, it would look less cluttered and reduce duplication. But still, FG has only had six seasons. It wouldn't start to look cluttered unless the show lasted twenty or thirty seasons. Will ^(talk) 20:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep the recaps, especally for the first few episodes. I know most of the episodes by heart (tell me a recap, give me a second, and I'll have the episode title) but the first few episodes are hard to remember if you don't have the recap. Even the writers of the episodes can't remember the "death" and "murder" episodes that well either. If anything, make it to where you can hide the recaps if you want to with [hide] and [show] buttins. --BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Recaps on one big list for all shows don't work, but since family guy sometimes has plots and stories that seem to be all over the place, having them all on one page is much easier to search as opposed to having to navigate to each individual season page. This can be reevaluated in a few seasons, but I really don't feel the recaps need to be removed, as long as they are kept short and only cover the main plot points. Grande13 (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Season 5 DVD boxset

Hmmm, my season 5 box set contains episodes 'PTV' to 'The Griffin Family History'. The fist half of this box set appear under 'season 4' on this article. Any reason for this? ArdClose (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

this goes by the region one airings. You can check out the dvd section for family guy on wikipedia for more info. Grande13 (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Future Episode Theories

Hey guys, I have theroies on the new episodes that I made off of just the titles. Some of these are vegue, but I did my best.

Title	Possible Plot
"I Dream of Jesus"	Someone in the family gets very religious (possibly Brian).
"Baby Not on Board"	Bonnie possibly gives birth. (Finally!)
"Road to Germany"	Self-explanitory.
"The Man with Two Brians"	Brian finds a dog that is a brother or relitave???
"Tales of a Third Grade Nothing"	Stewie possibly goes to third grade.
"Ocean's Three and a Half"	Someone steals something. Possibly might include Bertrum.
"Family Gay"	Peter is injected with the gay gene as part of a scientific experiment to determine whether or not it’s a learned trait or something that you’re born with. Jasper might be involved in this episode, in one form or another.
"The Juice Is Loose!"	Someone (possibly Joe) takes steriods, or something about O.J. Simpson.
"Anchorwoman: The Legend of Lois Griffin"	Lois becomes a very popular anchorwoman at Quhog 5 (or, possibly, in natinol news).
"Three Kings"	An episode with Fam Guy characters renacting three Steophen King novels. One segment will be Brian and Stewie actiong out Misery.
"Episode 420"	Sombody (possibly Stewie, Meg, or Chris) becomes a pot-head, Brian admits he smokes pot, or Brian and Stewie try to get pot legalized in Quohog. Will possibly have a musical number.
"Not All Dogs Go to Heaven"	Brian starts showing signs of his age, so the Griffins get a new, younger dog.
"Something, Something, Something Dark Side"	Second Star Wars spoof.

As you can tell, I had help with 3 of them from somthing that used to be posted on the list, but I'm relitavly in the dark. Post any other theroies. With all due respect, BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Family Gay plot sourced

MacFarlane spills the beans on this one in The Advocate:

• Voss, Brandon (2008-02-26). "BGF: Seth MacFarlane". Advocate.com. PlanetOut. Retrieved 2008-02-15. Peter [is] injected with the gay gene as part of a scientific experiment to determine whether or not it's a learned trait or something that you're born with. The good news is that at the end of the episode we establish that it's the latter. Basically, Peter's in a gay relationship for an episode and winds up in one of those straight camps.

As this is sourced, it can be added to this article. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

They just confirmed that the episode "Play it Again Brian" will feature Brian professing his love to Lois, and he and Peter compete with each other over her. And my own little theory for "Ocean's Three and a Half" is that it may involve Stewie's half-brother Bertram, since the show's logic claims that he is the biological son of Peter and not Lois, thus making him half a Griffin. Then again, they may have just called it "Griffin's Three and a Half." And I know that it was said that Peter is not Meg's real father, but that seems to just be a gag. Or not. But that's just the point: we don't know. Anyway, time will tell us for sure what these episodes are about. Immblueversion (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

When you say "they", you need to provide a source. Otherwise, it is really only you saying this. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. Here's a link that I think should be official enough for you: [2]. You just need to do a bit of scrolling down. And sorry if my remark sounded witty. Immblueversion (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for logging in. Unsourced claims from anonymous editors tend to be considered skeptically. By me anyhow. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

added links to unaired episodes

Ever since an article was made for the episode "Family Gay" when its plot was confirmed, I thought I may as well make articles for other episodes with confirmed plots: "Road to Germany" and "Three Kings." As such, I have added links to these episodes. Immblueversion (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

NO NEW EPISODES UNTIL APRIL 27??!!

I know that it says that someone recieved an email from the FOX Press Release people that says that there won't be another new episode until APRIL 27, and that it is "The Former Life of Brian," but I don't know if it's official. Besides, that's more than SEVEN WEEKS away from the time this comment is posted! If I may voice my opinion, THAT'S JUST NOT FAIR!!! Is there ANY way that this can be confirmed? Because just saying that you were told such a thing isn't necessarily good-enough proof. Besides, the writer of the source does not mention his/her name, which is the main cause my skepticism. I don't want to cause any trouble, but until this claim is confirmed, no one should make any changes to the article. I apologize if my remarks sounded inappropriate. Immblueversion (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to voice my opinion again. If this claim is so "confirmed" as it says it is, then shouldn't this be made public knowledge? I know people will think of it as nothing more than a rumor without any official information, however. But shouldn't this have been made public by now than it already is if it is so official? And seriously, the source just seems so casual. All it says is that the person who wrote it emailed the Press Release Department asking about the three upcoming reruns, and that it replied that there will not be any new real episodes until April 27, upon which it will air "The Former Life of Brian." Now if I were to see the actual email itself, then maybe my skepticism will dissipate. And it MUST be the real email, because if this turns out to be some kind of joke, then I don't know what the problem of this note's writer is. Immblueversion (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Upon seeing the source again, I have noticed that it does in fact mention the person's name, but it still seems too convenient. I know it sounds like I'm in denial about waiting for seven weeks for another new episode; in fact, I pretty much am. But I still want more evidence, and if this is all the evidence that is available, then I don't know what to think. Besides, the people at Family Guy seemed ready to air "Love Blactually" at first, but decided to air "Play it Again, Brian", so why can't they air "Love Blactually" AT LEAST in between this time period to make the wait seem more bearable? I also realize that this is most certainly a result of the Writer's Strike. Also, I see no point in mentioning what the title is a parody of in the plot summary since it is not directly part of the plot. Immblueversion (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If the source is apparently from foxflash, then it shouldn't be long before they are posting that info on the site, so we can wait til its official and posted there. Grande13 (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Tables

Can the tables please be changed to fill the whole page! I would do it myself, but I know someone will revert it. The tables look akward. Please change them. Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 09:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the current table size settings. I'm in a 1280x1024 screen, and a 5-column table row expanding to full width would be less readable. I would prefer to see the Movies, Specials and Web Episodes sections changed to match the episode tables. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, but they looks wierd. All the writing goes to the end of the page, whereas the tables suddenly stop for no real reason. Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 07:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats possibly due to how your screen resolution is set. This presentation is much clearer and easier to navigate with some space instead of a page thats completely covered in text. Grande13 (talk) 07:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Matter of taste I guess. It's the same on my browser, but I don't consider this weird looking. Readability is a good reason to set table sizes. If you want the unformatted text to be as narrow as the tables, you can resize your browser window (which I'm guessing you currently have enlarged to full-screen), or enlarge your font settings. Or don't; like I said, there isn't really anything wrong with this display. / edg ☺ ☭ 07:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Make up your minds with the episodes!

I have noticed that many of you are making changes to the episode list so that it says "Love Blactually" and "The Former Life of Brian" will air next. The thing is, we don't know that. Let me put it to you this way: sure, we have plot details for "Love Blactually," but we don't have any information as to when it will air as of now; and email from Fox Broadcasting Company or not, the thing about "'The-Former-Life-of-Brian'-airing-on-April-27-and-until-then-NO-NEW-EPISODES-WILL-AIR" thing is still subject to change, as are the dates for other episodes (plus such a statement is completely insane to me, though I won't rule the possibiity of it actually happening). So for now, I say we end the season 6 list at "Play it Again, Brian," put everything else under "future screenplays/scripts," and KEEP IT THAT WAY UNTIL we get a clear picture as to what will air when. All I'm trying to do is help; nothing more. And if you think I'm being rude...........I'm not trying to be.Immblueversion (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand the point you are trying to make, but since love blactually was just rescheduled and has a plot and some other info, including a past press release it should remain under season 6. Anything else that is based on just speculation without sources will remain in the future episodes list. Its only been one person changing the former life of brian thing....they are just using multiple accounts, so its not like many people are in disagreement with what i said above... So i'll continue to move things without legit sources into their proper categories. Grande13 (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for listening, but we still have no evidence that "Love Blactually" will actually air next. Nevertheless, I agree that we can keep it at the end of the season 6 list with its official "Fox Press Release" information. Immblueversion (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing on the current list actually suggests its airing next, as you can notice it has no episode number, total, or concrete date next to it, and i'll try to keep things in order until more info is confirmed. Grande13 (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed that. But I have also noticed that, just now, the episodes "Family Gay" and "Road to Germany" are have been put up. Is it necessary to have these episodes up? I have noticed that whoever did this did so because these episodes have plot details that are already known. However, perhaps episodes should be placed on the season lists as soon as official plot information by the Fox Broadcasting Company is released. It's just a suggestion. Immblueversion (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

