Talk:Glenn Quagmire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article is on a subject of high-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!

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 June 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

moved from VfD:

Archives

2006

Contents 1 Quagmire's name 2 Trivia section changed to Glen Quagmire#Character origins 3 Way too much fancruft 4 Parody to Moe Szyslak 5 Fat chicks 6 No spoiler warnings in citation/reference sections 6.1 Request for Comment: spoiler warnings in citation/reference sections 7 Fictional rapists 8 phone # 9 Family

[edit] Quagmire's name

Joshua Quagmire is a wellknown American cartoonist, according to Wikipedia. I have to assume the Family Guy's character is names as a tribute to him, not necessarily to his sexual enthusiasms.

[edit] Trivia section changed to Glen Quagmire#Character origins

After considering another editor's request, I refactored the Trivia section, and threw some of it out, per WP:AVTRIV. I hope this is okay.

If someone can verify the above name origin idea, it might make a good addition. / edgarde 21:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Way too much fancruft

This article has a tendency of taking random gags and deriving stuff about Quagmire's character from it. All the humor from this character stems from the premise that he's a sex-crazed maniac, but that's all there is to it: he's a sex-crazed maniac and the writers make jokes from that. It's completely meaningless to actually start deriving the ins and outs of his character from a bunch of dirty jokes. Because honestly, do you think the writers of the show are actually keeping track of each gag to build up some ridiculous Quagmire-canon?

I think it's fine for the article to illustrate how bizarre and deviant his sexual tendencies, but it should be more along the lines of "gags have shown Quagmire engaging in such and such" and not actually establishing facts about his character based on them. Otherwise you might as well take any random flashback of Peter Griffin fighting a giant chicken or being killed by a robot clone of himself and add that to his article too. --Foot Dragoon 04:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Some of the gags involving Quagmire occur frequently enough to be considered canon, to the limited extent to which the Family Guy writers bother with continuity. For example, Quagmire is obviously a part of the 'swinging set', and throws sex parties at his bordello-like home. He is also seen exhibiting a degree of contortion skill on several occasions, and it's clear that he has a strange and probably incestuous relationship with his mother. Most of the remaining gags involving Quagmire serve mainly to joke about how he'll have sex with almost anything, any time. Zzzzeta 07:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• I find it odd that all of the examples for Peter you mentioned are manatee jokes, as opposed to the standard continuity largely referenced in this article. Also, I believe the chicken bit is actually part of Peter's article. 206.48.0.60 04:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well even if my examples are flawed, the point still stands, Quagmire is just a pervert, and they make jokes off of that. There's no reason to gather all these isolated sex gags and build up some sort of sexual profile of him. As purely a comedy show, I doubt they even keep strict track of continuity. I'm not a hardcore fan who knows everything about the show, but if it's anything like the Simpsons or Futurama, there's probably a bunch of contradictions somewhere in there.--Foot Dragoon 04:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

100% Agreed. Family Guy freely breaks continuity to service gags.

By comparison, Futurama did attempt to maintain continuity, and had a multi-season plot arc. It seems really unlikely Family Guy would attempt anything similar. / edgarde 16:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parody to Moe Szyslak

Since The Simpsons were in the air when Family Guy started, its probably that Glenn was a spoof or a more successfull Moe Szyslak,look at this:

Moe has a strained love life due to his vulgarity towards women and his ugly appearance. Despite this, Moe has had a number of romantic experiences, including sleeping with his bartender Collette [7], planning to elope with Edna Krabappel [8], dating a woman named Renee [9], dating a woman named Betty [10], and enjoying the company of many women after he had plastic surgery to correct his ugly appearance. [11] He has long been infatuated with Marge Simpson and has on occasion professed his love for her and tried to win her away from Homer. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Moe's romantic attractions have resulted in criminal behavior and run-ins with the law; he has stalked Maude Flanders and other townspeople, he must register as a sex offender, and he had a restraining order placed upon him. At one point he is seen on his way to a "V.D. clinic".[17] Moe has also proposed marriage to a WNBA mascot, even knowing that the character inside the mascot is a male, Gil.[1] Simonlebon 19:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

To suggest that Quagmire is a parody of Moe is reaching, to say the least. The two characters have virtually nothing in common, the "horny bastard" archetype is a pretty broad one and Seth MacFarlane says that Quagmire is based on 50's swinger/party animal cliches.

