Wikipedia

Talk:Modern Family/Archive 1

< Talk:Modern Family
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Hoof Hearted in topic Emmy Awards
Archive 1

Valid criticism?

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's a well detailed (but ultimately unreferenced) piece in the criticism of the show in this article that states the average house price for the kind of house the Dunphys live in and the average wage for a realtor, saying that it is unrealistic for them to live in that house. (There are references for the figures and values, but there is no reference to the source of the criticism aimed at the show.) It doesn't seem to hold weight, and I'm not convinced of its relevance/suitability for the article. I can't remember the family's history in detail, especially anything from the early days of their marriage, but there must have been a time when they didn't have 3 kids to look after, and presumably when they moved into the house it would have been considerably cheaper, given that many properties' growth was considerably higher than inflation. Phil does also have a very rich in-law, and unless this has been expressly addressed in the show, how do we know whether or not he made a contribution towards their property?

I agree, the criticism feels to be the opinion of the author of the criticism, and has no references to outside sources or established critics that hold this opinion. Wikipedia shouldn't be the place someone airs their personal criticism of a show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.225.114 (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see a review

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

I'd like to see a review that calls the show the new Arrested Development, because even though it's a good show, it's not that good of a show. Jay Bones (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I second that on all counts and I removed the statement per but as it go;s on you begin to notise they are all the same. WP:BURDEN. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for having beaten me to that. In the current media free-for-all, there are too many critics who seem to think similarity of show format (mockumentary) is automatically synonymous with similarity of show and show quality. Then again, although it borrows somewhat from the style, Arrested Development is not really a mockumentary either, not unless Wonder Years is to be considered a mockumentary as well. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.88 (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I was really surprised to see this called a mockumentary(and multiple times). It's a sit-com without a laugh track, and with a few random "reality shots" thrown in.140.247.241.148 (talk) 07:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Well although this doesn't say that its exactly like it, it does draw comparisons, but ends saying that the "jury is still deliberating whether it's in the same class". Plus, there's about fifty other articles that basically say the same thing. I guess maybe wikipedia should wait on that comparison until everyone makes up their mind. Tv.com 'Modern Family is the Best New Comedy of the Season' Dflav1138 (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes this is a Sit-com. Do people not realize Sit-com is short for situation comedy?--99.177.250.140 (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC) Italic text

Location

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I went to this page to look up where the show takes place. I'm not sure if it's possible to tell, but if it is, can anyone put it up on the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eje211 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's set in Los Angeles. In one episode, Mitch and Cam go to a restaurant on Formosa Avenue which is in Los Angeles. Kiwidude (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

More evidence: Gloria, Jay, and Manny go to Santa Monica pier to fish and a bench ad for Phil's business has the area code 424 as a number, the area code for Santa Monica. Kiwidude (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I just added some stuff from a Slate article which gives some more detail on the locations. Daniel Case (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

single-camera

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You should not follow WP:RS to the point where they contradict easily-observable facts. I checked the latest as well as 101, 104, 107, none of it was matching single-camera.

Yes, I can see the mockumentary tools, even the panning and zooming typical to single-camera setups. They still use more than one camera. --91.55.207.102 (talk) 11:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ratings

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I'm seeing a lot of numbers but no translation into English. Are Modern Family's ratings good? Great? Bad? So-so? Ribbet32 (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

10 million viewers is pretty good. Rank #36 is pretty good. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Martin.
Actually, the ratings are pretty amazing. These days, the only ratings that really matter are those of the adults 18-49 demographic, and in that range, Modern Family is the number 1 scripted series this season. 81.9.186.150 (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ratings box

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It is unencyclopedic to have a "ratings box" listing detailed statistical info for every single episode in the main article page. Might however be something appropriate for a list page. Cirt (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Awards table

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The table showing all of the awards Modern Family has won or been nominated for is getting really long and taking up a lot of space. I would like to suggest that the table should be removed from the main article since there is already a separate article with basically the same information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatotherperson (talk • contribs) 04:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No one objected, so I went ahead and removed the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatotherperson (talk • contribs) 16:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Family Tree