with the strike happening this year, its no guarantee for when things are going to air without a press release, so we should wait for those to appear somewhere or unless there is a post strike interview or something else of that nature about the episode. Grande13 (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm always just barking in the dark at this point, but what the heck. Don't put anything up regarding future episodes! Untill we get a press release, have Love Blactually under the furture screenplays/scripts section. What you're saying is that, because we know that going to air this season, it should be in season 6 episode list. Well if that's true, then every episode in the future episode list should be added. We can assume that "The Former Life of Brian", "I Dream of Jesus", "Long John Peter", "Baby Not on Board", "Road to Germany", "The Man with Two Brians", "Tales of a Third Grade Nothing", "Ocean's Three and a Half", "Family Gay", "The Juice Is Loose!", "Anchorwoman: The Legend of Lois Griffin", "Three Kings", "Episode 420" and "Not All Dogs Go to Heaven" will also air this season, so why not add thoes episodes too. Heck, we sould add "Something, Something, Something, Dark Side" too because they're gonna produce it for this season, don't you think?! Listen, if you add one to the list, you have to add them all. It's just commom sense. Keep them all in the futuer episode list untill we get a press release! Okay? Okay. With all due respect, BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Its a strike shortened season, so while in most cases all of the previously above mentioned episodes would air this season, its unknown which ones will make the cut this year. Love blactually is the only one with a press release, which is why its been added while the others remain in the future episode list. Grande13 (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[sarcasticly] Oh, Love~~ has a press release saying that It'll air this season! Well, the season ended 3 months ago, and I'm still waiting! [sarcasm ends] Look, I stand by what I said. Until it is stated that it will air at a specific time, on a specific date, we shouldn't put future episodes in a season. Even then we should be caucious. You never know what's gonna happen. With all due respect, BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Upcoming Episode Section?

Why don't we just make an "Upcoming Episodes" section and just move them to season 6 when we get information? That sound good? With all due respect, BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

there's nothing wrong with the way it currently is...people will be moving things around regardless of what you call them, thats just how wikipedia is, so lets just keep it the same way, as I monitor things closely anyways. Grande13 (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Heehee, I acted befor I thought. Surprize! I made an upcoming episodes section to make it less of an argument (or "heated disscussion" if you may) and more of a disscussion. If you want to get rid of it, talk about it first, because I worked hard on it. Also, I think that it makes the list more "viewer-friendly" if you will. With all due respect, BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

if they ARE going to air in season 6, then there is nothing wrong with having them in season 6. no reason to add even more templates and confusion to page. Like i said before i'll keep a close eye on it to maintain order and make sure things are in the right categories. simplicity is key and we dont need 3 categories when 2 work just fine. Things will stay in the unscheduled list until they have a date or press release or recent interview specifically stating they are included in the current season. Grande13 (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point. BUT, what this article used to do was add a new episode to the newest season table as soon as it was announced, and if it had a diffrent season's production code, it would be added to a new season's table. What we have now is the sixth season, and a small table with upcoming episodes with just their title and their production number, and that doesn't give us a whole lot. What I'm suggesting is adding an upcoming episodes table with all the perks of the episode list. We can do what we used to do and put TBA on all the unverified sections untill we get the info.--With all due respect, BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind.--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Bag of Weed

On Loveline last night, Seth MacFarlane played a song clip from "Episode 420" entitled "Bag of Weed" featuring Brian and Stewie. Should we wait for the episode to air, or post this now?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.60.183 (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If "Episode 420" is a confirmed title, and the Loveline episode is archived online so this can be confirmed, and MacFarlane doesn't seem to be joking (taking this guy literally is often risky), we could add the "Bag of Weed" song to this article in case anyone searches for it. Linking 420 (cannabis culture) might be helpful. I would hold off on creating the episode article since notability is still sufficiently weak that the article may be deleted. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have proof that the episode exists. Click Here if you want to see my proof. "[to his self] How is this an issue?" With all due respect, BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Have any other Family Guy staffers said anything else about this episode to any other news sources? ShutterBugTrekker (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Total episode number?

I was just thinking that since shows like The Simpsons and South Park have mentioned how many new episodes have aired since when, then maybe Family Guy should have one. It's just a thought. Tell me if you don't know what I'm talking about, or want to give any feedback or something. Immblueversion (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Its an unnecessary addition that just causes useless edits. plus EVERY episode has the episode count next to it, so its really just adding redundant info. Just because other sites use it doesn't mean its needed, plus I've noticed more and more of them are removing it. It really doesn't serve a purpose to have. Grande13 (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether and where an episode count is desireable; however, redundant editing can be minimized by templating the count so that it only need be updated in one place. I have a proposed template at {{FGepisodecount}}. Demo:

  '''Number of episodes:''' {{FGepisodecount}}

produces

Number of episodes: 108

This is only worth having if we keep a count in more than one article. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think its fine the way we have it now with each episode having the count next to it for easy referencing and you can just look at the last episode aired if you want an overall count which is clearly visible Grande13 (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Season finale already?

I understand that this season has been shortened because of the Writers' Strike, but is it true that "The Former Life of Brian" will be the season 6 finale? From what I am aware, there are only rumors that this is so, and I have not found any solid sources that justify them. What should we do about the total number of episodes for this season? Immblueversion (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If I may add something, there is a website called "TheFutonCritic.com"[3] that keeps track of all scheduled airings for hundreds of different shows on specific channels, and it says that there is room for three more new episodes after this; from the way things are looking right now, this season can go as late as May 18. Here's a link to the page that shows this: [4] Immblueversion (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

there is nothing as of now that says its the last episode, and its really just one person spreading that rumor various placesGrande13 (talk) 05:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Season five and six

I believe there may be a different DVD lay out for USA and UK.

(I don't know if this is right)

In the UK season five begins with PTV but according to Season 4/5 Confusion[5] it is (in the US) Stewie loves Lois but in the UK that is the first of season six.

This may be the reason to the confusion every ones been having with the List of Family Guy episodes but i don't really know this is just a hunch.

Bobbutcher (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

check out the family guy dvd section for info on this topic. Grande13 (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific, Grande13, and provide a link to the section you speak of? Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

See also: Family Guy DVDs

Grande13 (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Kill Bill" Parody?

I have been hearing very crazy rumors that there will be a two-part episode of Family Guy entitled "Kill Connie, Vol. 1/2". From what I understand, both parts will parody the two films from the "Kill Bill" series and feature Meg as The Bride and Connie D'Amico in a role similar to Bill. It also says that Hayley Smith from American Dad would play Vernita Green, and that Tricia Takanawa's daughter would play O-Ren Ishii. Last time I checked, the page for Quahog 5 says Tricia has a daughter named Shelly and will be voiced by Michelle Wie. Now as awesome this would sound, there is absolutely no evidence that I have found that supports such a claim. Can someone PLEASE look into it? I'm a bit confused here. Immblueversion (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Whats the source for these rumors? Grande13 (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the whole point: there are no ACTUAL sources. I was just reading the part of Tricia Takanawa on the article "Quahog 5" and it said she had a daughter I never heard of before and that she would be in this episode, which probably doesn't exist. I tried Googling it, but the information is just so subtle, and it said something about Hayley being in it as well. It seemed to be on the Family Guy wikia at some point, saying Meg was called "The Bride." But I don't think this episode exists; I mean, I would certainly like it to, but that's just me. Anyway, we can only hope, if "hope" is the right word for it. Immblueversion (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

there was a vandal that added that along with other stuff that was clearly vandalism a while back on the wiki. Granted it may be true or somewhat true down the line, but now should be taken as false or just a fan fiction Grande13 (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well this person sure has a hell of a good imagination. Immblueversion (talk) 02:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Season 7

Okay, what is this about?! What proof do we have that Season 6 will end with "Long John Peter," the next episode, and that it will begain with "Love Blacually"?! Please tell me! And do we even know when "Love Blacually" will air?! Not what date, but in which episode will it air after! I mean first it was gonna air after "McStroke," then it was gonna air after "Back to the Woods," then it was gonna air after "Play it Again, Brian" (based off of an e-mail that just one person got), then it was placed back to before "Play it Again, Brian," then it was placed back in front of "Play it Again~" (turned out the e-mail was right), now it's gonna air after "Long John Peter" and it's gonna be the season premere! Are we sure? It may be common sense, but I think we should put "Love~" back into the "Future Scripts" section and make the Season 7 section just a paragraph! I mean, it's been changed so many times, it's a waffle! BrianGriffin-FG (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

numerous sources including an official one http://www.foxflash.com/div.php/main/page?aID=1z2z1z25z1z8&ID=4087 , show the remaining may sweeps schedule. It has been said in interviews they are finishing up season 6 production episodes currently and hope to begin production season 7 episodes by the end of april. They said the 7th season would be the remaining season 6 production coded episodes, about 18 or so of them left, and a few 7th season production ones. Grande13 (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but do we have any indication that "Love~" will be the Season 7 premere? --BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

no, and nothing on the episode list says it will be the premiere, as the date is blank, and the episode order is left empty as well. All remaining production season 6 episodes will air this season. If anyone adds dates without sources they will be removed. Grande13 (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Although we have no evidence that ALL these episodes will air in Season 7 as of now, I believe we can make an exception granted how likely it will happen. Immblueversion (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

While we're on the same subject, could we put "Something, Something, Something Dark Side" on the list? I know we have no proof that it will be a Season 7 episode, but neither do all these other episodes. Immblueversion (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

it was mentioned in a few interiews and blogs by the producers that the remaining production season 6 episodes will air in the upcoming season. Grande13 (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Plot for Episode 420?