K00bine 10:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with K00bine. Look at this: "Moe has a strained love life due to his vulgarity towards women and his ugly appearance." Remember this is Glen Quagmire you're talking about. Saying he's unsuccessful with women pretty much contradicts everything about the character. 172.209.178.38 15:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fat chicks

I've been removing the italicized part of the following passage (from Ethics and sexual deviancy):

He has made references to prostituting himself to fat women ("Fat chicks need love too... but they gotta pay.") though he doesn't seem to like the idea of having sex with them.

This seems like original research to me. An alternative interpretation (for example) might be that Quagmire takes a sadistic enjoyment in making them pay for it.

Also, it seems like excessive detail, and since it's a "seems like", not encyclopedic.

Also, is this a single-episode situation? If so, it's really more of a gag than a characteristic, and should be either deleted or moved to the page for that episode.

Agreement? Dissent? Other? / edgarde 16:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

A week or two ago he was in a bar and was hitting on a woman till she turned around and revealed she was much fatter than she looked from behind. Glenn found this gross.

It may have been the episode "no meals on wheels". Mayorcheese 23:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

But where's the prostitution? Is this proposed in more than one episode?

Besides, finding "fat chicks" "gross" isn't as distinctive to the character as is his tactlessness about the subject. I feel like finding obesity unappealing is not unusual in men. / edgarde 01:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

this entire discussion is based on a forgotten detail: q. never talks about prostituting himself to fat chicks. rather, he suggests it as a way peter can get the $50,000 needed to pay off the boat loan.Toyokuni3 (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No spoiler warnings in citation/reference sections

In this deletion, you explain No spoiler warnings in citation/reference sections.

Why not? Proper citations for these character traits will need to quote lines. Some readers don't want jokes spoiled, which would substantially diminish many readers' or viewers' enjoyment of the work, per WP:SPOILER. This guideline does not in any place discourage spoiler warnings in citation or reference sections. / edgarde 17:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Because it should be left up to the cited sources to provide or not provide "spoiler warnings". In fact, this is one of the more sillier uses of the spoiler tag that I've seen. --Farix (Talk) 17:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I took a second look at the section and find that only specific episodes are being referenced. Which makes the placement of the spoiler warnings in the reference section doubly silly. --Farix (Talk) 17:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So there seems to be a misunderstanding. The point of the spoiler tag is that there are jokes quoted in the references section. This is not a spoiler tag for the linked articles, or for the referenced episodes themselves, but for text that is readable in the citations. / edgarde 20:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I checked again and see nothing there that would constitute a spoiler in that section. --Farix (Talk) 20:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The language in the spoiler tags you deleted specificly said jokes would be spoiled. / edgarde 07:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I saw nothing to spoil. But "Jokes are present" is not a compelling reason to use a spoiler warning. I would also suggest that the presence of the jokes be reconsidered as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a joke book. --Farix (Talk) 11:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Jokes are where character traits are expressed in this context, so using them in citations is appropriate. This is a compelling reason for using a spoiler warning.

Question: would you recognize any reason for using a spoiler warning? I need to know if I'm wasting my time discussing this with you.

This particular usage is not forbidden by WP:SPOILER, and it predates recent changes to the spoiler guideline so I don't think I need to prove it's not intended as an intent to circumvent the new policy. / edgarde 16:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The jokes aren't spoilers, they are just jokes. If you need to put a spoiler warnings around a joke, then the inclusion of the joke itself need to be rethought. We don't protect readers from jokes used in the context with the character. But perhaps what you should do is bring it to WT:SPOILER and get the opinion of other editors. --Farix (Talk) 17:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much a need as a courtesy. And the suggestion that information should be omitted for creating a spoiler is contrary to what is already stated on WP:SPOILER — deleting such information is an "unacceptable alternative".