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Manny is listed as adopted by Jay. His mother marrying Jay does not make him adopted, it makes him a step son of Jay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.235.194 (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Lily was listed as "Lily Tucker-Pritchet." That was a good assumption up until Season 2, episode 17, aired on March 2, 2011, "Two Monkeys and a Panda," where there were at least two scenes between Cam and Mitchell regarding her name on the adoption decree. Her name was actually Lily Tucker Pritchett, but Mitchell did promise Cam to hyphenate her name. Did it ever happen? Kosherdill1 (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Modern Family/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 21:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Always meant to try this show out, but the fact that it isn't Married with Children always put me off.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
    Prose style seems fine (though I'd replace "mom" with "mother", and there are two DAB links); MOS seems good too.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
    Citations seem okay, everything's backed up and sourced; except for one missing citation - can we find a source for this? It doesn't seem vital so I'd say either source it or remove it.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
    Scope is fine, not too broad or too narrow.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
    Article is neutral and unbiased.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
    History is uncontroversial and stable.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
    Images seem fine. Rationale for fair use and public domain both look sound.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    As it is, I see no reason not to pass this as a Good Article. The only changes needed are very minor, but I'd still like to see it done. Good job.

GA Reassessment

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Modern Family/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):  
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):  
    b (citations to reliable sources):  
    c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):  
    b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  

Overall:
Pass/Fail:  

  ·   ·   ·  


Issues

General

  • Article is laking a "Plot/Series overview" section

Infobox

  • As per Template:Infobox television, production location parameter is only for use when outside country of origin. "Leave blank if same as country of origin above". If it is filming in Los Angeles, mention in the "Production" section below
  • Official Website should be Website

Lede

  • Link comedy series to television comedy
  • Per WP:MOS, ABC should be American Broadcasting Company (ABC)
  • "Lloyd and Levitan are showrunners and executive producers under their Levitan-Lloyd Productions label" yet that isn't mentioned in the "Production" section
  • "Presented in mockumentary style, the fictional characters frequently talk directly into the camera." need to further explain all the characters, faimiles, style, etc. featured in the Cast and characters per WP:LEAD
  • "The series has received positive reviews from critics and received several award nominations" Re-write to: "The series has generally received positive reviews from television critics, and has been nominated for numerous awards
  • "On May 10, 2012, ABC announced that it had renewed Modern Family for a fourth season". shouldn't that be at the end of the second paragraph
  • Whole lead doesn't summarize the full article. It doesn't have any information on the "Cast and characters, etc". Also, it contains unneeded details for the lead. Example: "The series has won the Emmy Award for Outstanding Comedy Series and the Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series twice so far, for Eric Stonestreet and Ty Burrell, as well as the Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series for Julie Bowen". Don't say all that. Just say it has been nominated for numberous awards." All that extra detail should be in the article. Same for various others, too many to list. List key details, not little details that should be in actual article per WP:LEAD

Production

  • The production section is too small for GA standards. Add "Writing", "Casting", "Filming locations", etc". And, the current sections there also need expanding
  • "As Lloyd and Levitan retold stories about their families, it occurred to them that that could be the basis for a show. They started working on the idea of a family being observed in a mockumentary style show." citation/reference needed for all of that
  • Lloyd and Levitan. Who is that? It is there last name, so make it the full name, then if it is mentioned again then it should be last name
  • They did not pitch it to Fox because of issues Lloyd had with the network over Back to You.)[19] CBS, not ready to use the single-camera style of filming nor ready to make another large commitment, rejected the series (Welcome to The Captain and Worst Week were single-camera sitcoms that recently aired on CBS but both lasted one season). NBC, already having two shows with a mockumentary format — The Office and Parks and Recreation — decided against accepting the show before the success of the other two series decreased. ABC accepted the series and picked it up for a full season. Firstly, all of that is original research, secondly, rather than all that unneeded detail, add basic info about the conception, and write: "Lloyd and Levitan pitched the show to various network, and ABC accepted the series, and picked it up for a full season.
  • You say that its filming in LA above. Mention that in the article, and expand upon it
  • ABC should be linked in the "Conception"
  • Per the above, ABC should be unlinked in the "Pickup" section
  • 2009–2010 should be 2009–10 per WP:YEAR. Also, link that to 2009–10 United States network television schedule
  • Most of pickup should be in a new "Distribution" section
  • "Crew" → "Production team"
  • "Lloyd and Levitan previously worked on Frasier, Wings, and Just Shoot Me" is way off topic
  • "The series was also picked up for syndication by USA during the first season for 1.5 million dollars and to 10 Fox affiliates during the second season" re-write to: "The series was also picked up for syndication during the first season for 1.5 million dollars and to 10 Fox affiliates during the second season in the United States".
  • Unlink USA per WP:OVERLINK
  • Unlink United Kingdom per WP:OVERLINK
  • "The series airs in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland on Sky1" remove that. It is already in "International distribution"
  • Various others too many to list