It has been stated on tv.com that "Episode 420" will involve Stewie and Brian attempring to legalize marijuana in Quahog. After a little bit of research, I discovered that this was APPARENTLY revealed by Seth MacFarlane himself on an episode of Loveline. I have not found a video like this, but could someone help me look into it? Immblueversion (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[sarcaticly] Wait, I thought that episode doesn't exist. (See "Bag of Weed" section.)--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it definitely exists. I found the interview: [6] Immblueversion (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

100th Episode special question

Does anyone know if the people being interviewed are actors or 'real' people? They appear to be the latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.94.154 (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what I've been wondering. Does anyone know?--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Would appreciate sources for new plot details

I am perfectly aware that the plots of the episodes "Tales of a Third Grade Nothing" and "Anchorwoman: The Legend of Lois Griffin" are legitimate, but can anyone provide sources if available that provide the solid evidence? Just a suggestion. And to be honest, I was really hoping to know what the "Anchorwoman" episode would be about, because Lois is one of my favorite characters, so talk about luck! Immblueversion (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Season Premiere episode confirmed?

I know the next season will premiere on September 28, but do we have evidence the episode will be "Love Blactually"? I suggest we just keep that date within the description of the season itself and wait for information on which episode will air on that day. Immblueversion 10:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

season split

Like the simpsons I am going to split the sessons into multiple articles

MrJanitor1 0:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No! Don't do that yet! This article is fine the way it is! It's not as long as a single Simpsons article would be!--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I myself have already begun construction on a couple of them. But if you feel it is not the time to begin such a thing, then I will work no further. By all means, do what you must with what I have done. Immblueversion (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

NEW EPISODE TITLE CONFIRMED

I have the evidence needed to prove that there is a new episode screenplay entitled "Family Goy". It's production code is 7ACX01, and it is NOT one of those titles for those phony fan episodes because, as I have stated earlier, I have proof. I keep adding this to the list of future screenplays and I keep citing my source, but it keeps getting taken down. Why? Immblueversion (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There were more episodes of Family Guy [7], That episodes was an Hoax or Fan-Fics?. --Ravave (talk) 06:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

ALL ARE HOAXES AND FAN FICS!!!!!!!!!!!!! ALL THE CITATION NOTES ATTATCHED TO THE EPISODES ARE THE SAME, AND THEY ALL ARE COMPLETELY CONTRADICTORY TO THE CLAIMS IN THE ARTICLE IF YOU KNOW HOW THE U.S. COPYRIGHT RECORDS DATABASE WORKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IN FACT, THEY ALL REFER TO THE VERY EPISODE THAT I HAVE MENTIONED EARLIER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS IS VANDALISM AND/OR LUDICROUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BUT NOT "FAMILY GOY"!!!!!!!!!!!! Okay, maybe "Family Goy" WON'T be an EPISODE, but it has a production code that indicates it is an episode. Was that uncalled for? I'm so sorry. Immblueversion (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So, i was writted that's episodes in Spanish Wikipedia [8], I will have to erase those episodes, ah!, one question, What means it "Goy"?, is the first time i saw this word --Ravave (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A "goy" is someone who is not Jewish. It's an offensive term, but knowing this show, what else would you expect? Immblueverion (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand now, in Spain this show has been receives criticism too and the Channel what and the channel that it (emits) also receives critiques. Here the news [9] Sorry, is in Spanish —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravave (talk • contribs) 08:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

SO WHY DO THEY KEEP GETTING TAKEN DOWN HERE, EVEN IF THEY'RE REAL???!!! Immblueversion (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have idea, The people likes say bilges --Ravave (talk) 12:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Edition war

We got an edition war with one anonimous-IP 71.248.62.143 That ip not stop to reverted editions with references, we have two options, Semi protect this article or we blocked that IP. --Ravave (talk) 11:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

just get the IP blocked, as they are doing it on purpose just to makes things difficult. Grande13 (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The anonymous user IP has been blocked for a period of 48 hours. Hopefully this will reduce the vandalism of this article. I've also marked the page as watched and will try my best to patrol it for further acts of vandalism. Do not get involved in an edit war. There are usually a good amount of editors who are active in vandalism patrol. If I am online, you can contact me and I'll see what I can do to help. If not, try and report the vandal at WP:AIV.--«JavierMC»|Talk 09:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, i tried report that IP, but i can't, i don't know how, i'm a Spanish wikipedist, and in Spanish Wikipedia we got a very different system for reports than english [10]. For example in Spanish has a two hipervincle, a one for IP's and the second one for Users, in English AIV i don't know where write. --Ravave (talk) 09:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

NEW Episode Theroies

Okay, I got new episode theroes. Here we go! --BrianGriffin-FG (talk)

Title	Possible Plot
"Baby Not on Board"	Bonnie possibly gives birth. (Finally!)
"The Man with Two Brians"	Brian finds a dog that is a brother or relitave???
"Tales of a Third Grade Nothing"	Pete has to repeat the thirsd grade.
"Ocean's Three and a Half"	Someone steals something. Possibly might include Bertrum.
"Family Gay"	Peter is injected with the gay gene as part of a scientific experiment to determine whether or not it’s a learned trait or something that you’re born with. Jasper might be involved in this episode, in one form or another.
"The Juice Is Loose!"	Someone (possibly Joe) takes steriods, or something about O.J. Simpson.
"Anchorwoman: The Legend of Lois Griffin"	Lois becomes a anchorwoman at the FOX News Channel.
"Three Kings"	An episode with Fam Guy characters renacting three Steophen King novels. One segment will be Brian and Stewie actiong out Misery.
"Episode 420"	Brian and Stewie try and get pot legalized. Will pobbibly include a musical number titled "Bag of Weed".
"Not All Dogs Go to Heaven"	Brian starts showing signs of his age, so the Griffins get a new, younger dog.
"Something, Something, Something Dark Side"	Second Star Wars spoof.
"Family Goy"	Possibly a sequal to the "Whinestein" episode.
"Quagmire's Baby"	Quagmire learns that he has a kid.
"Hannah Banana"	Possibly a plot about Hannah Montanna (???).

Someone know something about the episode "I Dream of Jesus" ? It is supposed that it was emitted today. --Ravave (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Not all of them are very new. Omit "Baby Not On Board", "The Man with Two Brians", and "Tales of a Third Grade Nothing" because they now have official stuff. And "Not All Dogs Go to Heaven" features Meg trying to convert Brian into being Christian, and Stewie kidnapping the Star Trek: The Next Generation cast Immblueversion (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC).

Title	Possible Plot
"Ocean's Three and a Half"	After spending a week in jail, Peter realizes he actually liked it in there and tried to stay.
"Hannah Banana"	Meg becomes addicted to Hannah Montana, similarly to little girls everywhere.

Sorry. I really need to update this.--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Season 7 Episode

There is one episode confirmed for season seven called "Dog Gone" featuring a special guest slot from Kelly MacFarlane. Peanut Butter Jelly (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Polish Wikipedia

All articles about Family Guy in Polish Wikipedia was erased except the articles: pl:Hell Comes to Quahog and pl:PTV, see in pl:Kategoria:Odcinki serialu Family Guy --Ravave (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

OK,

1. Death Has a Shadow
2. Never Met the Dead Man
3. Chitty Chitty Death Bang
4. Mind over Murder
5. A Hero Sits Next Door
6. The Son Also Draws
7. Brian: Portrait of a Dog

These are all episodes of the first season, And still it is more --Ravave (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of future episodes

Do you have a reliable source to backup your contention? Because the existance of the episodes already has their own citation, so something would need to be provided to trump that citation. DP76764 (Talk) 05:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the exact same thing. 70.27.125.61 (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Season 7 Episode 7

The article shows S07E07 as a future episode, however it's been released and I watched it the other day. It's an Ocean's 11/12/13 parody where Barrack Obama plots with McCain and Hilary Clinton to steal the hope diamond by breaking into the museum from underneath using the presidential escape tunnel from the oval office. Somebody want to update the article to reflect this? 86.14.89.251 (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You just described a recent south park episode...About Last Night... (South Park) Grande13 (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, dude. 70.27.125.61 (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, I must've been really drunk when I wrote that one! My bad. Burningmace 12:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burningmace (talk • contribs)

U.S. Database Episodes

How are the U.S. Database websites a reference to the future episodes? I mean, i might as well put some random titles with the website and say it's a future episode! 70.27.125.61 (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Updated Episode Theroies

Well, here we are again. More episode theroies. Remember, these theroies were written on Dec 12, 2008, and do not reflect revelations the FOX people have provided us with. :-) Here we go!