While I personally dislike that Family Guy articles in particular tend to have jokes appended gratituously and unhelpfully, there is some need for this on character pages. Using citations for this aids readability (so that every statement isn't followed by two anecdotes) and helps keep this from becoming a joke book. The spoiler tags are helpful in this case, and not contraindicated by WP:SPOILER. / edgarde 17:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Just pure courtesy is no longer enough of a reason to include a spoiler warning. Instead, a compelling reason, based on if the viewers enjoyment will be severely damage.

If the jokes really are gratuitous, then they can be removed on the bases that they are unencyclopedic and/or gratuitous. If a joke is used to illustrate an aspect of a character, then it is not a spoiler. WP:SPOILER does not protect unencyclopedic content, whether the content is a spoiler or not. All that WP:SPOILER states is that you can't remove content on the bases of it being a spoiler. --Farix (Talk) 18:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have given you a compelling reason. I feel you are not answering my questions, or recognizing how this situation is different from others.

As I said early on, jokes are easily spoiled for some readers. While there are people who memorize comedy albums and never get tired of repeating jokes, for me and many people jokes have a half-life, and hearing them for the first time in this forum is not a good way to enjoy them. This situation merits a spoiler warning at least as much as plot elements. This is a compelling reason.

As I've also already said, gratuitous jokes should not be on this page. I am not using this to defend unencyclopedic content. If anything, moving examples (which include spoilers) to citations should reduce the amount of unencyclopedic content.

You have yet to answer my question. Would you recognize any reason for using a spoiler warning? I feel like your objections are to problems in articles other than this one. / edgarde 19:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate having this moved to the article talk page. The largest percentage of people who would join this conversation will be defending Trivia, Cultural references, Goofs and Anecdotes sections. The convention I am trying to introduce is to prevent such forms, and to reduce or eliminate unencyclopedic content. Now the discussion will likely be clouded by the defenders of such garbage in whose ranks you seem to be lumping me.

You deleted this tag on your judgement. Nothing I'm doing is contrary to WP:SPOILER. I want it restored. It serves a purpose I have already explained. Your objections are to situations I am not posing.

I have eliminated a huge amount of trivia and joke cruft from this article.[2] [3] Your tag deletion is impeding this process. The spoilers-in-citations form I am introducing is for content that arguably cannot be removed (and per WP:SPOILER, should not be removed). Please revert your change. / edgarde 19:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved the discussion here to get a wider gauge of the other editors' opinions since neither you nor I are going to agree. I continue to stand by my edit and will not revert it despite your demands for me to do so. If the other editors don't find you arguments compelling enough, then my edit will stand. But if a consensus forms backing your argument, then that will be that. --Farix (Talk) 19:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Waiting for feedback from Family Guy editors wasn't likely to help either, per reasons I gave in the above discussion. Not many people who edit this article are interested in removing, fancruft, or fixing poor writing, original research, and poor organization. / edgarde 21:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That's an incredible amount of bad faith on your part. --Farix (Talk) 22:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

And wouldn't you know, I'm suppressing an uncivil comment right now. But that wasn't bad faith, that was reportage. The tendency with Family Guy articles is cruft accrues every school day after a new episode. Episode talk pages especially feature much spirited defense of WP:OR and trivia. Here's a gem. / edgarde 23:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: spoiler warnings in citation/reference sections

