Talk:History of Family Guy

	Animation portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
	This redirect is supported by the American animation work group.
	This redirect is supported by the Family Guy work group.

Television

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles

History

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 April 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Merge?[edit]

I still don't think this info is worthy of its own article. I mean, Family Guy doesn't exactly have a complex and unusual history. --(trogga) 02:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find this article pretty useful actually. TheBlazikenMaster 12:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the fence here. This article seems to contain the out-of-universe content that belongs in Family Guy; and having this content in a separate article diminishes the Family Guy article. Since the main justification for this article is WP:SUMMARY, it doesn't need to be in both places.

The articles could be merged easily enough by not including unencyclopedic detail, such as the mostly non-notable stuff in the Words and phrases and Title sequence sections. The only argument I can think of for keeping this as a separate article is the howls such a merge would elicit from editors who consider every trivial factoid worth including. / edg ☺ ★ 16:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since it's still a FG article that's about to die, would it be worth noting it on WT:FG? I don't know the answer, that's why I'm asking. TheBlazikenMaster 12:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. I doubt this article is going to die, but this certainly concerns the WikiProject. / edg ☺ ★ 13:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't think that this article is worthless, as someone mention before, I think that it is very useful. I am a family guy fan and I really like this article. Domenicasilva 14:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you give Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (especially WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL) a read. Otherwise some smartypants will start quoting policy at you.

Strong arguments need to be made either for or against. I'm not hearing such arguments for either position, and I would want a reasonable WP:CONSENSUS (which is not necessarily a majority, this not being a vote), especially before attempted this merge. / edg ☺ ★ 18:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's far too much topic-specific content in this article to be merged with Family Guy. Per WP:LENGTH, that article would be far too long. --Oakshade 17:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it were to be merged, it would definately have to be summarized. But for now, I would object the merger. Crassic^(talk) 01:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can be summarized without losing anything important. And it's not exactly huge to begin with. / edg ☺ ★ 01:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So now this is a proposal to summarize? I'm opposed to that too. It's just the watering down of articles that editors put a ton of work into is what I find ridiculous. --Oakshade 02:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, there's an alarmed reaction. I apologize for scaring people by using Crassic's language in a reply to Crassic's's comment. Basicly, these articles already are watered down. They are also not terribly long, and repeat much of the same information. / edg ☺ ★ 18:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YES! MERGE THESE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.183.16 (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder: decisions aren't made on Wikipedia by voting. One must make a persuasive case. Arguments like make it go away!!! or it's good!! Please keep!! really don't count for much. / edg ☺ ★ 04:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think we should keep them separate. For one, their both very well developed articles. If this article was say a stub, then maybe, but meany people have worked on both of these articles and merging them would diminish their quality. so defiantly not. EvilHom3r 01:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep separate. The merger would create an overly long main article, and there is no reason why cutting out material would be necessary. Guroadrunner 03:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanknothingoknaruto (talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably more important shows like The Simpsons don't have their own history pages. --(trogga) 17:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similar articles need not exist for other shows because Family Guy may be "historically" different from other shows. Shakespeare is probably more "important" than The Simpsons, but has fewer articles — by the parent comment's argument, massive Simpsons deletion would be in order.

I still support a merge, but I don't think relative "importance" is a good reason. I just think this is an unnecessary content fork that diminishes the Family Guy article. / edg ☺ ★ 19:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither article is exactly big, and they overlap somewhat. I don't think length is a problem here. / edg ☺ ★ 19:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, merge, merge. Cousin Yugi 00:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've probably seen this coming, but I say keep them separate ("Oh, what a shook!"). I say that because Fam Guy has a lot of history to it. The reason The Simpsons, or any other cartoons for that matter, doesn't have one is because it wasn't cancled, what, two, three times. That's all I gotta say!--BrianGriffin-FG 19:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seperate. The genuinely complex history of the show makes it a valid WP:LENGTH issue, and there are a lot of other valid articles that branch off from most sections of the main Family Guy article, it's not like this one sticks out. -- AvatarMN 07:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

genuinely complex history? Please try and have some perspective here. Being cancelled and revived is just not that big a loop, and that seems to be the entire case being made here. AvatarMN: I'm sorry to personalize this, but are you sure that's the reason for your objection? / edg ☺ ★ 18:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep articles separate, per WP:LENGTH. Article would become far too long. Zchris87v 05:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge simply because the main Family Guy article would become far too long. I would guess that this article is the result of a previous split? DWaterson 11:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It's not much of a history page, it's just a bloated bunch of stuff, with no sources whatsoever. The most relevant stuff is the stuff about the cancellation, which could EASILY be mentioned in the main Family Guy article. The rest is mostly trivia. Besides, it's not a very GOOD page anyway, there is no information about the show prior to airing, ie. how the characters were developed, how he got the idea, how it got picked up, etc. etc. And for those who say there is no similar page for The Simpsons because it doesn't have a very good story are wrong, I bet I could make a very good (and sourced) page for their history... But I'm not going to. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be merged, while elements of the history are interesting, they do not require an entire article. Also, much of the content under the Copyright lawsuit heading appears to have been copied verbatim from a newspaper article. Paul Anderson 06:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio from AP article[edit]

Can you identify either the newspaper article, or which parts of this article are copied from it? Much of this article is pasted in piecemeal from other articles, usually Family Guy, so we're not 100% WP:COPYVIO here. / edg ☺ ★ 06:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did some googling, and found it. [1] It appears to be an Associated Press news clip. Starting with the words "In the 67 years since it's debut," it looks like the whole thing has been copied verbatim. Paul Anderson 04:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is removed. Whomever wants to write a new section on this can use the above article, and stuff from When You Wish Upon a Weinstein. / edg ☺ ★ 04:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real World Characters[edit]

I don't think this is really relevant to the history of the show, and feels a bit fanwanky. I've trimmed it and edited it for spelling and punctuation, but I think it should either be deleted or put in the main Family Guy article. What do other people think? HonestTom 21:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is a serious problem[edit]

there is barely any information about the show's history since the season 4, and more than half of the article is not actually about its history; but about its reception and spinoffs. Nergaal (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THERE IS NOT MUCH STORY THE RECEPTION IS HOW THE SHOW IS RECIVED AND THE SPINOFF IS PART OF HISTORY . SORRY FOR THE BIG LETTERS THE CAPS LOCK IS ON...sorry.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 16:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]