Talk:Criticism of Family Guy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Family Guy     (Rated B-Class) Family Guy Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Family Guy, an attempt to improve and build up a detailed and comprehensive guide to Family Guy on the English Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can become a member and contribute to the discussion, or you can edit the article associated with this page. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Mid This article is on a subject of mid-importance within Family Guy. Tasks you can do: Remember Family Guy characters are not real. Don't nitpick on continuity, because continuity is Family Guy's bitch. Don't attempt to recreate the humor of the show. This rarely works, and is contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cleanup Add out-of-universe information. Replace explicit references to episodes with episode citations. Move superfluous examples of character actions to appropriate episode pages. Prune Cultural references sections, removing non-notable examples of things no one needs explained. Convert trivia sections into freakin' brilliant prose. Shorten plot synopses. Attach the {{evilmonkey}} tag to "forum" comments on Family Guy related Discussion pages. Identify editors who swap in smart quotes for typewriter quotes and beat them bloody. Build the project Help finish project tasks. Invite quality editors to participate. Welcome new editors. Announce Let other Project members know what you've done! WikiProject Television      (Rated B-Class) WikiProject Television     (Rated B-Class) Television Portal This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Assessment comments The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit · refresh) "Mid" importance because of the FCC controversy. B class, lots of stuff, mostly well sourced. Needs more out-of-universe criticism, and less stuff inferred from watching other cartoons. For instance, the DVD commentary quotes where the South Park guys explain their loathing of FG is many times more valuable than dozens of between-show jabs. / edg ☺ ★ 00:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC) WikiProject Animation / American Animation       (Rated B-Class) Animation Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject American Animation. (with unknown importance) Assessment comments The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit · refresh) "Mid" importance because of the FCC controversy. B class, lots of stuff, mostly well sourced. Needs more out-of-universe criticism, and less stuff inferred from watching other cartoons. For instance, the DVD commentary quotes where the South Park guys explain their loathing of FG is many times more valuable than dozens of between-show jabs. / edg ☺ ★ 00:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Comedy WikiProject      (Rated B-Class) Comedy Portal This article is within the scope of the Comedy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to comedy, comics, comedians, comedy movies, and the like. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article has an assessment summary page.

Archives
2006 2007

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents 1 The PTC Section 2 Quotations in refs section 3 Fair use rationale for Image:Familyguyonsouthpark.png 4 Fair use rationale for Image:JimmyCorrigan.jpg 5 Futurama 6 Fair use rationale for Image:Clerksle.jpg

[edit] The PTC Section

This reads like a biased Tirade against the PTC. How is it relevant to to their criticism of Family Guy that the PTC files 1,10,50,99 or 100% of indecency complaints? That has no effect on content of their complaints or the controversy between them and the producers. If people want to learn about the PTC they should read that article. If you are going to include this, why not add in how the PTC is funded, or who their membership is and how that might relate to Family Guy, all of these things are arguably more related then what percentage of all indecency complaints regarding all possible television come from the PTC. Also NPOV, who "believes" that the PTC generates most complaints, do you believe it, does your dog?(!)... the source is right there, so just name that. There's no need to use vague ambiguous terms like "is believed" when you can name someone specific. Hvatum (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...I just changed the "believed to have filed" part. A discussion from November 2007 had a decision to keep the FCC complaints part, because, (quoting editor Edgarde) "[the statement] should be retained for readers unfamiliar with the PTC...Otherwise PTC appear to be scolds of no more importance than the blogger who writes Family Guy sucks, and appear to be given too much space in this article. To say PTC is known merely "for its outspoken critical views of Family Guy" understates the PTC's real-world importance considerably (and this article spends dangerously little time in the real world)." --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quotations in refs section

Hi folks, and happy new year!

Anyway, as new criticisms of the show come up (particularly from America's moral fundamentalist group, Parents Television Council) it appears that the references section is getting more fat...actually should I say TOO fat due to the inclusion of too many quotes. I doubt that we really need to quote every single source we cite. I admit that I did contribute several of the quotes to be coherent with the others' formats. But now I think we should start removing unnecessary quotes. As for quotes we think are really significant to the criticisms, I think we could use "block quotes" format within the main part of the article. So please pitch in and help if you agree, and drop some suggestions here.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Familyguyonsouthpark.png

Image:Familyguyonsouthpark.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:JimmyCorrigan.jpg

Image:JimmyCorrigan.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Futurama

I removed the reference to Futurama. I fail to see how Fry hanging a Family Guy calander in his apartment counts as "criticism" of the show. Seeing as Futurama was also cancelled by Fox, and in fact owes its resurrection to the success of Family Guy, it could just as easily have been an homage to the show.

70.49.144.133 (talk) 07:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this statement. I believe it was more of an homage, and not criticism. Well said! Milonica (talk) 09:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Also agreed. The Criticism by other cartoonists section has a history of in-universe interpretation and excessive plot detail, so it needs to be watched for editors promiscuously logging simply any mention on another show. Keep up the good work! / edg ☺ ☭ 11:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Clerksle.jpg

Image:Clerksle.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)