This dispute is about the appropriateness of Spoiler tags in a References/Citations section. 19:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• In removing trivia and joke cruft from this article I found several jokes that arguably need to be kept to WP:CITE statements made about this character. These I moved to the citations section in the form of quotes using the {{cite episode}} tag. (I would like to implement this convention in other articles, such as this one.) I added a {{spoiler}} tag to the citations section[4] reasoning that jokes are easily spoiled. This tag was removed by two different editors as as "redundant"[5] [6], which it is not. I want it restored.[7] The above conversation between TheFarix (talk · contribs) and me is recommended reading. / edgarde 20:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• For starters, I think it's silly to start a formal RfC on this. If other editors wish to add their opinions to the discussion, they could have done so in the discussion above without a formal RfC. However, I still do not see how any of the quotes are remotely spoilable. Edgarde makes mention above that the jokes in the quotes have a half-life and are thus spoilable. I completely reject that idea as delivery is the key to a good joke, which Wikipeia can't replicate. That's why I don't see any compelling reason here to use spoiler templates in the citation section. In fact, I'll go so far to say that the citation/reference section is the one place where spoilers shouldn't be in, and as Tony states below, it is an indication of poor writing and organization. --Farix (Talk) 21:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Is there a compelling reason for a tag here? Moreover, the jokes don't seem especially amusing or significant. Couldn't the references be given without the wording of the jokes?

There is also an element of original research (and even not getting that this is a comedy program where characters say things for comic effect). For instance, reference 2 is to support the statement "A few gags even suggest that he is a registered sex offender" and the reference is to a gag in an episode which is quoted as "Well, in accordance with Megan's Law, I'm obligated to inform you, uh...". The statement and the reference to support it are probably more opinion than fact, and the giveaway here is that the writer has had to support his statement by interpretation of a primary source.

So the problem here doesn't seem to be so much use of spoiler tags as inappropriate or poor writing. --Tony Sidaway 20:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The question is about a tree, not the forest. Yes, the article is poorly written — for every tangent, gratuitious joke and observation based entirely in original research currently remaining in this article, I removed 5. / edgarde 21:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that's a red herring. The absents of the spoiler templates is not preventing you from fixing the poor writing, original research, and poor organization of this article. --Farix (Talk) 21:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Nor does it help. / edgarde 21:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The absents of the templates definitely doesn't hurt the article. --Farix (Talk) 22:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone going to look at this article if they don't watch the show? What on earth. - David Gerard 22:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Family Guy articles on Wikipedia should be written for general readership, not specificly for viewers/fans. / edgarde 22:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is a question. Has this character received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the show? If not, then either merge it into a list of character or send it to AfD. --Farix (Talk) 22:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right here, but I doubt an AfD would result in a deletion. Care to try it? There are dozens of Family Guy character articles, and literally all are worse than this one. And after that come the episode pages.

As for reliable sources, WP:EPISODE#Content states [a]n actual episode may be used as a source for information about the episode and constitutes a primary source. Such use does not constitute original research. I've not seen significant coverage on this or any Family Guy character, but I don't read about Family Guy outside of Wikipedia so I may be the wrong person to ask.

My intention here has been to trim these things without starting conflicts with the inclusionists. As for the position these articles should be either improved or deleted, yes I'm all for that — if you want to remove this junk, please go ahead. I am positively the wrong person for you to be complaining to about this. / edgarde 23:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Jay-sus, what a mess. I think the original question was, do jokes need a spoiler warning, and I feel they don't. Giving away that Darth Vader was Luke's father is a spoiler, posting "Who are you calling scruffy looking?" is not. Let it drop edgarde. 198.6.46.11 21:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional rapists

This seems to be an absurd category; I'd consider removing this category from this page as it seems to lack a reliable source.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please remove it. Family Guy characters are prone to overcharacterization based on single-episode situations. This crufts up the categories considerably, so it should be avoided. / edg ☺ ★ 18:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] phone #

can we work it in somehow? its 555-0143Д narcistPig (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the phone # is non-notable, excessively in-universe information that has no conceivable impact on how the character is written or what the audience can expect from him. It's also extremely trivial, not worth including. Perhaps you could add it to "Glenn Quagmire" at Family Guy Wiki. instead. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

theres a family guy wiki? awesome!♠Д narchistPig♠ (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's more than just awesome. They welcome a level of detail that Wikipedia would find unencyclopedic. And they want more editors. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Family

 Shouldn't Glen's wife Joan be in the info box? She is relevant. Lois brings her up in another episode other than the episode where she and glen get married.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.221.176 (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)