Title	Possible Plot
"Family Gay"	Peter is injected with the gay gene as part of a scientific experiment to determine whether or not it’s a learned trait or something that you’re born with. Jasper might be involved in this episode, in one form or another.
"The Juice Is Loose!"	Someone (possibly Joe) takes steriods, or something about O.J. Simpson.
"Anchorwoman: The Legend of Lois Griffin"	Lois becomes a anchorwoman at FOX News Channel (that should be interesting!).
"Three Kings"	An episode with Fam Guy characters renacting three Stephen King novels. One segment will be Brian and Stewie actiong out Misery.
"Episode 420"	Brian and Stewie try to get the city of Quahog to legallize pot. Will possibly feature the musical number, "Bag of Weed."
"Not All Dogs Go to Heaven"	Meg tries to get Brian into the church.
"Something, Something, Something Dark Side"	Second Star Wars spoof.
"Family Goy"	Possibly a sequel to "When You Wish Apon a Weinstein."
"Brian's Got a Brand New Bag"	Brian might get a "Murse" (man-purse) or he might get a fasion designer.
"Quagmire's Baby"	Quagmire learns that he has a kid. (Slightly possible that one of his kids from "Third Grade Nothing" makes a cameo.)
"Hannah Banana"	Meg becomes obsessed with Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus. Possibly, Miley and/or her dad, Billy Ray, might make an appearence.
"Big Man on Hippocampus"	Peter goes to college. (???)
"Business Guy"	Peter/Stewie/Brian/Quagmire/or Meg becomes a business tycoon/opens a business.
"Meg Gets a Wild Hair"	Meg gets a horrible hair-cut. Possibly the B-Story for the episode.
"Stew-Roids"	Stewie starts taking steroids.
"An American Dog in Paris"	Brian goes to Paris, France/Idaho.
"Big Man on Hippocampus"	Peter goes to college. (???)
"Dog Gone"	Brian gets lost/gets kidnapped/runs away.
"Road to '85"	Next "Road to..." adventure where Brian and Stewie (possibly someone else too) go back in time to 1985 of possibly 2085+ (??????????~)
"Dial Meg For Murder"	Meg is thought to be killed/have killed someone.
"Jerome Is the New Black"	Clevaland's last episode. Gets replaced by a new black character.
"Sliders"	A new franchise opens up in Quahog (think Starbucks). (???)
"Life of Brian"	We learn about Brian's life. Dylan is brought back.(???)
"We Love You Conrad"	See Below

Okay, on, I think Tuesday, Seth Mac was on Loveline, and he gave info on We Love You Conrad. It's about Lauren Conrad becoming Brian's girlfriend, being smarter than him, and then giving him a long speach about WWII Navil Tactics (which Seth said he laughed about when that idea came). He said that Lauren spent months taking acting lessons and rehersing to get ready to record the episode. He also said that Ted Stryker (from Loveline, who brought up the subject), and Nick Simmons (Gene Simmons' son) will cameo as two douchebags.

Why isn't this episode in the future screenplays section. And don't say he was joking when he said that, he sounded serious. He was joking when he asked the guy with the penis leaking seamen if he could find a small dutch boy to stick his finger in it.

Thank you to whoever added to my last installment, and giving me your theroies on "Hannah Bannana" and "Not All Dogs Go To Heaven".--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind, sometimes, things with just one source is sometimes right. Remember the "Play it Again, Brian" e-mail arguement? Or "Family Goy?" Or, to a certain extent, "Episode 420?" Just saying.--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is the history of the show on this page?

That says it all. The history of the show does not belong on the episode list. Most, if not all of it has been lifted from the Family Guy entry on its main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.196.63.237 (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. So I fixed it. This being Wikipedia, you, too, have the right to do so. Be Bold, good Wikipedian. --fow (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Future screenplays/scripts

Can someone repair that section? [11] --Ravave (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Updated Episode Theories

Well, here we are again. More episode theories. Remember, these theories were written on Dec 12, 2008, and do not reflect revelations the FOX people have provided us with. :-) Here we go!

Title	Possible Plot
"Three Kings"	An episode with Fam Guy characters renacting three Stephen King novels. One segment will be Brian and Stewie actiong out Misery.
"Stew-Roids"	Stewie starts taking steroids.
"We Love You, Conrad"	Brian starts dating Lauren Conrad. He is infuriated that she is smarter than him.
"Not All Dogs Go to Heaven"	Meg tries to get Brian into the church.
"Something, Something, Something Dark Side"	Second Star Wars spoof.
"Family Goy"	Possibly a sequel to "When You Wish Apon a Weinstein." Could also possibly be related to "Family Gay".
"Brian's Got a Brand New Bag"	Brian might get a "Murse" (man-purse) or he might get a fasion designer.
"Ode to '85"	Peter (or someone else) stages an event to celebrate 1985.
"Quagmire's Baby"	Quagmire learns that he has a kid. (Slightly possible that one of his kids from "Third Grade Nothing" makes a cameo.)
"Hannah Banana"	Meg becomes obsessed with Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus. Possibly, Miley and/or her dad, Billy Ray, might make an appearence. Alternatively, an episode relating to Hanna Barbera (now Cartoon Network).
"Road To the Multiverse"	TBA
"Dog Gone"	Brian gets lost/gets kidnapped/runs away. Featuring a guest voice from Kel MacFarlane.
"Jerome Is the New Black"	Cleveland's last episode. Gets replaced by a new black character called Jerome.
"Big Man on Hippocampus"	Peter goes to fat camp.
"Partial Terms of Endearment"	TBA
"Business Guy"	Peter becomes a business tycoon/opens a business.
"Dial Meg For Murder"	Meg is thought to be killed/have killed someone.
"Brian Griffin's House of Payne"	Brian becomes obsessed with the film/game Max Payne.
"Extra Large Medium"	Peter gets a job at a fast food restaurant.
"Go, Stewie, Go!"	Stewie becomes obsessed with Go, Diego, Go!
"Peter-assment"	Peter sues/is sued for harrassment.
"The Splendid Source"	TBA
"April in Quahog"	TBA
"Quagmire's Dad"	Quagmire finds his long lost dad. Possibly relating to the episode Quagmire's Baby.
"Brian & Stewie"	Possibly relating to the webisode Up Late With Stewie & Brian.
"Return of the Jedi Parody(Title Currently Undecided)"	TBA

Okay, on, I think Tuesday, Seth Mac was on Loveline, and he gave info on We Love You Conrad. It's about Lauren Conrad becoming Brian's girlfriend, being smarter than him, and then giving him a long speach about WWII Navil Tactics (which Seth said he laughed about when that idea came). He said that Lauren spent months taking acting lessons and rehersing to get ready to record the episode. He also said that Ted Stryker (from Loveline, who brought up the subject), and Nick Simmons (Gene Simmons' son) will cameo as two douchebags.

Why isn't this episode in the future screenplays section. And don't say he was joking when he said that, he sounded serious. He was joking when he asked the guy with the penis leaking seamen if he could find a small dutch boy to stick his finger in it.

Thank you to whoever added to my last installment, and giving me your theroies on "Hannah Bannana" and "Not All Dogs Go To Heaven".--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind, sometimes, things with just one source is sometimes right. Remember the "Play it Again, Brian" e-mail arguement? Or "Family Goy?" Or, to a certain extent, "Episode 420?" Just saying.--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I copied this from the last archive. I worked to hard and too long to let this go! With all due respect, BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, like, how did we come up with these new episode titles? i tried to look for it but all i could find is this U.S database thing: [12]. there was no information on it! can someone enlighten me on the whereabouts of the titles, if you can. Bingowasmynameo (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• The ones that are cited with the copyright website should all be find-able on that site. And they all include episode names. DP76764 (Talk) 23:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, can you at least send me the link for, let's say, Family Goy. Bingowasmynameo (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Problem with future episodes

Man, people sure are persistent with saying that episodes such as "Ocean's Three and a Half" and "Family Gay" are going to air real soon, sometimes on days that aren't even Sundays. In fact, they insist that the plots they include with them are real, despite being based on sad fanfics. I don't think semi-protecting this page will really help unless it stays semi-protected, because the page will just be bombarded with nonsense once the semi-protection is lifted. User:Immblueversion (talk) 01:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

This article was semi-protected 1 month ago, if was necessary, we can semi protect the article again! until the next emission. --Ravave (talk) 09:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Cultural References

Can I ask why have all the cultural references become a paragraph and not as bullet points? It makes more sense to have it as bullet points because you are listing seperate references plus it is a lot easier to read as bullet points then one paragraph.Wild ste (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Where do you see them paragraphic? Bingowasmynameo (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Also, prose is the more preferred writing style, FYI. DP76764 (Talk) 23:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Life of Brian

For most of the future screenplays, the US Copyright Records database is the source. However, I could not find the entry for the episode "Life of Brian" in the database. Is it a real episode, or a fanfic?--Ashbey_{Happy Holidays} Ӝ 15:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It's been removed.--Ashbey_{Happy Holidays} Ӝ 20:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

