Talk:Whistle While Your Wife Works

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

After this episode airs, it might make sense to update List of Peter Griffin's jobs accordingly. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] can somebody fix my error

I made a error in the infobox

it should be fixed now...

[edit] Who deleted all the trivia and notes?

Care to give a reason, your freakin' Cyberhighness?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.248.60.252 (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2006

Yes, please see WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:WAF, WP:EPISODE, WP:AVTRIV, and WP:TRIVIA for the rules governing articles about television episodes. Also, please sign your posts with 4 tildes, it makes it much easier to see who posted what and when. Cheers. L0b0t 20:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, see any other FG episode page... Also all the stuff you mention is not "rules governing" anything, but "guidelines" which should be followed, but only at contributor's discretion. FG is quite unusual in the way it uses cultural references; these make up a major part of the show's appeal. As for guidelines, your edit clearly (considering FG episode article established SOP) falls under WP:VAND since it should have been discussed here first and thus I have reverted it for the time being pending resolution of a discussion that would if your point was accepted involve major edits of each and every FG episode article posted to date. Dysmorodrepanis 21:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Dysmordrepanis. Also, look at any Simpsons episode page, and you will see a list of cultural references, some of which are minor but others playing a major part of the episode. I also read the WP:EPISODE page and viewed it not so much as hard and fast rules/official Wiki policy but guidelines and recommendations. Yes, no page (FG episodes included) should be cluttered with utter bulls*** or non-notable trivia, and such contributions should be deleted. But most of the cultural references included previously was legitimate and should be restored. [[Briguy52748 00:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)]]
Sorry, if you look at the above posted Policies (WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NOT) and Guidelines (WP:WAF, WP:AVTRIV, and WP:EPISODE) you will see that there is no place in the general purpose encyclopedia for unsourced original reasarch. Using other poorly written articles as an excuse to write poorly in this article just doesn't hold water. All the cruft is being removed from the articles you referenced, it just takes time. Please look at the featured articles to see the type of writing we are aiming for. Cheers. L0b0t 15:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont see any TV shows on that feature articles list, so what are you comparing this too...

Please see WP:SIG to learn how to sign your posts, it makes it much easier to keep track of these threads. As for a lack of TV related articles in FA status, that's kind of the point, most of the television writing on Wikipedia is just awfull, not even secondary school level. We can and should do better. L0b0t 15:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well usually TV has more cultural references than those other types of featured articles. Im just saying dont remove it all at once, as to give people some time to reformat some of the sections with the existing info. by removing it all at once people will just be inclined to add it at a later date again...

The articles about episodes should contain information on how the episode has impacted pop culture, NOT a list of pop culture appearences in a show that almost exclusively consists of satire on pop culture. All these cult ref sections are is an attempt to explain the jokes in the show to the slow-witted viewer. That is proscribed by WP:WAF. None of this information is lost, it remians in the edit history if you really need to find it. However, if you want to add it to the article you need to cite a reliable 3rd party source that has already published this info in relation to the episode, otherwise that edit will be removed. L0b0t 16:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There then should be an exception for family guy, as most of it is using 80 references that a good portion of the viewers dont understand, so this is an area that helps reference the obscur parts of the episode. It acts as an encyclopedia informing the viewer on the history and background of each reference —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.177.121.212 (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2006

Well if you want to change the established policies and guidelines, the place to do that is the discussion page for that particular rule. Until the rules are changed there will be no exception for television show X. There are many, many, many, many outlets for fan critique, obsercation, and analysis but the the general purpose encyclopedia is NOT one of them. Please sign your posts. L0b0t 16:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
L0b0t, I disagree. These references are in every other episode, and your personal opinions do not set policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.131.209.237 (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2006
To everyone involved in this apparent edit war — Just noticed links to two discussion threads which have been created to hopefully resolve this recent dispute:

Hope this helps. [[Briguy52748 23:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)]]

I am not US American and I take strong exemption to the claim that the removed items are "things anyone sees" when watching the episodes. L0b0t, please tell me: what harm does it do to leave it? Dysmorodrepanis 01:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If you cite a specific example, I will be happy to discuss it with you. Just show me the diffs. Cheers. L0b0t 02:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
What are we, royalty, to hand out information at your own discretion? I ask you again nicely: what harm does it do to leave it? Dysmorodrepanis 13:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought you had a question about a specific item. If I have removed something with a summary saying it is something that anyone sees when watching an episode, then that is exactly what I mean. The info is presented without any real-world context as to why it might be important enough to be listed in a general purpose encyclopedia. Here is the first example I came across in my edit history [1], this is just something that happens in that episode that anyone watching it sees. There is no context here as to why this is important trivia or information and if it goes in the encyclopedia at all it should go into the synopsis section. Again, if you have a specific example you would like to discuss, I am happy to do so. As for harm, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Nothing in an online encyclopedia (outside of WP:BLP) is capable of causing harm to anyone. However, if you take a look at our few, rather simple editorial policies you will find that an article on a television episode should be filled with real world context not just a summary of things that happen in the episode. How is this episode important, did it introduce any new cultural memes, did it win critical or popular acclaim, did it break new ground or boundries? This is, after all, an encyclopedia not a fan's guide to television show X. Cheers. L0b0t 15:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sayings its something everyone sees is your own opinion. Just because you understand it doesnt mean everyone else does, as Im sure there are instances where you dont understand a reference while others do, and this place can provide the resource for finding that info. 68.72.128.54 02:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Why dont you just fix the many other tv sites that are formatted the exact same way, as it seems like you are only causing problems here, and not fixing anything... 68.72.128.54 02:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do we need protection?

Is there a way to request protection, temporarily at least, for this page? It's apparent there's an edit war going on re: the validity of cultural references, trivia, etc. on Family Guy episodes (i.e., removing it and another editor putting it back in), and I think that a cool-down period is warranted — or at least until this issue can be resolved fairly and rationally. [[Briguy52748 22:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)]]

go to these two links to help the argument over acceptable material for the family guy pages, both conversations are near the bottom of the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Television_episodes#Cultural_references_sections

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Verifiability_of_television_episodes

Grande13 23:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peters Fingers

Is it just me, or do they only retrieve 3 of peters fingers, whilst its shown that hes lost 3 fingers AND a thumb? 82.12.110.220 23:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

its mentioned on the official family guy blog blog.familyguy.com what happens to the 4th as it was cut for time Grande13 00:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/h/i/Talk%7EWhistle_While_Your_Wife_Works_4d47.html"