Cast and characters

  • This should just be about the explaining the characters. The "show revolves around three families that are interrelated through Jay Pritchett and his children, Claire Dunphy and Mitchell Pritchett. Jay Pritchett (Ed O'Neill), the patriarch, is married to a much younger woman, Gloria (Sofía Vergara), a passionate" Should be added to a new "Series overview/Plot" section, also expanding upon


Episodes

  • Most is above

Reception

  • Various too many to list all of them
  • 18-49 rating should be 18–49 rating per WP:DASH. Needs to be a dash
  • Glee is already linked above and shouldn't be here
  • 2009–2010 should be 2009–10
  • 2010–2011 should be 2010–11
  • 2011–2012 should be 2011–12
  • International distribution has the main problems. Firstly, there are no references, second it should be written in words like The Office (U.S. TV series).
  • FOX8 should be Fox8 per WP:TRADEMARK
  • FOX should be Fox per WP:TRADEMARK
  • "[[Cielo (TV channel)|Cielo], Fox (Sky)]" linking problems
  • Unlink all countries in the "International distribution" section per WP:OVERLINK
  • No premiere date for various

References

  • So many formatting problems. Example: "Goldderby.latimes.com should be Los Angeles Times, "Tvbythenumbers.com should be TV by the Numbers"
  • Various are missing publishers. Example: "TV by the Numbers's publisher should be Zap2it
  • Various overlinking
  • Ref. 35, 68, 69: is not a good source
  • So many problems with refs. way too many too list

External links

  • Official website. It should be noted that it is at ABC.com

Overall, the article needs so many improvements. I'm sorry, be I'm delisting the article. TBrandley 03:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Salt Lake City affiliate won't air it

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is this still going on? Why isn't it mentioned in the article? (On a side note, fuck SLC.) --174.255.161.223 (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Update the litigation section

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It's been resolved, I'd rather not put in the edit myself since i'm not a "pro" but I'll give you a reference http://www.hitfix.com/whats-alan-watching/modern-family-actors-resolve-contract-dispute-with-studio ErdoSa (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Crossed out

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

In the family tree the children's names are crossed out. Is this intentional, and if so, what does it represent? Lord loss210 (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

They should be uncrossed-out and only put back if it is explained in the lead what it represents; even then they should not be crossed out and some other method of delineation should be used (as it just makes it harder to read). Feel free to fix it. King of Nothing (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I fixed it...hope it's OK now TeamGale 02:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Nope still crossed out.24.188.197.22 (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Lord loss210 King of Nothing I would like to help but I can't understand where the problem is...personally I don't see anything wrong on the family tree...I can't see any names crossed out. Can you take a screenshot of what you are seeing pointing the problem or something? That would help to solve it. Thanks TeamGale 10:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
The process for putting up the print screen is rather confusing for me, what with copywrite and so on.
http://gyazo.com/18f63027dae5007006e924d09899a9b4.png, this is what I see. A few are crossed out.24.188.197.22 (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh my...! :(( I don't see anything like that. The tree looks perfectly fine to me with no names crossed out. Probably is a bug issue or something. If you can write about it at this page giving them details on what browser you are using, windows and skin they can fix it. (Thanks for the screenshot) TeamGale 18:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