We Love You Conrad Episode

Yes, this is the third time I'm posting this, and I won't let this die. But I have evidence. Read on to find it.--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, on 12/10/08, Seth Mac was on Loveline, and he gave info on We Love You Conrad. It's about Lauren Conrad becoming Brian's girlfriend, being smarter than him, and then giving him a long speach about WWII Navil Tactics (which Seth said he laughed about when that idea came). He said that Lauren spent months taking acting lessons and rehersing to get ready to record the episode. He also said that Ted Stryker (from Loveline, who brought up the subject), and Nick Simmons (stated as just Gene Simmons' son on the show) will cameo as two douchebags.--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Now, I have the entire show on my computer, and I have edited out the disscussion, which I will upload shortly. I might have to convert it, ect, ect.--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Now with that being said, why isn't this episode in the future screenplays section. And don't say he was joking when he said that, he sounded serious. He was joking when he asked the guy with the penis leaking seamen if he could find a small dutch boy to stick his finger in it.--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the clip of the show. File:Seth MacFarlane on Loveline 12-10-2008.ogg Enjoy.--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 02:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Dog Gone

OK, I have tried to add this a couple of times and some douche kept deleting it. Many thanks to everyone for keeping it up this time. I was just wondering why when I kept putting it up it got deleted but now someone else has it's stayed? I put something about it being deleted on this discussion page but someone just said "can we get a more reliable source on this?" ... I know I just have an IP address and not a username but that doesn't mean I'm not reliable. 86.54.43.186 (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ocean's Three And A Half

Is it for real now? Or it will be deleted again? If You can not maintain order, lock this page. My informations are equal to the written ones, (about January 18th), but I never would write something until it's published by FOX, or other relevant source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.255.58 (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm ... well, according to the webmaster of Seth MacFarlane Unlimited (Seth's fansite ... not technically official, but he does endorse it and he does know the webmaster): Episode: 7 Air Date: Unknown

After blowing up a children's hospital Peter is sent to jail. After his bail is made, Peter realizes that he has a great time in prison and wants to live there. Lois and Brian try to find ways to make him come to his senses. Meanwhile, Chris and Stewie try to help Meg get a date, and succeed.

NO NEW EPISODES UNTIL JANUARY 2009 212.32.91.175 (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Fansites don't usually count as reliable sources. Ideally this needs a real source. DP76764 (Talk) 00:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There arent goin 2 be any new episodes until February. The last episode of Family Guy on FOX will be on January 25th and thats gonna be a re-run of "Road to Germany". But other than that I heard its goin 2 air on February 8, 2009. --(Stewie-Th3 King) (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:58, January 12, 2009 (UTC).

Well, the webmaster is a friend of Seth's so I think it can be counted as pretty reliable ... Peanut Butter Jelly (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• And this is verifiable how? The threshold for inclusion is Verifiability, not truth. DP76764 (Talk) 16:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What is taking them so long? 82.198.28.114 (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

We Love You Conrad (AGAIN!!!)

Okay, I'm sick and tired of this! I heard on Loveline on 12/9/08 Seth MacFarlane, (Here that? MACFARLANE! THE CREATOR/HEAD WRITER/VOICE ACTOR/AND EXECUTIVE PRODUCER) say that LC, from The Hills, will guess star as herself, and the plotline will be she's Brian's girlfriend, she's a genius, and she will give a speach about WWII. I gave you the audio clip of them talking about it, and that wasn't good enough, so here is a news story about it! That good enough! -BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a note in the season 7 section saying that there will be an episode where Conrad becomes Brian's girlfriend. I didn't add "We Love You Conrad" to the list though, as your source and the Fox News website don't mention the title. Do you have a source for the title? ♦ Maddie talk 22:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

LOVELINE, DECEMBER 9TH, 2008! I HAVE THE AUDIO! -BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

HERE IS THE AUDIO! (AGAIN!!!) (in .ogg format) -BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 02:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry I snapped. I'm just tired of having to bring this up. It just doesn't make sense that nobody is listening. I just don't get it.

Remember the whole argument with "Former Life of Brian"? A user got an e-mail saying that it would air before "Love Blackually", and no one believed them, and everyone thought that "Love~" would air next. Well, "The Former Life~" did air next, and "Love~" was the season 7 opener.

Well, I know I'm at least partally right, and I'm not crazy. Please, listen to me. I-I'm begging you.-BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S.- This is not nonsense. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't make their argument nonsense.--BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Per WP:V, "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth". Which, of course, then leads us to WP:RS to determine quality of sources. If the episode does come out, fine and great. But in the meantime, what's the urgency to have it listed now? It'll be here sooner or later. DP76764 (Talk) 18:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

When You Wish Upon A Weinstein

It says season 3 lasted from 2001-2003 when really it ended in February 2002 with the "Viewer Mail #1" episode and 21 months later, adult swim aired "When You Wish Upon A Weinstein" as the lost episode which was in the Season 3 DVD released earlier that year, this episode was intended to be aired as A Season 2 episode in 2000 so I am going to revert it to 2001-2002.

fox aired the episode in 2003 as well, so its ok to have it say 2003 for the season. family guy has never been aired consistently anyways so people will can see the airdates for each episode of the season if they are confused. Grande13 (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

upcoming episodes

From rep at Foxflash...

"The next episode of FAMILY GUY airs on Feb. 15 and then we have originals through March (8, 15, 22 and 29.)" Grande13 (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Thin White Line

... why isn't this listed? On season three, it just goes straight to Brian Goes To Hollywood. 86.160.209.133 (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's in there: List_of_Family_Guy_episodes#Season_3:_2001-2003 DP76764 (Talk) 16:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't earlier ... but it is now. Strange. 86.160.209.133 (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

2 afds

FYI:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herbert (Family Guy)

and

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Tucker_(Family_Guy)

Ikip (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Title change for upcoming episode?

It is stated on MSN.com that an episode entitled "FOX-y Lady" will air on March 22, 2009. Considering information that was released prior to this, it would seem logical that this episode is one of the long-awaited episodes entitled "Anchorwoman: The Legend of Lois Griffin." Now it is natural for episodes to have title changes (note that "McStroke" was once entitled "Peter Strokes His Meat"), but I felt it necessary to discuss this matter before adding the episode to the list under this title. Immblueversion (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

i'll add it as a seperate episode until now until foxflash releases the press release and we can see the production number. If its the same as anchorwoman then we can remove anchorwoman. Grande13 (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I know from experience that making changes to this article based on assumptions isn't the best experience I've had on this article. Immblueversion (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

What if it's a 2-part episode first "FOX-y Lady" then "Anchorwoman"? 3DG-Th3 King (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

We wont assume it replaces it until foxflash has a release. So until then both will be up there on the listGrande13 (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

although I would say it safe to assume it is the anchorwoman replacement episode but we will just have to wait a week for an official press release to be certain Grande13 (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

What's with these new title changes now? Road to '85 is now "Ode to '85", and the "Sliders" episode is now "Road to the Multiverse". Why is this? 3DG-Th3 King (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

read the source that they have. It has been used in the past. Grande13 (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars parodies

Is the star wars parodies now going to be annual? Since season 6 has "Blue Harvest", now season 7 is going to have "Something, Something, Something Dark Side", and according to the future episodes, season 8 may have another Star Wars Parody. 3DG-Th3 King (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

They have mentioned they are doing episodes 4-6. Im guessing if they do real well and the show is still around then they might eventually get around to episodes 1-3 as well Grande13 (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well the parodies aren't annual now, since Dark Side was moved to season 8. 3DG-Th3 King (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming they will try to get back on track and possibly have a star wars episode lead off the new few seasons, but who knows. Grande13 (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Protection

I fully protected the page until 8 March. Please, discuss sourcing issues here. Ruslik (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this blog considered by the Wikipedia community to meet our WP:RS guidelines?

Not all blogs have are unreliable sources and reading wikipedia's guidelines some are usuable. The source in question directly from a family guy director. It used to be linked from the main family guy blog until that official blog was closed down. Now the official family guy site in its current format really has no way of linking to its directors pages.

The site has been used numerous times in the past two years, which lends further credit to it being a reliable source. It initially was used I believe during season 5 and gave all the remaining season 5 production titles, along with the first 17 production titles for production cycle 6.

Wikipedia states that info from blogs shouldn't be allowed as the primary source for articles. The information in this blog is not used for articles, but its used to add additional information to an existing page. I would say if any pages be created specifically for the episodes found on the blog without other resources they be removed, but having them appear as future episode titles doesn't violate anything. Which is why I will add them back when it becomes unprotected Grande13 (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to list some proof that it comes form a director of the show. If it actually does, it shouldn't be hard to find a source. CTJF83Talk 20:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are guidelines for self published sources. Read number 4, "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". All I'm asking for is proof that it comes from an official FG director, right now there is no authenticity of the blog. CTJF83Talk 20:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no proof that community consensus has come to agree that this blog is a reliable source. Sources that are widely considered reliable sources link to many sources that we do not consider reliable sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with CTJF83 and Red Pen. If there were and entry at the U.S. Copyright Records database, that would be a much more preferred (and reliable) source. Or if there was some scrap of verifiable evidence that this blog is official. DP76764 (Talk) 20:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

what does that even mean that if it really is the director then it should be easy to find a source? The knowledge is obviously correct as you can tell by the track record. Its not something someone can just make up and get it 100% correct. You aren't going to find a site saying this blog is legit if thats what you are looking for cause no one actually says that and makes an article of it.

the reliability thing was regarding its own wikipedia page and none of the info generated from that source has its own page based on that sources merit. Its fine for information to be added to the existing article

the real question is what is the REASONABLE doubt you have about its authenticity? Like i said it was on the official blog at one point in time when it existed and was maintained. Why do you have doubts about the source? has it been wrong before? no does it offer opinions on anything that can be considered bias? What reasons do you have to doubt this as noone can just make a blog like that up out of thin air with information that has checked out completely 100% in the past? Is the family guy article based on these sources? no not at all. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject? no again Grande13 (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

past performance should be weighted in on this discussion as well to help show the validity of the source. Its information that has originated on the source itself. It wasn't taken from some random board or anything of that nature. Im aware its hard to prove its official with blogs, but this one has shown no reason for anyone to question its reliability Grande13 (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

so if one of the items not currently listed at the copyright database becomes available and confirms that this blog is correct wouldn't that offer further proof that its reliable. Grande13 (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Bah, anyone can make up a blog and add 'fake' old entries that appear to be 100% correct. It's simple. And that's the problem with blogs and reliability. That and there's no way to prove who the author is. DP76764 (Talk) 21:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

the initial source that linked to this blog was the official one run by the writers at http://blogs.familyguy.com/ but after a site design change the blog was neglected and eventually not updated any furuther. Grande13 (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, you can't prove that to any of us. CTJF83Talk 21:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

and again, just because something that we might consider a reliable source links to another site does not mean that we consider that new site to also be a reliable source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding

"Bah, anyone can make up a blog and add 'fake' old entries that appear to be 100% correct. It's simple. And that's the problem with blogs and reliability. That and there's no way to prove who the author is. DP76764 (Talk) 21:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

yes anyone can go back and add old 'fake' entries, but these are correct and can be confirmed by actually this article. here is when they were first used [[13]]

that entry takes place in september of 2007 and not even all of those episodes listed have aired yet, but yet they were all correctGrande13 (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding

"and again, just because something that we might consider a reliable source links to another site does not mean that we consider that new site to also be a reliable source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)"

It was linked by the admin and put under the links section. Only the writers had access to those accounts. Im aware anyone could just create an account and post there, but this was with an admin account linking to the directors direct blog. Grande13 (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You just dont seem to get it - SO WHAT if the blog was linked from a site that we generally consider a reliable source. Being linked from a reliable source DOES NOT GIVE ANY STANDING to the new site as being reliable. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"Again, you can't prove that to any of us. CTJF83Talk 21:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)"

Im not sure what type of proof you are looking for cause you probably have unrealistic expectations of what you are trying to find. You obviously all can check the above link to see how i sourced that site in September of 2007 and that the information has all panned out exactly as it was stated on the blog. That helps establish reliability. Yes, im aware blogs can probably be altered to make it look like they were in existence before they actually were, but the history of family guy episodes on Wikipedia can't be altered in that way so feel free to look there to see how the blog has posted accurate info that has added to the article and also helped prevent vandalism as family guy episodes along with many other tv show lists here often have people add fake titles and plots. If we use this info all that can be prevented and we know this info is legit. Grande13 (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing out there that says this site is unreliable. It doesn't post rumors, only factual titles. Again no articles are being created and sourced by this. Its just adding to the article. I understand that being linked from an official site doesn't make this blog reliable by itself, but overall it helps contribute to its validity Grande13 (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) We dont have to "prove" that a self published source (SPS) is unreliable. It is up to the community to come to a consensus that the SPS meets our guidelines as an information source with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. You continually repeating that you think it meets our reliability policy because you think its history is reliable enough is not going to convince us and not likely to convince other editors. One thing that may convince me is if you find material in reliable sources that discusses this blog in a way that shows the blog has a reputation for being a good fact checking source (discusses the reputation, not just links to the site). -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• "That helps establish reliability." Uh, you might want to re-read the reliable sources policy. I really don't think that that's how reliability works. DP76764 (Talk) 21:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves Policy shortcut: WP:SELFPUB

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

  1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

1. The copyright database has backed up many of the previous facts stated on the blog, and nothing has been incorrect so far 2. It only claims to post the info it has on show titles 3. Its all Family Guy episodes and titles related 4. Given the fact that the information has been presented correctly and before it appeared anywhere else (which can be confirmed by looking at the articles history). It has never stated anything not factual and its privleged info that not just anyone can come upon, so there should be no reasonable doubt that its the directed. It was also stated on the official family guy blog that its legit and a director of family guy who posts on the blog 5. It only complements the family guy list article in adding info, the episode list is not dependent on this source Grande13 (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

even more proof the information posted on the blog is legit and can only come from an inside source such as the director is the title for 7acx21/7acx22 titled “Episode VI: The Great Muppet Caper" which was posted about a week or so ago on that site first. Now other sites can be used to confirm it http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/03/family-guy-to-parody-return-of-the-jedi.html Grande13 (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

nothing with concrete dates is being used to describe the information from this source. Its just showing the upcoming episode titles and their production numbers, its not like this information changes the tone of the main article or anything it just keeps it up to date and is a place that allows people to gather the information. Grande13 (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No. Without a reliable source, we dont include it in articles; especially when we know that information will be coming from a qualified reliable source imminently. We are not a crystal ball projecting the future, nor are we the cutting edge of "information" (in this case trivia) with the need to be the first to have material available. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

its not crystal balling. We are not speculating as to when the episodes will air. These are factual episode titles. Like i even said you can confirm one of them in the link I posted above. This blog is legit and the information can only come from an informed source. It is reliable information, as all 5 of those questions above were answered satisfactory meeting the guidelines in this situation. Grande13 (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You have missed the important phrase in "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". (emph added) If the article were about this blog, we could use this blog as a source if it met those conditions. this article is NOT about the blog it is about family guy episodes. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

All I know is it passed all 5 questions and it has a proven record in the past that can be verified on this site. Thats why the information should remain. Its from a director and has priveleged info, how much more reliable can you get? Grande13 (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep banging your head against the wall if you want. Using your observations to "prove" reliability for the SPS is not going to be very effective. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Im not using my observations, I;m using the facts and following the restrictions of the guidelines .Grande13 (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I've found other sources now so i'll update it with the change when the page becomes unblocked again Grande13 (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

What kind of other sources? CTJF83Talk 05:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Websites that are official and some fan sites that have direct contact with Seth McFarlane and even host recorded audio interviews. They are also in contact with the director on the blog. Grande13 (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Fan sites?! Do you not understand what reliable source means? CTJF83Talk 03:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What is this freakin sweet news site? It doesn't tell who this information comes from, and looks as unreliable as your blog. You need to stick to Fox.com and US Copyright databases. CTJF83Talk 03:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

you wanted better proof and I give you a website thats a direct affiliate of family guy. They are in connection with the writers and staff and its even pointed out on the main page news that the list was confirmed by the director. Grande13 (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It is still a fan-site. BOVINEBOY2008 15:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It started that way, but after the official family guy site became no longer updated thats where all the editors and staff went. Its official and the number one source of news from a non user submitted website. Grande13 (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

How do you know? It has as a subtitle "The Home of obsessed Family Guy fans." That screams fan site.

And you may want to read the FAQs of the site,

Do you know/have any relations to anyone at Family Guy?
This website, along with it's owner, have no relation or contact with anyone at Family Guy. We are completely independent of the show. This is just an unofficial fansite, and anything you send to us will not reach any of the cast or crew behind the show. In other words, please don't waste your time.

Can I submit my Family Guy media to your website?
Please do! Any and all of your Family Guy media not already featured here will receive sincere attention and may be featured on the website. If needed, we may even create new sections just to accomodate your contributions. Full credit will be rewarded where due. So if you've anything at all, please don't hesitate to send it in!

BOVINEBOY2008 15:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

the blog was valid as it passed all 5 criteria and now its appearing elsewhere too. Its not crystal ball as its not offering any definite details besides from the episodes titles themselves. There are no airdates, season assumptions. or anything of that nature. No bias is expressed in any of the sites delivery and adding the material only adds to the page to help make it accurate Grande13 (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

all 5 questions determining if it met the criteria to be an exception were answered and it meets the objective of being one of the exceptions. The information is not harming anyone it is only offering assistance to the community on wikipedia Grande13 (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

so the reason "poorly sourced" is not a valid reason for reverting the episode titles Grande13 (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Grande, you need to move on. The consensus is not to use this or your other blog as a source. Clearly Bovineboy pointed out it has no affiliation with FG staff, as you said it did. CTJF83Talk 20:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

FGwiki in External Links

And now for a new debate: Is FGWiki appropriate for the External Links section or does it not satisfy WP:ELNO guidelines? (on a side note: am I correct in remembering that there used to be a FGwiki template that got deleted? Anyone remember the grounds it was deleted on?) EDIT: here it isDP76764 (Talk) 18:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:

 12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.