That is exactly what I see as well! I'll also write something up on that page if another report will be of further help Lord loss210 (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Modern Family/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 08:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 17, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:
  1. Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
  2. NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  3. Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it. This is a way to help out the Wikipedia community by reducing our GA Review WP:BACKLOGS, and a form of paying it forward. Thank you !
  4. COMMENT: A LOT OF WORK IS NECESSARY, as noted, below. I was tempted to fail this, as quite unsure if Seven Days is enough time to get this up to GA quality. However, here's the deal: worst case scenario, you can't get to it all in time, it fails, and you can renominate and cite this past review and note point-by-point on the article talk page in advance how you attempted to address all suggestions from this past review (and also from the prior GA Review Reassessment). Good luck !!!
  5. MISSING = this was identified at the last GA Reassessment, and yet still missing. A "plot synopsis" or better yet a "premise" sect, compare with a good one at Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. If this was already brought up at the last GA Reassessment, why was it not already addressed, between that time, and now?
  6. One-sentence-long-paragraph as 3rd paragraph in lede ???
  7. Lede intro sect fails WP:LEAD. It also has severe lack of balance in size of each paragraph. Per WP:LEAD, article lede intro sect needs to fully function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents. Recommend four (4) full paragraphs, of at least four to five sentences each.
  8. Lede intro sect also is disorganized, and presents material not in same chronological order as sects in article, itself. Lede intro sect should roughly follow same chronological flow as article body text.
  9. Early on, it was named as a key holder for the 62nd Primetime Emmy Awards. What does this mean in the lede ???
  10. Analysis and commentary - remove the large blockquote in this sect. This shows the reader that the writer was a poor writer who was unable to summarize the info, themselves, and just chose the lazy way out by quoting the entire relevant portion.
  11. Copyvio Detector - https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Modern+Family&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1 - result - "Violation Possible 64.5% confidence" - please trim down all quotations such that the three (3) problem sources at Copyvio Detector result all get below 30 percent confidence on my next revisit and analysis.
  12. Why is Syndication sect part of Reception parent sect?
  13. Ratings should be its own two level sect, above Reception.
  14. Analysis and commentary - this sect could be titled instead as "Themes" and be its own two level sect, above Reception.
2. Verifiable?:
  1. Per WP:LEADCITE, no need for citations in the lede -- IFF the info is cited again in article body text.
  2. References sect has a few errors noted.
  3. Cite error: Invalid ref tag; name "tvhit" defined multiple times with different content
  4. Cite error: Invalid ref tag; name "seasontwoviewer" defined multiple times with different content
  5. Checklinks shows at least sixty-four hyperlinks issues at http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Modern_Family
  6. Please archive those cites with Wayback Machine by Internet Archive using WP:CIT fields of archiveurl and archivedate. Consider archiving all hyperlinks in article in this manner, as well, but at least those sixty-four (64) problem links. These are any and all links at http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Modern_Family that do not show a "0" or "200" as a result for link health status.
3. Broad in coverage?: Article is lacking a "plot synopsis" or "premise" sect, compare with Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Already brought up at prior GA Reassessment - not sure why this wasn't addressed in the interim time period between then, and now.
4. Neutral point of view?:
  1. Concerns here. Article comes across as a bit promotional in nature. WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to all the awards in the lede intro sect. This could be summarized a bit more, instead.
  2. Awards and accolades' - suggest just rename as "Accolades".
  3. Criticism - entire sect not mentioned in lede, at all.
  4. Criticism - why a separate sect for this? This should be integrated into one sect, Critical reception sect.
  5. It looks like Critical reception sect is almost exclusively positive commentary = POV concern.
  6. Remove the 2 blockquote boxes in Critical reception sect. They come across as POV and promotional.
  7. Awards and accolades - this sect is a bit large and WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, especially as there is an entire separate list page for it. Please use WP:SUMMARY STYLE, and trim that sect size down a bit.
5. Stable? I went back over one month and the article is stable -- aside from edits by new users and by IPs that seem to be agreed by established editors to not be appropriate. Perhaps try for semi-protection request at WP:RFPP ?
6. Images?:
  1. File:Modern Family Promo Season 1.jpg = this one can be removed as it is a dup to the other fair use one, and to the free-use one of the cast.
  2. File:Modern-Familytigtlecard.jpg = this one can also be removed as you already have a free-use-licensed picture of the cast, you can just move that free-use licensed picture, higher up in the article body text next to more pertinent info like the Litigation sect perhaps.


NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this extensive review. I'll try my best to address these issues within seven days. -- Chamith (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not GA at this time

Unfortunately, this article is not GA at this time. I'm seeing a nice bit of progress, but several items, above, remain unaddressed.

My sincere hope is that the above recommendations will be addressed over some time in the future -- to further help improve the quality of this article.

I truly thank all editors involved for their work on this so far.

Here are my suggestions before trying for GA again:

  1. Request copy-edit at WP:GOCE
  2. Try to get Category:User en-N, Category:User en-5, or Category:User en-4 to copy-edit the article for writing quality and grammar.
  3. Go for another Peer Review. This time, specifically ask for help with the writing quality -- but more specifically -- improvement of overall article structure, organization, and flow for the reader.
  4. While at Peer Review -- Post neutrally-worded-notices to the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects with a link to the Peer Review.
  5. While at Peer Review, try consulting for help from Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers from your relevant topic.

I hope that's helpful, and good luck,

— Cirt (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Very helpful indeed. Thank you for taking time to review the article. -- Chamith (talk) 04:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Guests

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Do we really need a full list of them or can we just name a fewNoD'ohnuts (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts

I dont have a problem with it right now, but at this pace it will be too big soon so we might as well start condensing it now. Unless someone thinks it's worthy of it's own article? Thatotherperson (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Well if know one is going to fight this I'm going to condense itNoD'ohnuts (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts

Yeh I know Kevin Hart was introduced as a character(a neighbor to the Dunphy household) in one episode I saw. Thats a pretty big name to miss in a guest section.I'll research to see if there are any plans for that character to be a regular or semi-regular on the show. He'd probably own too much of the comedy spot light as a regular though.73.176.113.121 (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Archived old threads

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

GA Reviewer archived some old threads.

Metric used was threads older than one (1) year.

This is in order to help assess any ongoing conflicts on the talk page for Stability issues.

And also to keep article talk page focused on current ongoing issues and Quality improvement suggestions.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Graph problem

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The graph implies that child actress Aubrey Anderson-Emmons was present since season one playing the role of Lily. In actuality, twins Ella and Jaden Hiller played the role for the first two seasons, and the character suddenly "grew" in season 3 when Anderson-Emmons replaced them. Can someone alter the graph to include the Hiller twins for the first two seasons, and show Anderson-Emmons as first appearing in season 3? Currently, it implies Anderson-Emmons was there since season 1. 98.221.141.21 (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I added a note regarding that; and Pierce Wallace's portrayal of Joe Pritchett in 5th and 6th seasons as well. -- ChamithN (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Issues with the family tree

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's some issues with the family tree if it is meant to show the different generations and their relationships accurately. Merle and Barb Tucker should be up on the line with the grandparents generation (Gloria and Jay's). Manny and Joe should also be on the same line as Cameron, Mitchell, Claire, and Phil, since Manny and Joe are uncles (step and half respectively) to Lily, Haley, Alex, and Luke. Unfortunately I don't know enough about the chart coding to do it myself. Cat-fivetc ---- 11:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Modern Family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Sisters of Dede

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Once Jay has mencioned that Dede has two sisters: Bebe and Cece. Maybe they need to be in the family tree? OrviIIe (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Emmy Awards

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In one section it says the show has won 22 Emmy awards and in another section it says 21 Emmy awards. Buckworm (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  Done @Buckworm: good catch; I've corrected it. Hoof Hearted (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Modern_Family/Archive_1&oldid=1066401347"