It has quite a vast amount of editors and admin there, and adds a more in depth analysis to the guide and the individual episodes Grande13 (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should use it. As I said when I nominated it for deletion, I think it is a poor wiki, and shouldn't be linked to. It just has fancruft. CTJF83Talk 20:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

more admin have been added since that nomination, and most, if not all of the fancruft has been removed. Its been featured a few times as a leading and outstanding wiki due to its amount of contributors and information. Just because you think its a poor wiki doesn't make it one. It's a place to find more detailed and in depth information about the show, while things on wikipedia here are in a more condensded format. Grande13 (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

And just cause you think it is a good one, doesn't mean it is. Let's see what consensus we come to then. CTJF83Talk 20:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

according to number 12 up there, its fine. It has a stable base with many admin and contributors that combat vandalism and false info in a swift manner. Therefore its fine and acceptable for use as a link. Its just a link anyways so why are you even putting up a big fight? Grande13 (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Because the rest of us want Wikipedia to be as good as it possibly can be. They don't even cite anything. Where is a cite for when the next DVD comes out, and what order the episodes air in [14] CTJF83Talk 02:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The upcoming episodes are sourced on the news page. The DVD thing has been updated with a source, and it should have had one but was just recently added from tvshowsondvd. Grande13 (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I also don't think we should link to the fg wiki. The quality of the articles are simply to low. --Maitch (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

the quality is and has been improving steadily as more and more members join the community. Most, if not all of the cruft has been removed and things are becoming better sourced and organized better so the quality isn't low. Grande13 (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't base my opinion on how it might look in the future. I looked at it yesterday and I didn't find it very good. --Maitch (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What does FG wiki offer that we don't, besides cruft? CTJF83Talk 22:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

more detailed information and info on more variety of topics Grande13 (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What topics besides cruft? It appears that you are an admin there? CTJF83Talk 00:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed Season 8 Info

I have removed the Season 8 Info. There has been no conformation made by FOX as of yet. The only source was from a fan boy's web site, and even it states that what episode would begin Season 8 was Rumor, & Speculation. This is an Encyclopedia, not a Thero-Pedia.--Subman758 (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we need to wait for confirmation from fox or US copyright database. Grande, must you be difficult with all these fan sites you find? CTJF83Talk 05:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasnt the one that initially posted that, but the Hollywood reporter as well as other sites have verified the information about it being the premiere of next seasonGrande13 (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I am puzzled why you keep the source from family-guy-world, when you yourself in the history of the article admits it is an unreliable source. Tagging an unreliable source along with a reliable source, doesn't make it more reliable. It is true that thrfeed is a reliable source, but have you actually read what it says. It doesn't say much. It doesn't mention the title, director, writer, production code, or the fact that it should be a two parter. You also claim the Star Wars parody would be the premiere. Thrfeed, however, says nothing of this. It only says "The planned "Empire Strikes Back" parody episode is also on schedule to premiere next season". I have therefore removed the "information". Wikipedia is not a place for rumors and speculations posted on fansites. You can post that on the family guy wiki. --Maitch (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

ok the source link has been updated and now it shows its airing just in fall, not as the premiere. The director and writer can be found on the episodes article page on the movie poster that fox released to promote the episode. Grande13 (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm amazed that you can actually read the names on the poster. The resolution is quite simply to low for me to read it. Not even the family guy wiki has the names. I would also bring in to question how official the poster is. It seems to originate from [15], but you can't find any word on that it is an official promotional poster. Foxflash does in fact not feature the poster. Further, you still don't have any proof that it is an two parter or that the prod. codes are 6ACX21/6ACX22. --Maitch (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

the poster was included on the last dvd release. there is was a larger version there and it was readable. Its official as it was on the official DVD, in the copyright database its listed as a two parter Grande13 (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

ive updated the links to include the copyright database again Grande13 (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion to renumber the episodes to official FOX count

I think this episode page should represent the official FOX episode count and not what it should be naturally. Fox considers the movie to be one episode which would be episode 77. Blue Harvest is considered 2 episodes. It also has two production codes and it should be classified as episodes 96 and 97.

"Stewie Kills Lois" is the official 100th episode and this page should reflect that. I think it's important to stick with the official count so it won't get confusing later on. When FOX advertises the 200th episode down the line, this page should be in agreement with that rather than being two episodes ahead. Stunn (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Fox really doesn't have an official episode count anymore as the official site that was keeping it was redesigned and no longer includes an official episode count and guide probably cause they weren't sure of everything themselves. Anyways, when the episode that aired at the end of season 4 were independent episodes by themselves and varied from the movie. Its an episode list so we are going to include all the episodes that aired for family guy. In the case of any confusion we have labeled things that identify possible different viewpoints. Blue Harvest should be considered one episode since it aired uninterupted, and on the DVD release was not divided into two separate parts either. If and when the 200th rolls its impossible to speculate what episode order they will use, as like with the simpsons 300th episode Barting Over, they tend to make a milestone episode fit their schedule even if its not exactly the milestone. Grande13 (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

apparently the note was taken down, so i'll re add it Grande13 (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Grande13. Fox doesn't care about the official episode count. They have screwed up several milestones for The Simpsons. --Maitch (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, that makes reasonable sense Grande13. Stunn (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok i've added the note back, and you know FOX doesnt really know what the official episode count is when they decided to remove anything resembling an episode guide/list from their official site. They are probably just as confused as everyone else. Grande13 (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's have it this way: we have a episode count number, and an official FOX episode number. That sound good? With all due respect, BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Update, the FOX site has been redone and now their is a recap section but the seasons are a bit off. They have the movie episodes counting as individual episodes, and Season 4 here split into season 5. Although on their DVDs they refer to it as Season 4 part 1 and part 2, so the format we have here is fine, as FOX can always change their mind again. Even on the old version of the site they didnt have Season 4 split so take it for what its worth Grande13 (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Have We Lost Our Minds?!

Where the hell are the refrence sections?! I could handle no trivia, but no refrences?! What the hell?! They're a big part of Family Guy! I could handle it being in paragraph form, but for god's sake! Don't take them out entirely! God! With NO due respect, BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you complaining about? All future episodes have a reference. CTJF83Talk 19:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

They mean on the individual episode pages... Grande13 (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Meaning what? 420 is the only future episode with a page, and it has a source. CTJF83Talk 20:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think he is talking about "in popular culture" trivia references which have been removed from any articles where they were lacking sources per WP:V and WP:OR. And if that is what he was talking about, no we havent lost our minds, we have begun to get our encyclopedia back from the fansite. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

yes the original poster was referring to the references/trivia/cultural references sections being removed from the each individual episodes pages. it has nothing to with the episode list page, but for some reason thats where they decided to post...Grande13 (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You guys are making me feel like a winey little 2 year old! All the stuff on the episode articles now are things I can get at TVGuide.com! I am not the only one who wants the pop culture refrence section!
If this keeps happening, I will have to quit this. And I mean it. And not in a nice way. I'm gonna quit the way I quit on DamnYouAll.Net, and that's getting baned, and you don't want that to happen. (Go to the website, search "BrianGriffin-FG" and look around a little. You'll find the reason I was baned.) I really don't want to do that. I love this site, but I can't take that much more.
Sooner or later, I will explode out of rage, and it won't be pretty.--With all due respect, BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If you dont like the rules, go the to the policy pages such as WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:OR and see if the community supports your version of wikipedia. I have a feeling they don't. If you decide that you cannot contribute within the community guidelines, well then we will say goodbye. But threatening bad behavior to get your way is not a convincing arguement.-- The Red Pen of Doom 22:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ya' know Red Pen, I am so sick and tired of you! Go in a gutter and go f-! Ah! Sorry! I didn't mean to snap!
I can't take anymore of this crap today. I'll sighn back in tommorow and cool down. See ya. --BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

yeah B-ri-FG, go calm down. But I agree with him. I think we should have them so we can have a comprehensive encyclopedia, and not just a brief article.--Lsnicket (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You can still have cultural references. Just find some references for them. People are complaining, but in reality you just have to do some work. --Maitch (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Season 7 article

Should'nt there be a seperate article page for Family Guy (season 7)? Story V 01:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Story V (talk • contribs)

No, I guess all season pages were redirected here. CTJF83Talk 02:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, I guess some seasons have pages, and some don't. We should either have all seasons have their own page, or no seasons have their own page. CTJF83Talk 02:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Family Guy (season 7) CTJF83Talk 02:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm saying this, but the way the articles are done now, I can get behind them. Don't change them. With all due respect, BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hideous Grammar

There's some awful grammar on this page, eg. "But when he discovers that, back in the present, he's married to Molly Ringwald and Lois to Quagmire, he must set things right in the past." at the bottom of Season 5.

The author of this section needs to forget everything they think they know about commas and hit the books. This sentence would read much nicer without the first two.

I don't wish to personally correct this, but do enjoy pointing it out. 94.168.240.187 (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Season Changes

I made some changes to the page in accordance to the new family guy website. Feel free to amend or delete as needed. The season pages should also be fixed to reflect the change. Jonh90 (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

the changes are unnecessary and fox has admitted the guide isnt something exact. We go by air date, and by DVD releases first, then the fox website to determine season order. Grande13 (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Untitled Family History

Season 4, Episode 27, Where does the word "untitled" come from? I'm looking at the DVD case and it says "the griffin family history"

should someone correct this? 24.3.209.103 (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

its correct this way. The initial press release had it this way and on the fox website for family guy it has untitiled. An alternate title like the one on the DVD doesnt have the word untitled. On the episode page here it mentions both... Grande13 (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Adult Swim Schedule for Season 8

Adult Swim air the episodes a week after FOX and here is their schedule

http://www.adultswim.com/schedule/onair.html (92.236.215.6 (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC))

Episode notability

Many or all of the existing individual episode pages for this series appear to fail the notability guidelines for television episodes, and have been tagged accordingly. These articles can be improved through the inclusion of real-world information from reliable sources to assert notability. Overly long plot summaries should be edited, to a maximum length of approximately ten words per minute of screen time. Trivia should be integrated into the body of the article, or removed if it is not directly relevant. Quotes and images should only be used as part of a critical analysis of the episode. You might also consider merging any notable information onto the show's "List of episodes" or season pages. Otherwise, when these pages come up for review, they may be redirected or merged. If you want any help or further information, then come to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage. Thanks. feydey (talk) 09:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

See also related lists

I have re-added these list articles (related because they are lists of episodes also made by Seth MacFarlane) to the See also section:

• List of American Dad! episodes
• List of The Cleveland Show episodes

with this edit summary reason: "lists are useful to readers; these are not linked above nor on Family Guy page; wikipedia should help readers find articles easily and not make them search".

See also sections in Wikipedia articles sometimes link articles on related topics, and such topics do not need to be subtopics (they would tend to be in the article body or linked as a sub-page). Consider this Featured list: List of anthems of UN member states. An alternative would be to move them to the navigation box at the bottom, but please remember to think of the readers. -84user (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

like you mentioned the shows are all created by Seth Macfarlane, and all basically take place in the same universe and any character from one show can always appear on another. I think just having the links in the see also section is a better alternative than a navigation box as not much else would be needed for that box.Grande13 (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Cultural references = WHY THEY SHOULD GO BACK

The removal of cultural references has annoyed me for ages. Being a fan of Family Guy, I often missed the hidden sub text in many of the episodes. Thankfully back in 2007, most Wikipedia articles concerning the episodes had a helpful guide telling me what the pop culture references were....

Then a Wikipedia Rules lawyer, sorry editor, hit on the idea that these sections did not contain references, whoopee f**kin doo, all of a sudden miserable unimaginative little pixies working alone in their bedrooms were deleting these sections with glee, citing no references, original research etc, etc.

However being unthinking little rule bots, they forgot about people like me, who have the intelligence and ability to rationalize above their little Machiavellian plots.

I therefore make the following assumptions on the editors who removed the pop culture sections:

1. They do not think Family Guy is a comedy show.
2. They do not think Family Guy uses audience knowledge as a source of reference.
3. They do not think Family Guy is a factual program.
4. They do not think Family Guy relies on original humor.

Therefore if editors who removed the pop culture sections disagree with any of those assumptions, they are gross hypocrites as they selfishly laugh to themselves but don't wish to share the joke with anyone else.

So lets get on with the indictment of hypocrisy, shall we, and examine the pop culture deletion debate:

• UNREFERENCED. Fair point, if Seth Macfarlane actually wrote original comedy. But he doesn't!! Most of Family Guy's integral humor is taken from references to popular culture. Therefore these references are part of the plot of ever FG episode. Wikipedia does not demand that the plot has to be referenced. Therefore if Michael J Fox appears and says to Stewie "I need to tell you about the future" (dressed like Marty McFly in Back to the Future), and Stewie replies "No Michael I need to tell you about YOURS". That does not need to be referenced as it is in the plot of the episode.

See got you, haven't I. The pop culture inference, which is part of the episode's storyline, doesn't need to have a reference because it is IN THE SHOW! The assertion is not being made by a third party it is being made by the primary source.

• ORIGINAL RESEARCH. The other main reason why the pop culture sections were removed. Again, this comes down to the idea that humorous conclusions drawn from what is perceived on the screen are a sole individual's thoughts and ideas. WRONG.

Using this twisted logic, is Seth Macfarlane and the other writers therefore creating FG episodes with random facts, tropes and skit sequences that should not be considered funny by a collective group of people for the same reason (I thought it was funny because of a: banana; Brian; the greased up deaf guy etc), or even that the audience often requires pre-acquired knowledge to understand the humor?

People would only be demonstrating Original Research if they were watching FG and laughing independently of each other - not TOGETHER. Using the logic of the Wikipedia editors who continually cite Original Research, does that mean after watching a joke on FG, do you all ask, why did you laugh at that? ("Er I don't know", would seem wholly appropriate if Original Research is used.)

For instance with the Michael J Fox reference, are the viewing audience acknowledging the "comedy" because it's a guy wearing a body warmer? A baby on the roof? It is because they talk funny? Or it because Michael J Fox appeared in the 1980s time-travelling comedy movie Back to the Future and Stewie is referencing the fact that Fox now has (sadly) Parkinson's disease!

Or am I just a good guesser? And therefore it's Original Research? Or as Wikipedia editors, who removed the pop culture sections, would have us believe, a random act from the minds of Macfarlane and his writers, and as such would make any interpretation an act of Original Research....

In conclusion, as the cultural references are an integral part of the plot of each Family Guy episode they are therefore part of the story, and as such using, Wikipedia's own policy on the matter, do not have to be referenced. For instance the movie Titanic does not need to be extensively referenced to the fact that it's a story about the sinking of the famous ship RMS Titanic. Likewise, the Original Research tag cannot be used to attack the cultural references because that would have to assume that single members of the viewing audience are therefore finding humor from different sources/reasons in every single gag in FG.

Therefore by making these bold assertions, the culture sections should be reinserted forthwith because withholding them is illogical and quite frankly hypocritical. However I will eat my words, if the editors who removed these sections turn out to be the humorless wretches, I fear they probably are!!

PS Sadly the removal of the pop culture sections is indicative on how this site is descending into a hole of its own making - last year 49,000 editors quit due to the behaviour of editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.73.24 (talk) 12:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As much as I do support your arguments and criticism, this isn't going to change anything. It'll have just been a waste of time. Forget Wikipedia, they don't care about stuff like this. Join the Family Guy Wikia or something. --Kaizer13 (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Now It Happened On This Page

For the Third Time recently that I have come across, someone has put wrong airdates and episodes for a whole season of an episode list for television show. First it happened on List of King of the Hill Episodes with Season 3:1998-1999 in November and then on the same page with Season 2:1997-1998 in December and now it happened here with Season 2:1999-2000 in most-likely December. There are completely wrong and way-off airdates listed for season 2. Who keeps doing this? Whoever it is, please note that your listing the episodes and airdates wrong and totally messing up the whole section(s) your editing and confusing people by having wrong information. Someone should fix this and it's not going to be me this time because I ended up fixing it the last two times on the King of the Hill episode list. Okay everyone, if your going to write down information for a section or a page or whatever, please make sure you have correct information because this is starting to get really ridiculous and annoying. If it happens again i'm going to start suspecting Vandalism. a>C-Son-L_Sweaters.exe 21:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Adult Swim Schedules

I would like to remind everyone that [adultswim] publish their schedules in advance, and air Family Guy eight days after FOX http://www.adultswim.com/schedule/tools/img/sched_011910.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradox295 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

and? CTJF83 chat 20:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

inconsistency

In the second paragraph second to last sentence it says "MacFarlane conceived the idea for the Family Guy in 1999" and "MacFarlane completed the 11 minute pilot after six months of hand animation" the first episode aired in january 1999. My point is MacFarlane couldn't have conceived the idea and hand drawn it in six months in less than one month. I think MacFalane conceived Family Guy a bit earlier than 1999. If anyone knows when it was thought out could they please change it otherwise it has to be temporarily removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CatLestat (talk • contribs) 09:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed Good catch, I changed it to 1998 CTJF83 GoUSA 17:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Episode 150

Apparently Stewie & Brian is episode 150, but its airdate is too early unless they're doing subsequent back to back new episodes, which is quite unlikely. Can someone check this out and change (or advise here, and I can)? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rm w a vu (talk • contribs)

there is a note next to the episode number about how fox advertises it as the 150 basically just for publicity. The 100th episode wasnt actually the 100th and the simpsons many milestone episodes didnt actually fall on the correct episode numbers either. Fox would just rather have the 150th episode in may sweeps period so thats why its there even though its not 150Grande13 (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair call, so it's not a wikierror, just a marketing ploy leading to inaccuracy and/or confusion/ Thanks for clarifying... it is fox, after all. hehe. --rm 'w avu 13:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you work it out, it's the 150th produced episode. It appears as #143 on the Wiki list, but it's production code is 7ACX20. "Quagmire's Dad", "The Splendid Source" and "Partial Terms of Endearment" are 19, 17, and 10 respectively despite having air dates after "Brian and Stewie" or not at all, and as such would be produced before hand, bumping the number up to 146. "Something, Something, Something, Dark Side." were two episodes produced for the previous season that will air after "Brian and Stewie", adding 2 (148), and "Blue Harvest" was also a double episode produced for season 5 that premired season 6, adding 1 to the count (149). The only thing missing is the episode making it #150, which is probably "The Family Guy 100th Episode Special", even though it was a clip special, and not technically an episode of the show. That, or Fox just fudged on that one. In conclusion, 150th produced episode. Thank you. --KnownAlias contact 16:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)